NTSB recommendation on failed checkrides

[tom1178]

I agree with you FN FAL that instructors should be required to have more experience (edit: i myself suffered from it), but my point is, how would all these airline pilot wannabe's build time if they can't instruct? I'll pull a number out of my arse and say 80% of time building is via instructing for the low-time pilot. There are only so much night-freight jobs that will hire you with 250 hours, don't ya think?

That's why it will never happen, in a perfect world instructor's would all be the most experienced pilots with 2,000 plus hours but it is the way it is for a reason. (although I don't know what the reason is) I haven't even been instructing for a year but I would personally say that I have gotten better at my job every month i fly. It used to bug the heck out of me my first few months of instructing, everytime i finished a flight all I could think about was how or what i could have done differently to better help my students....it still bothers me actually. All you can do is keep improving the product you are offering. I've sent 3 up for their ppl and they all passed their first time so I must be doing something right. It would make me nervous if their was a rule at my local FSDO like there is in SC but the rule is in place for a reason....you never really should sign somebody off until they are truly ready, I've failed one ride before and I was a little disappointed in my instructor because I failed an item that was in the PTS that we never went over but I took most of the blame myself. If a student fails a ride multiple times they may have realized early on in their training that their instructor wasn't very good but a lot of times students aren't going to stand up and blame their instructor for their faults because they'll feel that people will just assume they are using somebody but themselves as an excuse.

 

[Axel]

Let's take a poll, how many people here on the board who have CFI tickets, ever had a student brandish a pistol on them?

I have.

C-210 checkout. Rolling out from a full stop, guy pulls a .45 auto.Left me on the taxiway and disappeared with the plane towards theMexican border. Found the plane 3 weeks later crashed in the CA desertwith new paint and seeds/stems in the carpet.

Not fun, but coulda turned out much worse.

 

[HMR]

To tell you the truth, CFI's should have to have a minimum of 2,500 hours...

Good idea. However, I worked at a large flight school and the best instructors were all the guys and gals with 500-1500hrs. THE ABSOLUTE WORST guys were the ones with 2500hrs+. I've yet to meet a "senior" instructor at a flight school that doesn't have some social disorder that's kept him/her from advancing in their career.

C-210 checkout. Rolling out from a full stop, guy pulls a .45 auto.Left me on the taxiway and disappeared with the plane towards theMexican border.

I was going to come back. Why didn't you tell me you have to switch fuel tanks in the 210?

 

[VFR on Top]

Why aren't CFIs the most experienced teachers possible? Because nobody's willing to pay $80/hr for an instructor. The pilots willing to work for what CFIs are paid don't really have any other options when it comes to flying jobs. Too many people have whored themselves out flying traffic watch for free and whatnot.

 

[nosehair]

That's why it will never happen,

Maybe it will, finally. If the FAA implements this NTSB recommendation, along with the TSA's rules making individual CFI's have to "register" and be "accountable", I think we *may* be working towards a more structured school style.
Inexperienced 250 hour CFI's can indeed be good instructors under the proper SUPERVISION. No young, inexperienced instructor should be out there doin' it on his own. That's the problem. And even at some major flight schools - the new instructor does not get enough supervision and guidance.
"Here! Here's 13 students in various stages of disarray - fly 'em."

Of course it will be more costly. It will promote PROFESSIONALISIM.

 

[apcooper]

2 pilots go to a cocktail party and meet two different cute girls. One girl asks "what to you do for a living?" and guy #1 with 300 hrs says "I'm a pilot." Girl then says "wow, what kind of pilot" he responds "I'm a flight instructor" she says "wow you actually teach people to fly!" Meanwhile, guy #2 with 12,000 hrs, an ATP and a 747 type rating meets the other cutie and she askes "what to you do for a living?" He responds "I'm a pilot." She askes "Wow, what kind of pilot?" He says "I fly freight" She responds "Oh, OK, thats interesting" and then dissappears into the crowd never to be seen again!! How fu#ked up and crazy is that!!

 

[TonyC]

The other problem is that this information is intended to root out severe offenders at the employers discretion. I have heard some employers not hire a person based on the number of traffic tickets he has. Could you imagine what an employer would do with this information. It would turn the industry into a one-strike and you're out. Not cool.

If I'm not mistaken, this information is already available to the employer, and employers may be using it already. There is no information to be gained from this Notice of Diapproval that should not already be on the pilot's application under the question, "Have you ever failed a Checkride?" Remember, we've already discussed THAT question many times. If the applicant omits something that is found in the records check, that would constitute falsification and would be grounds for rejection (pre-hire) or termination (post-hire).

