Letter of Discontinuance for different endorsement wording

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

frcabot

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Feb 4, 2014
Messages
779
Display Name
Display name:
frcabot
Question for you folks out there.

DPE discontinued checkride because endorsement read "I have given xxx flight training in accordance with 14 CFR 61.39(a)(6) in preparation for a xxx practical test within the preceding 60 days and find him to be proficient to pass the test and have satisfactory knowledge of the subject areas in which the applicant was shown to be deficient by his airman knowledge test."


The FAR now reads "has received and logged training time within 2 calendar months preceding the month of application in preparation for the practical test."

So in other words, the FAR actually grants MORE time than my endorsement provided (2 calendar months preceding vs. 60 days -- and we're in July).

My logbook also clearly shows training within the past 2 months, and even within this month.

Nevertheless, the DPE discontinued because he said the endorsement didn't match the exact wording in the FARs. He would not accept an e-mailed or faxed endorsement from my instructor. And now he wants another $350, on top of a $550 checkride fee.

I'm pretty peeved about this. What do you think I should do here? Was he in the right? In the wrong? Would I be justified stopping payment? Etc.
 
Not an instructor, but that's bull****.

WTF. Already I know I'm not using the same DPE again. Someone's going to get more of my money, but it's not this guy. I'm assuming this was caught way early in the process, so it's not like he's out much time.
 
Also, he made me correct all my times and resubmit another 8710 because he claimed I could not log dual time in a complex as PIC before I had my complex sign-off but after I had my ASEL license. This seems conclusively disproven by the Herman interpretation letter, available here. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org...2009/herman - (2009) legal interpretation.pdf

He also claimed I needed signatures from safety pilots even though the FAR requires only the name of the safety pilot (see FAR 61.51 ("name of a safety pilot, if required")). And he wants to bill me at an additional $120/hr for spending three hours incorrectly "correcting" the times in my logbook, although my understanding is that a DPE only needs to check that one meets the minimum requirements, and I exceeded the requirements by numerous hours. (See 61.51(a)(2) -- person must only document "aeronautical experience used to meet the requirements for a certificate, rating, or flight review..."). Also, the 8710 form itself states that the examiner is only required to certify: "I have personally reviewed this applicant’s pilot logbook and/or training record, and I certify that the individual meets the applicable requirements of 14 CFR Part 61 for the certificate or rating sought." In other words, there is no requirement that the DPE inspect every single flight the applicant has ever made (let alone billing the applicant for that time -- ridiculous!).
 
Last edited:
Mistake Not... said:
Not an instructor, but that's bull****.

WTF. Already I know I'm not using the same DPE again. Someone's going to get more of my money, but it's not this guy. I'm assuming this was caught way early in the process, so it's not like he's out much time.
Click to expand...

Ya, I think I'd be pretty justified stopping payment on the check, but wanted to gauge feedback from the community before I pulled that card.
 
frcabot said:
Also, he made me correct all my times and resubmit another 8710 because he claimed I could not log dual time in a complex as PIC before I had my complex sign-off but after I had my ASEL license.
Click to expand...

BS.

frcabot said:
And he wants to bill me at an additional $120/hr
Click to expand...

1) Stop the check
2) Write a letter to his supervising FSDO.
 
So if you were dumb enough to pay the initial fee, the retest fee and the additional hours for the editing, you'd be at $1260.

Run, don't walk. Tell everyone you know. Make sure your instructor knows not to send anyone else to this guy.
 
I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story on this one. It sounds like you did something to irritate the examiner and he picked you apart because of it.

Did you jerk him around? It might be a problem with your instructor too. If he has a history of sending applicants to a checkride unprepared this may be the result. I know there are a few instructors around here that I'd have a discussion with if I were an examiner.
 
mondtster said:
I'd be interested to hear the other side of the story on this one. It sounds like you did something to irritate the examiner and he picked you apart because of it.

