And what about the certificates of the pilots?

Hmm... I don't think the problem was with an inspector giving check-rides, so there's probably no issue unless there are allegations of people passing when they shouldn't have.

The problem is that this guy took money for the job. And if there were that many, how did the recommending instructors not know who they were sending their students to?
 
Yes, but the article claims the rides were not authorized. Now, that could just be a journalism type screwing up, but it does raise the question.
 
Ghery said:
http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/new...o_unauthorized_certificate_fsdo_205646-1.html

You have to wonder what the FAA will do to all the pilots who took the rides.
Click to expand...

Since the charge is he accepted money in exchange for the checkride (which he cannot do) and if he was current and legal to do the certification, then one would have to assume nothing. The problem here is he accepted money and did the rides outside the scope of his employment.

An Inspector cannot accept payment for certification services. Furthermore, any certification activity that comes into the office must be assigned (the FSDO Manager must be aware).
 
Yeah, the more I think of it the messier it gets.

My temp certificates for ground instructors were issued by someone who was not normally in the GA ops inspector role, but they were ok. Not sure (even though ops inspectors are all instructors, I think) that anyone other than the GA ops inspectors are allowed to give GA checkrides.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
Since the charge is he accepted money in exchange for the checkride (which he cannot do) and if he was current and legal to do the certification, then one would have to assume nothing. The problem here is he accepted money and did the rides outside the scope of his employment.

An Inspector cannot accept payment for certification services. Furthermore, any certification activity that comes into the office must be assigned (the FSDO Manager must be aware).
Click to expand...

Exactly. So, if he is acting outside the scope of his employment, are the rides valid?
 
Ghery said:
Exactly. So, if he is acting outside the scope of his employment, are the rides valid?
Click to expand...

That's going to be something for those in a higher paygrade to decide.

I would say yes, as long as he was current per FAA guidance. Getting paid for his services is the charge.

The official charge against Bishop was one count of receiving illegal gratuities while acting as a public official.
Click to expand...
 
Rotor&Wing said:
How would they know the difference?
Click to expand...

I take it instructors generally don't know, and aren't expected to know, that FAA rules state that an FAA inspector can't accept gratuities of any sort in performance of their duties?
 
Rotor&Wing said:
That's going to be something for those in a higher paygrade to decide.

I would say yes, as long as he was current per FAA guidance. Getting paid for his services is the charge.
Click to expand...

For the sake of the pilots involved I hope you are right. Time will tell.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
How would they know the difference?
Click to expand...

Well, in my neck of the woods, the FSDO is so understaffed that the only rides the inspectors give are CFI rides, or 709 rides. A ride with an inspector instead of an examiner is "out of the ordinary". If I signed off a student for a checkride, then I'd expect to know who was giving it. And if I had a student who took an exam with an inspector and paid money for it, I'd have asked questions.

Unless the Teterboro FSDO has a practice of giving lots of GA checkrides, as an instructor I'd be surprised that "hundreds" of students were getting checkrides from a single inspector.

But maybe that's normal practice up there... it's certainly not down here.
 
Jim Logajan said:
I take it instructors generally don't know, and aren't expected to know, that FAA rules state that an FAA inspector can't accept gratuities of any sort in performance of their duties?
Click to expand...

I knew that long before I became an instructor. So the question for the instructors who sent their students to this guy is whether they knew he was charging for the rides?
 
TMetzinger said:
Well, in my neck of the woods, the FSDO is so understaffed that the only rides the inspectors give are CFI rides, or 709 rides. A ride with an inspector instead of an examiner is "out of the ordinary". If I signed off a student for a checkride, then I'd expect to know who was giving it. And if I had a student who took an exam with an inspector and paid money for it, I'd have asked questions.

Unless the Teterboro FSDO has a practice of giving lots of GA checkrides, as an instructor I'd be surprised that "hundreds" of students were getting checkrides from a single inspector.

But maybe that's normal practice up there... it's certainly not down here.
Click to expand...

All valid points.