What the proposed rule would do is REQUIRE that the employer obtain any Notices of Disapproval for flight checks for certificates and ratings and to evaluate this information before making a decision about hiring. I think a Part 121 or 135 carrier would be foolish to not do so already. I would think the Insurance Carriers would demand it.


The scary part of this recommendation is the possibilty of establishing a limit on the number of flight checks that an indivual can fail. There are far too many variables in the process to establish a single number beyond which noone may go. One pilot may have had a particularly colored beginning from which he gained valuable lessons and maturity, and is now an outstanding pilot, but only one flight check, one bad day away from the end of his professional career. Another pilot may have been fortunate enough to slide by easy checkrides on his best days and has many checkrides to bust before he's canned. That doesn't make him more fit to hold the job. The two should be looked at individually by the potential employer, without the arbitrary constraint of a number.

 

[Lindy]

Arbitrary & Capricious

Tony C hit the IMPORTANTissue of the NTSB recommendation.

The FAA has been given a *recommendation* by the NTSB to deliver a number of failed checkrides that will prohibit a pilot candidate from being hired by a 14 CFR Part 121 and/or 135 Operator.

This is VERY SERIOUS!!

My question, will the FAA put a clock on the issue? For example, a candidate cannot be considered for employment if the applicant has failed [insert number] of checkrides in the last [insert number] of years. Or will it be once someone has failed X number of checkrides, then that person can never be employed by either a 121 or 135 Operator.

Should the FAA have the power to mandate this hiring practice to private companies? The FAA has the power to designate specific flight time requirements, training requirements, and medical requirements. It would NOT be a stretch to implement this information for failed checkrides and an applicant becoming "un-hireable."

This needs to be discussed.

 

[GogglesPisano]

This is scary stuff, alright. Two pilots apply for a job. One is an intern or someone with an "in" at the hiring dept and is low time. He's only taken 6 or 7 checkrides in his whole career. The other is a seasoned veteran who climbed the ladder the hard way and has 10,000 hours and 20 checkrides under his belt -- but he's failed two.

Any new system has to account for the laws of averages and how many tmes you've been exposed to the checkride process.

Let's not forget that a checkride can be a very subjective process (even though it's not designed to be that way.) And some airlines have a "reputation" for higher bust rates.

 

[nosehair]

This is scary stuff,
Let's not forget that a checkride can be a very subjective process (even though it's not designed to be that way.)

True. Another major "glitch" in our system, along with the newly minted instructors doing the teaching.

However, this may help to clean-up that whole area, too. If a checkride bust has the effect of ruining a career, then student/pilot applicants will demand (via the legal system) a more "objective" evaluation.

This can be done. Just like we need to revise our way of using brand-new instructors without supervision, we need to get rid of those old "do-it-my-way" DE's.

 

[Cardinal]

the new instructor does not get enough supervision and guidance.
"Here! Here's 13 students in various stages of disarray - fly 'em."

The nail has been struck on the head with a 10 pound sledge.

 

[inline]

To tell you the truth, CFI's should have to have a minimum of 2,500 hours and at least an associate degree of any kind. This industry is ass backwards.


What the heck does having at " at least as associate degree, " have to do with flying an airplane? I personally know half a dozen 747-400 capts who have at least one thing in common; they never went to college.

 

[airspeed]

"Exactly the point...but Shiat happens on a daily basis...to not pass a checkride or rating on the 2nd try is just pathetic...there should be no excuse"

Give me a break dude, everytime one person screws up some new law comes out. A checkride is just that, a check and to be quite honest just because you pass a checkride doesn't mean you can fly when its 100 1/2 gusting winds to 40 kts. The sim is just a computer and not an airplane. Say they do pass another law and you get some check airmen who doesn't like you, I mean really doesn't like you. Just imagine the possibilities.

 

[FJP3]

I agree...some check airmen are ignorant Pr1cks. I walked from a checkride for personal reasons. I had taken a checkride with him before and had a bad experience...the guy gave me an unsat for everything I didnt do. I went up on the next ride (different checkpilot) and passed. Needless to say now if I am asked, I have to say I pinked that ride because I did not get along with the check pilot.

Anyway, he is one of those that were talked about before (2500 hours and will be a career flight instructor). Grumpy that he is still a flight instructor. Luckily I got one shot at him before I left ERAU and wrecked his day. He threw everything he had at me for the commercial oral and I tore him apart.

Back to the subject. A second checkride attempt should be allright unless things got sour with the examiner.

 

[wheelsup]

eedless to say now if I am asked, I have to say I pinked that ride because I did not get along with the check pilot.

