CFI Checkride

[Blur]

I recently had a student fail a intial CFI ride because they were unfamilar with Part 23. I have never gone deeply into Part 23 with CFI applicants in the past either for FAA administered or DPE rides. This ride was with a DPE from a nearby school that is a big competetor of ours.

Any thoughts? Was I deficient in my instruction? Is Part 23 something a CFI student should be greatly familar with?

 

[woutlaw]

My copy of the the CFI PTS only mentions parts 1, 39, 43 61, 91 and NTSB 830, so I'd say the DPE was out of line for testing something that wasn't in the PTS.

Give your local FSDO a call and ask them about it.

14 CFR Part 23 is aircraft certification requirements or something, right? Crash worthiness, spin recovery, that sort of stuff?

 

[ajhbubs84]

Even though it is not in the PTS, I think "other areas the examiner deems necessary" is in the introduction somewhere.

 

[Blur]

Yes. It is certification of aircraft and the other stuff. It is not even in the pilots FAR books. I can only find in mechanic FAR books.

 

[woutlaw]

Even though it is not in the PTS, I think "other areas the examiner deems necessary" is in the introduction somewhere.

I couldn't find something along that line in the intro, which doesn't mean it's not there.

The PTS introduction does grant the examiner the ability to select one or more tasks for each area of operation in the interest of time and in whatever sequence they like.

I just took the initial CFI checkride last week, so I'm still a rank rookie, but I'd suggest calling the DPE and asking for more detail on what happened. (Not a bad practice after every checkride, pass or fail.)

I suppose it's possible that during the oral the student led the discussion into the 14CFR Part 23 realm then screwed something up there horribly, for example.

If it passes the smell test, so be it. If not, talk to the FSDO. It might not be the first time the issue has cropped up.

My DPE for the initial has a pretty poor reputation and several instructors have complained to the local FSDO about the way he's conducted everything from private to initial CFI rides in the past. The FSDO, apparently, has spoken with him about some of those problems and I can only assume he's working on them.

I managed to survive the ride, but felt his abilities as an examiner were borderline and wouldn't send a student to him by choice.

Good luck! I'm curious what the DPE's thinking was so I can store it away for when I start training CFIs in a couple of years.

 

[nosehair]

What is actually printed on the Notice of Disapproval?
Quite often I have noticed that what the student says is not what is printed on the pink slip.
If "FAR 23" is printed on the pink slip, then you have a case with the FSDO.

 

[Blur]

The Notice of Disapproval only states "Oral Exam." Unfortunately this means to re-endorse the student we must go over every (oral) requirement for the Practial Test.

I talked with the examiner. He couldn't give me any definate reason. "I don't think he was ready," was his repeated phrase. The examiner admitted that Part 23 is where they ended the checkride.

After talking with the student and examiner the final questions went something like this:

Examiner: If you have inoperative equipment is the aircraft airworthy?

Student: No unless you can defer it per an MEL; if you don't have an MEL you must check 91.205 to make sure it is not a requirement for day VFR and if not follow 91.213 to make it airworthy.

Examiner: What if it is a fuel pump.

Student: That is required to be operative for airworthiness.

Examiner: It is not in 91.213. Show me where the FARs say it is required.

Student: (Student looks in FARs with no sucess)

Examiner: What are you going to do?

Student: I'll call our Director of Maintenance for advise.

Examiner: He is unavailable.

Student: I'll ask any of the local mechanics at the field for clarification.

Examiner: None are available.

Student: I'll call our Director or Training or Director of Operations.

Examiner: They are unavailable. The FAA is closed. What are you going to do?

Student: I won't fly the airplane because it is unairworthy.

Examiner: This checkride is over. You would need to reference Part 23 to see if it is required for certification. You needed to show me where it is required.

Student: I've never looked at Part 23. I don't have it in my FARs; where is it?

Examiner: You can get it off the FAA website................


From what I understand you would need Part 23 from the year the aircraft was certified to be completely accurate. You would also need to check the Type Certificate Data Sheet to see what the FAA required the manufacturer to install and have working upon the aircraft certification.