As with any story, I'm sure there is more here than most know about. :dunno:
 
Rotor&Wing said:
All valid points.

As with any story, I'm sure there is more here than most know about. :dunno:
Click to expand...
Absolutely... Stay tuned for more! I'm just wondering if there was any sort of collusion between the flight instructor community and this inspector. Time will tell.
 
Without knowing the rest of the story, I don't know what "unauthorized pilot check rides" means.

Not all FAA inspectors have checkride authority. If they mean that the inspector was not authorized to give pilot checkrides then there is precedent that the rides were invalid and the pilots' certificates are void.

http://www.ntsb.gov/alj/o_n_o/docs/AVIATION/5164.PDF
 
My opinion based on nothing other than reading the article is that he was giving checkrides as a side business similar to a DE, on his off time.

Which, as a federal employee, he would certainly not be authorized to do. Almost every federal agency has specific policy - usually written in regulation - requiring prior and ongoing authorization for almost any work or employment outside of your federal position, and prohibiting outside compensation for work directly related to your federal position.

I think that even giving instruction as a CFI or signing off work as an IA would be verboten - it would certainly require review and authorization from his managers first.

Since DEs have to be - by definition - designated, and he was not, I think that it matters not that he was authorized to give checkrides pursuant to his normal duties as an inspector. If they weren't authorized, did they happen?

Call me cynical but I think a number of pilots are going to be screwed here. I hope not.
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
I knew that long before I became an instructor. So the question for the instructors who sent their students to this guy is whether they knew he was charging for the rides?
Click to expand...

The instructors responsibility to the student ends once they sign off the student for the check ride in respect to guiding their training. It is the students choice as to whom they take their check ride with. The reality is that most students don't know this and the instructor normally helps guide them through that portion of the process. That is just being helpful, but it is not mandatory on the instructors part.

Now in reality, I would go on the assumption that most of the instructors knew all about the specifics of this guys check rides.
 
alaskaflyer said:
My opinion based on nothing other than reading the article is that he was giving checkrides as a side business similar to a DE, on his off time.

Which, as a federal employee, he would certainly not be authorized to do. Almost every federal agency has specific policy - usually written in regulation - requiring prior and ongoing authorization for almost any work or employment outside of your federal position, and prohibiting outside compensation for work directly related to your federal position.

I think that even giving instruction as a CFI or signing off work as an IA would be verboten - it would certainly require review and authorization from his managers first.
Click to expand...

True

alaskaflyer said:
Since DEs have to be - by definition - designated, and he was not, I think that it matters not that he was authorized to give checkrides pursuant to his normal duties as an inspector.
Click to expand...

His charge is allegedly accepting payment for his services. As an ASI that meets guidance he is authorized to give checkrides. The difference is the DPE can charge for his services and the applicant can go directly to the DPE for said services. If the applicant calls the FSDO for a checkride, it must be assigned by FSDO management to the ASI. Afterwards the checkride must be entered into PTRS and the paperwork (or IACRA) closed out.


alaskaflyer said:
Call me cynical but I think a number of pilots are going to be screwed here. I hope not.
Click to expand...

Pure speculation at this time.
 
Ghery said:
Exactly. So, if he is acting outside the scope of his employment, are the rides valid?
Click to expand...

Wasn't there some maintenance certification outfit that was handing out A&P certs to people who didn't fulfill things like the 'able to read english' requirements. iirc, all the certs obtained through this outift were reviewed after the fact and many of the A&Ps turned in their paper to avoid getting it taken away.
 
LearDriver said:
The instructors responsibility to the student ends once they sign off the student for the check ride in respect to guiding their training.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that, the instructors responsibility to his student is not over until after a successful completion of the check ride.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
The problem here is he accepted money and did the rides outside the scope of his employment.
Click to expand...

Agree. That is like a TSA screener offering "priority screening" for "tips" -- during his or her time off!

TMetzinger said:
I knew that long before I became an instructor [that applicants did not have to pay inspectors for checkrides.]
Click to expand...

