Changing CFI after checkride failure

[RussR]

I am a CFI. A Instrument Rating applicant contacted me after he failed the oral portion of his instrument checkride. His instructor is now on a several-month job in another country and cannot do the retraining/sign him off again/etc.

Has anybody dealt with this before? It seems a strange situation to put me in, as 1) I have never flown with the guy, 2) he was already signed off for the original checkride, 3) all he technically "needs" is retraining in the area(s) he failed during the oral.

Of course, I would want to fly with him at least once first, and do a suitable amount of ground instruction before I'm putting my name down as approving him to take the re-checkride. From the tone of his message to me, I do NOT think he has any problem with that. And as he hasn't completed any of the flight portion of the checkride, he's going to need to prove to me he can do everything. I have no idea of the quality of instruction he previously received.

Any experience with this? Anything to be aware of? Pitfalls?

 

[benyflyguy]

Curious if he mentioned how he managed to fail his oral. Considering it’s fairly laid out in the ACS I would imagine you’d have to work hard to fail that part unless DPE was usually tough

 

[IK04]

Probably half of my Private and instrument students (uh, learners) were sent to me after they either failed a checkride or their instructor could not deal with them any more.

Yeah, I got some real peaches... I learned more about instructing and learning from them than any of my easy students. I am still grateful for that...

 

[sarangan]

I am a CFI. A Instrument Rating applicant contacted me after he failed the oral portion of his instrument checkride. His instructor is now on a several-month job in another country and cannot do the retraining/sign him off again/etc.

Has anybody dealt with this before? It seems a strange situation to put me in, as 1) I have never flown with the guy, 2) he was already signed off for the original checkride, 3) all he technically "needs" is retraining in the area(s) he failed during the oral.

Of course, I would want to fly with him at least once first, and do a suitable amount of ground instruction before I'm putting my name down as approving him to take the re-checkride. From the tone of his message to me, I do NOT think he has any problem with that. And as he hasn't completed any of the flight portion of the checkride, he's going to need to prove to me he can do everything. I have no idea of the quality of instruction he previously received.

Any experience with this? Anything to be aware of? Pitfalls?

Don't make any assumptions about his skills, his previous signoffs, or any judgements about his previous instructor. You need to make your own evaluations. Unfortunately, that means he will have to spend more money flying with you, but I see no way around that.

 

[RussR]

Curious if he mentioned how he managed to fail his oral. Considering it’s fairly laid out in the ACS I would imagine you’d have to work hard to fail that part unless DPE was usually tough

I believe it was regarding STARS. Which, granted, is in the ACS, and is important knowledge, but I am 100% certain that my instrument instructor never once covered STARS (or SIDS, or ODPs) with me when I was in training, and they never came up on the checkride (which was years ago).

 

[mondtster]

I’ve done it a few times, but i have always been pretty selective on what students I would accept and who their prior instructor was. All the students I took on were from a couple of instructors who I am personal friends with. I also know the local DPE fairly well and discussed the circumstances with him to make sure everything was covered.

I feel that the way the regulations and endorsements are worded leaves a lot of gray area for cases like this. I’d probably start with some ground and an assessment flight and come up with a game plan from there.

 

[TommyG]

You have to pretty much do a mock checkride with him to see if he meets your standards. Then you can focus on what he failed.

 

[RussR]

Thanks all.

Related issue - since this is not his first time taking the checkride, if he were to fail again, how would that be counted as far as my CFI renewal pass/fail rate? I assume if he passes, it doesn't help me (or hurt me), since I wasn't the initial sign-off. But if he fails (due to unknown deficiencies that maybe didn't show up in a couple of flights with me), does that count against me? I wouldn't think so, because it again wasn't his first time.

 

[Jim Carpenter]

You have to pretty much do a mock checkride with him to see if he meets your standards. Then you can focus on what he failed.

Without knowing the former instructor, something like this at a minimum. As others mentioned, if the student really did only fumble one specific area, it should be pretty obvious right away.

I believe it was regarding STARS. Which, granted, is in the ACS, and is important knowledge, but I am 100% certain that my instrument instructor never once covered STARS (or SIDS, or ODPs) with me when I was in training, and they never came up on the checkride (which was years ago).