If you were in Riddle's 141 course, the only checkride you could have "pinked" was the commercial (atleast back around 2000-2003). That was the only checkride that was with a DE...the other "checkrides" were strictly end-of-course stagechecks that if not passed (i.e. unsat) you simply re-do the items and the completed 8710 goes to the FAA like you passed it the first time you took it...hint hint.

Semantics, but in law everything is in semantics.

What's the upgrade time to the seminole running? I'm sure now it's creeping down but back when I graduated it was like 2 years, so one could easily amass 2500 hours in 2 years of teaching there before getting into a twin to move on. I know what you're saying though, there were a few pricks but most had a story - one guy that was hanging around was doing so until his green card cleared...it's not always what it seems on the outside.

Edit: Also, I wouldn't be so quick to volunteer that you failed because you didn't get along with someone. That might possibly open up a whole new can of worms ; "what if you don't get along with the captain, will you walk away from a flight?" or those sort of questions - bad news and tough to talk your way out of.

~wheelsup

 

[FJP3]

I graduated in 2001 so I guess it wouldnt apply then...praise the lord...im clean.

I wouldnt know about any upgrade time at ERAU...I applied and interviewed, but I think I really pissed off someone there because I was not hired eventhough I felt the intervew went well. I had around 850TT by then, since they had that stupid 500 TT rule if you got your CFI elsewhere.

Anyway, I know the Green Card guy...he is a good guy...the one I am talking about has been there for years as well, but wasn't well liked when he was an examiner back then.

 

[flyifrvfr]

I have to chime in on this subject. First I disagree with FNFAL on the 2500 hour requirement. Your time in your logbook alone is not a good judge of your piloting skills. I know people with thousands of hours and I hesitate to call them pilots. I know a few people with much less time logged who have skills that can't be denied. I have just over 540 hours in my log book and have failed two checkrides. I failed the Private, and commercial multi.

The commercial multi checkride was failed because the examiner noticed the database was expired on the GPS. The examiner waited until I was airbourne and after I entered the airport and procedure into the Garmin 430 he shut off the GPS map screen. I didn't put the VOR frequency in use to back up the GPS and he instantly failed me. I deserved the failure and went back up with the instructor for an hour and did several approaches with the GPS screen blanked out. The problem is that when you turn off the screen you lose DME as well.

I went into the office of the DE the morning of my second attempt and told the examiner that the GPS is still out of date but I have cross radials that I could use for situational awareness (psuedo dme). The cross radials will tell me when I am in the zone of ambiguity while tracking to a VOR for a VOR approach. The DE said that I couldn't do that. This was at 9:00 am and my ride was to be at 12:00 pm. I said to the examiner that if he wasn't going to let me use the GPS or cross radials for the approach which is legal, that he must just want to fail me again. I was angry to no end.

The DE hopped in the plane and I started the engines. I was still angry with him and I knew that no matter what I did or how well I fly, he is still going to fail me. Having nothing to lose, I turned on the GPS and then turned to the examiner and warned him that if he touched the GPS I was going to break his arm. I stated that I know that he is going to fail me but when we are done, I would be the only one getting out of the plane with two working arms. He didn't touch the GPS and passed me as well.

Here is where the story gets real interesting. I was training for my CFII/MEI ratings and asked the CFI if I could get a different DE instead of the DE we used before. He said no, just don't give the DE a hard time again and I would be fine. I had to call the DE and schedule the ride and I gave him my name. He asked me if I remembered what happened 6 months earlier with him and I told him I did. I also told him that I would bring enough money to pay for four checkrides instead of two as I was convinced that he would fail me on both the CFII and the MEI. I am pleased to say that he passed me the first time on both rides and he still has the use of both arms.

The moral of the story is that the DE could have given me a minute to put the VOR frequencies in the box as well instead he pulled the trigger the second he turned off the screen. It was an A Hole move but he did teach me a lesson. All the time during my training for various ratings, I never had airplanes with GPS or DME. Upon getting an airplane with GPS, I got lazy and didn't put he frequencies to VOR's to use. I deserved the failure and I even thanked him for pointing out my error, but the way he treated me on the re-test was uncalled for.

 

[mattpilot]

let me get this straight.... you threatend to break his arms if he failed you?

I stated that I know that he is going to fail me but when we are done, I would be the only one getting out of the plane with two working arms.

I don't think intimidating the DPE is kosher

 

[nitrogen]

What a great story

Heres the issue I have with you.

No matter how well you flew the checkride, if you threatened me with bodily harm, you would fail the checkride. Period. Regardless of your arms or mine.
You'd be getting a pink slip. Mental balance is a major part of your evaluation. You'd be toast.