Same here. In fact awhile before I started my first flight lessons I had been to the airport for information where they sold me a copy of the Flight Training Handbook. I think the very first chapter was kind of an advertisement for the FAA and mentioned the difference between examiners and inspectors, though it was worded a bit strange (like that it would be silly to pay the government for a government service), so I knew that before I even set foot in an airplane. Though I do remember thinking to myself, "oh, I do hope I can take the checkride with an inspector so I don't have to pay!" :eek:

TMetzinger said:
Well, in my neck of the woods, the FSDO is so understaffed that the only rides the inspectors give are CFI rides, or 709 rides. A ride with an inspector instead of an examiner is "out of the ordinary". If I signed off a student for a checkride, then I'd expect to know who was giving it. And if I had a student who took an exam with an inspector and paid money for it, I'd have asked questions.

Unless the Teterboro FSDO has a practice of giving lots of GA checkrides, as an instructor I'd be surprised that "hundreds" of students were getting checkrides from a single inspector.
Click to expand...

Well I think almost every FSDO is like that. As has been mentioned, the inspector gave the checkrides on weekends and other time off. So I don't think it's a special case of the Teterboro FSDO regularly giving any old checkride. How the instructors didn't know is an interesting question, my guess is that they wrongly assumed that the inspector was permitted to act as a DPE during his time off, or, they didn't know the students were paying him.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
That's going to be something for those in a higher paygrade to decide.

I would say yes, as long as he was current per FAA guidance. Getting paid for his services is the charge.
Click to expand...
Based on some past cases of Inspector malfeasance involving practical tests, I suspect that many if not all of those certificates may be called back for reexamination, especially if his pass rate on those was abnormally high for the certificate/rating granted (as the article suggests but does not demonstrate). That's a guess, mind you, but I think R&W will confirm it's a possibility that would not be out of line with past action in the very few cases of Inspector malfeasance involving practical tests.
 
Last edited:
BillTIZ said:
I do not believe that, the instructors responsibility to his student is not over until after a successful completion of the check ride.
Click to expand...
I agree with Bill, but only as a matter of professional ethics and conduct, not regulation. So, if LearDriver was speaking regulatorily, I'd have to agree with LD.
 
Ron Levy said:
I agree with Bill, but only as a matter of professional ethics and conduct, not regulation. So, if LearDriver was speaking regulatorily, I'd have to agree with LD.
Click to expand...

I was speaking from the regulatory standpoint. Your actual obligation to the student will last for a lot longer than just the date of the check ride. I know I get calls from previous students from 10 or 15 years ago. In some areas of the country as their CFI you may be their only contact to someone at your level in the industry.
 
Without reading every response, so this may have already been mentioned.

It goes to prove that no matter how much a person is being paid, it is never enough.
I'm not so sure if this makes the culprit in this case a criminal or not, we are all the same way, never satisfied with what we have already achieved.

A regulation such as the one he ignored about not charging for his services is completely contrary to basic human nature, our greedy side.

All he did was follow his heart for more.......and more....even more than that.

Have you ever walked down the street with the most beautiful woman in town on your arm, full of pride knowing every guy out there wishes he where in your shoes, and you find yourself, without hardly being aware your doing it, checking out the hottie across the street? We are a greedy greedy lot.

John
 
LearDriver said:
I was speaking from the regulatory standpoint. Your actual obligation to the student will last for a lot longer than just the date of the check ride. I know I get calls from previous students from 10 or 15 years ago. In some areas of the country as their CFI you may be their only contact to someone at your level in the industry.
Click to expand...
Can you point me to the reg which says you have an obligation to someone you trained 10-15 years agos, and what obligations that reg says you have? I sure don't know of such a reg.
 
Rotor&Wing said:
His charge is allegedly accepting payment for his services. As an ASI that meets guidance he is authorized to give checkrides. The difference is the DPE can charge for his services and the applicant can go directly to the DPE for said services. If the applicant calls the FSDO for a checkride, it must be assigned by FSDO management to the ASI. Afterwards the checkride must be entered into PTRS and the paperwork (or IACRA) closed out.
Click to expand...