I called the FAA and talked with two different Operations Inspectors. They both said they would never get into Part 23 on a CFI ride or fail a student on this area. One FAA guy said he has high regard for the examiner and thinks he always gives fair checkrides. He doesn't think there will be any biased between the schools and he plans to have us keep this examiner in the examiner pool for our CFI checkrides. The other FAA guy told me, "Why don't you become an examiner and you can give his students checkrides?"

I also talked to two other DPEs and they suggested I write a letter of complaint to the FAA. One said, "I'm not surprised." An airline pilot fueling his GA plane on the ramp approached the student before the checkride and said, "Good luck! These guys are jerks! If you are not enrolled in their program you don't have a great chance of passing." (I wish I knew who this guy was, I try to get more info from him.)

During the checkride the Examiner also talked negatively about our local DPE and talked down about other local schools. He had nothing but good things to say to the student (and me on the phone) about both their program and a nearby 2 year program that is a feeder program for thier 4 year degree. I think his conduct was VERY UNPROFESSIONAL!

I'm at a loss of what to do. I really don't want to send CFI students back to this examiner but if I make too big of an issue I'm afraid our POI will get irritated with me and could make my life difficult.

Any suggestions?

 

[SPilot]

I've got no suggestions other than to step carefully. Dont risk annoying anyone you might need a fair treatment from in the future.

If I were to answer the question: is fuelpump required?, I'd look for equipment list in the AFM/POH. Many equipment lists include notes about "required", "optional", "if installed" and so on.

(2) The inoperative instruments and equipment are not --
(i) Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated;
(ii)Indicated as required on the aircraft's equipment list, or on the Kinds of Operations Equipment List for the kind of flight operation being conducted;
(iii) Required by §91.205 or any other rule of this part for the specific kind of flight operation being conducted; or
(iv) Required to be operational by an airworthiness directive; and
(3) The inoperative instruments and equipment are --

Considering the student suggested asking somebody else repeatedly, I can see why the examiner said that the candidate was not ready. I think most examiners like to see that we demonstrate independence and ability to make our own judgements and interpretations of the regulations. Asking the nearest mechanic for advice in basic matters which are important for the candidate to operate the airplane legally as part of his PIC responsibility, does not inspire immediate confidence during a checkride, although it would be the sensible thing to do outside of a testing environment.

Remember the PTS states the examiners are allowed alot of "leeway" in their overall assessment of the candidate. So even if you strongly disagree that he asked questions about Part 23 (which is not a PTS requirement as far as I can remember), you will most likely get nowhere with a complaint.

 

[nosehair]

Examiner: If you have inoperative equipment is the aircraft airworthy?

Student: No unless you can defer it per an MEL; if you don't have an MEL you must check 91.205 to make sure it is not a requirement for day VFR and if not follow 91.213 to make it airworthy.

Examiner: What if it is a fuel pump.

Student: That is required to be operative for airworthiness.

Examiner: It is not in 91.213. Show me where the FARs say it is required.

Student: (Student looks in FARs with no sucess)

Here is where it went wrong. I agree with the examiner. It seems, from reading this and other boards, that the typical response to required equipment is "91.205". I understand the confusion because of the heading of the regulation: "91.205 U.S. Airworthiness certificates: Instrument and Equipment requirements"
Sounds pretty impresive, doesn't it. If it said "Additional Instrument and equipment requirements" it would be much easier to understand. That's what it is. It is one of the listed requirements in 91.213(d).

That's what we should be teaching. That is the instructor's job, and he is failing, because there is such a wide-spread lack of knowledge and understanding of this regulation.

If he had responded to the question with 91.213(d) and under(2)(i) "Part of the VFR-day type certification instruments and equipment prescribed in the applicable airworthiness regulations under which the aircraft was type certificated"
That's not the VFR day instrument and equipment required by 91.205, which is repeated in 91.213(d)(2)(iii).

