"Conducted by the 'Administrator'"

[RussR]

In several places in the regulations, there is reference to things being "approved by the administrator" or "authorized by" or that sort of language. And, in typical government/bureaucratic use, it really means "or designated representative" even if it's not explicitly stated. This is normal, of course, because otherwise the Administrator would be busy just signing things.

But in at least one place it reads a little differently. For example, 61.31g, which discusses high-altitude endorsements, says that one is not required if the pilot passed "a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman."

This is an example of something where the Administrator is not just "approving" or "authorizing" a paperwork exercise. Rather, it says that he or she can actually conduct the PIC proficiency check.

There may be other examples like this, but I couldn't find any right away.

So, has this ever happened? Do you know someone who did their part 121, 125 or 135 proficiency check with the actual sitting FAA Administrator? Does the Administrator need to be otherwise authorized to perform the check (ratings and so on)? Does he or she need to be a CFI? Or even need to be type rated in the airplane?

Compare this to the paragraphs for the complex and high-performance endorsements, which say that if the pilot has passed a 135.293 competency check in such an aircraft, that meets the requirement - but it doesn't say anything about the Administrator conducting it.

I get it, it's an edge case that I'm sure isn't ever likely to actually happen. But it's written into the rules that way, as compared to many other similar scenarios that aren't written that way. So it's fun (for me anyway) to imagine how this scenario would actually happen.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The "Administrator" can be the FAA Administrator, or his designee. In Order 8900.1 it states

1/31/22 8900.1 CHG 660 VOLUME 1 GENERAL INSPECTOR GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION CHAPTER 1 ORDER ORGANIZATION, USE, AND REVISION Section 1 General Order Information1-1PURPOSE. This order directs the activities of aviation safety inspectors (ASI)responsible for the certification, technical administration, and surveillance of air carriers, certain other air operators conducting operations in accordance with the appropriate part of Title 14 ofthe Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR), certificated airmen, and other aviation activities.

So the Administrator gives his ASI an Order (8900.1) in how he wants it conducted.

 

[Checkout_my_Six]

yup....there are thousands of them.

 

[FancyG]

An unblockable super-administrator? A dimwitted and tiresome badge bully?

 

[RussR]

The "Administrator" can be the FAA Administrator, or his designee. In Order 8900.1 it states


So the Administrator gives his ASI an Order (8900.1) in how he wants it conducted.

yup....there are thousands of them.

Maybe I wasn’t clear enough in my question. I know that tasks are delegated, that’s how it’s done. But of the thousands of things in the rules that say the administrator can do something, in almost all cases it’s an administrative task. Approving waivers, finding that something is acceptable, authorizing operations, etc.

But in the instance in my example, it’s not just a delegation of signature authority to approve something, it’s saying the Administrator could actually conduct the proficiency check, does it not? That particular language is not used very often that I could find, and so it stands out to me. I did find a similar statement in 121.401e, talking about the Administrator performing part 121 check rides.

So the language is what interests me, since at least from my viewpoint it DOESN’T appear that often for checkrides and training and such. Rather, it’s usually “an authorized instructor” or “inspector” or “examiner” etc. So why the difference here?

To reiterate, this is not a question of practicality. It’s just me wondering why the different wording, and wondering if the Administrator has actually ever conducted a proficiency check under this paragraph.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Certain checkrides are conducted by “the Administrator” on a regular basis, normally under the Parts noted in the OP.

 

[Bell206]

So why the difference here?

FWIW: It could also simply be a syntax variance based on the underlining statute. There are other examples indicating administrator physical "actions" vs a paperwork task. However, when the headshed is questioned they usually revert to the common understanding that it is a delegated action.

 

[Pinecone]

More likely a syntax variance based on who wrote the actual reg and who reviewed it.

HUNDREDS of people have inputs to the regs. And different people are responsible for different parts.

This is how you end of with one reg saying you must do X and another reg that says you must NOT do X.

 

[Initial Fix]

I can’t think of reading where the sitting administrator gave a flight review. I don’t know if it would make the news if they did.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The Administrator is not required to hold a pilot certificate. The Administrator is not required to hold any FAA issued certificates.

The Administrator can set the standards of a flight check, and then delegate their authority to someone to conduct the flight check.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[SkyChaser]

The Administrator is not required to hold a pilot certificate. The Administrator is not required to hold any FAA issued certificates.

The Administrator can set the standards of a flight check, and then delegate their authority to someone to conduct the flight check.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

That wasn't the question, and I don't think that anyone doesn't understand that. The question was, has the actual Administrator ever done a task like conducting a proficiency check? If so, would the actual Administrator need to be properly rated or is he allowed to do such things solely on the basis of his "Administrator" title?

 

[Half Fast]

The Administrator is not required to hold a pilot certificate. The Administrator is not required to hold any FAA issued certificates.

The Administrator can set the standards of a flight check, and then delegate their authority to someone to conduct the flight check.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

The point is that while the administrator CAN delegate it, nothing says he MUST delegate it. So it seems to allow the check to be given by a non-pilot.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

 

[Doc Holliday]

That wasn't the question, and I don't think that anyone doesn't understand that. The question was, has the actual Administrator ever done a task like conducting a proficiency check? If so, would the actual Administrator need to be properly rated or is he allowed to do such things solely on the basis of his "Administrator" title?

Read the regulations. The regulations stipulate what is required to conduct a flight check. This is why the Administrator can delegate these task. It's also included in the Order 8900.1.

The last Administrator did conduct some flight evaluations on the 737 Max, but in all honesty it was for foto ops and publicity.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The point is that while the administrator CAN delegate it, nothing says he MUST delegate it. So it seems to allow the check to be given by a non-pilot.

