CFI Checkride

[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?