That (91.213(d)(2)(i)) is the equipment required by regulation at the time of initial certification. Basicly, it is the naked nuts-and-bolts of the flying machine to get certified. This required equipment can be found in the Type Certificate Data Sheet.

Additional required equipment can be found in thhe POH as required by 91.213(d)(2)(ii), then the 91.205 stuff, 91.213(d)(2)(iii) and finally, (iv) required by an AD.

There is the non MEL airplane airworthiness checklist. That is what the GA CFI should have on the tip of his tounge just like many other bits of knowledge. He didn't know how to work that list. Many do not. But it is a required task in the Private (as well as CFI) PTS:
Task B: Airworthiness requirements
1.b. procedures and limitations for determining airworthiness of the airplane with inoperative instruments and equipment with and without an MEL.

The examiner's reference to part 23 comes from the 91.213(d)(2)(i) part.
That is the reg used to determine parts during certification. The required equipment can be found on the TCDS.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Student: That is required to be operative for airworthiness.

Examiner: It is not in 91.213. Show me where the FARs say it is required.

It seems like the examiner went for some misdirect. I would have(and will if I get this question) went straight to 91.7(b) and said I determined it to be unairworthy. End of story.

Sadly, your students response,"that it is required to be operative for airworthiness" is a corrrect answer, especially when backed with 91.7(b) instead of getting dragged to part 23 or anywhere else.

Ask a mechanic about something that is PIC responsibility? Not me. I used to be a lineguy. I was always amazed at how many people would ask for flying advice. Probably not too impressive to the examiner.

Suggestions? Prep him out and let him try again. That is all there is to do. If you manage to piss on the examiner somehow it will come back to you in the end.

 

[woutlaw]

I'd have to agree that the student should have known to check the AFM/POH equipment list to determine if the fuel pump was required equipment. Failing that, at least letting the examiner know that he knew that a TCDS existed might have saved the day.

Exercising authority under 91.3 and saying "I'm PIC, I would say the aircraft is not airworthy in this condition and I'm not going to fly it" might have worked, although it sounds like the student did essentially that and got pinked as a result.

I think your student's answers were reasonable, particularly when judged by the way things work real-world operations. Checkrides, and FlightInfo, of course, aren't the real world. <grin>

Put the scenario down in your notes for that examiner (I assume the instructors at your school share checkride notes on each examiner) and the next time a student gets assigned to him, make sure they know the answer the guy wants to hear.

Running down other schools, or even other instructors, is certainly unprofessional behavior and indicates a bias against those students. If you can, kick that matter upstairs as it's potentially a more strategic problem that has an impact on the business as whole.

If your chief instructor (or whatever they call it) wants to take it further, good. If not, well, I'm out of ideas at that point.

Good luck!

 

[nosehair]

It seems like the examiner went for some misdirect. I would have(and will if I get this question) went straight to 91.7(b) and said I determined it to be unairworthy. End of story.

There's the kind of smartass answer that will 1) bust a checkride, and 2) show that you cannot conduct real-world operations. "Gosh, I'm sorry we can't take-off, my flashlight isn't working...wha-a-a!"

The relavant part of the regulation you have quoted is:
91.7(b) "The pilot in command is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in condition for safe flight."
How did you determine the fact thatit is airworty? You didn't. You just focused on the second sentance, "The PIC shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy conditions exist."
How? How is one of the words CFI's have to answer - with factual information, not just a personal judgement. That is the point of the oral. How do you determine if it is airworthy or not?
91.213(d)

Everybody taht thinks this is out of line is a victim of the long-standing deficiency in our flight training system. It is systemic. Almost nobody knows how to answer that question. People even answer with "I'd ask a mechanic".
That's how bad it is.

91.213(d)(2)(i)(ii)(iii)&(iv) are a little hard to wrap your mind around at first, but once you get it, it is the easiest way to make that determination as required by 91.7(b).

It ain't rocket science.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

Exercising authority under 91.3 and saying "I'm PIC, I would say the aircraft is not airworthy in this condition and I'm not going to fly it"

Nobody suggested he say,"I'm the PIC, I'm the PIC...Final authority".

