All examinees of DPE Edward L. Lane to be required to re-test

[denverpilot]

The notice says "If it is subsequently determined that an airman has been tested for an additional pilot certificate or rating with satisfactory results after the last test administered by DPE Lane, the reexamination letter will be rescinded. The letter will also be rescinded in the case of a current military pilot in command (PIC) submitting evidence of satisfactory completion of a military proficiency check subsequent to the test conducted by DPE Lane."

Sounds like a great time to get a new rating and avoid the whole damn thing.

 

[denverpilot]

Somebody at the FSDO doesn't like him and 500 airmen around the country now have to pay the price.

I've heard 700.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm sure I can pass a check ride. I'm concerned about this 709 thing. Don't really need a black mark on my record especially for something I have no control over.

What makes you think this will be a "black mark on [your] record"? And this isn't by a long shot the first time the FAA has done a mass reexamination because of a problem with a designated examiner.

 

[poadeleted20]

You're looking through a stack of resumes for a pilot position. There's about 500 of them there. 499 of them are pristine, and one of them answered yes to the 709 ride.

I don't ever remember seeing anyone put the fact that they'd had a 709 ride on their resume. Haven't seen them put down that it took two tries to pass their PP written, either, or anything like that. Nor have I ever seen that as a question on a job application, and I don't remember it being part of the PRIA package, either.

 

[zaitcev]

because DBag Lane was their DPE.

When are you going to import it into your obstinate head that FAA bobhoovers people for no reason all the time?

 

[John Baker]

......

 

[SkyHog]

At least I'm not allowing myself to become bitter or angry about this whole thing. So the ####### FAA made a mistake, completely dropped the ball, as it were, once again, it happens. I am honestly not wishing that every ####### one of them rot in ####.

I'm looking forward to reading about the FAAs annual five million dollar drunken Christmas party... er.. meeting in a few months. Those are always entertaining, lots of free money to pi#s away.

I wonder if they will include any of their lowly controllers in this years moral boosting extravaganza that is usually reserved for boosting the upper managements moral who have such stressfull jobs and all. It's a ***** trying to watch the clock all day when you have a hang over.

At least this whole thing has not embittered me. I intend to have lots, and lots, of fun showing my support for the FAA in the years to come.

-John

Plus you got to know a lot of us....

 

[John Baker]

Plus you got to know a lot of us....

That has been a very big part of my years as an aviator, and hopefully will remain so.

If I ever get in a financial position to become re-certified, perhaps I will get back up there. If not, I can still share in the expenses with friends from time to time.

The one thing I never got to do was sample aerobatics, loops and such, so that will remain on my bucket list. I'm hoping I can get that one scratched off soon. Actually there are two things, a glider ride.

Both of these are doable, I will get it done. I might also mess with hang gliders a bit, but I'm not sure. I think I want to make one last parachute jump, but what I would really want is a T-10 Jump with a bunch of troops from a C-130. The parachute jump is feasible, the troop drop is daydream.

But if none of those things happen, I did own and pilot my own airplane. I've carried passengers, I accomplished what I set out to do. I even earned a pilots license for a while, actually, I still have it,

-John

 

[jesse]

Perhaps someone should be setting up a meeting with the representative behind the pilots bill of rights. I think the FAA is out of line calling out hundreds of pilot certificates.

 

[taters]

I don't ever remember seeing anyone put the fact that they'd had a 709 ride on their resume. Haven't seen them put down that it took two tries to pass their PP written, either, or anything like that. Nor have I ever seen that as a question on a job application, and I don't remember it being part of the PRIA package, either.

Its been on every Airlinesapps.com questionnaire for about 5 years... I cant remember ever NOT answering if I have ever had a 709 ride incident/accident/occurance...A 709 ride will damn sure show up on a PRIA check..airline background checks are approaching FBI level..and many get removed from class every month for crap that came back far after the interview selection/being hired.

Is that what the letter is saying that it is a 709 ride by definition? if so that is to B*****..IMO..

BTW I have 4 ratings from Shebles...always did my rides with Senior.. man I feel for those who got this letter.

 

[Palmpilot]

Perhaps someone should be setting up a meeting with the representative behind the pilots bill of rights. I think the FAA is out of line calling out hundreds of pilot certificates.

It sure is Draconian.

