Letter of Discontinuance for different endorsement wording

Status
Not open for further replies.
Just like the guy who observed the low-flying airplane in the other thread; either report it or don't, handle it yourself or don't, but don't expect everyone here to agree with you. This is the internet...
 
frcabot said:
In any case, Mods, please lock this thread as I have the answers I was looking for. Thanks.
Click to expand...

That's not the way the internet works, son.

You get your answers and the trolls, hanger lawyers and peanut gallery get their amusement. Sorry.
 
Well...he is correct about the endorsement being invalid since 61.39(a)(6) does in fact require the training within 2 calendar months, not 60 days. That aside, he's being a real dick by handling it the way he's handling it-especially by charging you for a re-ride.
 
First and last post...........The DPE is sounding better and better as the post count advances!
 
frcabot said:
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?
Click to expand...

You don't do any other log book in that dumbass way. My approaches for IFR currency or my to/landings for passengers are logged on the date they are done. My annual is signed off for a date certain, my 100 hour at a date and time in service, my transponder checks and static checks for a given time, my Third class Medical for a given date of examination. While the regs say they have to be within a certain number of months or calendar months, the log entries are done when they are done.

Even the FAA justification for changing the regs to CALENDAR MONTHS was to make it easier to match up the actual instruction to the two month/60 day window.

In fact, logging that on 6/28/2014, Joe Student had received instruction in the preceding two calendar months doesn't mean squat if he takes the checkride on 7/1/2014. Absent knowing when the requisite insturction was ACTUALLY GIVEN you don't know from that endorsement if he is eligible for the ride.

This DPE not only has his head firmly planted in his posterior, he's potentially passing people inappropriately if all he's looking for is the stupid-ass endoresment he wants.
 
flyingron said:
You don't do any other log book in that dumbass way. My approaches for IFR currency or my to/landings for passengers are logged on the date they are done. My annual is signed off for a date certain, my 100 hour at a date and time in service, my transponder checks and static checks for a given time, my Third class Medical for a given date of examination. While the regs say they have to be within a certain number of months or calendar months, the log entries are done when they are done.

Even the FAA justification for changing the regs to CALENDAR MONTHS was to make it easier to match up the actual instruction to the two month/60 day window.

In fact, logging that on 6/28/2014, Joe Student had received instruction in the preceding two calendar months doesn't mean squat if he takes the checkride on 7/1/2014. Absent knowing when the requisite insturction was ACTUALLY GIVEN you don't know from that endorsement if he is eligible for the ride.

This DPE not only has his head firmly planted in his posterior, he's potentially passing people inappropriately if all he's looking for is the stupid-ass endoresment he wants.
Click to expand...
100% agree with everything you just said. I think one would need to look at when the training was actually given. There shouldn't be any "magic words."
 
kgruber said:
First and last post...........The DPE is sounding better and better as the post count advances!
Click to expand...
Thank you for your constructive post. Go fly with him and report back. (...........) lol
 
GCA319 said:
Well...he is correct about the endorsement being invalid since 61.39(a)(6) does in fact require the training within 2 calendar months, not 60 days. That aside, he's being a real dick by handling it the way he's handling it-especially by charging you for a re-ride.
Click to expand...

Under what circumstances could the requisite training have been given within the preceding 60 days (per the endorsement) but NOT have been given within the preceding two calendar months (per the amended reg)? Checkride on April 1? (No fooling, that's the day I took my PPL ride, after two cancellations.) If the endorsement had said "preceding one calendar month" (vice "two") would it also be invalid because it didn't verbatim copy the reg, despite being within the time period of the reg?

I think that's the beginning of the OP's complaint.
 
Last edited:
DJTorrente said:
Under what circumstances could the requisite training have been given within the preceding 60 days (per the endorsement) but NOT have been given within the preceding two calendar months (per the amended reg)? Checkride on April 1? (No fooling, that's the day I took my PPL ride, after two cancellations.) If the endorsement had said "preceding one calendar month" (vice "two") would it also be invalid because it didn't verbatim copy the reg, despite being within the time period of the reg?

I think that's the beginning of the OP's complaint.
Click to expand...

Because the reg say's 2 calendar months and the intent of a 61.39(a)(6) endorsement is to verify that the exact terms of the reg have been met. if more people kept this kind of stuff standard (such as following AC 61.65E to the letter on other endorsements), we wouldn't have to have threads like this arguing semantics.
 
Have you seen ac 61-65e paragraph 10?
 
You desire the thread to end? The quit poking the bears in the gallery. For as long as you continue to do so, they will poke back.
 