Not sure why this is so difficult to understand.

Show me in the regulations, or any guidance that allows a non certified person to give a flight check.

 

[Half Fast]

Show me in the regulations, or any guidance that allows a non certified person to give a flight check.

You have already been shown a reg that specifically authorizes the Administrator to do the check and you have concurred that the Administrator does not have to be a pilot.

Try to concentrate and see if you can connect the dots.

 

[Doc Holliday]

You have already been shown a reg that specifically authorizes the Administrator to do the check and you have concurred that the Administrator does not have to be a pilot.

Try to concentrate and see if you can connect the dots.

Now go read the regs and guidance on what's required to conduct those checks and you'll find your answer. Be careful though, they use big words.

 

[RussR]

@Half Fast , @SkyChaser , I'm so glad SOMEONE understands the question and has a sense of humor and imagination when reading the regs.

My main question wasn't the case where the administrator isn't qualified to do the check, but I included that as a fun angle too.

But let's say the administrator was otherwise qualified to conduct the proficiency check. And we're old drinking buddies from way back. And it's time for my recurrent training. Could I just call up my buddy the Administrator and have him or her do it? Has anything like this ever happened? I'm guessing no, unless it was a long time ago.

Other posters, you're taking this way too seriously. Obviously things are usually delegated, we've all been around long enough to know that. But by definition, something that can be delegated, doesn't have to be delegated.

So the question in a broader, less fun way is "how often does the Administrator choose to not delegate something that is usually delegated, like for a one-off case?" I'm sure that some typical reasons would be signing important documents for photo ops and such, but that's not "exciting" like doing a proficiency check.

 

[Doc Holliday]

When was the last time we had an Administrator that was active in GA?

 

[luvflyin]

In several places in the regulations, there is reference to things being "approved by the administrator" or "authorized by" or that sort of language. And, in typical government/bureaucratic use, it really means "or designated representative" even if it's not explicitly stated. This is normal, of course, because otherwise the Administrator would be busy just signing things.

But in at least one place it reads a little differently. For example, 61.31g, which discusses high-altitude endorsements, says that one is not required if the pilot passed "a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman."

This is an example of something where the Administrator is not just "approving" or "authorizing" a paperwork exercise. Rather, it says that he or she can actually conduct the PIC proficiency check.

There may be other examples like this, but I couldn't find any right away.

So, has this ever happened? Do you know someone who did their part 121, 125 or 135 proficiency check with the actual sitting FAA Administrator? Does the Administrator need to be otherwise authorized to perform the check (ratings and so on)? Does he or she need to be a CFI? Or even need to be type rated in the airplane?

Compare this to the paragraphs for the complex and high-performance endorsements, which say that if the pilot has passed a 135.293 competency check in such an aircraft, that meets the requirement - but it doesn't say anything about the Administrator conducting it.

I get it, it's an edge case that I'm sure isn't ever likely to actually happen. But it's written into the rules that way, as compared to many other similar scenarios that aren't written that way. So it's fun (for me anyway) to imagine how this scenario would actually happen.

“…conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman…” I underlined the ‘or’. I think maybe it is as simple as that.

 

[Pinecone]

This is common verbage in Federal regulations.

Live with it.

Realize that reading regulations have their own grammar and ways of saying things. This has tripped up many people. Even those writing the regulations.

 

[Brad Z]

In several places in the regulations, there is reference to things being "approved by the administrator" or "authorized by" or that sort of language. And, in typical government/bureaucratic use, it really means "or designated representative" even if it's not explicitly stated. This is normal, of course, because otherwise the Administrator would be busy just signing things.

But in at least one place it reads a little differently. For example, 61.31g, which discusses high-altitude endorsements, says that one is not required if the pilot passed "a pilot-in-command proficiency check under part 121, 125, or 135 of this chapter conducted by the Administrator or by an approved pilot check airman."

This is an example of something where the Administrator is not just "approving" or "authorizing" a paperwork exercise. Rather, it says that he or she can actually conduct the PIC proficiency check.

There may be other examples like this, but I couldn't find any right away.

So, has this ever happened? Do you know someone who did their part 121, 125 or 135 proficiency check with the actual sitting FAA Administrator? Does the Administrator need to be otherwise authorized to perform the check (ratings and so on)? Does he or she need to be a CFI? Or even need to be type rated in the airplane?

Compare this to the paragraphs for the complex and high-performance endorsements, which say that if the pilot has passed a 135.293 competency check in such an aircraft, that meets the requirement - but it doesn't say anything about the Administrator conducting it.

I get it, it's an edge case that I'm sure isn't ever likely to actually happen. But it's written into the rules that way, as compared to many other similar scenarios that aren't written that way. So it's fun (for me anyway) to imagine how this scenario would actually happen.

14 CFR 1.1 defines Administrator as:
Administrator means the Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.

In the context of 61.23(g)(3(iv) it means an ASI. Now if the administrator was a former Ops inspector who still had credentials (unlikely as those are typically surrendered as inspectors work their way up in upper management) and met all of the other regulatory and internal guidances requirements to conduct a PIC proficiency check.

As Doc mentioned, Dickson jumped through the hoops to get some stick time in the 737 Max, an airframe that he already held a type rating in, but it was orchestrated months in advance and undoubtedly had some political motivation.

As to why that section was written the way it was, I'm just going to chalk it up to regulatory inconsistency. If you want to have fun, let me know if you're a pilot, pilot flight crewmember, pilot flightcrew member, crewmember, or an airman.