Did you jerk him around? It might be a problem with your instructor too. If he has a history of sending applicants to a checkride unprepared this may be the result. I know there are a few instructors around here that I'd have a discussion with if I were an examiner.
Click to expand...
Didn't do anything. Sat there and said yes sir no sir. My instructor has never sent anyone up with him and wasn't familiar with him. He did not strike me as a warm and friendly kind of guy. Not sure what there is to pick apart -- and how would that affect erroneous stuff like complex PIC and safety pilot? I think with the guy's fee structure he has a huge financial incentive to discontinue/fail people and nitpick (after all, he charges $350 for discontinuances and retests and $120/hr for 'paperwork' stuff) and so that's exactly what he does.
 
...some of these guys have built up quite a racket with very few checks and balances it seems. My DPE failed me because he didn't like the way our ELT inspection was written in our logbook. I had our A&P/AI on the phone (who had just completed the annual the month prior) vouching for it and willing to fax something to the FBO endorsing the work. I even volunteered to have a shop next door go ahead and do another ELT inspection while we did the oral and he wouldn't let me do that. Ironically, he said he wasn't even going to let me leave the airport because my plane was not airworthy and that I was going to have to call the FSDO to get a ferry permit to get home. I was like, you have got to be kidding me dude. That's a way to give a new PPL candidate a great experience!! :mad2:

Nope, he failed me...not even a discontinuance. THe lady who runs my school used to be a DPE and I told her the story when I got back. She couldn't believe it. She said, especially for PPL rides, nitpicky stuff happens all the time. She'd say, "I'm going to step out for a bit and get some coffee or something and when I come back in, we'll go back over the papework..." with advice of course on what the person should do to get the stuff squared away. Nothing worse than having someone start their flying experience/career with some bureaucratic a-hole crap like this.

I thought about making a stink with the FSDO...but I played nice...came back (we did the oral at least the first trip and of course he charged me again giving me $100 off what he originally charged) and the flying was uneventful and I decided not to make a decision until after I cooled off.

So, counting the gas and 2 payments my PPL checkride cost me about $700 and two days off from work.

My DPE is booked out 2 months in advance and doing 2 rides a day on every day he is available to do them (I know he does at least 3 days a week @ $350+ a ride...).

It is what it is I guess. If I were you I'd be ****ed...I've been there. That dude definitely won't get my IFR ride business, that's for sure.

If I were you (and there isn't a very opposite flip side to the story we aren't getting) I'd stop the payment and run not walk to the FSDO.
 
Last edited:
They might be scamming to get more $$$ out of students and chopping up the profits.
 
BG305 said:
They might be scamming to get more $$$ out of students and chopping up the profits.
Click to expand...

If you're suggesting that my CFI is in on it with the DPE, I don't think so. My CFI was pretty shocked. He offered to send in a faxed endorsement or e-mailed endorsement but DPE insisted on "original ink" endorsement. He also asked another DPE who was equally shocked at the nitpick.
 
AC 61-65E CHG1

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-65E_CHG_1.pdf

The original 65E doesn't even have that endorsement listed. The new CHG1 has it listed under Instrument Rating endorsements.

The new CHG1 order still states in Paragraph 10 - Perquisites for Practical Test that the student "...logged the required flight time/training in preparation for the practical test within 60 days preceding that date..."

Plus the AC states in the Purpose that this is Recommend guidance for standardization of endorsements. It states that the endorsement is valid as long as the instructor includes the needed information in a legible manner.

So I'd for one avoid that dude again. Two I would called the FSDO and have a talk with them.
 
ARFlyer said:
AC 61-65E CHG1


So I'd for one avoid that dude again. Two I would called the FSDO and have a talk with them.
Click to expand...

3- I would spread the word on this guy. If he is looking to screw over pilots, he won't last long. Aviation is a relatively small community. And love the word gets out he will catch on.
 
frcabot said:
He offered to send in a faxed endorsement or e-mailed endorsement but DPE insisted on "original ink" endorsement. He also asked another DPE who was equally shocked at the nitpick.
Click to expand...

That's just dumb. I have several endorsements in my logbook that are preprinted labels.

I had a screwed up endorsement and an 8710 form when I went to take my CFI ride at the FSDO. All the inspector did was call our Chief Instructor, who signed me off, and had him send a updated 8710. The endorsement was fixed by marking out a transposed FAR number with the correct one.

Jeez, when I did my CFI retake with another inspector, he didn't even know it was a retake; until he was filling out my temporary certificate.
 
frcabot said:
Question for you folks out there.