That is the only thing he is charged with criminally. My point was whether the checkrides were valid hinges on whether they were authorized. "That meets guidance" as you posted.
 
It also sounds like, at a $300.00 "donation" he is undercutting the real DAs. In San Diego, it was $500.00, in Arizona, it was $400.00. Our local examiners earn their living from what they charge for check rides, it is their main source of income.

A person holding a government job already has a guarantied steady income, his basic expenses are covered.

In other words, local examiners are faced with unfair competition. It is much like if we PPSELs all started selling tickets for destination flights using our private airplanes.

We would be unfair competition to all those who had paid their dues achieving their commercial or ATP certificates.

Greed.

John
 
alaskaflyer said:
That is the only thing he is charged with criminally. My point was whether the checkrides were valid hinges on whether they were authorized. "That meets guidance" as you posted.
Click to expand...

Well, that's the stickler. "Authorized" has two different meanings in this case.

First is "authorized" by the FSDO, which it may or may not be. (My personal belief is it wasn't)

The second is "authorized" by the fact he was current in the FAA Flight Program to give certification exams.

IMO if he meets the second part then the checkrides are legit and the airman shouldn't be tested further.

With the paperwork trail the process leaves it's kinda hard to figure out how this went on for so long and no one caught on. :dunno:
 
John Baker said:
It also sounds like, at a $300.00 "donation" he is undercutting the real DAs. In San Diego, it was $500.00, in Arizona, it was $400.00. Our local examiners earn their living from what they charge for check rides, it is their main source of income.

A person holding a government job already has a guarantied steady income, his basic expenses are covered.

In other words, local examiners are faced with unfair competition. It is much like if we PPSELs all started selling tickets for destination flights using our private airplanes.

We would be unfair competition to all those who had paid their dues achieving their commercial or ATP certificates.

Greed.

John
Click to expand...

You know, one would think the local DPE's would have said something, to someone.

There is so much more to this story than anyone knows.
 
John Baker said:
Our local examiners earn their living from what they charge for check rides, it is their main source of income.
Click to expand...

That is prohibited by regulations on DPE's.

John Baker said:
In other words, local examiners are faced with unfair competition.
Click to expand...

The existence of FAA inspectors is not unfair competition because being a DPE is a privilege given by the FAA; the FAA does not have to allow nongovernment employees to administer checkrides. On the flip side, in an unregulated market with no FAA at all, such a position would not exist in the first place.

John Baker said:
We would be unfair competition to all those who had paid their dues achieving their commercial or ATP certificates.

Greed.
Click to expand...

Don't see what you're saying here. :confused:
 
Last edited:
TMetzinger said:
HUH????
Click to expand...

Hmm. I thought I read that DE's are not allowed to have practical test fees be the primary source of their income. I can't find a source, so must be mistaken. Sorry. :redface:
 
John Baker said:
It also sounds like, at a $300.00 "donation" he is undercutting the real DAs. In San Diego, it was $500.00, in Arizona, it was $400.00. Our local examiners earn their living from what they charge for check rides, it is their main source of income.
Click to expand...
$500???? Wow. That strikes me as a bit unreasonable. So the DE is earning $160/hr or more? That's hardly reasonable for that job.

It was $300 here, which I thought was still too high.
 
sba55 said:
$500???? Wow. That strikes me as a bit unreasonable. So the DE is earning $160/hr or more? That's hardly reasonable for that job.

It was $300 here, which I thought was still too high.
Click to expand...

I paid $400 for my IR ride (and $200 for the re-do).
 
John Baker said:
It also sounds like, at a $300.00 "donation" he is undercutting the real DAs. In San Diego, it was $500.00, in Arizona, it was $400.00. Our local examiners earn their living from what they charge for check rides, it is their main source of income.
Click to expand...
Guaranteeing an income for the designees should not be a part of any of the the federal delegation programs. This is the major defect with the way designees were (and in my opinion still are in many districts) appointed. You are a good ol' boy in with the local FSDO boys and you get a de facto monopoly.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top