Discontinuance DE

[Travis Undestad]

I have just completed my Commercial ASEL oral,however we were unable to start the flights due to 800 ft ceilings. So that being said the Examiner passed the oral and gave me a a discontinuance to finish the rest. He only charged me Half price $300... but he is unable to continue until the new year. I however was put into contact by the Flight scheduler that another DE that was available to continue, although he said he has to charge the full price $600 because its an initial with him. Is the DE allowed to charge full price for a discontinuance and not a failure?

 

[Mason]

Pretty sure they can charge whatever they want.

 

[kgruber]

Try to take it with the FAA.

 

[bradg33]

I have just completed my Commercial ASEL oral,however we were unable to start the flights due to 800 ft ceilings. So that being said the Examiner passed the oral and gave me a a discontinuance to finish the rest. He only charged me Half price $300... but he is unable to continue until the new year. I however was put into contact by the Flight scheduler that another DE that was available to continue, although he said he has to charge the full price $600 because its an initial with him. Is the DE allowed to charge full price for a discontinuance and not a failure?

DPE's do not work for the FAA, and their rates are not regulated by the FAA. A DPE can charge anything he/she wants, regardless of the situation. If you don't like the DPE's rates, find another DPE. If you want to get your ride done sooner, sounds like your choice is to pony up the extra money.

 

[jordane93]

Pretty sure they can charge whatever they want.

This.

 

[BillTIZ]

I would wait and finish with the guy you started with. He already knows you, there may be the finish up fee which would be the balance of the full fee he did not charge you. Get on his calendar now!

 

[mscard88]

Pretty sure they can charge whatever they want.

Yup, this. You have to make the decision however, get it done before the year ends, or schedule with the original next yer. I would say if you can get it rescheduled with the original the 1st week of January or so, you might want to consider sticking with him/her. Good luck either way you choose.

 

[Travis Undestad]

I would wait and finish with the guy you started with. He already knows you, there may be the finish up fee which would be the balance of the full fee he did not charge you. Get on his calendar now!

That's what I am planning on. He isn't sure when he'll be back since he is flying the b17 for EAA so hes not sure when he'll be back. I also go to Riddle so I have to deal with their scheduling and humping for extra money (They are probably going to try to force a "refresher" flight on me if I wait)

 

[BillTIZ]

That's what I am planning on. He isn't sure when he'll be back since he is flying the b17 for EAA so hes not sure when he'll be back. I also go to Riddle so I have to deal with their scheduling and humping for extra money (They are probably going to try to force a "refresher" flight on me if I wait)

Well, as a Riddle student I would think there would be in house DPE s. Funny on the guy that wants to charge full fee for only the flight portion.

Yes waiting 2-3 weeks for the finish, I would want a practice check ride each week. I know that is $$$.

 

[mscard88]

Funny on the guy that wants to charge full fee for only the flight portion.

It's the DPE's call. He could adjust it if he wanted to. But I guess he's thinking he'd the one signing him off (passing) and his responsibility and all that, and he could also do part or even all of the oral if he deemed it necessary. Or he is just greedy.

 

[Travis Undestad]

Well, as a Riddle student I would think there would be in house DPE s. Funny on the guy that wants to charge full fee for only the flight portion.

Yes waiting 2-3 weeks for the finish, I would want a practice check ride each week. I know that is $$$.

that's the thing we have 4 or 5 in house DE's and the pinch is the Flight line closes down till the 1st. (23rd-1st) still don't understand why he cant honor the half price remaining all the DE's here know each other. Guess he just wants the extra money for Christmas or doesn't want to to use up one of his 2 daily check rides for a Half pricer

 

[Travis Undestad]

But Thanks for everyone's response I believe i'm just going to wait for the original DE to get back into Daytona to finish.

 

[bradg33]

that's the thing we have 4 or 5 in house DE's and the pinch is the Flight line closes down till the 1st. (23rd-1st) still don't understand why he cant honor the half price remaining all the DE's here know each other. Guess he just wants the extra money for Christmas or doesn't want to to use up one of his 2 daily check rides for a Half pricer

You're not going to get a different DPE to do only "half" the checkride. He's charging you full price because he's going to conduct a full checkride. Why should he give you a discount? Because you're impatient? If you want him to put his signature on your temp certificate, he's going to do things to his standards. If you think otherwise, your CFI is doing you a big disservice by not explaining how all if this works to you. As a CFI, if a pilot showed up wanting a BFR and insisted that a different CFI did the 1 hour of ground and that he only needed the 1 hour of flight, I'd tell him (or her) to take a hike. You want me to sign you off for something? You're doing the whole thing, regardless of whether you already did 1/2, or 2/3, with someone else.