Draco noun (Concise Encyclopedia)

(flourished 7th century BC) Athenian lawgiver. Almost nothing is known of his life. His harsh legal code (621 BC) punished most crimes, even trivial ones, with death. Solon repealed Draco's code, retaining only the homicide statutes.​

OK, maybe not quite that bad, but still...

 

[Jay Honeck]

Perhaps someone should be setting up a meeting with the representative behind the pilots bill of rights. I think the FAA is out of line calling out hundreds of pilot certificates.

Excellent idea.

John, you need to point your anger in that direction. Maybe lead the charge, at the head of 700 VERY angry pilots?

Start a revolution, or just stir the pot. I will stand with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7

 

[comanchepilot]

709 rides get deleted after what? 2 years? There is no stigma to a passed 709 ride . . .

I think that almost any pilot who has continued to fly and improved their skills with experience will pass a 709 ride. . . . at least the flying portion of it. Just remember to placard your ADF as inop.

The risk is the brain work and the oral- all the little stupid details that a pilot learns that they never use again - like determining distance to an ADF using time and angles and whatever. . . . but at least hopefully now that you have real world experience you'll know where to look because none of it is closed book . . .

 

[iflyatiger]

This just reinforces to me why I stopped renewing my AOPA membership. In my eyes this is exactly the type of issue that AOPA should be advocating for on behalf of these pilots caught up in this mess..

One other thought.. If the average pass rate is 90% (?) then wouldn't that mean that at the most only 10% of the tests could have been subject to any kind of influence based on who the DPE was ? The reason I think this is a significant point is that they are not questioning the training these pilots received only the testing. It seems like they are impacting a lot of people for what might be a small percentage. Doesn't make any sense to me.

 

[comanchepilot]

its the bureaucratic mind at work - while 10% of the pilots might have some deficiency that would prevent passage - the fear is if one of those pilots causes injury and the press discovers that one of those pilots was trained by a DPE who they could not verify required performance to the PTS the lawyers and press feeding frenzy would cripple the organization or at least that FSDO = and the bureaucratic mind abhors risk. Even minor not present in the real world risk.

What should happen is the CFI's who signed these people off for a ride need to be contacted. A weakness list created and the 709 ride limited the identified areas of weakness and be done with it.

Personally when this is all said and done I want to see the fail rate of those actually taking a ride . . .

 

[taters]

709 rides get deleted after what? 2 years? There is no stigma to a passed 709 ride . . .

I think that almost any pilot who has continued to fly and improved their skills with experience will pass a 709 ride. . . . at least the flying portion of it. Just remember to placard your ADF as inop.

The risk is the brain work and the oral- all the little stupid details that a pilot learns that they never use again - like determining distance to an ADF using time and angles and whatever. . . . but at least hopefully now that you have real world experience you'll know where to look because none of it is closed book . . .

It was deleted after 5 years...however I understand the 5 year PRIA limit is now no longer...so if a carrier was to know about it they could report it.

 

[John Baker]

Excellent idea.

John, you need to point your anger in that direction. Maybe lead the charge, at the head of 700 VERY angry pilots?

Start a revolution, or just stir the pot. I will stand with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7

.......

 

[LJS1993]

Anger? I'm not a bit anger, what the #### are you talking about?

Actually, I'm just having fun, since due to my financial condition, had already made my mind up to give up flying anyway.

I know no active pilots can slam the FAA without running the risk of serious retribution, so I understand nobody joining in on my fun.

One thing about taking on any bureaucracy, it is rare when anyone can win, other than the bureaucracy. There is an old adage. "You can't fight city hall."

They have the power, the guns, and the laws they wrote that favor them, not you, the taxpayer.

We are a nation of laws, their laws.

So I will resign myself to exercising my freedom of speech..... for as long as it lasts.

-John

This must be very disappointing. It sounds like general aviation hasn't been too kind to you. Any luck on your plane sale?

 

[John Baker]

This must be very disappointing. It sounds like general aviation hasn't been too kind to you. Any luck on your plane sale?

That is somewhat of an understatement, however, in all fairness to GA, I started late in life, 61. I looked like I had plenty of money, I guess...they kept taking it away from me. Then it was one bureaucratic hurdle after another. I have bad lungs, but not that bad, but bad enough that the FAA insisted on ridicules hospital level tests every year, in spite of my doctors and their AME opinion that my health was more than fine for flying.

