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

flyingcheesehead said:
Disagree - Based on AOPA's track record, they'd be very vocal about it *if they were successful at getting something done.* I don't think they trumpet their failures very often. :no:
Click to expand...
Maybe AOPA's track record from years ago. NOT now.

AOPA has truly become a self-licking ice cream cone.

With the direction that they are currently heading, the only way they will become relevant again is if they truly recognize the dissatisfaction of the community they are supposed to be supporting and turn the ship about.

But as long as Craig Fuller fails to acknowledge that dissatisfaction and plows ahead on the current course.....well, not much future left.
 
John Baker said:
.... my guess is that many of the members of this board are bureaucrats, since they are the few left who have a good enough job that they can afford aviation as a pastime. -John
Click to expand...

Really John? Saw some other posters tell you as well that many of us are self employed ... you know, those small businesses that the govt. keeps promising to help so that small business growth will rescue the current financial mess they've created.

You've been quite the whiner. Sure you got a bum deal having to re-test ... so big goat turds! You should be able to pass PTS flying requirements easily if you've owned your own AC. Stalls were only exciting in the first 50 hours ... you're at approx 400 now (as am I). Can you not perform steep turns, turns about a point, "S" turns, all phases of landings, VOR, pilotage, picking and calculating an alternate? Heck, half of those probably occur on practically every long XC. The oral should be the only *drag* and that shouldn't take more than a couple few hours to re-prep for .... I think the "re-test" issue is only the tip of the ice berg with you. Personally, I plan on flying until they tell me I can't ... and that would include gliders even.
 
I had Eddy for my private in 2003. All I can say WOW!
 
danhagan said:
Really John? Saw some other posters tell you as well that many of us are self employed ... you know, those small businesses that the govt. keeps promising to help so that small business growth will rescue the current financial mess they've created.

You've been quite the whiner. Sure you got a bum deal having to re-test ... so big goat turds! You should be able to pass PTS flying requirements easily if you've owned your own AC. Stalls were only exciting in the first 50 hours ... you're at approx 400 now (as am I). Can you not perform steep turns, turns about a point, "S" turns, all phases of landings, VOR, pilotage, picking and calculating an alternate? Heck, half of those probably occur on practically every long XC. The oral should be the only *drag* and that shouldn't take more than a couple few hours to re-prep for .... I think the "re-test" issue is only the tip of the ice berg with you. Personally, I plan on flying until they tell me I can't ... and that would include gliders even.
Click to expand...
.......
 
Last edited:
John Baker said:
The vindictiveness of an angry bureaucrat should never be underestimated. That was Eddies biggest mistake.
Click to expand...
John,

You keep complaining about "bureaucrats", but they really have nothing to do with it. The problem is not limited to those in the government. The issue is a specific sector of humankind known as a-holes. They are found everywhere. Government, the military, the private sector, education.....even churches and charities are not immune. They are like cockroaches and have existed since the beginning of time.

Yes, like any organization, there are plenty of worthless a-holes in the FAA.....but there are a whole lot of folks there as well who really do care.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
danhagan said:
Really John? Saw some other posters tell you as well that many of us are self employed ... you know, those small businesses that the govt. keeps promising to help so that small business growth will rescue the current financial mess they've created.
Click to expand...

Besides being self employed (meaning I work harder for every dollar than ever) I drive a 20 year old truck (paid for) and belong to a couple flying clubs.
The 1956 Cessna 172 I fly in one of them is $65 hour wet. Least expensive plane to fly at VGT.

When people find out I'm a pilot and say isn't that expensive. I tell them instead of a monthly car payment I fly air planes.
;)
 
I'm sorry, but has the issue now been exposed, or do we continue to pull speculations out of our nether regions to justify ****y whining about bureaucrats in general?
 
Don't worry John,

There's plenty of civil disobedience against silly bureaucratic rules going on. Probably just not as much in aviation vs many other aspects of life.

Aviators are enamored with rules. It's a lifestyle choice. It's why we say we have to catch new pilots young. By the time someone is successful at 50, they show up at a flight school and hear everyone talking about rules, rules, rules, and they walk out and buy a 4-wheeler or two for the family. They might even remove the government mandated air pollution controls for a few more horsepower. Or re-"chip" their diesel pickup truck.

Or whatever. Tons of that kind of stuff going on, John. Be of good cheer, they can try to regulate everything, but they really can't ever get all the way there.

My city says its illegal to catch rainwater in barrels to water the flowers. Seriously. That's not my water, according to them. And no, I don't have rain barrels but know plenty who do.

