CFI Checkride

[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.