Wow, that's rather frightening.....I could sort of see a lack of coverage for STARs, especially when training away from bigger airports. But SIDs are more common, and a lack of knowledge of ODPs and SIDS could kill you! (I'm sure you know this now, but it's just astonishing to hear that any CFII of any era could miss this!)

 

[MauleSkinner]

Thanks all.

Related issue - since this is not his first time taking the checkride, if he were to fail again, how would that be counted as far as my CFI renewal pass/fail rate? I assume if he passes, it doesn't help me (or hurt me), since I wasn't the initial sign-off. But if he fails (due to unknown deficiencies that maybe didn't show up in a couple of flights with me), does that count against me? I wouldn't think so, because it again wasn't his first time.

The checkride he takes after you sign him off is what “counts” for or against you. Even if it was a single maneuver that he had to be retrained and re-evaluated on, it’s a checkride that you’re signing him off to take.

The previous instructor’s signoff is not valid for any of his recheck.

 

[PPC1052]

But SIDs are more common, and a lack of knowledge of ODPs and SIDS could kill you!

I am not sure that a lack of knowledge of SIDS is any more likely to kill you than most any other IFR subject, which is to say any of them can kill you. But I have previously ranted about the lack of focus on ODPs in subject materials and the written test, and the substantial risk of harm due to ignorance of that subject. When I stumbled upon them on my own doing independent study, I was quite flabbergasted. Maybe they have updated the written since I took it, but there were no questions at all on ODPs when I took it.

 

[Ted]

Wow, that's rather frightening.....I could sort of see a lack of coverage for STARs, especially when training away from bigger airports. But SIDs are more common, and a lack of knowledge of ODPs and SIDS could kill you! (I'm sure you know this now, but it's just astonishing to hear that any CFII of any era could miss this!)

Meh. If it wasn't covered that probably means that the student isn't based in or likely to fly into an area where they're common. Although SIDs and STARs may be published for a number of airports, the reality is that relatively few airports really end up using them. When you do have them in a GA airplane, more often than not a SID or STAR could be summarized as "radar vectors".

To Russ's question, I think the approach I would take is to sign off the applicant for the entire checkride (maybe I'm wrong about this legally in which case that would be good to know) with the required 3 hours of flight time, whatever ground instruction, mock checkride to determine I thought the person was ready for a checkride. Then I'd go from there. But, you might also want to talk to the DPE about it since this is a bit of an unusual situation.

 

[Ravioli]

I'm a learner. Were this to happen to me I would ask you for a mock check ride (not an IPC), and then a lesson plan. This would let me feel comfortable you weren't gonna try to refurnish your house by putting me through the whole course.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Meh. If it wasn't covered that probably means that the student isn't based in or likely to fly into an area where they're common. Although SIDs and STARs may be published for a number of airports, the reality is that relatively few airports really end up using them. When you do have them in a GA airplane, more often than not a SID or STAR could be summarized as "radar vectors".

But on the other hand, if it wasn’t covered, the instructor ignored the ACS. What else did he ignore?

I’d actually bet that the applicant load-shedded the training for the reasons you mentioned, but again, what else did he load-shed?

 

[Doug Reid]

I don't see the big deal here. Arrange a meeting with the student, see what deficiencies exist, evaluate whether or not you can help. Most of the pilots I know have not passed all their checks on the first attempt.

 

[Ryan F.]

Russ, I think you've sussed this correctly. 14 CFR 61.49(a) spells out what's required of you:

§61.49 Retesting after failure.
(a) An applicant for a knowledge or practical test who fails that test may reapply for the test only after the applicant has received:

(1) The necessary training from an authorized instructor who has determined that the applicant is proficient to pass the test; and

(2) An endorsement from an authorized instructor who gave the applicant the additional training.​

I would agree with your assessment that the only way you are able to "determine that the applicant is proficient to pass the test" is to, at minimum, cover AOO and related tasks found unsatisfactory or not tested during the ground portion, as well as the entire flight portion. This may result in additional expense from the perspective of your client, but it's not a relevant detail from yours. It's your prerogative to go further and cover all AOOs/tasks for both the ground and flight portion before providing your endorsement and signing the applicant's airman application for the rating sought. The latter is how I'd handle it, but it's your call.

Suggest you request a copy of the Notice of Disapproval from your client as a starting point.

