New CFI

[rcaligan]

Marine Col Lawrence "Migs" Roberts joined the CFI ranks last Friday. I'm 3 for 3 on first-try passes for the CFI! But here's one thing the examiner said: in addition to writing out 61.39 verbatim when endorsing someone for a checkride, he also wants to see the phrase "IAW 14 CFR 61.39..." in the endorsement. A lot of examiners simply do not like the wordings in AC 61-65.

Also, when Migs took his FOI and CFI knowledge tests, the computer spit out codes that weren't listed in the latest version of AC 60-25. Anyone know whats up?

 

[poadeleted20]

A lot of examiners simply do not like the wordings in AC 61-65.

Any DPE who pulls that on me will get a meeting with the FSDO. AC 61-65E is by definition an FAA-acceptable method of compliance. It may not be the only acceptable method, as it is not regulatory, but it is unquestionably acceptable to the Flight Standards Service, and any DPE who refuses to accept it is substituting his own standards for the FAA's, and that is not acceptable to AFS.

 

[rcaligan]

Any DPE who pulls that on me will get a meeting with the FSDO. AC 61-65E is by definition an FAA-acceptable method of compliance. It may not be the only acceptable method, as it is not regulatory, but it is unquestionably acceptable to the Flight Standards Service, and any DPE who refuses to accept it is substituting his own standards for the FAA's, and that is not acceptable to AFS.

If I have a student away on a checkride and he calls me up in a panic because the examiner wants "such and such" or the checkride will be discontinued, then I'll give it.

This is not the first time I've seen an examiner (or a FSDO) ask for something that goes beyond the published norm. More examples:

- When renewing my CFI for activity, the FSDO wanted copies of all the 8710s my applicants have submitted (including the DPE's part showing results).

- In an effort to comply with 141.36(c)(3): "Keep running totals of all your instrument training time given. We want to see all of it, not just the minimums." (FSDO)

Flight Standards is not standardized. Or maybe they are--they just collectively want things that go beyond the FARs or guidance from higher up.

 

[poadeleted20]

If I have a student away on a checkride and he calls me up in a panic because the examiner wants "such and such" or the checkride will be discontinued, then I'll give it.

Oh, I'd give it, but the next call from me would be to the FSDO.

- When renewing my CFI for activity, the FSDO wanted copies of all the 8710s my applicants have submitted (including the DPE's part showing results).

Lazy FSDO -- that's all in IACRA.

- In an effort to comply with 141.36(c)(3): "Keep running totals of all your instrument training time given. We want to see all of it, not just the minimums." (FSDO)

Not an unreasonable request. I certainly keep one column of instrument training given.

Flight Standards is not standardized.

And this is news?

Or maybe they are--they just collectively want things that go beyond the FARs or guidance from higher up.

Not collectively, and not from HHQ. When they start demanding things that go beyond the regulatory requirement, or beyond the standards of the AC's, that's a maverick at work, and that should be reported to the supervising FSDO, FSDO manager, or Regional AFS office as applicable.

 

[rcaligan]

Lazy FSDO -- that's all in IACRA.

I've never used it. The FSDOs and examiners I've worked with prefer paper 8710s. Perhaps it's entered into IACRA in OK city?

I'm still curious about the rogue codes.

 

[Laurie]

I've never used it. The FSDOs and examiners I've worked with prefer paper 8710s. Perhaps it's entered into IACRA in OK city?

I'm still curious about the rogue codes.

IACRA hadn't been implemented in Montana yet while I was instructing there and to my knowledge still hasn't. I thought the NW states weren't going to be online with it until 2007 or something like that. Anyhoo, I did use it for the first time last month renewing my CFI in Houston. Pretty slick actually. I always kept copies of every 8710 from every sign off and had them handy for my renewal, but the Fed wasn't interested in seeing them. Just had me write out a list of who I signed off, for what and when and pass/fail.

The rogue codes aren't new. I saw a few every now and again on knowledge tests over the last few years. I never got a good answer from our DPE or Fed what the deal was on them either.