I also have one eye. I'm under educated, so the learning curve was a little steeper for me.

Getting a pilots license turned into a vendetta, I could not quit until I did it. So I spent more money, a lot more, than I should have. Also, I went through years of paratrooper brainwashing. The worst thing you can do is quit anything. Paratroopers are supposed to be surrounded, who are you going to quit to? That's called surendering...very big no, no.

I risked being permanently blind to take care of a cataract so I could pass the vision tests. That is how bad I wanted to accomplish this. It was the only time through all of it that I actually felt genuine fear.

So I finally accomplished it two years ago, after six years of endless study, practice tests, and practice flying.

Now I am losing the whole battle. I fought it well, so I am happy. Not with the outcome, but with myself. If I was younger, and could afford it, I would continue on with it.

One of the few bright spots to come out of all of it was discovering this board. You all are one great bunch of people. You put up with my frustrations, you graciously let me ***** about whatever I wanted to ***** about, but most of all, you encouraged me. For that I will always be grateful.

Then finally, one of you bought my airplane from me, it was confirmed this morning.

Thank you.....all of you.

-John

 

[douglas393]

That is somewhat of an understatement, however, in all fairness to GA, I started late in life, 61. I looked like I had plenty of money, I guess...they kept taking it away from me. Then it was one bureaucratic hurdle after another. I have bad lungs, but not that bad, but bad enough that the FAA insisted on ridicules hospital level tests every year, in spite of my doctors and their AME opinion that my health was more than fine for flying.

I also have one eye. I'm under educated, so the learning curve was a little steeper for me.

Getting a pilots license turned into a vendetta, I could not quit until I did it. So I spent more money, a lot more, than I should have. Also, I went through years of paratrooper brainwashing. The worst thing you can do is quit anything. Paratroopers are supposed to be surrounded, who are you going to quit to? That's called surendering...very big no, no.

I risked being permanently blind to take care of a cataract so I could pass the vision tests. That is how bad I wanted to accomplish this. It was the only time through all of it that I actually felt genuine fear.

So I finally accomplished it two years ago, after six years of endless study, practice tests, and practice flying.

Now I am losing the whole battle. I fought it well, so I am happy. Not with the outcome, but with myself. If I was younger, and could afford it, I would continue on with it.

One of the few bright spots to come out of all of it was discovering this board. You all are one great bunch of people. You put up with my frustrations, you graciously let me ***** about whatever I wanted to ***** about, but most of all, you encouraged me. For that I will always be grateful.

Then finally, one of you bought my airplane from me, it was confirmed this morning.

Thank you.....all of you.

-John

John
I am new to this board, new to flying, and an older pilot, though not quite as old as you but close. It took me a year to get my PPL, and I now cannot imagine not being able to fly. I know very little about you, but I can see your passion in flying. Do not give up the ship, do not let the FAA stupid ruling stop you from flying. I wish there was something other pilots could do for you. Maybe some of the other posters have some ideas.

Doug

 

[John Baker]

John
I am new to this board, new to flying, and an older pilot, though not quite as old as you but close. It took me a year to get my PPL, and I now cannot imagine not being able to fly. I know very little about you, but I can see your passion in flying. Do not give up the ship, do not let the FAA stupid ruling stop you from flying. I wish there was something other pilots could do for you. Maybe some of the other posters have some ideas.

Doug

.....

 

[Jay Honeck]

Doug, thank you for the thought, however, it all boils down to money. Right now, my primary source of income is my Social Security. Even as the owner of an airplane, I can not afford the fuel to just do some touch and goes.

I am working on changing that, but for now, aviation is out of the question for me.

Frankly, I'm burned out on it. I do not want to spend the few years I have left, trying to please an inept bureaucracy that charges us way too much for what we get in return.

There are better ways to live. I accomplished what I set out to do...it's enough.

-John

Well, if you can find your way to the island, we shall go flying. Well, except not at night, because the FAA-certified AME wouldn't let me view his old, faded books in natural light, so now they've declared me to be color blind.

Oh, and I just discovered that my FAA-mandated biennial was due in July. Got that scheduled for tomorrow.

Oh, well. Mary can still be PIC...I think.

