poadeleted20
Deleted
- Joined
- Apr 8, 2005
- Messages
- 31,250
No, it isn't. It's a matter of a DPE not following FAA Order 8900.2, and that's an issue for the supervising FSDO. But if that's what you want to do, good luck, and I'll bow out.
Letter of Discontinuance for different endorsement wording
- Thread starter frcabot
- Start date
- Status
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,805
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
While I don't fault you for wanting to seek out the chief counsel, I am curious why the pushback to seek out assistance from the FSDO.
To me, it appears that you would hear back from them way before you would hear from the chief.
As plenty of people have pointed out, you can ask 10 different people at the same FSDO the same question and receive 10 different answers. So I'd rather get it straight from the horse's mouth. But thanks for your advice. I don't think it's going to change my course of action for the time being.
Honestly the thought of getting the FSDO involved in pretty much anything makes me cringe. I have never interacted with a FSDO directly, but from what I hear their method of operation tends not to be very consistent between different FSDOs or even within the same FSDO. So that's why.
AggieMike88
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2010
- Messages
- 20,805
- Location
- Denton, TX
- Display Name
Display name:
The original "I don't know it all" of aviation.
Okay.
The one time in needed to work with the local FSDO, my experience found the inspector very experienced and willing to successfully resolve the situation.
gov98
Pre-takeoff checklist
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 164
- Display Name
Display name:
Gov98
Okay I was all with OP, but the whole not calling the FSDO to me is weird. Here is the unit that can actually fix the problem, and he's disinterested in contacting them.
It's like the guy who tells you his ATV got stolen but he won't call the police asks you if it's right to beat the guy up if he knows who did it even asks if "I believe he has my stuff can I use force to take it back," and you're like well the law says this or that but you're like why don't you call the police... And he's like I don't want to get the police involved....and you're like why not just call the police... And it makes no sense... Until it does.
It's like the guy who tells you his ATV got stolen but he won't call the police asks you if it's right to beat the guy up if he knows who did it even asks if "I believe he has my stuff can I use force to take it back," and you're like well the law says this or that but you're like why don't you call the police... And he's like I don't want to get the police involved....and you're like why not just call the police... And it makes no sense... Until it does.
I wish that would happen when the bank of Nigeria sends me a 40 million dollar check for "ESTATE SETTLEMENT" I didn't even knew I had...:wink2:.....
Personally I would mention the DPE's name on various websites and watch him /her squirm....
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
I've said it before, The Office of the Chief Counsel must really hate the internet and forums......
The other reason I don't want to call is the same reason I haven't mentioned the guy's name or location. It may very well be that he is a well-respected DPE in his area. I don't know. I don't know him, my CFI never met or spoke with him, maybe I just had a bad experience and he's perfectly fine with 99% of other people. Maybe he is just extra cautious, perhaps to the point of being unreasonable. So I don't want to trash his reputation just because I had a bad experience. Getting his FSDO involved means giving them the guy's name, etc. I'd prefer to treat this as a private matter and try to deal with him directly. And if he won't give me a refund, then I'll consider getting the FSDO involved.
But I want to give peace a chance first, and I wanted to see whether I was on solid ground to say, "I think what you did was unnecessary and I don't think I should have to pay for that." It seems like I am, so I left the guy a VM and sent him an e-mail and we'll see what comes of it. I had rescheduled with him at the time but I am going to inform him that I don't want to continue.
Last edited:
Tell ya what, I used to eat at the roach coach with the guys from the LGB FSDO everyday, nothing to fear, mostly aviation minded people making a living.
The FSDO is where this matter belongs, if you won't take it there, then you deserve whatever result you get.
I've said it before, The Office of the Chief Counsel must really hate the internet and forums......
Actually I think internet forums like these are a great way to get to the right answer. Because people will usually point out if someone is wrong and where the information/guidance comes from. Like people here pointed out FAA Order 8900.2 and the AC61-65E which references the 60-day language, and I never would have known about those without this forum. So that was very helpful.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Example: http://www.vansairforce.com/community/archive/index.php?t-46883.html
Not sure what the eyeroll is supposed to indicate. Although I can't speak from personal experience, I have heard of and read enough stories to know that the FSDO is often not the place to go to get definitive guidance on anything, except an individual inspector's idiosyncratic practices.
See also http://www.nata.aero/data/files/GIA/faa standardization/faa_survey_results.pdf (87% of aviation businesses have experienced problems due to inconsistent or incorrect interpretations by local FAA inspectors, mainly related to flight standards).
Last edited:
James331
Ejection Handle Pulled
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2014
- Messages
- 20,309
- Display Name
Display name:
James331
Exactly, and that is the FSDO's job to deal with.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
You're depending upon a bunch of sciolist to give you guidance, usually in matters to which they really don't understand. Anyone can use google, then give you their opinion and cloak it as "interpretation" or some other official sounding BS.