Good luck with it,

 

[RussR]

The checkride he takes after you sign him off is what “counts” for or against you. Even if it was a single maneuver that he had to be retrained and re-evaluated on, it’s a checkride that you’re signing him off to take.

The previous instructor’s signoff is not valid for any of his recheck.

Are you sure about this? I'm not so sure. The wording in 61.197 pertaining to CFI renewals says "the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt" - Well, this student already didn't pass on his first attempt, but that wasn't my endorsement.

My endorsement would be the 61.49 endorsement for a re-check, which specifically states that I have provided the "additional" training required, not any other training, although for my comfort I certainly would provide more training than required.

To Russ's question, I think the approach I would take is to sign off the applicant for the entire checkride (maybe I'm wrong about this legally in which case that would be good to know) with the required 3 hours of flight time, whatever ground instruction, mock checkride to determine I thought the person was ready for a checkride. Then I'd go from there. But, you might also want to talk to the DPE about it since this is a bit of an unusual situation.

Well, again, it's just required to be a 61.49 endorsement. If the knowledge lacking was indeed STARS, I could do an hour lesson with him on STARS, sign him off and he retakes the checkride. Even if I do mock checkrides with him and do numerous flights (which is likely, of course), I'm still just signing off that I covered the "additional training" required by the Letter of Disapproval.

 

[RussR]

Russ, I think you've sussed this correctly. 14 CFR 61.49(a) spells out what's required of you:

§61.49 Retesting after failure.
(a) An applicant for a knowledge or practical test who fails that test may reapply for the test only after the applicant has received:

(1) The necessary training from an authorized instructor who has determined that the applicant is proficient to pass the test; and

(2) An endorsement from an authorized instructor who gave the applicant the additional training.​

I would agree with your assessment that the only way you are able to "determine that the applicant is proficient to pass the test" is to, at minimum, cover AOO and related tasks found unsatisfactory or not tested during the ground portion, as well as the entire flight portion. This may result in additional expense from the perspective of your client, but it's not a relevant detail from yours. It's your prerogative to go further and cover all AOOs/tasks for both the ground and flight portion before providing your endorsement and signing the applicant's airman application for the rating sought. The latter is how I'd handle it, but it's your call.

Suggest you request a copy of the Notice of Disapproval from your client as a starting point.

Good luck with it,

Thanks Ryan. Do you know how or if this would affect my official pass rate if he were to fail again? I'm not particularly worried about that, but any time you pick up a trainee this late in the game, there are who knows how many holes in knowledge or skills, and I can not reasonably cover every possible scenario unless I start over from day 1.

 

[Ryan F.]

Thanks Ryan. Do you know how or if this would affect my official pass rate if he were to fail again? I'm not particularly worried about that, but any time you pick up a trainee this late in the game, there are who knows how many holes in knowledge or skills, and I can not reasonably cover every possible scenario unless I start over from day 1.

This is a tricky question!

Let's look at this first from a flight instructor standpoint w/r/t maintaining the flight instructor certificate itself.

Here's a Part 61 reference to "pass rate" (this is an unofficial term, by the way): in 14 CFR 61.197, "Renewal requirements for flight instructor certification." It states that a person may renew his or her flight instructor certificate if "during the preceding 24 calendar months, the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt".

Another reference to a flight instructor's "pass rate" is in AC 61-65H, regarding the issuance of a Gold Seal flight instructor certificate. In order to be awarded this certificate the flight instructor must have, "within the previous 24 calendar-months... trained and recommended at least 10 applicants for a practical test, and at least 80 percent of the applicants passed their tests on the first attempt."

Pretty clearly, CFI renewal based on activity references "first attempt" pass rate and so does Gold Seal.

So... if you're not interested in a Gold Seal, you don't want to renew your flight instructor certificate on the basis of activity, you choose to simply attend a FIRC every 24 calendar months, and there are no other circumstances involving your CFI-ASE-AME-IA certificate validity, nor your associated commercial pilot or ATP airman certificate, your "pass rate" doesn't matter at all, including retests.

Or does it? FAA Order 8900.1, Vol. 6, Ch. 1, sec. 5, "Surveillance of a Certified Flight Instructor," provides guidance to ASIs for the purpose of initiating surveillance. Reasons include high-activity CFIs (20 recommendations for a practical test annually), a "justifiable public complaint", and an incident/accident involving the CFI, or one of his/her students. This has nothing to do with your student's pass/fail rate, though.