I have to chime in on this subject. First I disagree with FNFAL on the 2500 hour requirement. Your time in your logbook alone is not a good judge of your piloting skills. I know people with thousands of hours and I hesitate to call them pilots. I know a few people with much less time logged who have skills that can't be denied. I have just over 540 hours in my log book and have failed two checkrides. I failed the Private, and commercial multi.

The commercial multi checkride was failed because the examiner noticed the database was expired on the GPS. The examiner waited until I was airbourne and after I entered the airport and procedure into the Garmin 430 he shut off the GPS map screen. I didn't put the VOR frequency in use to back up the GPS and he instantly failed me. I deserved the failure and went back up with the instructor for an hour and did several approaches with the GPS screen blanked out. The problem is that when you turn off the screen you lose DME as well.

I went into the office of the DE the morning of my second attempt and told the examiner that the GPS is still out of date but I have cross radials that I could use for situational awareness (psuedo dme). The cross radials will tell me when I am in the zone of ambiguity while tracking to a VOR for a VOR approach. The DE said that I couldn't do that. This was at 9:00 am and my ride was to be at 12:00 pm. I said to the examiner that if he wasn't going to let me use the GPS or cross radials for the approach which is legal, that he must just want to fail me again. I was angry to no end.

The DE hopped in the plane and I started the engines. I was still angry with him and I knew that no matter what I did or how well I fly, he is still going to fail me. Having nothing to lose, I turned on the GPS and then turned to the examiner and warned him that if he touched the GPS I was going to break his arm. I stated that I know that he is going to fail me but when we are done, I would be the only one getting out of the plane with two working arms. He didn't touch the GPS and passed me as well.

Here is where the story gets real interesting. I was training for my CFII/MEI ratings and asked the CFI if I could get a different DE instead of the DE we used before. He said no, just don't give the DE a hard time again and I would be fine. I had to call the DE and schedule the ride and I gave him my name. He asked me if I remembered what happened 6 months earlier with him and I told him I did. I also told him that I would bring enough money to pay for four checkrides instead of two as I was convinced that he would fail me on both the CFII and the MEI. I am pleased to say that he passed me the first time on both rides and he still has the use of both arms.

The moral of the story is that the DE could have given me a minute to put the VOR frequencies in the box as well instead he pulled the trigger the second he turned off the screen. It was an A Hole move but he did teach me a lesson. All the time during my training for various ratings, I never had airplanes with GPS or DME. Upon getting an airplane with GPS, I got lazy and didn't put he frequencies to VOR's to use. I deserved the failure and I even thanked him for pointing out my error, but the way he treated me on the re-test was uncalled for.

 

[wheelsup]

The commercial multi checkride was failed because the examiner noticed the database was expired on the GPS. The examiner waited until I was airbourne and after I entered the airport and procedure into the Garmin 430 he shut off the GPS map screen. I didn't put the VOR frequency in use to back up the GPS and he instantly failed me. I deserved the failure and went back up with the instructor for an hour and did several approaches with the GPS screen blanked out. The problem is that when you turn off the screen you lose DME as well.

The problem was that you were shooting a GPS approach with an out of date database - which goes against what the AIM specifies - refer to table 1-1-6. notes (2) and (3). You can use an out of data database in the enroute and terminal (within 30 miles) environment if you've checked the location of all navaids/fixes and they have not moved.

I went into the office of the DE the morning of my second attempt and told the examiner that the GPS is still out of date but I have cross radials that I could use for situational awareness (psuedo dme). The cross radials will tell me when I am in the zone of ambiguity while tracking to a VOR for a VOR approach. The DE said that I couldn't do that. This was at 9:00 am and my ride was to be at 12:00 pm. I said to the examiner that if he wasn't going to let me use the GPS or cross radials for the approach which is legal, that he must just want to fail me again. I was angry to no end.

I'm a little confused at what you're doing...if it is a Garmin 430 you're using its got a Nav/Com and GPS database. The Nav portion of the receiver will be current because you're just tuning in navaids, why did you want to throw them in the GPS side?

Why didn't you just do approaches without using DME!?! The good standby's - VOR's, ILS's, LOC's, NDB's, etc...?

Here's a quote out of the AIM from the good ol' boys at the FAA:

)Waypoints, fixes, intersections, and facility locations to be used for these operations [determining DME] must be retrieved from the GPS airborne database. The database must be current. If the required positions cannot be retrieved from the airborne database, the substitution of GPS for ADF and/or DME is not authorized.

The moral of the story is that the DE could have given me a minute to put the VOR frequencies in the box as well instead he pulled the trigger the second he turned off the screen.

Because you had already failed by loading an approach with an out of date database...

Did you look in the AIM at what was required of GPS? It sounds like you still don't understand why you failed...

~wheelsup