DPE discontinued checkride because endorsement read "I have given xxx flight training in accordance with 14 CFR 61.39(a)(6) in preparation for a xxx practical test within the preceding 60 days and find him to be proficient to pass the test and have satisfactory knowledge of the subject areas in which the applicant was shown to be deficient by his airman knowledge test."


The FAR now reads "has received and logged training time within 2 calendar months preceding the month of application in preparation for the practical test."

So in other words, the FAR actually grants MORE time than my endorsement provided (2 calendar months preceding vs. 60 days -- and we're in July).

My logbook also clearly shows training within the past 2 months, and even within this month.

Nevertheless, the DPE discontinued because he said the endorsement didn't match the exact wording in the FARs. He would not accept an e-mailed or faxed endorsement from my instructor. And now he wants another $350, on top of a $550 checkride fee.

I'm pretty peeved about this. What do you think I should do here? Was he in the right? In the wrong? Would I be justified stopping payment? Etc.
Click to expand...

I would go to the FSDO and get their take on it. If they are good with the endorsement as written, then sue the DPE in small claims.
 
frcabot said:
Ya, I think I'd be pretty justified stopping payment on the check, but wanted to gauge feedback from the community before I pulled that card.
Click to expand...

You're liable for three times and jail time if he takes it to the law and you lose.
 
And people want to know why GA is dying... Stories like this make me want to sell and take up boating.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Henning said:
You're liable for three times and jail time if he takes it to the law and you lose.
Click to expand...
Actually no. First it would depend on state law but second, assuming you're referring to California, there's an exception for good faith disputes, win or lose. It only applies to insufficient funds or bounced checks without reason.


See cal civ code 1719
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and (2), a person shall not be
liable for the service charge, costs to mail the written demand, or
treble damages if he or she stops payment in order to resolve a good
faith dispute with the payee. The payee is entitled to the service
charge, costs to mail the written demand, or treble damages only upon
proving by clear and convincing evidence that there was no good
faith dispute, as defined in subdivision (b).
 
I've had a bad experience with a DPE before. Tell everyone at the airport how you feel. Word gets around quick.

Another DPE I tested with noticed an error in one of my logbook endorsements too. The DPE simply told me to bring it up with my instructor the next time I see him. No discontinuation.
 
alexgeo said:
Another DPE I tested with noticed an error in one of my logbook endorsements too. The DPE simply told me to bring it up with my instructor the next time I see him. No discontinuation.
Click to expand...

If the OP's story is true (and I suppose we have no idea that it is), then it's absurd and bad for aviation. I'd be all over the FSDO if that happened to me. I remember my private DPE being a very friendly type there to make sure I was a safe pilot and offer tips and advice where applicable. My IFR guy wasn't as warm, but he wasn't nit picky -- the school couldn't find the mx logs for our plane that morning and he said he'd done enough checkrides with the school to know the plane was safe and he'd look at them another day (I doubt he did).

Of course, the second DPE also told me IFR currency only applies when carrying passengers :)confused:) so I can relate to DPE's not being as familiar with the FARs as we might expect....
 
First of all, relax. You've got all the facts on your side. As a former DPE I couldn't believe this happened--and I couldn't stand reading any more than the first few posts. Calmly call the FSDO and speak to the facility manager. Stop payment on the check and consider writing you congressman if the conversation doesn't go well. Don't be angry during the call, it won't help evoke sympathy, but may cause the manager to feel the need to defend the DPE. The facts are with you, don't overplay your hand. I'm sure all will be fine once you make your case.

dtuuri
 
Sounds like this DPE has a scam going.

There's DPEs around here that have their own, personal, "special emphasis" areas that result in automatic checkride busts. But those are usually based on accidents or deaths that could have been prevented, including former students/friends of the DPE, or former check-ride students. I understand having a hard line there.

The 4 DPEs I've had on my checkrides were each as much teacher as examiner. They'd push and prod until I met the knowledge requirement then push even further until there was some (understandable and acceptable) hole in my knowledge -- then go into the why's and theory behind it. Since it was a checkride situation for me each time, you can be damn sure I remembered ever syllable of their teaching and have never forgot it since, even many years later.*

The dude you ran into is a clown. Follow Henning's advice: get the official word from on-high at the FSDO, if it differs, sue in small claims to get his considerable fee back, then post a copy of the judgment on every FBO bulletin board you come across in your area. Mail the FSDO a copy as well, framed.

