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.