Doing a CFII as initial

No one is trying to "game the system" by doing the CFII first. There are plenty of legitimate reasons. Although I did my CFI first, I see why people would do the CFII first.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Most places do it because they are afraid their PA28R or C172RG isn't going to pass a through, sometime totally out of line, FSDO airworthiness inspection.
Click to expand...
Could you give examples of "totally out of line, FSDO airworthiness inspections" that you have seen (not heard about from some complainer)?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Apparently the FSDO inspector felt so and grounded the airplane. It's been a few years since the school I was at had the problem.
Click to expand...

So do the lawyers who write the legal interpretations. Go here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

Type "Kent Horton" in the search box and hit enter. You should get a legal interpretation dated October 22, 2008.

Given that is a requirement for the aircraft to be airworthy, how would it be an example of a "totally out of line, FSDO airworthiness inspection"?
 
Houston said:
So do the lawyers who write the legal interpretations. Go here:

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org.../agc/pol_adjudication/agc200/Interpretations/

Type "Kent Horton" in the search box and hit enter. You should get a legal interpretation dated October 22, 2008.

Given that is a requirement for the aircraft to be airworthy, how would it be an example of a "totally out of line, FSDO airworthiness inspection"?
Click to expand...

I'm not going to pull up a legal interpretation for the sake of this discussion. My beef lies with the fact that the FSDO can ground an aircraft for a seatbelt tag when it is obvious that the seatbelt is the original to the airplane. That's the problem with the FAA and general aviation today. They want to apply 121 rules and paperwork to guys who simply cannot afford to do such thing
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'm not going to pull up a legal interpretation for the sake of this discussion.
Click to expand...

Don't do it for the sake of this discussion. Do it because you're a professional airman and an instructor. If you're going to teach something, you first need to know it yourself.

KSCessnaDriver said:
My beef lies with the fact that the FSDO can ground an aircraft for a seatbelt tag when it is obvious that the seatbelt is the original to the airplane.
Click to expand...

A: How would it be obvious that the seatbelt is the original to the airplane? You should read this, http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=6862

B: What do you want the FSDO to do when they come upon an aircraft that is unairworthy? More germane is the question, what do you do when you come upon an aircraft that is unairworthy?

KSCessnaDriver said:
That's the problem with the FAA and general aviation today. They want to apply 121 rules and paperwork to guys who simply cannot afford to do such thing
Click to expand...

The 121 rules only apply to 121 operations.

It is worth quoting the section from FAA Order 8900.1, which is the guidance for inspectors. Chapter 1 is "Part 91 Inspections". Section 4 is "Conduct a Part 91 Ramp Inspection". Note the second item in Paragraph 6-101 G:
G. Inspect Aircraft.
1) Determine the general airworthiness of the aircraft by inspecting the aircraft's exterior in a manner similar to a preflight inspection.
2) Inspect seats and safety belts for installation and condition.
3) If applicable, determine if a current VOR Equipment Check has been performed.
4) Determine if an ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitter) is installed. Check the expiration date of the battery.
5) Determine that the aircraft identification plate exists and is secured to aircraft fuselage exterior. (§ 45.11(a))
Click to expand...
 
Houston said:
Don't do it for the sake of this discussion. Do it because you're a professional airman and an instructor. If you're going to teach something, you first need to know it yourself.
Click to expand...

I don't teach anything, have no intention of ever actually teaching. Just because someone has a CFI/CFII doesn't mean they teach. Regardless, I'm not getting into this nitpick argument on what is and isn't airworthy, because my bet is that nearly 50% of planes in this country could be found unairworthy at any given time.

A seatbelt in a light piston single isn't going to cause a plane to crash. Unauthorized repairs on the structure and engine might.
 
A friend of mine had an inspector ground his plane because the oil dipstick had some yellow paint chipped off, they had to repaint it before he could go up.