However, 91.7 answers the examers question. I don't think anybody can navigate to the reason or logic behind every reg...Hence the ability to apply timely judgements to a situation. If you look at what the examiner seemed to be saying was "you are in charge, make a decision and back it up." Starting with the equipment list in the POH does seem like the best start, but what about if it is a AFM? I just looked through one and don't see anything like a list indicating required equipment (unlike the POH).

What if the examiner had said,"you're missing 2 feet from the left wing. Is it airworthy?" Would you need to really need to go outside of part 91 even if a wing isn't mentioned in the required equipment?

The last thing I would ever do as a test taking strategy is tell the examiner he is wrong by telling him it is in 91.213 after he explicitly said it isn't. Unless of course you can turn right to that page. I'm not saying that it can't be found in 91.213, just that I don't like to debate the examiners.


§ 91.7 Civil aircraft airworthiness.
(a) No person may operate a civil aircraft unless it is in an airworthy condition.
(b) The pilot in command of a civil aircraft is responsible for determining whether that aircraft is in condition for safe flight. The pilot in command shall discontinue the flight when unairworthy mechanical, electrical, or structural conditions occur.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

There's the kind of smartass answer ...

The relavant part of the regulation you have quoted is:
91.7(b) "The pilot in command is responsible for determining whether the aircraft is in condition for safe flight."

Everybody taht thinks this is out of line is a victim of the long-standing deficiency in our flight training system. It is systemic. Almost nobody knows how to answer that question. People even answer with "I'd ask a mechanic".
That's how bad it is.

It ain't rocket science.

I'm sorry you see it as a smartass answer. I don't need a list to tell me if something is unsafe, sorry if you do. I don't think the question was out of line, I think it is answerable in a number of different ways within part 91.

As far as it being systemic, you are right on. I could go on with some really long and boring stories of crap that I've seen but I won't.

It ain't rocket science is also truth, but there is certainly a lot of information with a lot of people don't ever bother to learn...which gets us right back to where you call it systemic...good points.

 

[nosehair]

Student: No unless you can defer it per an MEL; if you don't have an MEL you must check 91.205 to make sure it is not a requirement for day VFR and if not follow 91.213 to make it airworthy.

Examiner: What if it is a fuel pump.

Student: That is required to be operative for airworthiness.

Examiner: It is not in 91.213. Show me where the FARs say it is required.

Student: (Student looks in FARs with no sucess)

Examiner: What are you going to do?

gsrcrsx68, if you are referring to the above conversation, I agree that the examiner may have tripped him up a bit with the phrase "it is not in 91.213. Show me where the FAR's say it is required." But the applicant was tripped up only because he did not really have a solid understanding of 91.213(d).
If you read and digest my explanation of the items in 91.213 (d), you will see it is in there in (i), and the applicant did not know it, so the examiner just let him talk himself into a paper bag.

It was obvious when the applicant started off with 91.205. That's the one every body quotes as if that's the main one which it is not.
Every CFI should be able to take you through the 91.213(d) reg with just as much detail and understanding as if he were explaining a flight maneuver.
There is the underlying reason why we don't pay much attention to this particular reg, "I'll just ask maintainance", or "I don't need to know this sh*t, the school won't let us fly if anything is not working anyway" or "We have MEL's, what do I need to know this for?"

As a CFI, you are being certified to be a CFI anywhere in the U.S. Anywhere.
If you are the only CFI at an isolated airport in Flatland, Kansas, you are The Man. You are the one who is supposed to have all the required knowledge - or at least know where to find it. You can't go into this checkride with the idea that you will be working at a school with lots of experienced instructors and mechanics to mentor you. Sure, tht is what you should do, because there is no way a human being can aquire all the knowledge and experience required to be a competent CFI all on his own in a pitiful 250 hours and maybe a year of experience. But that is the way of the CFI checkride.

 

[nosehair]

I don't need a list to tell me if something is unsafe, sorry if you do.

