I said I wouldn’t instruct a person who had an accident. You can do put your signature any anyone’s logbook your little heart desires when you become a CFI.
Again, I never said the DPE should be busted or the applicant shouldn’t have been passed. What I am saying is the FAA should investigate further reference this pilot.no, “evaluate” doesn’t means “bust.”
But you stated that the DPE should be evaluated because he “passed this guy,” and the logical assumption being that if the DPE hadn’t “passed this guy,” the DPE wouldn’t need to be evaluated.
So how would you suggest the DPE not pass the guy in order to avoid being evaluated if the guy performed satisfactorily on the checkride?
you said “the FAA needs to evaluate the DPE.” There’s a difference between evaluating a DPE and investigating further.
It looks like he was hired by Proflight Aero in April 2021, which was after the two accidents, but before the 44709 letter in May 2021. So, it appears he was legal at his time of hiring. Still, "participation trophy" is a concept to describe a reward given to a person that doesn't deserve it. It seems to be an apt description.
When was it revoked?
Well the FAA asked him to surrender it and he did. I don't know if that's the same thing as a revocation, and to me it doesn't matter.
If it was revoked, they wouldn’t have given him a temporary certificate so he could practice up for another 709 ride.
Thank you for the correction. I think that would be equally as noteworthy as a revocation for inclusion into a final NTSB report.
It wouldn’t matter to me either except the FAA issued a restricted temporary certificate after he surrendered, which is a far cry from revocation.
The FAA can evaluate the DPE’s approvals without opening an official investigation. They simply compare the DPE’s pass rate vs the averages, the % of applicants he may be passing out of a specific 141 school, ect.
You really need to lay off whatever substances you’re ingesting before you try to pretend you’re replying to what you quote.
It's important to understand the difference between what juries decide and what judges decide in jury trials. The judge decides what the law is and instructs the jury on the applicable legal principles. The jury decides what the facts are. I would expect a federal District Court judge to instruct a jury, as a legal principle, that the temporary did not authorize carrying passengers and did not authorize instruction.
Knowing a DPE, paying off a DPE. There are a few possibilities.
Wasn't Bob Hoover trapped by voluntarily surrenduring his certificate?
…multiple tries at each checkride…
61.5 does not specify the Limitations that can be placed on a certificate. The passenger verbiage was a Limitation.
I get it, but a temporary is not a pilots certificate in regulations so it is not a lower grade. The lowest grade certificate is a student, which would have provided the no passengers restriction.
To be honest, I am not sure what occurred. But, I don’t believe the person who wrote that policy guidance anticipated putting a no passengers limitation on a ATP or commercial pilot certificate holder.
The temporary certificate expired and he made no effort to renew it. Therefore he had no pilot certificate at all. He was not authorized to act as PIC under any circumstances and his CFI was invalidated due to not having a pilot certificate. Regardless of whether the temporary was issued properly, he still flew illegally for at least 10 months leading up to and including the fatal crash flight.
Yeah, evaluation quality control has always been a specious affair, especially in part 61 land. Rule #1, Life ain't fair. The notion everybody gets failed/passed when incurring the same infraction is facts not in evidence. I've had failures I deserved, and ones I didn't. That experience certainly informed my evaluation roles in later life. I sincerely believe they made me a more effective evaluator, even if they did/could stunt my income potential in life.
I must have missed the temporary expired part.
There's another thread on this. He was grounded by the FAA when the accident happened.
But that thread doesn’t highlight the OP’s woes.
After which accident? The first, second or the final one after he got a student killed? Or after the safety complaint made to the FAA after the 2nd accident and before the accident killing the student?
What does that have to do with the FAA allowing this pilot to stay in the air, sir? If you’re not a tad concerned that there are FAA “endorsed” instructors or pilots that have been able to get their commercial and instrument ratings yet can’t properly conduct a go around, I don’t know how to respond to that.
+10 for blind rage to the point where you argue against those that agree with you. Rage on. An extra .1 for misspelling sensitive for a total of 10.1
I think you’ve missed the boat on this one. He’s referring to my (OP’s) situation.
Lay off the coffee and read again slowly and calmly. And stop making up things someone else said that they never said.
Yes, grounded after 2 accidents and a safety complaint…and given a temporary airman certificate even after he’s already failed a check ride. Good work FAA!
As I said already, if you’re okay with a system that allowed this guy to continue flying under a temp airman certificate, after 2 accidents, a safety complaint and a failed check ride, I’m even more disturbed.