But in 6-121-D, the ASI is guided to consider surveillance "... If a CFI’s students have a failure rate of 30 percent or greater." Or in the inverse, a CFI's pass rate falls below 70 percent.

Russ, you asked the question, "do you know how or if this would affect my official pass rate if he were to fail again?" From the perspective of renewing your flight instructor certificate based on activity, it's clear it would not. And from the perspective of obtaining a Gold Seal certificate, it would not either. I'm assuming the question remains as to whether this record of a student's failure is part of your "official pass rate." Since I don't know exactly what that term means, I can't say. It should be obvious to all of us that all certification activities are tracked whether they are initial or retests, and what the FAA does with that data is up to them, but based on the above it appears possible that an excessive number of failures could be grounds for surveillance. As far as I know that is the worst case scenario.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Russ, you asked the question, "do you know how or if this would affect my official pass rate if he were to fail again?" From the perspective of renewing your flight instructor certificate based on activity, it's clear it would not.

It’s not that clear to me...is it their “first attempt” at a particular checkride, or their “first attempt” at that checkride with a particular instructor signing it off?

 

[Ryan F.]

It’s not that clear to me...is it their “first attempt” at a particular checkride, or their “first attempt” at that checkride with a particular instructor signing it off?

It's their first attempt at a particular practical test. The term "checkride" which you use here is an unofficial term.

"... the flight instructor has endorsed at least 5 students for a practical test..."

For pilots, a practical test is an airman certification event for either a pilot or flight instructor certificate (edit: or rating on that certificate.)

"... for a certificate or rating and at least 80 percent of those students passed that test on the first attempt."

They must pass the specific practical test on the first attempt.

 

[IK04]

This is making me think hard about my first year or so as a CFI... I somehow earned a Gold Seal on my first renewal, but so many of my students were previous failures. I'll have to look back through my logbooks to do the math, but I know there were around 20 pilot's endorsements and they all passed...

The rules were the same 30 years ago, so I must have just squeaked under the wire

Is there some kind of a FAA board that reviews renewal applicants and approves the Gold seal, or is it just a database scan and automatic issue?

 

[Ryan F.]

Is there some kind of a FAA board that reviews renewal applicants and approves the Gold seal, or is it just a database scan and automatic issue?

Issuing a Gold Seal certificate is an administrative activity performed by an FAA ASI or designee. The vast majority of these issuances are accomplished by the latter.

 

[Lindberg]

Well, again, it's just required to be a 61.49 endorsement. If the knowledge lacking was indeed STARS, I could do an hour lesson with him on STARS, sign him off and he retakes the checkride. Even if I do mock checkrides with him and do numerous flights (which is likely, of course), I'm still just signing off that I covered the "additional training" required by the Letter of Disapproval.

I'm neither a DPE nor a CFI, but I'm not sure you're reading the reg correctly. He failed the check ride and (presumably) got a notice of disapproval because he can't have discontinued after failing a portion. With the notice of disapproval, the DPE can give him credit for portions completed satisfactorily. Everything else remains to be tested for passage. The reg requires that you sign off that you've given "the necessary training [and] determined that the applicant is proficient to pass the test . . . ." You're not simply signing off on remedial training on STARS; you're signing off on the whole rest of the test.

How could you comply with this and provide the sign off without evaluating everything he didn't get credit for on the first test? I don't think you could. His original instructor could base it on prior training and evaluation of him. But you can't.

In my completely unqualified opinion, I don't think you have a choice but to at least give him a mock checkride covering everything and provide training to standard on anything you consider unsat.

What would you do if a student came to you and said he's almost ready to take his checkride, but his instructor bailed and he needs a new one? Do that.

 

[Ryan F.]

I'm neither a DPE nor a CFI, but I'm not sure you're reading the reg correctly. How could you comply with this and provide the sign off without evaluating everything he didn't get credit for on the first test? I don't think you could. His original instructor could base it on prior training and evaluation of him. But you can't.

In my completely unqualified opinion, I don't think you have a choice but to at least give him a mock checkride covering everything and provide training to standard on anything you consider unsafe.

While I agree the spirit of what you're suggesting here, per the letter Russ' interpretation is correct. He could provide additional training only in the area(s) of operation/tasks which were found unsatisfactory on the initial attempt, then endorse the student as the recommending instructor on the new FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, making sure to check the "Have you previously received a Notice of Disapproval or been denied for any reason for the certificate AND/OR rating for which you are applying?" box in Section IV -- okay, IACRA will do it for him.

