CFI CHECKRide... GROUNDED???

[Superpilot61]

CFI checkride today! yes i finished it and yes i passed! but a BIIGG lesson learned. always check the aircrafts inspections. and read the whole paragraphs dont just look for the word "annual" and the tach time.


here is the story:

Met my check airman at the FW FSDO this morning and we started going over the log books for the aircraft. I show him the 100 hour for the engine and he starts to read over it... he points out to me that cylinder #3 has a compression ratio of 40/80!!!! wow he must of actualy read it all! somethign i should of done... long story short he brings a few of his closst faa freinds and they thumb through my aircrafts logs... ( maybe the worst feeling in the world) they decide among themselves that the airplane is unairworthy. they said for this aircraft it must be at least 60/80 comp. ratio.. IS THIS TRUE?? they take my engine logs and tell me to call a mechanic to take a look at it and get a ferry permit issued. in other words CHECKRIDE IS OVER! i call my mechanic who did the work and turns out to be a typo in the log. they fax up the good number (70/80) and we are good to go... wow what an experiance...

Lesson learned and i will definetly pass this lesson on to students....

(sorry for MY typos here i have allready had a few "celabratory" beers)

Also anythoughts on the requirments of the comp. ratios?!?!

 

[ScottM]

Kudos and congratualtions. Do buy your mechanic one of those beers for getting that paperwork straightened out for you!!

Also anythoughts on the requirments of the comp. ratios?!?!

Where is it written that there is a min compression ration for safe flight? While I agree that a 40/80 would have raised my eyebrows and very likely would have had me grounding the aircraft, I am not sure where in the FARs that is written. Perhaps the engine manual?

 

[Superpilot61]

I am not suree where it is written.... not even sure if it IS written anywhere.. FSDO claimed it had to be 60/80 luckily it didnt get that for bc it was found out to be a typo...

 

[dmccormack]

Congratulations!

I had my airplane grounded for a "missing static wick" on my CFI Checkride.

Of course the guy was an ops inspector, so didn't have grounding authority. But I had to get a ride home, then buy another wick, have it installed, and logged.

See thread here.

 

[Jeanie]

congratulations! How wonderful.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Kudos and congratualtions. Do buy your mechanic one of those beers for getting that paperwork straightened out for you!!
Where is it written that there is a min compression ration for safe flight? While I agree that a 40/80 would have raised my eyebrows and very likely would have had me grounding the aircraft, I am not sure where in the FARs that is written. Perhaps the engine manual?

The engine maintenance manual may have provisions. If not you can go to AC43.13-1B for guidance.

Appendix D to Part 43—Scope and Detail of Items (as Applicable to the Particular Aircraft) To Be Included in Annual and 100-Hour Inspections

(3) Internal engine—for cylinder compression and for metal particles or foreign matter on screens and sump drain plugs. If there is weak cylinder compression, for improper internal condition and improper internal tolerances.

AC 43.13-1B

8-14


(i) Observe the pressure indication of
the cylinder pressure gauge. The difference
between this pressure and the pressure shown
by the regulator pressure gauge is the amount
of leakage through the cylinder. A loss in excess
of 25 percent of the input air pressure is
cause to suspect the cylinder of being defective;
however, recheck the readings after operating
the engine for at least 3 minutes to allow
for sealing of the rings with oil.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Congratulations!

I had my airplane grounded for a "missing static wick" on my CFI Checkride.

Of course the guy was an ops inspector, so didn't have grounding authority. But I had to get a ride home, then buy another wick, have it installed, and logged.

See thread here.

An Ops Inspector can ground your airplane.

 

[dmccormack]

An Ops Inspector can ground your airplane.

For a mechanical deficiency?

 

[RotorAndWing]

For a mechanical deficiency?

Yes. Depending upon the office. Guidance does allow for an Ops Inspector to issue a Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA Form 8620-1). He should coordinate this through the FSDO with an AW Inspector but the end result is the same.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes. Depending upon the office. Guidance does allow for an Ops Inspector to issue a Aircraft Condition Notice (FAA Form 8620-1). He should coordinate this through the FSDO with an AW Inspector but the end result is the same.

None of that happened. Him saying, "You can't fly this plane" with no coordination and no issuance of any paperwork was off the cuff and out of line.

 

[nosehair]

For a mechanical deficiency?

A missing static wick isn't like a low compression check, or some mechanical deficiency that a pilot would not ordinarily be responsible to know.

A static wick is a pre-flight item. Any item that a pilot can see and make a decision about is subject to an Ops Inspector's judgment.

 

[dmccormack]

A missing static wick isn't like a low compression check, or some mechanical deficiency that a pilot would not ordinarily be responsible to know.

