CFI initial question
- Thread starter jdlilfan
- Start date
If the checkride lasts two days, something is wrong with the examiner, seriously. There is no need fora checkride to last two days. Is he expecting the applicant to discuss EVERYTHING? Is the applicant expected to know EVERYTHING? I think the examiner is honestly on a power trip. I have seen it with CFI applicants that go to the FED's. They seem to want to show people how high and mighty they are, and I feel it leads to the current stigma attached to the FAA. At most, an examiner should have an idea of your instructing abilities within about 30-50 minutes. And the rest of the time is spent making sure you know how to look things up and admit that you may not know everything. I spent about 4-5 hrs. on the ground and about 2 in the air on my initial, and it was an MEI, so there was more to cover.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
For those who might contend that the safety inspector is not a "crewmember", from Hayes v. United States:
"All of Yates' actions were at the authoritative orders of Inspector Belcher who was directing all the elements of the test. He alone decided which maneuvers she was to execute and he alone was responsible for determining whether she passed or failed a given maneuver. Belcher also had authority and control over co-pilot Hayes, who acted as Belcher's "hands and feet," as testimony in the record stated it. Even though Hayes had the responsibility to take physical control of the plane in an ultimate emergency, Belcher nonetheless was the director of the flight and crew. He thus had a duty to direct with due regard for the safety of the flight. In its contention of "no duty", the government undertakes to create a legal technicality which is contrary to reality and common sense."
"All of Yates' actions were at the authoritative orders of Inspector Belcher who was directing all the elements of the test. He alone decided which maneuvers she was to execute and he alone was responsible for determining whether she passed or failed a given maneuver. Belcher also had authority and control over co-pilot Hayes, who acted as Belcher's "hands and feet," as testimony in the record stated it. Even though Hayes had the responsibility to take physical control of the plane in an ultimate emergency, Belcher nonetheless was the director of the flight and crew. He thus had a duty to direct with due regard for the safety of the flight. In its contention of "no duty", the government undertakes to create a legal technicality which is contrary to reality and common sense."
germb747
Well-Known Member
I agree, if I say so myself. That's why I refuse to let the damn thing expire, cause there's no way I'd pass a CFI checkride now :bandit:
nosehair
Well-Known Member
Yes, the examiner does have this duty and ultimate responsibility, in the event of accidents, as in this case, and as I said in my post:
IF, ..if there were a landing accident, as a result of the 'seatbelt trick', or any other distraction designed to test the applicant's awareness and ability, you are right, IF the cause was the examiner's overexposure to undue hazard.
It's a judgment call on how far to go when you are testing, or training.
Training and testing must go outside of the 'normal' parameters of what we all would call a normal safe operation.
Let's take a 'normal approach', for example. We all agree (more or less) that a good stable steady easy slide it right on in there approach is what we all shoot for.
But if you teach ONLY that, you NEVER let your student deviate. Never let him get too high or low (because that might be dangerous), that student will never learn to judge the constantly changing environment and respond in a like manner. Or in other words, never learn to fly.
He will only learn rote repetitious movements to copy which will result in a paper certification that lies to the public.
So, it comes down to the timing. When did the examiner unfasten his belt? Was it during the flare? Or on final with enough time to get the applicant's response, and still be safe? As I said in my OP, the supervisor would need the actual facts that support an actual hard violation, or was it a judgment call?
And more to the point, actually. With all things being equal, when the student says one thing, and the examiner says another, and we know the truth is somewhere in between, don't you think that safety requires that we put up with an 'eccentric' examiner rather than risk producing robot instructors?
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
There is a difference between going outside normal parameters and willfully violating an FAR. 91.107 is very explicit about keeping your seatbelt buckled. By undoing his seatbelt the inspector is willfully violating an FAR and conducting a checkride that is not IAW FAA Order 8900.2 for... what? Teaching a CFI to be on guard against pax who sneakily remove their seatbelts?? Sorry, in the grand scheme of life I see issues that are far more important than this and busting a CFI applicant for BS like this is pointless other than to build up your ego. It's up there with asking how many rivets are in the tail boom of a 172.
Mike H
Well-Known Member
I think that since the ASI is technically responsible for the conduct of the flight, that makes him the acting PIC in the same way a CFI is also the acting PIC while giving dual instruction even though the other pilot is sole manipulator of the controls and also logging PIC time. The CFI logs the time as PIC and so does the ASI (or DPE)
nosehair
Well-Known Member
91.107 requires the seat belt to be "properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, take0ff and landing."