Actually, you do. You can't tell me that you would know everything on every airplane that is required. And even if you did, the vast majority of us cannot, and the CFI test is not so much about your wonderful ability to know everything, but about your ability to show other people how to know things. Average people who need checklists and reference material. I sure wouldn't know how to determine if the thing was airworthy with so many different things.
One of my favorite questions about airworthiness is on the tail tie-down ring.
You have probably notice a few bent ones. Is it airworthy? Is it an intergral part of the empennage structure? If it is, it will be on the TCDS. If it is not there or in the required equipment of the POH/AFM, or is not added in an AD, then it is airworthy.

That's all the examiner wanted him to say.

And that is what you, and any other Private pilot, actually Student Pilot, should know about airworthiness.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

I agree with you, somewhat...you should change your name to splithairs.

Whereas it is true that a list is required for some things for other, like a missing wing or a sheered off prop blade, nobody needs a list for things that are obvious and that is where we are allowed to and sometimes required to use our judgement. I'll read the 91.213 sections that you quoted as I am trying to learn as much as possible and will think about the way you are looking at it. Thanks for the tips.

 

[woutlaw]

Interesting discussion. Seriously.

At the risk of further opening up a can of worms, I took a look through 14 CFR 23 because I was curious.

The examiner posed the question of a fuel pump being inoperative and said the candidate needed to refer to part 23 to find the answer.

That may not be an accurate answer, since basically all part 23 says about fuel pumps is that if one is installed (we're talking a piston engine here) it needs to be driven directly by the engine, can't interfere with fuel flow from an aux pump and some other nuts and bolts stuff.

The type certificate is where you'd want to look to know for certain if the pump (or anything else) was required. Part 23 isn't going to be of much help.

i.e., there's nothing I could find in a quick search for 'fuel pump' through part 23 that says an inoperative fuel pump renders the aircraft unairworthy. At the risk of a gross oversimplification, part 23 primarily describes how stuff should be bolted together but not which components are required equipment for a particular aircraft.

For example, In our 182RG there are two fuel pumps, one of which is required (the main engine-driven one) and one of which is not (the electric aux pump, which is listed as standard equipment but is not among the items listed as required by the FAA type certificate.) But part 23 says zilch about that specific airplane so you couldn't know that solely by reading part 23.

And I certainly agree that a full understanding of 91.213 is essential.

As nosehair pointed out, it's a pretty straightforward process to determine if a particular inoperative component renders an aircraft unairworthy.

Knowing where to look is the key, and part 23 probably won't be of much help.

 

[Blur]

I agree with most of the comments you all have made. A student does need to understand both Part 91.205 and 91.213. A CFI student needs a deeper understanding of the regulations than either a PVT or COM pilot and should be able to find answers for themselves.

One area I strongly disagree, however, is the comments made about a CFI being able to know or find all answers without having to seek help from another professional (ie mechanic or another pilot). Maybe I am reading to deeply into the comments and that was not the intent, however, if it is I'd like to give any 121/125/135 bound pilots some advise.

Accept the fact that you don't know everything and be willing to seek help from others. When I administer a 135 checkride students have at thier disposal anything they would have on the line. This includes FARs, Opts manuals, AFM/POH, and MANAGEMENT! This includes the CP, ACPs, DO, Training Captians, or Check Airman. They can also call dispatch for direction however I stongly advise them to be cautious of dispatch advising on regualations as I have seen a helpful dipatcher offer incorrect information. With that being said, I do expect a student to have a good grasp on FARs and Opts Specs without having to look up everything.

If you plan on a professional career in aviaition and you choose to NEVER seek advise of another qualified professional it is only a matter of time before you misintrepet an FAR or Opts Sec and break the rules. If you ever are unsure and cannot find clarification for yourself I suggest you immediately seek the help of another professional. They publish the names and contact numbers of company management in the Opts Manual for this reason.