A static wick is a pre-flight item. Any item that a pilot can see and make a decision about is subject to an Ops Inspector's judgment.

And I did make a decision -- there was no need for an additional static wick.

(And A36 uses a torque tube to connect the flaps. The wick was fastened to one flap meaning static charge from entire flap assembly had a path).

 

[poadeleted20]

In any event, the lesson should be clear -- as PIC, you are responsible for knowing whether an aircraft's maintenance records have information in them showing the aircraft isn't airworthy. This would range from something like the case at hand (40/80 is pretty well near dead, and should have been questioned before you launched) to missing AD's to overdue inspections. Further, as a CFI, you're supposed to be able to teach all that to a trainee, so if you can't get it right yourself, the FAA isn't going to let you be a CFI.

Finally, as has been said before, if you take a checkride at the FSDO, current FAA policy requires the Ops Inspector to hand the maintenance records over to an Airworthiness Inspector for review, and you can be sure that Airworthiness Inspector will find anything not quite kosher. That means you would be unwise not to go over them with a knowledgeable IA mechanic and make sure any such issues are resolved before you launch for the FSDO for the practical test.

 

[dmccormack]

Finally, as has been said before, if you take a checkride at the FSDO, current FAA policy requires the Ops Inspector to hand the maintenance records over to an Airworthiness Inspector for review, and you can be sure that Airworthiness Inspector will find anything not quite kosher. That means you would be unwise not to go over them with a knowledgeable IA mechanic and make sure any such issues are resolved before you launch for the FSDO for the practical test.

...but even if you do, there is no assurance the airplane will be deemed "airworthy" in the eyes of a rogue FAA ops inspector.

FWIW, the guy I took my checkride with is no longer with the FAA.

Imagine that.

 

[poadeleted20]

...but even if you do, there is no assurance the airplane will be deemed "airworthy" in the eyes of a rogue FAA ops inspector.

Yes, there is. If you show up at the FSDO, the Ops Inspector cannot deem the aircraft unairworthy without consulting an Airworthiness Inspector there at the office (and there is supposed to be one there on duty). Only in the field can an Ops Inspector make that determination without consultation, and then only after an attempt to consult an Airworthiness Inspector back at the office has failed. So if you go to the FSDO for a practical test, you need not fear a "rogue FAA ops inspector" grounding your airplane unless an Airworthiness Inspector agrees.

 

[tdager]

According to Continental that is not necessarily a grounding number...so depending on the situation the examiner was wrong.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes, there is. If you show up at the FSDO, the Ops Inspector cannot deem the aircraft unairworthy without consulting an Airworthiness Inspector there at the office (and there is supposed to be one there on duty). Only in the field can an Ops Inspector make that determination without consultation, and then only after an attempt to consult an Airworthiness Inspector back at the office has failed. So if you go to the FSDO for a practical test, you need not fear a "rogue FAA ops inspector" grounding your airplane unless an Airworthiness Inspector agrees.

(Where's the exasperation smilie??)

Ron... read the stuff you wrote on this very topic back when I posted about it.

The Practical was at FWQ. The Allegheny FSDO is about 20 minutes up the road near AGC, but not on the airport grounds.

When we walked out to the airplane and I preflighted (after a full review of the logs -- he was marginally interested) halfway through he said, "We can't fly this airplane?"

After a 5 minute "guess what I'm thinking game" the static wick came up.

No phone calls, no checking with maintenance (though I called my IA and he said it was ok, that didn't matter).

Then he said, "You can't fly this airplane -- it's not airworthy. Call me to reschedule when it is."

And left.

So tell me how this fits within any regime of "proper procedure?"

 

[Tom-D]

Yes, there is. If you show up at the FSDO, the Ops Inspector cannot deem the aircraft unairworthy without consulting an Airworthiness Inspector there at the office (and there is supposed to be one there on duty). Only in the field can an Ops Inspector make that determination without consultation, and then only after an attempt to consult an Airworthiness Inspector back at the office has failed. So if you go to the FSDO for a practical test, you need not fear a "rogue FAA ops inspector" grounding your airplane unless an Airworthiness Inspector agrees.

The new guidance from OKC for inspections of any aircraft prior to a Check ride, is that the aircraft will have a compliance inspection by FSDO airworthiness inspector before the Examiner can make the appointment for the ride. They've had too many ops inspectors find phoney grips and issue unairworthy tags on good aircraft.

I just went thru this with a 210 prior to a 709 ride, My PMI and one other inspector went thru the logs with a fine toothed comb, and all discrepancies found were to be repaired, and the log book sign off were to be scanned in and faxed to FSDO, before the owner could make the appointment for the ride.