* - My instrument checkride took the cake for instructing during an examination. We meet at 8am for the oral and checkride. It was 200OVC with a forecast to burn off by 10am. So we do the logbooks, etc. and start the oral. At 10am we're ready to go fly but it's still 200OVC and the examiner suggests a little more Q&A until it burns off. At noon we step out to check again. Still OVC and low. He suggests we go to lunch. So we head to a little cafe where there's a little small talk but mostly he keeps working in IR question after question. We get back to the airport around 1pm and it's still OVC. We do some more Q&A waiting on the burn-off that's still forecasted. At 4pm he finally decides I've had enough oral questions and we'll watch for weather to finish the checkride. It took 21 days additional for either non-overcast, non-icing, or something similar to get the ride out of the way. But that 8 hours of Q&A was something I'd never forget. He just kept going deeper and deeper and deeper on IR subject after subject until he found a gap in my knowledge and would then go into teaching mode. I have rarely been so mentally exhausted as I was at the end of that day because I never knew if I was still good or just one wrong question away from a bust. (FWIW, on the actual checkride day there wasn't a cloud in the sky or a puff of wind -- it was the perfect flying day.)
 
Last edited:
dtuuri said:
First of all, relax. You've got all the facts on your side. As a former DPE I couldn't believe this happened--and I couldn't stand reading any more than the first few posts. Calmly call the FSDO and speak to the facility manager. Stop payment on the check and consider writing you congressman if the conversation doesn't go well. Don't be angry during the call, it won't help evoke sympathy, but may cause the manager to feel the need to defend the DPE. The facts are with you, don't overplay your hand. I'm sure all will be fine once you make your case.

dtuuri
Click to expand...
:yeahthat:
Good luck.
 
Sounds like you had a heck of a good IR ride Marty. Typically three questions in any line is a pass on an oral.
 
Well, he was quick. He deposited the check immediately before the stop payment had time to take effect. So looks like small claims it is.
 
frcabot said:
Well, he was quick. He deposited the check immediately before the stop payment had time to take effect. So looks like small claims it is.
Click to expand...


You can still stop the payment. The bank will withdraw the funds from his account and give it back you. Unless he doesn't have a bank account.
 
Zeldman said:
You can still stop the payment. The bank will withdraw the funds from his account and give it back you. Unless he doesn't have a bank account.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately my bank already withdrew the funds from my own account. So I think that's unlikely.
 
My DPE wouldn't even accept my check until he had verified my hours, endorsements, and maintenance logs. Sounds like you got a real jerk.
 
Your DPE doesn't like your CFI.
 
You should not have received a Letter of Discontinuance in this situation since the practical test never should have officially started if there was an issue of eligibility. If that's what you received and why you received it, the DPE erred, and the matter should be referred to the DPE's POI at the FSDO for resolution.

As for the fee, if in fact you showed up without being legally eligible, the DPE is within his rights to keep the fee since you wasted his time and denied him the opportunity to schedule someone else in the time block. If the DPE erred on your eligibility (i.e., he was wrong about you being ineligible and should have allowed you to start the test), he should give you the test ASAP without further fee. But you first need to work with FSDO to determine whether or not you were eligible for the test with the endorsement as written.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
You should not have received a Letter of Discontinuance in this situation since the practical test never should have officially started if there was an issue of eligibility. If that's what you received and why you received it, the DPE erred, and the matter should be referred to the DPE's POI at the FSDO for resolution.

As for the fee, if in fact you showed up without being legally eligible, the DPE is within his rights to keep the fee since you wasted his time and denied him the opportunity to schedule someone else in the time block. If the DPE erred on your eligibility (i.e., he was wrong about you being ineligible and should have allowed you to start the test), he should give you the test ASAP without further fee. But you first need to work with FSDO to determine whether or not you were eligible for the test with the endorsement as written.
Click to expand...
I sent a letter of interpretation request to the FAA Chief Counsel. That's a better way to get an accurate answer. But let's suppose theoretically that I was ineligible -- why not accept a faxed or e-mailed endorsement which my CFI was willing to provide on the spot? What reg says it needs to be "original ink"?
 