 

[mscard88]

Some will accept prior work, you won't so that's fine. I did a FR a year or so ago and the CFI accepted the certificate from AOPA for the 1 hour ground.

 

[bradg33]

Some will accept prior work, you won't so that's fine. I did a FR a year or so ago and the CFI accepted the certificate from AOPA for the 1 hour ground.

Pretty ballsy on the CFI's part. 14 CFR 61.56 states that a flight review consists of 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. It's quite a stretch to say that an AOPA online course, not "conducted" or even supervised by the CFI, constitutes "ground training." In any event, I'd never accept that and I don't think most CFIs, at least those with a good grasp of the regs, would either.

 

[NJP_MAN]

If you go to Riddle you should just pay the new guy his full fee. It's apparent that getting the most for your money isn't what you're into or else you would have gone to a cheaper school.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

As a CFI, if a pilot showed up wanting a BFR and insisted that a different CFI did the 1 hour of ground and that he only needed the 1 hour of flight, I'd tell him (or her) to take a hike. You want me to sign you off for something? You're doing the whole thing, regardless of whether you already did 1/2, or 2/3, with someone else.

That's your prerogative but if CFI A signed off on the oral part, you are not on the hook for that portion if you only sign off on the flight portion.

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Pretty ballsy on the CFI's part. 14 CFR 61.56 states that a flight review consists of 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. It's quite a stretch to say that an AOPA online course, not "conducted" or even supervised by the CFI, constitutes "ground training." In any event, I'd never accept that and I don't think most CFIs, at least those with a good grasp of the regs, would either.

To pick a nit, it is at LEAST one hour.

But as long as the AOPA course, or any other course for that matter, is documented to be the eqivilant of the 1 hour of ground training, and it is suitably documented in the logbook, then you are not on the hook for that portion of the flight review.

 

[AWACSEng]

Pretty ballsy on the CFI's part. 14 CFR 61.56 states that a flight review consists of 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. It's quite a stretch to say that an AOPA online course, not "conducted" or even supervised by the CFI, constitutes "ground training." In any event, I'd never accept that and I don't think most CFIs, at least those with a good grasp of the regs, would either.

Would seem the FAA disagrees with you. Completion of AOPA ASI courses satisfy the requirement for WINGS credit, which in turn satisfies the ground portion of the Flight review. But, I'm sure with your mastery of the regs you knew that already.

 

[bradg33]

To pick a nit, it is at LEAST one hour.

But as long as the AOPA course, or any other course for that matter, is documented to be the eqivilant of the 1 hour of ground training, and it is suitably documented in the logbook, then you are not on the hook for that portion of the flight review.

Who is going to sign the logbook for the ground training? I suppose if AOPA has a way of providing that, maybe it works as far as the FAA is concerned, but as a CFI I wouldn't accept it (my prerogative). When I sign the logbook, I have to write:

"I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (grade of pilot certificate), (certificate number), has satisfactorily completed a flight review of § 61.56(a) on (date). /s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-19"

See AC 61-65F.

I don't get to say "I certify they completed 1/2 of a flight review." I either say they completed the whole thing or they didn't complete the whole thing. I'm not saying they completed the whole thing unless I conducted the whole thing.

 

[bradg33]

Would seem the FAA disagrees with you. Completion of AOPA ASI courses satisfy the requirement for WINGS credit, which in turn satisfies the ground portion of the Flight review. But, I'm sure with your mastery of the regs you knew that already.