These forums are filled with a bunch of misleading information. You just demonstrated that by writing a letter to the Chief Counsel on a subject that should have been handled at the FSDO level. I am willing to bet you've never stepped in a FSDO, never have spoken to an Inspector but yet through the internet you have now determined they are qualified to handle your supposed situation.
The DPE is assigned to an Operations Inspector, what's known as a POI (Principal Operations Inspector). This is the person you should go talk to in regards to this as he can resolve this issue right there. The DPE serves at the pleasure of the FAA, if he is not or not willing to perform his service at the direction of the FAA then his designation can be removed.
That post speaks for itself.........
The more I'm reading this the more I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is really true.
Last edited:
As I said, see above. Beyond that you can think whatever you want, and truth be told I really don't care one way or another, since you are adding nothing of value to the conversation.You're depending upon a bunch of sciolist to give you guidance, usually in matters to which they really don't understand. Anyone can use google, then give you their opinion and cloak it as "interpretation" or some other official sounding BS.
These forums are filled with a bunch of misleading information. You just demonstrated that by writing a letter to the Chief Counsel on a subject that should have been handled at the FSDO level. I am willing to bet you've never stepped in a FSDO, never have spoken to an Inspector but yet through the internet you have now determined they are qualified to handle your supposed situation.
The DPE is assigned to an Operations Inspector, what's known as a POI (Principal Operations Inspector). This is the person you should go talk to in regards to this as he can resolve this issue right there. The DPE serves at the pleasure of the FAA, if he is not or not willing to perform his service at the direction of the FAA then his designation can be removed.
That post speaks for itself.........
The more I'm reading this the more I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is really true.
This was a copy of my letter to the Chief Counsel btw, which did not name the DPE, etc. This is a fairly standard request to an administrative agency when one is in the legal profession.
To Whom It May Concern:
I request a legal interpretation concerning 14 C.F.R. § 61.39(a)(6)(i), which provides that to be eligible for a practical test or rating, an applicant must have an endorsement signed by an authorized instructor who certifies that the applicant “[h]as received and logged training time within 2 calendar months preceding the month of application in preparation for the practical test.” I also request a legal interpretation concerning the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 61.39(a)(6) generally, and whether such endorsements must be presented in “original ink” format, or whether endorsements may be faxed or e-mailed.
FAR 61.39(a)(6)(i), amended effective October 20, 2009, previously stated that the applicant must have “received and logged training time within 60 days preceding the date of application in preparation for the practical test.”
As far as I can tell, neither FAR 61.39(a)(6), nor any other section of the FAR, requires “original ink” signatures.
The Federal Register states that the revision amended the phrase “60 calendar days” to read “two calendar months” to “make[] it simpler to calculate the time for when a segmented practical test must be completed,” and states that the new rule change “will allow a pilot to have up to three months” to log training. It thus appears that the change to “2 months” was meant to enlarge the necessary timeframe. For example, an applicant who receives and logs training on July 1, 2014 may receive the “sign-off” on September 30, 2014, as the training would have been “received and logged” within the preceding two calendar months. See generally 74 Fed. Reg. 42,500, 42512-13, Pilot, Flight Instructor, and Pilot School Certification (Aug. 21, 2009).
The first question is as follows: Is an applicant who possesses an endorsement, made in the same month of the practical test, stating that the applicant has received flight training in preparation for a practical test within the preceding 60 days, eligible for a practical test?
To the extent it factors into your answer, please assume that logbook reflects flight training within 60 days and within the preceding two calendar months, and assume that the training occurred as recently as the same month (e.g., flight training logged in July 2014 in preparation for a practical test to be taken in July 2014). Alternatively stated, does the lack of the specific “2 calendar month” wording render the applicant ineligible for the practical test although the logbook reflects training?
Please see the following additional authority suggesting that an applicant with an endorsement containing the "60 days" language rather than the "2 calendar months" language is nevertheless eligible for a practical test.
1. Advisory Circular 61-65E, Change 1, dated 1/6/2014, 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.
2. FAA Order 8900.2, Change 2, effective date 7/24/2013, Chapter 7, Section 2, Paragraph 24(d)(2):
For practical tests which require an authorized instructor’s endorsement (per §61.39(a)(6)), an appropriately rated and qualified instructor must complete and sign the Instructor’s Recommendation section. The examiner must verify that the required aeronautical experience/flight training has been logged within the 60 calendar-days preceding the date of application.
A conclusion that an applicant with an endorsement containing the 60-day language is not eligible for the practical test suggests that both that Advisory Circular and the FAA Order are incorrect.