I had the same exact thing happen to me. Although the DPE didn't take my money.
 
Unless one of the past two months was February, it seems to me that something that occurred within the last 60 days also occurred within the last two calendar months.
 
frcabot said:
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.
Click to expand...

If everybody including your family give you 'enough eye rolling' have you considered you may be stupid? You sure give that impression here.
 
Henning said:
If everybody including your family give you 'enough eye rolling' have you considered you may be stupid? You sure give that impression here.
Click to expand...
No, I haven't. As a matter of fact I'm pretty smart, and I'm guessing a fair bit smarter than you. Have you considered you may be an idiot? You sure give that impression here. Derp. I know you must get a rise out of trolling on internet forums and insulting people, but I feel kind of sorry for you.
 
Deleted.
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
No, I haven't. As a matter of fact I'm pretty smart, and I'm guessing a fair bit smarter than you. Have you considered you may be an idiot? You sure give that impression here. Derp. I know you must get a rise out of trolling on internet forums and insulting people, but I feel kind of sorry for you.
Click to expand...

I consider it and come to the conclusion that "Yes, I am an idiot, after it all, how can I still have hope for a species so pitifully stupid?"

It really wasn't said to insult you, rather to make you understand your position. You are dealing with a bureaucratic process, and you intend to handle outside the bureaucratic system, strike one against you. You are seeking evidence that may very well come after your filing statute of limitations for your preferred method of relief closes, that's strike two. Your method of relief does nothing to protect others from the same abuses, it is purely selfish, as are your motives for not going to the FSDO. That's strike three.

I may be an idiot,but at least I try to do the right thing and help people out. You just want to protect yourself. You are the type of a person that makes me an idiot for holding out hope.
 
Henning said:
I consider it and come to the conclusion that "Yes, I am an idiot, after it all, how can I still have hope for a species so pitifully stupid?"

It really wasn't said to insult you, rather to make you understand your position. You are dealing with a bureaucratic process, and you intend to handle outside the bureaucratic system, strike one against you. You are seeking evidence that may very well come after your filing statute of limitations for your preferred method of relief closes, that's strike two. Your method of relief does nothing to protect others from the same abuses, it is purely selfish, as are your motives for not going to the FSDO. That's strike three.

I may be an idiot,but at least I try to do the right thing and help people out. You just want to protect yourself. You are the type of a person that makes me an idiot for holding out hope.
Click to expand...
For someone who's not trying to be insulting, you sure could have fooled the rest of us.

I am dealing with a human being and I prefer trying to work things out with people one-on-one in an "amicable" way, if at all possible, rather than running straight to the authorities. I am not the ultimate arbiter of what is right and wrong. The DPE may be a very capable guy who is simply misinformed/was having a bad day/whatever. I am not going to "rat him out" without trying to talk to the guy first. That's the same courtesy I would want from someone else.
 
That makes you a selfish ****tard because that guy is out there ****ing over other people as well. You think you are so superior that you need to operate outside the designedly stem, you won't deal with the peons at the FSDO, the peons who have the ability to stop this guy, no, you write some missive in the obscure to Chief Counsel, you deserve that level of attention, and then you'll waste some court time, maybe, if you get your answer in time.
In the mean time the guys at the FSDO could have revoked his designation.

You are a selfish prick in this course of action. That is a statement of fact, whether you choose to be insulted by that is your prerogative, personally I would be ashamed.
 
Henning said:
That makes you a selfish ****tard because that guy is out there ****ing over other people as well. You think you are so superior that you need to operate outside the designedly stem, you won't deal with the peons at the FSDO, the peons who have the ability to stop this guy, no, you write some missive in the obscure to Chief Counsel, you deserve that level of attention, and then you'll waste some court time, maybe, if you get your answer in time.
In the mean time the guys at the FSDO could have revoked his designation.

You are a selfish prick in this course of action. That is a statement of fact, whether you choose to be insulted by that is your prerogative, personally I would be ashamed.
Click to expand...
LOL well this has really gone way out of hand, especially if you're not intending to be insulting. . . .

I have no evidence that the guy has done this to anyone else. My reluctance to go to the FSDO has nothing to do with not wanting to deal with "peons" but on the contrary not wanting to needlessly defame someone. I am a sample size of one. I'd have to imagine that if other people were getting screwed over by the guy then there'd be other evidence of that. So until I have a better understanding of what his MO is, I'm not going to screw the guy over.
 
I take no position as I'm just a newbie, but I find this sort of interesting.