Edit: come to think of it, that was a story told to me while I was preparing for my CFI ride, don't remember who it supposedly happened to. Perhaps it was just another myth that was perpetuated, idk.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I don't teach anything, have no intention of ever actually teaching. Just because someone has a CFI/CFII doesn't mean they teach.
Click to expand...
Did you miss the part about "and professional airman"?
KSCessnaDriver said:
Regardless, I'm not getting into this nitpick argument on what is and isn't airworthy, because my bet is that nearly 50% of planes in this country could be found unairworthy at any given time.
Click to expand...
That wasn't the question.
KSCessnaDriver said:
A seatbelt in a light piston single isn't going to cause a plane to crash.
Click to expand...
Neither will a missing registration form. Would you fly an aircraft that didn't have a registration form?
 
Ajax BU said:
A friend of mine had an inspector ground his plane because the oil dipstick had some yellow paint chipped off, they had to repaint it before he could go up
Click to expand...
That is one of those stories I'd like to see for myself and hear all sides.
 
Houston said:
That is one of those stories I'd like to see for myself and hear all sides.
Click to expand...
Just edited my post:

Edit: come to think of it, that was a story told to me while I was preparing for my CFI ride, don't remember who it supposedly happened to. Perhaps it was just another myth that was perpetuated, idk.
 
Ajax BU said:
A friend of mine had an inspector ground his plane because the oil dipstick had some yellow paint chipped off, they had to repaint it before he could go up.


Edit: come to think of it, that was a story told to me while I was preparing for my CFI ride, don't remember who it supposedly happened to. Perhaps it was just another myth that was perpetuated, idk.
Click to expand...

I'll tell you about a personal experience in a private message, but the bottom line is "sometimes the stories you hear aren't EXACTLY what happened".
 
Houston said:
I'll tell you about a personal experience in a private message, but the bottom line is "sometimes the stories you hear aren't EXACTLY what happened".
Click to expand...
Exactly, which is why I felt compelled to edit it, I've heard tons of stories about them.
 
Houston said:
I'll tell you about a personal experience in a private message, but the bottom line is "sometimes the stories you hear aren't EXACTLY what happened".
Click to expand...

Indeed. It's also reasonable to believe that the airplane wasn't grounded because of "just a seatbelt", but for multiple discrepancies..

At any rate, wouldn't that airplane be just as un-airworthy for a CFI-A add-on, or even a Commercial SE checkride?
 
Mike H said:
Indeed. It's also reasonable to believe that the airplane wasn't grounded because of "just a seatbelt", but for multiple discrepancies..

At any rate, wouldn't that airplane be just as un-airworthy for a CFI-A add-on, or even a Commercial SE checkride?
Click to expand...
Yes. It's like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't. An aircraft is either airworthy or it isn't. Of course, the FAA's reaction is almost certain to vary based upon the fault (how much risk was involved), the origin of the fault, and the use of the aircraft (an overlooked AD on a Cessna 150 is not going to get people as excited as overlooking an AD on a 121 aircraft).

However, there is one point a lot of people tend to gloss over. The regulations contain the phrase "a fraudulent or intentionally false statement" in dealing with falsification. There is no corresponding wiggle room in the rest of the regulations for unintentional acts. You either did it or you didn't do it. The defense of "I didn't know" may mitigate the situation, but it doesn't absolve the individual. As a rule of thumb, the FAA looks to the operator for maintenance compliance, but nothing is guaranteed and different situations warrant different actions.
 
Houston said:
Yes. It's like being pregnant. You either are or you aren't. An aircraft is either airworthy or it isn't. Of course, the FAA's reaction is almost certain to vary based upon the fault (how much risk was involved), the origin of the fault, and the use of the aircraft (an overlooked AD on a Cessna 150 is not going to get people as excited as overlooking an AD on a 121 aircraft).

However, there is one point a lot of people tend to gloss over. The regulations contain the phrase "a fraudulent or intentionally false statement" in dealing with falsification. There is no corresponding wiggle room in the rest of the regulations for unintentional acts. You either did it or you didn't do it. The defense of "I didn't know" may mitigate the situation, but it doesn't absolve the individual. As a rule of thumb, the FAA looks to the operator for maintenance compliance, but nothing is guaranteed and different situations warrant different actions.
Click to expand...

Out of curiosity, what FSDO are you an inspector at?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top