If the inspector allowed a landing while unbuckled, you have a violation.
I don't actually like this particular distraction, but it is not at all like the rivet question. Details about an airplane that change with every airplane should not be allowed on a practical generic test like this, but testing pilot awareness during flight is right up there on the to-do list.
nosehair
Well-Known Member
61.47 Status of an examiner:
(b) "The examiner is not the pilot in command..."
Actually, guys, I don't know of any examiners who log time. Us old guys don't do that anymore.
But, I guess young DEs might be doing it, but I wonder under what FAR they can log? It's certainly not dual, and 61.51 would only allow sole manipulator time.
I didn't really read all the responses but it seems like the "cost cutting" of doing manuevers in a non-complex is eliminated by having to do a second flight (taxi/runup/TO 2x).
Make him man up and do it in the arrow....He will thank you later. once you are in the air its the same thing anyway. The stall characteristics are slightly different, but if he is having problems with stalls at this point perhaps he shouldn't be a CFI.
Make him man up and do it in the arrow....He will thank you later. once you are in the air its the same thing anyway. The stall characteristics are slightly different, but if he is having problems with stalls at this point perhaps he shouldn't be a CFI.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Lack of logging time does not mean you are not a crewmember. As I pointed out earlier, even an inspector in a jumpseat is a crewmember.
Also, as pointed out in the court case, while the inspector may not think he/she is the "pilot in command" and while the FAA tells DE's and inspectors not to be the PIC in legal fact and in a court of law they are the pilot in command as they are directing the flight. As the courts have pointed out, if it walks like a duck and squawks like a duck, it's a duck. In the case cited the inspector was not even occupying a pilot seat- he was in a jump seat but was determined to be in command of the airplane.
Guy
Well-Known Member
I'll bet you would. The reinstatement of a CFI is not nearly as difficult as many people think. It doesn't include the FOI portion, which is the difficult part for most people. It can be done to any of the PTS's that apply to the ratings held on the instructor certificate. For example, someone with a CFI in ASEL, AMEL, instruments, and gliders could choose to do it under the instrument PTS or the glider PTS and that would reinstate the entire certificate.
A150K
Well-Known Member
Is ELP covered by the ABQ FSDO? If so, I plan to get my CFI initial done within the next year or two depending on how soon I can get my instrument done and when I will have the time to knock out my commercial. I have to say I agree, I'd probably rather have a 4-6 hour oral done one day and fly the next in order to save some brain power.
Blackhawk
Well-Known Member
Yes. While it is two days they are very fair.
A150K
Well-Known Member
So I hear. The one I hear the most horror stories about is Scottsdale.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
I had an examiner on my CFI ride turn off my transponder while I wasn't looking and had just finished my checklist for take-off.
While we were climbing out he asked why the transponder was on standby I told him "Cause you turned it off." Seemed be a good reason as we kept going
While we were climbing out he asked why the transponder was on standby I told him "Cause you turned it off." Seemed be a good reason as we kept going
jdlilfan
Well-Known Member
I would have. I just had him handed off to me in september and the previous two CFI's convinced him to fly a skyhawk. I'm not too thrilled about it but I do not want to delay his degree nor make him do further training in the more expensive complex at this point.
I think I have him prepped enough about this guy and I am ready to fight a failure with FSDO over some silly seat belt game.
Also I was looking for more intel on the DPE and I had heard he sometimes makes applicants do a steep spiral in the complex down to a full landing over an airport. No other DPE around us does this nor do we train for it? I always break the maneuver off at 1000agl in our practice area as per the PTS. Does anyone else ever do a steep spiral down to a landing?Wondering if this is normal in other areas of the country?
pilotmg1501
Well-Known Member
For my SEL Commercial add-on flight we did a steep spiral to a low approach...then again, that DPE is no longer a DPE...but that being said, Yes, I have done it
nosehair
Well-Known Member
Yes. I hate it when they do that. They are 'combining' a steep spiral with a forced landing. I hate it because maneuvering down into a forced landing field may not result in a PTS type spiral. But as far as I know here in the southeast, most examiners combine these maneuvers on the commercial checkride. Can't ever tell about the CFI ride with a FSDO guy.