The second question is as follows: Must an applicant present an “original” ink endorsement signature from an authorized instructor, or is a faxed and signed endorsement (or e-mailed and signed endorsement, for example sent through e-mail in PDF format) sufficient?
A subpart question is as follows: Is an “e-signed” endorsement sufficient (e.g.., akin to a Federal Court CM/ECF e-filing e-signature: /s/ [instructor], [date], [certificate number], [expiration date].), or must the signature be written by hand?
Respectfully,
xxx
Last edited:
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
So you are willing to wait for months (or longer) for an answer. Then what? In the mean time this DPE continues along his way.
Yes. In the meantime the DPE will continue what he is doing and I will try to negotiate with him directly to resolve the situation. If it cannot be resolved, and once I know that I am on solid authority, then I will consider doing something like filing a small claims action or publicizing the story. But I am not going to destroy someone's reputation / drag the FSDO into an investigation without knowing, with absolute certainty, that I'm in the right.So you are willing to wait for months (or longer) for an answer. Then what? In the mean time this DPE continues along his way.
I'm sorry if that is ridiculous to you.
RotorAndWing
Final Approach
- Joined
- Sep 5, 2008
- Messages
- 8,496
- Location
- Other side of the world
- Display Name
Display name:
Rotor&Wing
Palmpilot
Touchdown! Greaser!
Since he was until recently an FAA inspector, I would say that he adds a great deal of value to the conversation, in that he knows very well how the FAA operates. And since he now works in the private sector, he is free to tell it like it is.
Well then, that's a perfect example of why I choose not to go to one. What more can I say? I get enough eye-rolling from my family -- I don't need it from an FAA inspector.
Last edited:
pilot_dude
En-Route
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2010
- Messages
- 2,793
- Display Name
Display name:
pilot_dude
I thought the exact same thing and am now just laughing.The more I'm reading this the more I'm beginning to wonder how much of this is really true.
I am at a complete loss as to why 60 days or two calendar months even needs to be in the endorsement. If it was done in the last TEN days (and is logged as such, I've never seen too many checkrides that didn't do the required training within the last week or two of the ride.
Ya, I didn't write the regs, but I agree with you wholeheartedly. If the logbook reflects training then that should be enough (and mine reflected training within the previous week). In fact, if you think about it, the endorsement really requires the CFI to be psychic, because the language is that the applicant received training within 2 calendar months or 60 days of the practical test. But how would a CFI know when the practical test was even taken, unless the endorsement is signed on exactly the same day as, and just before, the test?
Last edited:
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
The FSDO is his supervisor. You aren't dragging him through the mud unless you approach FSDO and say, "This jerk ripped me off!" However, if you approach FSDO and say, " My DPE and I disagree on a checkride discontinuance. Here's the info. Can you look it over and tell me what I'm not seeing?"
You'll have the situation resolved in minutes instead of months. That's what they do.
You'll have the situation resolved in minutes instead of months. That's what they do.
agreed......
Attachments
Old Geek
Pattern Altitude
There's a guy in my area that was instructor/DPE/DAR rated. He made some mistakes and screwed some people over. Complaints were made to the FSDO. Over a couple of years he lost both his DPE and DAR ratings. The FSDO takes these things seriously.
Again, this is why I'm hesitant to make a complaint to the FSDO without trying to negotiate with him directly first.
Matthew
Touchdown! Greaser!
What's to negotiate? Just the fee? He's already ruled on the regulations.
Yes, the request for refund.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I don't see what my good name has to do with anything. I didn't write the endorsement. My CFI did. As far as I'm concerned, my name isn't affected one way or another. And well really, my CFI didn't write the endorsement either. He just signed the pre-printed endorsements in my logbook.Just a refund.....
You don't want your good name cleared...
C ya! Don't let the door hit you on the way out!Only half? Let me up the percentage then. Bye, bye.
dtuuri
Lindberg
Final Approach
R&W, Ron Levy, and Henning all agree and you're not going to take their advice?!!?!?!?
There are some serious reading comprehension issues here. I said I was going to try to negotiate with the guy first, and then take it further if I was not able to get a resolution.R&W, Ron Levy, and Henning all agree and you're not going to take their advice?!!?!?!?
Am I speaking in foreign language or something? Or are you really suggesting my first call should be to the FSDO before I even try working things out with the guy?
In any case, Mods, please lock this thread as I have the answers I was looking for. Thanks.
Hmmmmm..
So you dug a VERY deep hole for yourself... And now you want the mods to bail you out....
....
..............
.......I don't think I dug anything, but I think many of the posts here (yours included) about accusations of trolling, etc. are pretty ridiculous and this thread has reached, and far exceeded, the limits of its utility. I don't care one way or another.Hmmmmm..
So you dug a VERY deep hole for yourself... And now you want the mods to bail you out....
Last edited:
- Status