Ron Levy said:
You should not have received a Letter of Discontinuance in this situation since the practical test never should have officially started if there was an issue of eligibility. If that's what you received and why you received it, the DPE erred, and the matter should be referred to the DPE's POI at the FSDO for resolution.

As for the fee, if in fact you showed up without being legally eligible, the DPE is within his rights to keep the fee since you wasted his time and denied him the opportunity to schedule someone else in the time block. If the DPE erred on your eligibility (i.e., he was wrong about you being ineligible and should have allowed you to start the test), he should give you the test ASAP without further fee. But you first need to work with FSDO to determine whether or not you were eligible for the test with the endorsement as written.
Click to expand...
I received a letter that said the following: "On this date after 3.25 hours correcting, verifying and qualifying your flight records [see explanation above] we had to discontinue your practical test qualification portion due to none a qualifying endorsement [sic]. Your endorsements that were valid and your application are valid for 60 days from the time of their individual execution(s)."

Obviously this is not an official FAA "letter of discontinuance."

Also, included in that 3.25 hours was him spending 45 minutes on the phone with IACRA technical support because he didn't know what the item that said "Letter of lessee not required" on the examiner checklist meant. He claimed he had never seen such an item. And even though it said "not required," it was apparently a big hang-up for him.

Ugh, what a total waste of time.
 
frcabot said:
I sent a letter of interpretation request to the FAA Chief Counsel. That's a better way to get an accurate answer.
Click to expand...
Not on this issue, since the issue is really an FAA Order (8900.2) not the regulation itself. Even if your endorsement wasn't legal, the DPE erred by issuing a Letter of Discontinuance. The FSDO really needs to be notified so it can fix this problem now rather than four months from now when you get that interpretation from AGC-200.

But let's suppose theoretically that I was ineligible -- why not accept a faxed or e-mailed endorsement which my CFI was willing to provide on the spot? What reg says it needs to be "original ink"?
Click to expand...
The reg that says "in a form acceptable to the Administrator". There's an Advisory Circular which explains what's acceptable -- and fax/email aren't on the list.
 
frcabot said:
I received a letter that said the following: "On this date after 3.25 hours correcting, verifying and qualifying your flight records [see explanation above] we had to discontinue your practical test qualification portion due to none a qualifying endorsement [sic]. Your endorsements that were valid and your application are valid for 60 days from the time of their individual execution(s)."

Obviously this is not an official FAA "letter of discontinuance."

Also, included in that 3.25 hours was him spending 45 minutes on the phone with IACRA technical support because he didn't know what the item that said "Letter of lessee not required" on the examiner checklist meant. He claimed he had never seen such an item. And even though it said "not required," it was apparently a big hang-up for him.

Ugh, what a total waste of time.
Click to expand...
More reason to bring this to the FSDO's attention. This is a Flight Standards issue, not a Chief Counsel issue.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not on this issue, since the issue is really an FAA Order (8900.2) not the regulation itself. Even if your endorsement wasn't legal, the DPE erred by issuing a Letter of Discontinuance. The FSDO really needs to be notified so it can fix this problem now rather than four months from now when you get that interpretation from AGC-200.

The reg that says "in a form acceptable to the Administrator". There's an Advisory Circular which explains what's acceptable -- and fax/email aren't on the list.
Click to expand...
Well the order says: "The applicant's logbook must contain an endorsement from an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant has received and logged training within the 60 calendar-days preceding the date of the application in preparation for the practical test."

That's what I had. See paragraphs 24(d) and 76(c) in Chapter 7. As someone else pointed out, the circular also contains the 60 day language in paragraph 10: "PREREQUISITES FOR PRACTICAL TESTS. Except as provided by § 61.39(c), each applicant must have received an endorsement from an authorized instructor who certified that the applicant received and logged the required flight time/training in preparation for the practical test within 60 days preceding the date of the test and has been found proficient to pass the practical test." http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/AC_61-65E_CHG_1.pdf

But his objection was based on 61.39(a)(6)(i) which lays out what endorsements an applicant must have to be eligible. So that is a matter of regulation interpretation which the chief counsel can render an opinion on.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top