To your point, I think it would be wise as a flight instructor to accept the onus placed on him or her in this sort of situation. A student has failed a practical test on the ground portion. As you have stated, under certain circumstances, perhaps not unlike the one Russ has described, it may not be possible or feasible to be sure the student is ready for the flight portion. In that case we'd have to call upon the professionalism of the flight instructor to do what's appropriate.

But the system is built for reasonable flexibility. How about this scenario: flight school of two flight instructors who "tag team" on every student. Instructor A and Instructor B round-robin the student until he or she is ready to go. Instructor A ends up as the recommending instructor and endorses the 8710-1. Then she goes on a well-deserved vacation. The student fails the practical test during ground portion. Instructor B is in the wings and ready to provide the additional training required and becomes the recommending instructor for the second attempt. Since Instructor B already flew with the applicant numerous times during training and was in agreement (though not in an official, recommending instructor capacity) with Instructor A that the applicant was ready for the practical test, only the additional training for the failed AOO(s)/task(s) is provided. When the 61.49 endorsement is completed, Instructor B attests to the fact that "the applicant is proficient to pass the test... " and relies upon his knowledge of the student's readiness for the flight portion prior to the ground portion failure which resulted in the initial Notice of Disapproval.

There are various other permutations of this sort of situation which might lead to a similar handling of the event. It's up to the recommending instructor to make this determination, and the requirements are written in such a fashion -- in part -- to accommodate these many variables without undue rigidity.

 

[Lindberg]

He could provide additional training only in the area(s) of operation/tasks which were found unsatisfactory on the initial attempt, then endorse the student as the recommending instructor on the new FAA Form 8710-1, Airman Certificate and/or Rating Application, making sure to check the "Have you previously received a Notice of Disapproval or been denied for any reason for the certificate AND/OR rating for which you are applying?" box in Section IV -- okay, IACRA will do it for him.

The instructor's certification on that form is "I have personally instructed the applicant and consider this person ready to take the test." It doesn't say, "Ready to pass the tasks he failed last time."

This isn't a case where the applicant completed the test satisfactorily except for one task. I took a checkride where I passed everything up to the last landing. I got a notice of disapproval stating as much, and when I went back, the test consisted of only a single landing. Here, the test will consist of the entire flight portion, any sections not previously tested on the oral portion, plus the areas that were unsat. Russ has no basis on which to judge the applicant's readiness on any of that.

I see no provision for Russ to sign off, "I have personally instructed the applicant and consider this person ready to pass the area he previously failed, and I assume he can pass the rest based on the prior endorsement of a different instructor."

 

[Ravioli]

@RussR - It's been a few days... did you accept the learner?

 

[Ryan F.]

The instructor's certification on that form is "I have personally instructed the applicant and consider this person ready to take the test." It doesn't say, "Ready to pass the tasks he failed last time."

This isn't a case where the applicant completed the test satisfactorily except for one task. I took a checkride where I passed everything up to the last landing. I got a notice of disapproval stating as much, and when I went back, the test consisted of only a single landing. Here, the test will consist of the entire flight portion, any sections not previously tested on the oral portion, plus the areas that were unsat. Russ has no basis on which to judge the applicant's readiness on any of that.

I see no provision for Russ to sign off, "I have personally instructed the applicant and consider this person ready to pass the area he previously failed, and I assume he can pass the rest based on the prior endorsement of a different instructor."

From a best practices perspective, I agree with you -- I'd require the same, as a flight instructor. But that's not the way it works in airman certification.

Let's say you're an authorized instructor, like Russ, stepping into the situation he described in his original post. In your role, and from your perspective, nothing is stopping you from requiring whatever ground and/or flight training you feel is necessary to "determine... that the applicant is proficient to pass the test," so long as, at minimum, that training addresses the Area(s) of Operation and associated Task(s) which were indicated as Unsatisfactory on the Notice of Disapproval issued by the evaluator.

Parsing it out the way you're attempting to do here, if the FAA required instructors to provide and log specific ground and/or flight training for untested tasks on a retest, there would be requirements to do so in part 61, and evaluators would need to review these new, for lack of better words, "additional aeronautical experience" requirements. But there's no requirement to do so.