Sent from my Nexus 7

 

[John Baker]

Excellent idea.

John, you need to point your anger in that direction. Maybe lead the charge, at the head of 700 VERY angry pilots?

Start a revolution, or just stir the pot. I will stand with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7

......

 

[TMetzinger]

John, you do NOT have to take the written again. There's no doubt attached to that accomplishment. What you might ask the FSDO when you get a letter asking you to schedule a 709 ride is if there's a time limit. Explain that you don't have the disposable income right now to rent an airplane. You may find that you can schedule the reexamination when it's "better" for you.
Question - have you gotten a letter yet?

 

[comanchepilot]

John - pro bono is one thought - but contingency is another - and what will you be out? Direct damages? You simply can not sue a government agency for insufficient supervision of its staff. You can try - but the easy cause of action is not available.

The issue as I see it is that if anyone leads a class action against the FAA and makes public their incompetence and improper [as in time and talent] evaluation or supervision of the DPE the agency will turn on that person like a wolverine. The person who needs to be the lead plaintiff is a 30 year healthy black female who is an excellent natural pilot who can pass anything they throw at her and do the skills to PTS over and over again.

Not sure any of those 700 fit that spec. You are not the right person for lead. Even though your fact set seems to beg for it.

The FAA knows that 650 of the 700 likely would have passed anyway - and subjecting all 700 to a test is just a knee jerk bureaucratic reaction.

Now - the way is for one person to bring 700 counts agains the DPE. Does he have insurance? Not enough probably. HE needs to be able to document which guys he passed without proper satisfaction of the PTS so that the other 650 guys can go back to their lives. FAA does not CARE about the 700 - because they can force anyone back for a ride at will. They have ZERO incentive to make it work for the pilots. So they made no offers to Lane to drop a dime on the few he might have pencil whipped.

It is unfair and it is the nature of the bureaucracy. Now - the pilots blll of rights should help here - you can ASK for the data and the supporting information - and you should. The problem is that 44709 lets them ask for a retest of any one at any time. So they can exercise their discretion in the face of what may not seem fair.

 

[comanchepilot]

Another way is for EVERY pilot under the control of the LAS FSDO to call in for a private pilot 709 ride. While you can't MAKE them give you a ride you CAN overwhelm them in an organized pilot protest. Its like if EVERYONE pled not guilty to their traffic tickets the system would collapse under its own weight.

 

[douglas393]

I have to think about this some more. There must be some recourse when a government agency deliberately bamboozles the public out of their hard earned time and money. Even if their representative is just a subcontractor, they are still responsible for putting him in that position of authority.

Myself, I think after two years of being awarded my license, for me to go back through it all would be prohibitively expensive. Hiring a CFI, renting an airplane, studying for the oral. I would also have to take the written over as well, since it's been more than 24 months since I last took it.

It would be pretty much starting from scratch other than flight experience.

I'm guessing around ten thousand dollars total. Even if they did pay for all of it, since the FAA can deny my medical, they would weasel out of it by making it so I can't fly.

I guess what I should go after is the money I spent getting to their representative flight examiner, including the four hundred I paid him.

I did meet or exceed every single one of their demands along the way, at a cost to me of around forty thousand dollars. Then when it came time for them to meet their end of it, they furnished me with a bogus DPI.

I had to cross every "T" and dot every "I", yet they apparently felt they were not responsible to do much of anything. They could check me in infinite detail, yet not bother at all with their own people.

I have clearly been had, along with 699 other pilots, by the employees of a completely indifferent and uncaring government agency.

I don't know if I could find legal representation on a contingency or pro bono basis to go after them or not, but consider this my first solicitation for it.

I'm wondering if their might be something in it somewhere that the ACLU might want to latch onto?

-John

John,
Am I looking at this the wrong way? From what I have read all you need to do is a 709 flight. Nothing was said about retraining, hiring a CFI, or even taking the written again. I would assume they will ask you some questions like you would have on a checkride, and then do a flight, but other than that, why are you assuming they are going to make you do anything else. Rentals are at most a few hundred dollars figuring a 2 hour flight. The 709 inspector cannot charge. The studying, I will be more than happy to send you my books at no charge.

Think about it, it may not be as bad as you think and with the support on this forum I am sure others will be be willing to help you out as well.