The WINGS program doesn't actually satisfy the ground requirement of a 61.56 flight review. WINGS is its own little exception to the rules where you get to skip the flight review entirely if you complete a WINGS phase. A WINGS phase is typically made up of a bunch of ground stuff and some flying. But completing a WINGS ground program doesn't mean you can come to me and ask me for a 61.56 flight review without the ground portion. It just means if you've done all the WINGS ground stuff, you can come to me for a FLIGHT, that doesn't involve a 61.56 endorsement from me, that exempts you from the flight review requirements via the WINGS program. In other words, if you're doing WINGS, you don't actually get a 61.56 endorsement. You get your WINGS certificates and combine them with a CFI-signed logbook entry for the required flight and that's it. You're then exempt from the flight review of 61.56 per 61.56(e).

 

[Greg Bockelman]

Who is going to sign the logbook for the ground training? I suppose if AOPA has a way of providing that, maybe it works as far as the FAA is concerned, but as a CFI I wouldn't accept it (my prerogative). When I sign the logbook, I have to write:

"I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (grade of pilot certificate), (certificate number), has satisfactorily completed a flight review of § 61.56(a) on (date). /s/ [date] J. J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-19"

See AC 61-65F.

I don't get to say "I certify they completed 1/2 of a flight review." I either say they completed the whole thing or they didn't complete the whole thing. I'm not saying they completed the whole thing unless I conducted the whole thing.

Well, actually you can. The question was asked and answered in an official document that is not now available to the public.

QUESTION: I have two questions concerning the flight review described in § 61.56. The flight review calls for at least an hour of ground review with an instructor, at least an hour of flight review with an instructor, and a logbook endorsement from the instructor who gave the review certifying its satisfactory completion. My first question is can one instructor conduct the ground portion of the review, and another instructor conduct the flight portion of the review? I believe the answer to be yes, given that a ground instructor is authorized to conduct ground portions of flight reviews. With that, my main question is how then should the flight review be endorsed? Are two endorsements, one for the flight portion and one from the ground portion, sufficient?

ANSWER: Ref. § 61.56(c)(2) and AC 61-65D; Endorsement 28; Yes, two instructors can be used to accomplish a flight review. There really isn't any specific rule that addresses your question. Nor has the FAA ever established a policy in FAA Order 8700.1 on your question. Examples of what the endorsements would look like are as follows:

The endorsement given by the first instructor who conducted the ground training.

I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (pilot certificate), (certificate number), has satisfactorily completed a review of the current general operating and flight rules of Part 91 of this chapter for the flight review requirements of § 61.56(a)(1) on (date).

S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-00

The endorsement given by the second instructor who conducted the flight training.

I certify that (First name, MI, Last name), (pilot certificate), (certificate number), has satisfactorily completed a review of the maneuvers and procedures for the flight review requirements of § 61.56(a)(2) on (date).

S/S [date] J.J. Jones 987654321CFI Exp. 12-31-00

And the completion date of the flight review (for purposes of computing when the pilot must accomplish his/her next flight review) will be the month the pilot completed the review of the maneuvers and procedures in flight in the aircraft.

You personally may not feel comfortable doing it that way, and that is your prerogative. I personally have no reservations signing off the ground half and someone else signing off the flight half or vica versa.

 

[mscard88]

Pretty ballsy on the CFI's part. 14 CFR 61.56 states that a flight review consists of 1 hour of ground training and 1 hour of flight training. It's quite a stretch to say that an AOPA online course, not "conducted" or even supervised by the CFI, constitutes "ground training." In any event, I'd never accept that and I don't think most CFIs, at least those with a good grasp of the regs, would either.

It's not a stretch. Appears this is area that you're unaware of or weak in. The CFI that did my FR was a very experienced CFI. I myself have been a CFI since 1978 and would not have a problem doing just the flight portion of the FR. It is legal and accepted. Of course you will do what you want, which is fine. But don't write that it's a stretch because you don't know it's acceptable, or you won't accept it.

 

[MAKG1]

Would seem the FAA disagrees with you. Completion of AOPA ASI courses satisfy the requirement for WINGS credit, which in turn satisfies the ground portion of the Flight review. But, I'm sure with your mastery of the regs you knew that already.

That's not right. You can get a flight review waived if you COMPLETE a WINGS phase. Not half a flight review if you complete half a WINGS phase. There are six parts to a phase, three ground and three flight.

Now, you can approximate that by taking the flight portion of a flight review and counting that as WINGS activities, to complete the phase. But that's more constrained than a flight review, as it has to touch on three distinct topics.