Remember, this is a retest -- still a certification event, but tied to the initial event by various mechanisms, not the least of which is the original recommending instructor's endorsement.

How the authorized instructor determines an applicant "ready to take the test," in this case a retest, is indeed up to the authorized instructor, provided they meet the minimum requirements as stated above.

 

[Lindberg]

Parsing it out the way you're attempting to do here, if the FAA required instructors to provide and log specific ground and/or flight training for untested tasks on a retest . . . .

You're reading something different from what I wrote. I didn't say Russ would have to provide and log any specific training.

 

[brcase]

You have to pretty much do a mock checkride with him to see if he meets your standards. Then you can focus on what he failed.

I have done it a time or two. This is the answer I /\ have used. Give them your version of a checkride. Give him additional training on anything you find deficient until you are comfortable signing him off for the check ride. I have a pretty good relations ship with our Local DPE’s, I could very easily call them and get their version of how the checkride was going for him.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL

 

[Ryan F.]

You're reading something different from what I wrote. I didn't say Russ would have to provide and log any specific training.

Understood. It appears we agree, then. I apologize if I misunderstood your position.

 

[A Martin]

I am a CFI. A Instrument Rating applicant contacted me after he failed the oral portion of his instrument checkride. His instructor is now on a several-month job in another country and cannot do the retraining/sign him off again/etc.

Has anybody dealt with this before? It seems a strange situation to put me in, as 1) I have never flown with the guy, 2) he was already signed off for the original checkride, 3) all he technically "needs" is retraining in the area(s) he failed during the oral.

Of course, I would want to fly with him at least once first, and do a suitable amount of ground instruction before I'm putting my name down as approving him to take the re-checkride. From the tone of his message to me, I do NOT think he has any problem with that. And as he hasn't completed any of the flight portion of the checkride, he's going to need to prove to me he can do everything. I have no idea of the quality of instruction he previously received.

Any experience with this? Anything to be aware of? Pitfalls?

My first though was if he only failed the oral part he could overcome that himself with more "book learning" .... hope that makes sense .... if he failed the flight test portion then of course he needs a CFI to do more flight hours.

(disclosure) I am only a helicopter pilot and have no IFR training ..... I easily passed all my tests except meteorology ... for some reason I had a hard time with it ..... my instructor said "hit the books" , nothing he could do to help me. I finally passed but it was more from memorizing than actually grasping the subject.

 

[RussR]

Okay, so I met with the individual yesterday and flew some.

Apparently, he got stumped on STARS after being asked to plan a flight from here to DFW. After his checkride, his instructor apparently did review STARS with him. We are currently contacting that instructor (who is overseas) to see if he will provide an endorsement and IACRA sign-off for the retake. In the meanwhile, he and I also covered STARS (and SIDs) and some other topics that he was weak on. We then went and flew a few approaches, as he hasn't flown in a few weeks and is a bit rusty. We will be flying again, perhaps several times, until he feels comfortable again (he did admit that now, having failed, he is perhaps a bit apprehensive). I thought in general he flew well, accounting for some nerves and rust.

Since he did not actually make it in the air, and didn't get too far in the oral, his Notice of Disapproval seems to list every area in the ACS as needing to be re-done.

Normally, he would really want to retake the checkride within 60 days to get credit for those successful areas. But since I don't think he actually has any successful areas, or since they are so few, it doesn't really matter. Now, please correct me if I'm wrong, since I haven't faced this before, but even if he goes past 60 days, his retraining endorsement from his previous instructor is still all he needs (plus at least 3 hours in the last 60 with me) - he doesn't need a new endorsement, he just doesn't get credit for any areas completed.

 

[RussR]

I believe it was regarding STARS. Which, granted, is in the ACS, and is important knowledge, but I am 100% certain that my instrument instructor never once covered STARS (or SIDS, or ODPs) with me when I was in training, and they never came up on the checkride (which was years ago).

Wow, that's rather frightening.....I could sort of see a lack of coverage for STARs, especially when training away from bigger airports. But SIDs are more common, and a lack of knowledge of ODPs and SIDS could kill you! (I'm sure you know this now, but it's just astonishing to hear that any CFII of any era could miss this!)

But on the other hand, if it wasn’t covered, the instructor ignored the ACS. What else did he ignore?