Doug

 

[comanchepilot]

Yep - and a small claims action against Edward Lane reimburses the Examinee for the their direct operating expenses of the aircraft used in the test. If it costs the examinee $400 to rent the airplane and take the time off work - then thats the direct damage. Even $400 times 700 people is only $280,000. I would think that the CFI insurance will cover that- except for the intentional action exclusion the policy probably has.

John,
Am I looking at this the wrong way? From what I have read all you need to do is a 709 flight. Nothing was said about retraining, hiring a CFI, or even taking the written again. I would assume they will ask you some questions like you would have on a checkride, and then do a flight, but other than that, why are you assuming they are going to make you do anything else. Rentals are at most a few hundred dollars figuring a 2 hour flight. The 709 inspector cannot charge. The studying, I will be more than happy to send you my books at no charge.

Think about it, it may not be as bad as you think and with the support on this forum I am sure others will be be willing to help you out as well.

Doug

 

[Witmo]

Another way is for EVERY pilot under the control of the LAS FSDO to call in for a private pilot 709 ride. While you can't MAKE them give you a ride you CAN overwhelm them in an organized pilot protest. Its like if EVERYONE pled not guilty to their traffic tickets the system would collapse under its own weight.

The FSDO will simply schedule the rides at their convenience. I bet the letter says something like you have x days from receipt of this letter to contact this office and schedule a checkride or suspension of your certificate will ensue. They've sent similar letters to thousands of mechanics and haven't been "overwhelmed."

 

[John Baker]

.....

 

[John Baker]

John - pro bono is one thought - but contingency is another - and what will you be out? Direct damages? You simply can not sue a government agency for insufficient supervision of its staff. You can try - but the easy cause of action is not available.

The issue as I see it is that if anyone leads a class action against the FAA and makes public their incompetence and improper [as in time and talent] evaluation or supervision of the DPE the agency will turn on that person like a wolverine. The person who needs to be the lead plaintiff is a 30 year healthy black female who is an excellent natural pilot who can pass anything they throw at her and do the skills to PTS over and over again.

Not sure any of those 700 fit that spec. You are not the right person for lead. Even though your fact set seems to beg for it.

The FAA knows that 650 of the 700 likely would have passed anyway - and subjecting all 700 to a test is just a knee jerk bureaucratic reaction.

Now - the way is for one person to bring 700 counts agains the DPE. Does he have insurance? Not enough probably. HE needs to be able to document which guys he passed without proper satisfaction of the PTS so that the other 650 guys can go back to their lives. FAA does not CARE about the 700 - because they can force anyone back for a ride at will. They have ZERO incentive to make it work for the pilots. So they made no offers to Lane to drop a dime on the few he might have pencil whipped.

It is unfair and it is the nature of the bureaucracy. Now - the pilots blll of rights should help here - you can ASK for the data and the supporting information - and you should. The problem is that 44709 lets them ask for a retest of any one at any time. So they can exercise their discretion in the face of what may not seem fair.

......

 

[Mike_Flys]

The FSDO will simply schedule the rides at their convenience. I bet the letter says something like you have x days from receipt of this letter to contact this office and schedule a checkride or suspension of your certificate will ensue. They've sent similar letters to thousands of mechanics and haven't been "overwhelmed."

The letter states 10 days to call, 30 days to retest.
Extensions will be allotted for some circumstances

 

[zaitcev]

Yep - and a small claims action against Edward Lane reimburses the Examinee for the their direct operating expenses of the aircraft used in the test.

A legal action against the innocent man is even more DBag move than Nick calling him "DBag" on forums.

 

[comanchepilot]

A legal action against the innocent man is even more DBag move than Nick calling him "DBag" on forums.

Perhaps -

Why should a client be required to bear the expense of being retested?

This is basic fairness for the examineee. The examinee paid $XXX for a practical test. The DPE is offering his services to the examinee on the basis that the DPE is competent and qualified and properly certified to do the test. The facts end up that he is not. Seems like a basic issue here.

The FAA has gone off the deep end [Bob Hoover] before. And been proven wrong [Bob Hoover] before. In this case- it simply cannot be as simply as Pilot A signed up for the airplane and Pilot B flew the airplane so there is no record of Pilot B ever taking the test in an airplane.