Fastest way to kill bureaucracy? De-fund it. The two most powerful words in controlling the scope of American government today: "Unfunded mandate".

If there's no inspectors to look for rain barrels, the mandate is super-effectively killed.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I'm sorry, but has the issue now been exposed, or do we continue to pull speculations out of our nether regions to justify ****y whining about bureaucrats in general?
Click to expand...

If the FAA bureaucracy is allowed to whine about hundreds of pilots in a way that really hurts them, please explain why you think those pilots don't get to return the favor?

(Anyway, I wasn't aware that the FAA's order to reexamine hundreds of pilots who have not been claimed to have violated any specific regulations or shown specifically by their actions to otherwise be unqualified was an issue that was mere speculation.)
 
denverpilot said:
My city says its illegal to catch rainwater in barrels to water the flowers. Seriously. That's not my water, according to them. And no, I don't have rain barrels but know plenty who do.
Click to expand...

Wow! And you complain about California!
 
N801BH said:
We try to keep any and all laws to a bare minimum here in Wyoming.:yes:

As for the link you posted........ I am stunned that something like that is on the books anywhere....:eek::eek::eek::mad:
Click to expand...

Besides Colorado, I'm aware of similar laws in Utah, Oregon, and Washington. Almost certainly other states since water ownership laws go back at least to the Roman Empire. Probably best to start another thread on this.
 
Wow. I'm shocked that they don't bill you for using State owned rain water on your lawn. Just think of the additional revenue. Then when they want more tax revenue -- just ban roofs, thereby increasing the square footage of precipitate irrigation tax.

You can't see it from there, but I'm shaking my head sadly.
 
I went back and deleted all of my posts that were detrimental to the FAA. I'd appreciate it if those of you that quoted me would do the same.

Thanks

-John
 
Colorado has to get all that run-off into the fields of eastern CO before it can get to Kansas. they can't afford to waste any on Nate's flowers.
 
N801BH said:
You are joking.. right ?:dunno:
Click to expand...
No, he's not.

In Colorado and other Western states Water is practically the same as currency, and they have very detailed rules about the ownership of water.

edit: I see I'm late to the party with this response. Move along, nothing to see here.
 
Last edited:
Jim Logajan said:
(Anyway, I wasn't aware that the FAA's order to reexamine hundreds of pilots who have not been claimed to have violated any specific regulations or shown specifically by their actions to otherwise be unqualified was an issue that was mere speculation.)
Click to expand...

But the concern over Lane which triggered the action certainly is, at least by those in this thread.

And we know that Congress stated in the Public Act that is now codified in section 44709 that there does not need to be cause for reexamination, only for any subsequent action based on the results of that reexamination.

I'm personally suprpised that the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" or whatever it ended up being titled did not modify the language in 44709(a), but apparently it didn't.

§44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
​
 
alaskaflyer said:
And we know that Congress stated in the Public Act that is now codified in section 44709 that there does not need to be cause for reexamination, only for any subsequent action based on the results of that reexamination.

I'm personally suprpised that the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" or whatever it ended up being titled did not modify the language in 44709(a), but apparently it didn't.
§44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.—The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
​
Click to expand...

Well consider the entire section 44709 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709 ) and suppose a pilot declines to be reexamined. The FAA then attempts to revoke that pilot's certificate or rating. The FAA has to "advise the holder of the certificate of the charges or other reasons on which the Administrator relies for the proposed action."

The pilot is allowed to appeal that proposed action to the NTSB. And the one part that the PBoR did amend of 44709 is that of the NTSB is no longer bound to apply FAA interpretations of regulations; all it now says is: "When conducting a hearing under this subsection, the Board is not bound by findings of fact of the Administrator."

The NTSB should ask, other than declining the reexamination, what charges or reasons does the FAA have that warranted the reexamination and subsequent revocation? The PBoR now makes the NTSB amost totally independent of the FAA's findings or fact and interpretations of the laws and regulations.

Lastly, the PBoR allows the pilot to file an appeal to any FAA or NTSB in a U.S. district court or court of appeals.

The FAA appears to be operating under the assumption that few to none of the hundreds of pilots affected will decline the reexamination, or if they do, that the FAA wont have to deal with hundreds of pilots appealing to the NTSB or the district courts. I doubt the FAA has the resources (or any legal basis) to successfully pursue hundreds of revocation actions winding their way through the courts.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Well consider the entire section 44709 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709 ) and suppose a pilot declines to be reexamined. The FAA then attempts to revoke that pilot's certificate or rating. The FAA has to "advise the holder of the certificate of the charges or other reasons on which the Administrator relies for the proposed action."