 

[Tom-D]

(Where's the exasperation smilie??)

Ron... read the stuff you wrote on this very topic back when I posted about it.

The Practical was at FWQ. The Allegheny FSDO is about 20 minutes up the road near AGC, but not on the airport grounds.

When we walked out to the airplane and I preflighted (after a full review of the logs -- he was marginally interested) halfway through he said, "We can't fly this airplane?"

After a 5 minute "guess what I'm thinking game" the static wick came up.

No phone calls, no checking with maintenance (though I called my IA and he said it was ok, that didn't matter).

Then he said, "You can't fly this airplane -- it's not airworthy. Call me to reschedule when it is."

And left.

So tell me how this fits within any regime of "proper procedure?"

This was happening all too often and that is why the guidance was changed, Airworthiness is the job of the airworthiness inspector, not the ops inspector.

 

[dmccormack]

This was happening all too often and that is why the guidance was changed, Airworthiness is the job of the airworthiness inspector, not the ops inspector.

Well, that makes sense. In my case, I think the guy was just afraid to go up in a Bonanza on a windy day.

 

[poadeleted20]

The new guidance from OKC for inspections of any aircraft prior to a Check ride, is that the aircraft will have a compliance inspection by FSDO airworthiness inspector before the Examiner can make the appointment for the ride.

I'm having trouble finding that in FSIMS -- got a reference?

 

[poadeleted20]

Ron... read the stuff you wrote on this very topic back when I posted about it.

Dan..."read the stuff you wrote on this very topic back when I posted about it." You replied to a statement I made about tests at the FSDO without qualifying yours as being in regard to another situation.

 

[gismo]

Well, that makes sense. In my case, I think the guy was just afraid to go up in a Bonanza on a windy day.

I can't say for certain but I don't think that static wicks are listed anywhere in the Bonanza TCDS nor are they required by any FAR I know of. Baring that I don't think that a missing or defective wick would be an airworthy item on that plane. That said, your statement that the flaps are interconnected via a "torque tube" is incorrect. There's a separate actuator for each flap driven by a single gearmotor via separate flexible rotating shafts.

 

[dmccormack]

I can't say for certain but I don't think that static wicks are listed anywhere in the Bonanza TCDS nor are they required by any FAR I know of. Baring that I don't think that a missing or defective wick would be an airworthy item on that plane. That said, your statement that the flaps are interconnected via a "torque tube" is incorrect. There's a separate actuator for each flap driven by a single gearmotor via separate flexible rotating shafts.

Not according to the A36 IPB. My IA concurred.

 

[dmccormack]

Dan..."read the stuff you wrote on this very topic back when I posted about it." You replied to a statement I made about tests at the FSDO without qualifying yours as being in regard to another situation.

Do you actually read through threads before replying?

If you had, you would have noticed the context.

You insist that making sure the airplane is airworthy by a thorough preflight of logs, etc with a competent IA will preclude grounding.

I'm telling you -- there is NO such assurance unless the FAA inspector is there with you when you do this airworthiness scrub and concurs then and there.

None.

Now, if what Tom posted is true at all FSDOs, that might help address the rogue inspector problem.

 

[tonycondon]

in my experience there is nothing standard about flight standards.

 

[gismo]

Not according to the A36 IPB. My IA concurred.

Here's a picture the Baron parts catalog showing the gearmotor, flexshafts and actuators. I don't have the A36 parts book handy but I can't imagine that it's any different.

 

[Superpilot61]

im with dan on this one... just sayin...

 

[flyersfan31]

A static wick?

 

[dmccormack]

A static wick?

Yep. Not in the IPB, and no direct instructions on how and where to mount.

The IA said one for the flaps was sufficient since there was continuous path to ground from both side flaps. I suppose the "torque tube" comment may have been inaccurate, but the connection is clearly seen in the above post.

FWIW, there were wicks on each aileron and on each side of the elevator. IOW, plenty.

 

[RotorAndWing]

The new guidance from OKC for inspections of any aircraft prior to a Check ride, is that the aircraft will have a compliance inspection by FSDO airworthiness inspector before the Examiner can make the appointment for the ride. They've had too many ops inspectors find phoney grips and issue unairworthy tags on good aircraft.

First of all, OKC does not put out "guidance" for Inspectors, this comes from HQ in DC.

Secondly while I was in OKC I spoke with one of the Instructors that teach the GA Operations Certification course (who also use to write the PTS's) and he said there is no such "guidance" for compliance inspections on aircraft before a checkride. He did say it may be a local FSDO policy but nothing official.