I took my Private in my own airplane. There was no written record anywhere of the airplane flying that day. All that existed is an entry in my logbook of flying the airplane that day. So according to the FAA as described above- I did not take the test and my examiner did not examine me. Right?

There is more here. Its like the stolen airplane thread. Flying and especially eval and standards, is about paperwork. If Mr. Lane failed to keep proper records - and proper records are required to be kept - then the FAA has technical point concerning these rides. It has nothing to do with Mr. Lane's flying or instructing ability. It has to do with his paperwork practices. So why should the examinee bear the expense of renting an airplane for another check ride when he already paid for one?

 

[SkyHog]

A legal action against the innocent man is even more DBag move than Nick calling him "DBag" on forums.

You have information that he is an innocent man? Because i have evidence (in the form of a letter from the FAA sent to hundreds of pilots) that says he is not.

 

[FlyerQ]

The FAA Order regarding Mr. Lane was issued over two months ago, and the FAA will not be receptive to any objections to its provisions. If your last practical test was with him, and you haven't met any of the mitigating provisions, they are going to take back any privileges granted to you on the basis of the practical test from Mr. Lane until you are retested. If you read the order, you'll see they are already preparing for a massive wave of retests at the FSDO involved. The only good news is that you will not in the interim lose any privileges you had before you flew with him.

Here is the Order.
http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N 8900.194.pdf

Ron,

Do you know anything about (SEED)?

"As a result of a Special Emphasis Evaluation Designee (SEED)"

Am I to understand the DPE is the evaluation designee and this order involves some (real or perceived) failure regarding special emphasis areas?

If so, is it necessarily empirically observed (i.e. witness testimony he didn't properly cover an area) or could it be imputed (i.e. a pattern of error from pilots he granted certificates)?

Thanks

 

[wabower]

Ready, fire, aim isn't reserved for dysfunctional militias.

A legal action against the innocent man is even more DBag move than Nick calling him "DBag" on forums.

 

[John Baker]

......

 

[TMetzinger]

What is actually involved with this so called re-test? Is it a full blown check ride or is it just flying around with someone from the FSDO so they can assure themselves you know how to make an airplane go and you are familiar with the pertinent rules and regs.?

-John

That should be spelled out in the letter. Assuming you get one, there may be details there. If not, when you schedule the appointment, ask the inspector to call you, and you can discuss it with him.

My GUESS is that since the problem is that the FAA thinks your checkride may have been incomplete or not conducted to PT standards. So you might expect to do any of the checkride tasks. Treat it like a full ride and you'll be prepared for anything.

By contrast (for general information) if the 709 ride is after an incident/accident, it MAY (at the discretion of the inspector) focus on tasks related to the causal factors of the incident/accident. This is based on anecdotal evidence from folks who've taken 709 rides and not on any perusal of FAA guidance on the subject.

 

[MBDiagMan]

I have to think about this some more. There must be some recourse when a government agency deliberately bamboozles the public out of their hard earned time and money. Even if their representative is just a subcontractor, they are still responsible for putting him in that position of authority.

Myself, I think after two years of being awarded my license, for me to go back through it all would be prohibitively expensive. Hiring a CFI, renting an airplane, studying for the oral. I would also have to take the written over as well, since it's been more than 24 months since I last took it.

It would be pretty much starting from scratch other than flight experience.

I'm guessing around ten thousand dollars total. Even if they did pay for all of it, since the FAA can deny my medical, they would weasel out of it by making it so I can't fly.

I guess what I should go after is the money I spent getting to their representative flight examiner, including the four hundred I paid him.

I did meet or exceed every single one of their demands along the way, at a cost to me of around forty thousand dollars. Then when it came time for them to meet their end of it, they furnished me with a bogus DPI.

I had to cross every "T" and dot every "I", yet they apparently felt they were not responsible to do much of anything. They could check me in infinite detail, yet not bother at all with their own people.

I have clearly been had, along with 699 other pilots, by the employees of a completely indifferent and uncaring government agency.

I don't know if I could find legal representation on a contingency or pro bono basis to go after them or not, but consider this my first solicitation for it.

I'm wondering if their might be something in it somewhere that the ACLU might want to latch onto?

-John

This is what popped in my head when I first started reading this thread. It would seem that the word "designated" should play into it somewhere. WHO designated him?