On a recent checkride with the FAA the examiner and I got to talking about this very subject and how pilots choose not to call for assistance. He said when he administers checkrides for small 135 operators who don't have check airman, he fails applicants when they can't answer any line related questions. They to have the above mentioned items at thier disposal and if they were to call for assistance and get an answer from management he would continue the checkride as that is what they should do on line. Items he asks about could be something as simple as not correctly entering a maintenence discrepenancy (squwak) in the maintenance log or correctly deferring an item on the MEL.

In our program, since most students are airline bound, we emphasise if you don't know the answer get help (don't be too proud). Now I expect our sudents have a good understanding of FARs and know how to find things for themselves, but if you get stuck get clarification before you do something illegal or unsafe.

As for this particular checkride, I think this was a very weak reason to stop the checkride. I think the student was doomed from the start as the examiner was very unhappy about my endorsements (which were right out of the AC) and proceded to make negative comments about our school from the get go. I found while giving 121/135 rides that you can fail every student on a checkride if you really want to; even very experienced line pilots with grey hair.

I trained/gave checkrides to a few pilots who were graduates of the program the examiner operates. Many were excellent pilot, however, some were very deficient. I believe I even suggested the compnay discontinue training one due to his deficieny in general aviation knowledge. I struggle with this checkride, not becuase I believe the student didn't make mistakes, but because I don't think the checkride would have ended if it were a student from the examiners own program.

As for the endorsements the examiner didn't like; he wanted me to include an endorsement in the student's logbook that I am qualified to teach CFI students. Has anyone ever heard of this before? I am uncomfortable with the as the FARs prohibit a CFI from endorsing themselves and I believe this could construed as such. Also he wanted me to include an endorsement that I had reviewed all the subject areas listed on the students knowledge exams. In the past I have only made this endorsement for re-tests following a student failing a knowledge exams. Is it requirement now to endorse the subject areas for students who pass the knowledge exams also? His resoning was 61.39; "if applicable," to me means if the student failed the knowledge exam. I'd appreciate any feedback on this particular endorsement.

 

[gsrcrsx68]

First, use a different examiner. Sounds like BS. Second you are right on as far as seeking answers and not needing to know every detail.

As far as Part 23 goes and 91.213 and 91.7, after doing some reading I believe the main fuel pump is a subpart of the aircraft engine. In other words, if the pump is inop the engine is inop. Obviously, it is no longer in compliance with its certificate(part 23), it is also unsafe and unairworthy(91.7) and certainly could have been deemed unairworthy by 91.213(d)(3) and (4)...Nosehair, it is funny to note that 91.213(d)(4) goes straight to pilot judgement again and is the final requirement...kinda like 91.7, just the long way around.

Not saying I'm right, but that was what I came up with...anyone else?

 

[JediNein]

Don't spend any time wondering about how to argue the failure. It won't do you any good. The best case is your student takes a ride with the FAA instead of the DPE.

The failure remains on the record because despite the "Designee Handbook" having a statement about contesting a checkride, OKC doesn't have a procedure for dealing with a successful contestment of a checkride. They treat it as a failure and re-take. The failure remains on your record as a CFI and the record of the student.

 

[nosehair]

Is it requirement now to endorse the subject areas for students who pass the knowledge exams also?

61.39(a)(6) Have an endorsement, if required by this part, in the applicant's logbook that has been signed by an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant-
(i) Has received and logged training time within 60 days preceding the date of application for the practical test;
(ii) Is prepared for the practical test;
and
(iii) Has demonstrated satisfactory knowledge of the subject areas in which the applicant was deficient on the airman knowledge test.

Don't go looking for an exemption because of the wording up front "...if required by this part..." because that's what they want. Been that way for years.

I guess they are going on the Eligibilty paragraph under each certificate or rating:
61.183 Eligibility requirements
(d) Receive a logbook endorsement from an authorized instructor...

I cover 61.39 in my endorsements like this:

This is to certify that I have given __________________
the required training time within 60 days, I have reviewed the deficient areas on his/her airman knowledge test, and I consider him/her to be prepared for the ____________ practical test.

You may use that if you like.