If you don't have the WINGS certificate in hand, you are on the hook for a flight review. ALL of a flight review. If for no other reason than you can't prove your FR is current without it.

WINGS courses do not generally come with flight review endorsements. That's not how it works.

 

[AWACSEng]

That's not right. You can get a flight review waived if you COMPLETE a WINGS phase. Not half a flight review if you complete half a WINGS phase. There are six parts to a phase, three ground and three flight.

Now, you can approximate that by taking the flight portion of a flight review and counting that as WINGS activities, to complete the phase. But that's more constrained than a flight review, as it has to touch on three distinct topics.

If you don't have the WINGS certificate in hand, you are on the hook for a flight review. ALL of a flight review. If for no other reason than you can't prove your FR is current without it.

WINGS courses do not generally come with flight review endorsements. That's not how it works.

Well, in that case, I stand corrected. Either I misunderstood when the program was explained to me or it wasn't explained correctly and I never bothered to follow up since it's a moot point for me as I am required to complete an annual check ride with the club I fly with (which exceeds FR minimums).

This is certainly something I will pay closer attention to when I transition to ownership and will have to maintain my own training/proficiency program instead of conforming to club rules.

@bradg33 , my apologies for the sarcasm, but your seemingly arrogant stance is one that will drive pilots (and prospective pilots) away from a CFI with your knowledge and understanding. I for one would not deal with a CFI who has chosen to ignore the endorsement in my logbook for the ground portion just because it's their prerogative. A simple 5-10min Q&A session can determine if the endorsement was earned and whether or not further ground instruction is warranted. Making someone start from the beginning (kinda like the DPE referenced in the OP) is a quick way to lose business then and in the future as word spreads that you are difficult to work with.

 

[Dave Theisen]

I understand the second DPE wanting to charge full price. The FAA now only allows them to do two check rides per day, so you are taking up one of those slots regardless of only needing to do half the ride. I imagine he'd want to do some oral anyway, unless he has a good working relationship with the first DPE.

 

[MAKG1]

That's not right. You can get a flight review waived if you COMPLETE a WINGS phase. Not half a flight review if you complete half a WINGS phase. There are six parts to a phase, three ground and three flight.

Now, you can approximate that by taking the flight portion of a flight review and counting that as WINGS activities, to complete the phase. But that's more constrained than a flight review, as it has to touch on three distinct topics.

If you don't have the WINGS certificate in hand, you are on the hook for a flight review. ALL of a flight review. If for no other reason than you can't prove your FR is current without it.

WINGS courses do not generally come with flight review endorsements. That's not how it works.

If your club has an annual exam, it might be eligible for WINGS, too. A flight review is, and so is a checkride. It makes no difference for your flight review requirement if you're already getting annual flight reviews, but it might look good to your insurance company or employer. I've been doing that with CAP annual Form 5s, which are similar.

It's free, and the hassle is minimal if you're already doing flight reviews.

 

[bradg33]

It's not a stretch. Appears this is area that you're unaware of or weak in. The CFI that did my FR was a very experienced CFI. I myself have been a CFI since 1978 and would not have a problem doing just the flight portion of the FR. It is legal and accepted. Of course you will do what you want, which is fine. But don't write that it's a stretch because you don't know it's acceptable, or you won't accept it.

Unless the AOPA comes with some sort of legitimate logbook endorsement, it's not "ground training." If it does, that's a different story. I can't find an AOPA "flight review" ground course by my searches, and nobody has suggested that the AOPA course comes with a sufficient "endorsement" for your logbook. Unless AOPA is providing an endorsement, it's not ground training and it can't satisfy 61.56. I know lots of experienced CFIs who don't actually know what the regs say.

 

[mscard88]

Thought it was AOPA but could have been Gleim. Regardless this CFI accepted it for the ground portion of the FR.

edit: It was Gleim and it's called FR Ground Training. Again, you don't have to accept this yourself, but it is acceptable to a CFI to use it to satisfy the ground portion. The certificate is actually signed and certified by a CFI at Gleim. That's not to say the CFI conducting the FR is prevented from asking questions also if that CFI desires.

https://www.gleim.com/aviation/renewal_courses/frgt.php#panel_tab=General&panel_link=Overview

 

[BillTIZ]

Boy, did this thread go down a different path.