I’d actually bet that the applicant load-shedded the training for the reasons you mentioned, but again, what else did he load-shed?

Assuming in this response you're talking about me (as the applicant at the time), I have no doubt that these items were not covered. No "brain-dumping" involved. It was in 2004, under the PTS, and I no longer recall what it required, but it was certainly a much briefer, vaguer mention about departure procedures than it is now. ATC assigns "runway heading on departure", well that checks the box of "departure procedures" I think was the "wisdom" then and there. Was not asked anything about SIDS or STARS on the checkride (I have notes I typed up afterwards). My training and checkride took place in SE coastal VA, where I guess SIDS weren't issued to GA aircraft at the time. Additionally, my CFII, while a great guy, had done all his flying in that area and probably had never dealt with them either.

 

[Salty]

I’m curious, what the deficiency was. I mean, even if you’ve never seen a STAR before, it’s pretty easy to decipher if you know how enroute and approach charts work.

 

[RussR]

I’m curious, what the deficiency was. I mean, even if you’ve never seen a STAR before, it’s pretty easy to decipher if you know how enroute and approach charts work.

Obviously I wasn't there to know the details, but I wouldn't say all STARS are "easy to decipher" if you have no frame of reference. This was the one discussed in the checkride.

 

[Salty]

What’s on there that you wouldn’t know if you knew how to read an approach plate and enroute chart? Besides the English text. Lol

other than being overwhelmed, I’m not seeing how it would be that hard to figure out. I guess you wouldn’t know about transitions, but that’s a pretty logical concept. One of the few things that are straightforward in my opinion.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Assuming in this response you're talking about me (as the applicant at the time), I have no doubt that these items were not covered. No "brain-dumping" involved. It was in 2004, under the PTS, and I no longer recall what it required, but it was certainly a much briefer, vaguer mention about departure procedures than it is now. ATC assigns "runway heading on departure", well that checks the box of "departure procedures" I think was the "wisdom" then and there. Was not asked anything about SIDS or STARS on the checkride (I have notes I typed up afterwards). My training and checkride took place in SE coastal VA, where I guess SIDS weren't issued to GA aircraft at the time. Additionally, my CFII, while a great guy, had done all his flying in that area and probably had never dealt with them either.

No, I was actually talking about the current applicant. I probably confused that by replying to the post that I did.

 

[Llk]

Ugh. Some of the responses in this thread made me queasy - namely a decision by an instructor to accept a student or not based on the instructor preserving their pass rate. I can’t imagine any of the FARs Intended this as an outcome of CFI surveillance.

I’ve never failed a check ride, but in spite of my flying hours, I’ve not done many - PP, asel, IFR, helo, (and drone). 3500 hours, 25 years. I’ve met hoards of horrible instructors as a young pilot at a flying club- the bombastic, the overconfident, the aggressive, the politicker, the know it all, the yoke banger, the passive aggressive and the constant critic. That was a long time ago. The one I ended up taking my private with was a real life Foghorn Leghorn, an aerospace engineer long in patience and humor and short in attitude. As a retiree, he flew metros for a local 135 operator.

There is nothing more offensive to me than a student struggling with an instructor controlling his or her progress, who ends up trying to find a better match by getting a second opinion, and while asked and advised to not disclosed, still compares notes with the first instructor thus embarrassing and discouraging the student. We’ve all seen the threads here on POA.

I don’t see any reason why the instructor can’t simply perform his own oral and or mock checkride. I recall June Bonesteel spine some decent books preparing the student for the oral- I don’t know what else is out there today, but I have to believe there is something. Obviously the flying portion is a different piece altogether. Make your own assessment and communicate it to the student accordingly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ravioli]

There is nothing more offensive to me than a student struggling with an instructor controlling his or her progress, who ends up trying to find a better match by getting a second opinion, and while asked and advised to not disclosed, still compares notes with the first instructor thus embarrassing and discouraging the student. We’ve all seen the threads here on POA.

But not in THIS thread. In this case the learner's original CFII is out of the country for a while. I doubt the contact could be made without the learner providing information and presumably consent to coordinate.

In general, though, your point has some merit.

As to the CFI surveillance question: Everyone knows a learner, a CFI, and a DPE they wouldn't EVER want to be in a cockpit with. That's just part of life, n'est pas?