The consensus here is that the OP should promptly report the nit-picking DPE to the FSDO without regard to the effect on him and without talking to him about the issue, but in the other thread the consensus is that the OP should not report the allegedly reckless and low-flying pilot to the FSDO because that would be tattling and potentially effect him and should only proceed by talking to him about the issue.

:dunno:
 
Last edited:
frcabot said:
LOL well this has really gone way out of hand, especially if you're not intending to be insulting. . . .

I have no evidence that the guy has done this to anyone else. My reluctance to go to the FSDO has nothing to do with not wanting to deal with "peons" but on the contrary not wanting to needlessly defame someone. I am a sample size of one. I'd have to imagine that if other people were getting screwed over by the guy then there'd be other evidence of that. So until I have a better understanding of what his MO is, I'm not going to screw the guy over.
Click to expand...

:popcorn::popcorn::popcorn:............;)
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I take no position as I'm just a newbie, but I find this sort of interesting.

The consensus here is that the OP should promptly report the nit-picking DPE to the FSDO without regard to the effect on him and without talking to him about the issue, but in the other thread the consensus is that the OP should not report the allegedly reckless and low-flying pilot to the FSDO because that would be tattling and potentially effect him and should only proceed by talking to him about the issue.

:dunno:
Click to expand...

The other thread is a mixed bag, some say report, some say don't, I don't think it is a consensus. This one is pretty much everyone saying go to the FSDO. Surely you see the difference in the two events, no? As to the OP, I wonder why if you had your course of action already laid out, why did you come here asking advice? Then you get almost unanimous opinions and instead of taking the advice you basically tell everyone they don't know what they are talking about. Good luck to you, I think you are going to need it.
 
A recklessly low flying pilot is completely different from somebody using a government issued position of authority to commit what amounts to theft.

One guy is having the fun he wants to for the money he spends and reality causes very little risk to anyone besides themselves. The other guy is ripping people off under government sanction. If it is not clear which and why to report the actions of, I cannot say.
 
frcabot said:
LOL well this has really gone way out of hand, especially if you're not intending to be insulting. . . .

I have no evidence that the guy has done this to anyone else. My reluctance to go to the FSDO has nothing to do with not wanting to deal with "peons" but on the contrary not wanting to needlessly defame someone. I am a sample size of one. I'd have to imagine that if other people were getting screwed over by the guy then there'd be other evidence of that. So until I have a better understanding of what his MO is, I'm not going to screw the guy over.
Click to expand...

He has done this to you, correct? So going to his superiors in the established chain of command is not defaming him, it is providing facts. If those facts defame him, then so be it, but that is not you defaming him, that is his actions defaming him. If I went to the FSDO and turned him in reporting your story, then I would be defaming him. If you go to the FSDO and report your story, that is holding a person accountable to their superiors which We The People have tasked with the duty of overseeing this guy. By not reporting this guy, you are wasting taxpayer money twice, not get the oversight and enforcement of designee authority we are paying for, and costing more guys false failure fees.

Your karmic duty is to go against those who abuse authority, not shield them from their misdeeds. You could though go to the Dark Side and extort him for your silence with the option being an Internet firestorm with your story.

When we make our choices, we form the future we have to live in, choose wisely because karma is a stone mother ****er.:lol:
 
This arguing for arguments sake is getting a bit trollish.
 
gov98 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Off topic, but isn't that exactly what OJ is in jail for?
 
FastEddieB said:
Off topic, but isn't that exactly what OJ is in jail for?
Click to expand...

... :)

If the OP decides that what he's going to try and do is tell the DPE, give me my money back or I'm going to go to the FSDO (or give me money back and give me the check ride for free), it's possible that will work out as the OP hopes...OR it will getter bogged down in the minutia of he's only talking to the FSDO because he failed or some other blah blah blah, the DPE will be able to be like I spent 3 hours sorting out his logbook and now he's complaining about my fee, in fact, by probably waiting up to this point, the impact of the moment is lost and the FSDO will have lost interest potentially strongly taking the DPEs time and wondering if the OP is trying to pull a fast one on the DPE.

Government bureaucracy is weird, and going through the chief counsel first is just...strange. Not to get too religious, but as a historical point, this is actually part of what we see in Acts when Paul appeals to Caesar. Agrippa is like "man if he hadn't appealed to Caesar I would've solved his problems, but the man wants to go to Caesar, looks like I don't have to deal with this mess anymore."

And if there is anything a government bureaucrat will do...it's let another government bureaucrat deal with a problem (said as one who is a government bureaucrat.)
 
weilke said:
This arguing for arguments sake is getting a bit trollish.
Click to expand...