The pilot is allowed to appeal that proposed action to the NTSB. And the one part that the PBoR did amend of 44709 is that of the NTSB is no longer bound to apply FAA interpretations of regulations; all it now says is: "When conducting a hearing under this subsection, the Board is not bound by findings of fact of the Administrator."

The NTSB should ask, other than declining the reexamination, what charges or reasons does the FAA have that warranted the reexamination and subsequent revocation? The PBoR now makes the NTSB amost totally independent of the FAA's findings or fact and interpretations of the laws and regulations.

Lastly, the PBoR allows the pilot to file an appeal to any FAA or NTSB in a U.S. district court or court of appeals.

The FAA appears to be operating under the assumption that few to none of the hundreds of pilots affected will decline the reexamination, or if they do, that the FAA wont have to deal with hundreds of pilots appealing to the NTSB or the district courts. I doubt the FAA has the resources (or any legal basis) to successfully pursue hundreds of revocation actions winding their way through the courts.
Click to expand...

That's an interesting point. From a purely legal standpoint none of that matters, but....
 
Can someone please tell me where to find the list of students of edward lane that need to retake check ride please
 
John Baker said:
Yes there is. It occurred to me that since I have given up on flying, why am I still sticking my head on a chopping block for aviation?
Click to expand...

What chopping block? Are they going to revoke your pilot certificate twice? :confused:
 
AnaJenessa07 said:
Can someone please tell me where to find the list of students of edward lane that need to retake check ride please
Click to expand...

I work out of a tent in Nigeria so send me your credit card number or the bank routing number off your check and I will provide you with those names......:hairraise::lol:

1-800-wire-fraud
 
Palmpilot said:
What chopping block? Are they going to revoke your pilot certificate twice? :confused:
Click to expand...

Eddie Lane apparently did not fair so well with FAA politics, why would I do any better? All kinds of bad things can happen to you when bureaucrats target in on you, purely random of course, but targeted nonetheless. I'm too old to take on any more hassles, so why should I risk it?

-John
 
John Baker said:
Eddie Lane apparently did not fair so well with FAA politics, why would I do any better? All kinds of bad things can happen to you when bureaucrats target in on you, purely random of course, but targeted nonetheless. I'm too old to take on any more hassles, so why should I risk it?

-John
Click to expand...


As old as you are I wonder why you worry about any of it, just fly.
 
John Baker said:
Eddie Lane apparently did not fair so well with FAA politics, why would I do any better? All kinds of bad things can happen to you when bureaucrats target in on you, purely random of course, but targeted nonetheless. I'm too old to take on any more hassles, so why should I risk it?

-John
Click to expand...

Is there any actual evidence that this is due to "FAA politics" or is it just assumptions and innuendo?
 
Can someone please let me know where can i find a list of the students trained by edward lane that need to retake examination ?
 
AnaJenessa07 said:
Can someone please let me know where can i find a list of the students trained by edward lane that need to retake examination ?
Click to expand...
Sure!

Call the FSDO that is sponsoring this action.
Tell them what you want.
Tell them why you want it.


I just want to say "Good Luck"... We're all counting on you.

Edit: If you're worried you're one of them... check your mail at your FAA address (what's on your certificate). If you are, you should have a registered letter and/or a "regular" letter from the FSDO as well.
 
AnaJenessa07 said:
Can someone please let me know where can i find a list of the students trained by edward lane that need to retake examination ?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the list is not published to the public.
Everyone I know on the list received 2 big envelopes with the same docs.
1 certified/registered 1 not


Fly: DA40, 172, PA38, CTLS
Building Zenith CH750
KVGT
Sent from my SAMSUNG-S3 using Tapatalk 2
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
As old as you are I wonder why you worry about any of it, just fly.
Click to expand...

I guess I could have done that if I hadn't sold my airplane, but then, I've always played by the rules, and then there is the liability issue.

I can still rent a plane and go up with a buddy anytime I want, that's good enough for me.

Being in the city is not like being in the county, there are all kinds of people looking for an "atta boy" for reporting on their neighbors.

-John
 
John Baker said:
I guess I could have done that if I hadn't sold my airplane, but then, I've always played by the rules, and then there is the liability issue.

I can still rent a plane and go up with a buddy anytime I want, that's good enough for me.

Being in the city is not like being in the county, there are all kinds of people looking for an "atta boy" for reporting on their neighbors.

-John
Click to expand...

There's always PT 103 as well, doesn't get cheaper to fly than that and it's still a bunch of fun even if it's not that great for transportation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top