Doing a CFII as initial

Mike H said:
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...

How many DPE's have the ability to determine airworthiness and ground an airplane?

Anyway, this topic is so far from what it started for, I'm done. I'll be glad to answer CFII initial questions. I'm not playing a game to make somebody feel better about themselves.
 
Mike H said:
I don't know, I'm not a DPE. But I'm betting that deciding to begin or continue a checkride in an unairworthy aircraft would mean a quick pink slip.
Click to expand...

Is a DPE going to look at a seatbelt tag? Are you going to look at a seatbelt tag, especially if it is not up front?
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
How many DPE's have the ability to determine airworthiness and ground an airplane?
Click to expand...
That is an excellent question. "The ability to ground an airplane" is a bit of a legalistic exercise in semantics, so I'll leave that part alone. However, the question of being able to determine airworthiness is intriguing. It's also one that doesn't have a quantifiable answer because no serious study has ever been done on the subject. Personally, I wish that one would be done if for no other reason than to bring to light the fact that the task of determining airworthiness is overly complex.

I'll just take a stab at it based upon my anecdotal experience. However, before I do that, let me quantify the term "airworthiness" as I will be using it. That is the ability to take the maintenance records for the aircraft combined with a standard preflight inspection and determine airworthiness. It doesn't mean being able to find unviewable flaws in the aircraft.

I'd estimate that no more than 10% of the pilots who do not also hold a mechanic certificate could determine airworthiness with 100% accuracy. I'd also estimate that no more than 50% of the DPEs could do that. Airworthiness is a VERY complex subject and unfortunately, one that doesn't get nearly enough attention during the training process.
 
As an aircraft owner who has had to pay extra for seat belts with tags when I could have paid for some cheap non-tagged replacements, I'd honestly be a mildly concerned if I got into an airplane with untagged belts. Not because I'm worried about the belts failing but because it suggests that maybe the operator likes to take shortcuts and use whatever they feel is a safe alternative for maintenance when cost becomes an issue. As far as I'm concerned, if you want that kind of flexibility you can build/buy an Experimental. If you're going to operate a certified aircraft, then follow the maintenance requirements. So I would have no problem with this specific issue coming up.
 
Houston said:
I'd estimate that no more than 10% of the pilots who do not also hold a mechanic certificate could determine airworthiness with 100% accuracy. I'd also estimate that no more than 50% of the DPEs could do that. Airworthiness is a VERY complex subject and unfortunately, one that doesn't get nearly enough attention during the training process.
Click to expand...

I'd also estimate that a good chunk of FSDO's couldn't do it. And as for during the training process, is it one that needs done? Mechanic says the aircraft is good to fly, is it? Or are we going to start 2nd guessing mechanics?
 
Guys, guys, calm down! :) I passed my CFII... and the MEI... and finally the CFI... The DPE did squawk the airplane for an AI that would tumble after a standard rate turn, otherwise everything else was smooth.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd also estimate that a good chunk of FSDO's couldn't do it. And as for during the training process, is it one that needs done? Mechanic says the aircraft is good to fly, is it? Or are we going to start 2nd guessing mechanics?
Click to expand...

You say second guess, I say verify. I've known too many mechanics to ever think it's safe to just assume "oh they looked at it, it's fine". I've sent aircraft back to the shop that were just released with flight controls binding. I'm close friends with an IA and he's told me several stories of the crap that aircraft owners pull, trying to get away with cheap non PMA parts or trying to pull off home-grown repairs, and trying to strong arm mechanics into signing off aircraft. I've seen an aircraft with an illegally spliced wing spar. I've also personally seen pencil whipped annuals where the aircraft was in such poor shape that another mechanic wanted to call the FAA. A lot of mechanics get pushed into these situations because they need income.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
I'd also estimate that a good chunk of FSDO's couldn't do it. And as for during the training process, is it one that needs done? Mechanic says the aircraft is good to fly, is it? Or are we going to start 2nd guessing mechanics?
Click to expand...
Those are more excellent questions.

I didn't mention FSDO's (FAA inspectors) because it gets a little complicated. There are different flavors of inspectors. The first distinction is air carrier (121) and general aviation (everyone else). Then within each group there are several kinds of inspectors. The most common ones are operations, airworthiness, and avionics. Again, I'm just taking a very rough guess based just on anecdotal experience (i.e., I could be way off the mark). But, I would give the average general aviation operations inspector about the same probability as a DPE. I'd give any of the airworthiness inspectors a pretty high probability (90% at least).

Are we going to second guess the mechanics? I wouldn't call it second guessing. I'd go back to an often used phrase and call it "trust but verify". I'm paying for it (directly or indirectly). It is me, my family, my students, my friends, and people who put their trust in me in that aircraft. You bet I'm going to check. The interesting thing is that when a pilot does check, it makes the mechanic happy. They don't want to send anything out that isn't right and if the pilot helps them do that then they appreciate it. Rather than resent a pilot's interest, they welcome it. If something isn't right, we're both in trouble and neither one of us wants to be in trouble.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top