I'm not arguing for arguments sake, I am arguing to achieve a result, to educate a person on a viewpoint he may not have considered in order to get him to change his mind and act in a positive manner. That sir is the exact opposite of trolling. I don't just want him to get him riled up, I want him to act as a purpose.
 
On my comm checkride, had DPE give me some heartache over something similar. My instructor called the FSDO and an hour later I had my temporary certificate in hand.

Don't know what the big deal is about the OP just calling the FSDO.
 
gov98 said:
... :)

If the OP decides that what he's going to try and do is tell the DPE, give me my money back or I'm going to go to the FSDO (or give me money back and give me the check ride for free), it's possible that will work out as the OP hopes...OR it will getter bogged down in the minutia of he's only talking to the FSDO because he failed or some other blah blah blah, the DPE will be able to be like I spent 3 hours sorting out his logbook and now he's complaining about my fee, in fact, by probably waiting up to this point, the impact of the moment is lost and the FSDO will have lost interest potentially strongly taking the DPEs time and wondering if the OP is trying to pull a fast one on the DPE.
Click to expand...

The DPE will say to himself, "If this guy wants a checkride, I'll GIVE him a checkride, and he'll be walking funny for a week! Oh, yeah, and he'll fail it, too."


Wait until the Chief Counsel sends back a letter, in about 6 months, asking why FSDO wasn't contacted first.

If the DPE really is misinterpreting the rules the FSDO is in place to take care of it, not the CC. Maybe it's a simple misunderstanding, maybe the guy really doesn't know what he's doing. Either way, the problem can get resolved quickly and quietly by FSDO.
 
register@teamandras.com said:
I take no position as I'm just a newbie, but I find this sort of interesting.

The consensus here is that the OP should promptly report the nit-picking DPE to the FSDO without regard to the effect on him and without talking to him about the issue, but in the other thread the consensus is that the OP should not report the allegedly reckless and low-flying pilot to the FSDO because that would be tattling and potentially effect him and should only proceed by talking to him about the issue.

:dunno:
Click to expand...
I find that pretty interesting too. Both posters got the technical advice they needed way toward the beginning of their threads, along with many opinions. The technical advice was valid but opinions are just opinions and they are not going to change people's minds by arguing.
 
Last edited:
Everskyward said:
I find that pretty interesting too. Both posters got the technical advice they needed way toward the beginning of their threads, along with many opinions. The technical advice was valid but opinions are just opinions and they are not going to change people's minds by arguing.
Click to expand...

:confused: I thought that was the whole purpose of an argument, to get people to consider other data points and perspectives and change their minds?:dunno: I always thought that arguing and learning from each other was what set man apart from other creatures. Other animals can only learn by mimic, mankind can learn by any form of expressed thought.

He had the technical advice at the beginning, however he did not have the moral advice to act on it. He was looking at it from a skewed perspective that was not conducive to forming a personally effective and socially responsible plan of action. I sought to provide that perspective differential.

If y'all think that is trolling or being needlessly argumentative, I'm sorry, I'll quit.
 
Henning said:
:confused: I thought that was the whole purpose of an argument, to get people to consider other data points and perspectives and change their minds?:dunno: I always thought that arguing and learning from each other was what set man apart from other creatures. Other animals can only learn by mimic, mankind can learn by any form of expressed thought.

He had the technical advice at the beginning, however he did not have the moral advice to act on it. He was looking at it from a skewed perspective that was not conducive to forming a personally effective and socially responsible plan of action. I sought to provide that perspective differential.

If y'all think that is trolling or being needlessly argumentative, I'm sorry, I'll quit.
Click to expand...
Everyone in this thread has their mind made up. No opinions are going to change. Your perspective is not his. Everyone has made their argument and making it over and over will not convince anyone, only harden them to their own opinion.
 
Last edited:
I don't know. Henning, R&W and Ron convinced me.
 
Everskyward said:
Many pages ago.
Click to expand...

But some of us are literally under house arrest right now, and this is the only amusement available. Along with pulling weeds out of the yard and cleaning up the dog poop.

Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood these days. No flying until November and still paying fixed expenses on the airplane. I just cancelled the reservations for Airventure.
 
murphey said:
But some of us are literally under house arrest right now, and this is the only amusement available. Along with pulling weeds out of the yard and cleaning up the dog poop.

Sorry, I'm just in a bad mood these days. No flying until November and still paying fixed expenses on the airplane. I just cancelled the reservations for Airventure.
Click to expand...
Bummer. Sorry I don't have an airplane to offer a ride like you did last summer.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top