 

[nosehair]

Nosehair, it is funny to note that 91.213(d)(4) goes straight to pilot judgement again and is the final requirement...kinda like 91.7, just the long way around.

Yes, that is correct. It is always your final judgement. Even when you have connected all the dots and done every thing by the book, this final item still puts the responsibility on you to be the final judge on whether or not this item will compomise safety...and also you will be the one who is hanged if something happens as a result of your judgement, even if all the other requirements are met.

 

[Blur]

The question I have about the 61.39(a)(6)(iii) endorsement is: the examiner wanted a seperate endorsement the specifically said that I had reviewed the subject areas deficient on the knowledge exam. The student got in the 90s on both exams on the initial take, therefore I included all CFI endorsements as per the AC.

My understanding has always been that if the student passes the knowledge test this endorsement (61.39(a)(6)(iii) is not required. I thought it was only required when the student goes in for the re-test (the reason they print the endoresement on the written test results itself and don't include it in the AC).

In all the students I've sent in the past I've never had the FAA or DPE ever say this endorsement is required on a student who passes the knowledge exam and I can't believe if it is required is has been missed by so many.

 

[nosehair]

In all the students I've sent in the past I've never had the FAA or DPE ever say this endorsement is required on a student who passes the knowledge exam and I can't believe if it is required is has been missed by so many.

Yep, that's the way of it. That's one of the reasons why we think a certain regulation is interpretated a certain way. Different regions have different applications of a regulation. Different examiners interpret it differently, as well as miss it quiet frequently. After all, it's a moot point. Where I am, one certain examiner will look to see it exactly that way. Another examiner doesn't care to see it. I finally figured out that I should always use the "worst-case" scenario. If I always paraphrase the 61.39 reg in all cases, I, and the student, will be covered.

 

[MauleSkinner]

While I agree that a pilot shouldn't have to make all airworthiness determinations alone, I've found over the years that you need to be able to detect bad advice. The only way I know of to do that is to have a GOOD WORKING KNOWLEGE of the airworthiness requirements...

A few examples to play "count the violations" with:
"I'll charge your battery up, and once you're out of the Class D, you can turn everything off and fly home with your inoperative alternator."

"We'll just duct tape a baggie over where that fuel cap should be, and you can fly home."

"A CVR isn't required under the TCDS, so you don't need one." (this was a two-pilot jet with 7 passenger seats)

"Your accelerator pump is inoperative...it's not required, so I signed off the annual and you're good to go." (this one sounds vaguely familiar WRT this thread)

"The maintenance manual has a procedure to deactivate your thrust reversers. You don't need an MEL." (again, for a jet)

Mechanics, even good ones, will lead you astray on occasion with regard to inoperative equipment. Often, part of the problem is the pilot's inability to properly communicate the problem to the maintenance people. YOU, as the pilot, need to understand the requirements and regulations for airworthiness AND operations in order to operate safely and legally.

I'm making no judgements on the DE's actions, but it definitely sounds to me like this applicant was deficient in his ability to make an airworthiness decision.

Fly safe!

David

 

[taters]

I agree with the above comment about bad advice I have been "convinced" at times that things are fine . The golden thing to remember is that as PIC airworthiness is ultimately up to you. If something is broken then the plane is not in compliance with it's airworthiness cert.(even an ashtray). Until you can verify that you can mel the item 91.213.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Another thing to consider would be whether the inop item, in this case a fuel pump, is used on any emergency/abnormal checklists...the FAA recently took some things off the MMEL for Hawkers for this reason, so I suspect they might frown on a similar deferral under 91.213(d).

Fly safe!

David

 

[Frozen Ronin]

Why would you search for how to determine if a part is necessary? As an IA, the answer is from the other direction: Show me where it's not. Everything on an aircraft that it was manufactured with, or altered to, must be properly functioning for the aircraft to remain airworthy. The search is in the exception, not the rule! Unless you can find where it ISN'T required, then it is. MMEL's, MEL's, and several part 91 excepts are those exceptions.

That probably doesn't help your student any, but it does give you a different angle to approach the challenge.