No more practical test observers

P

poadeleted20

Deleted
Joined
Apr 8, 2005
Messages
31,250
AFS-600 has decreed that nobody other than an FAA Inspector may any longer observe any part of a practical test (ground or flight). Their justification is as follows (complete with their spelling errors):

We don't allow anyone other than an ASI to watch an exam. Thus came out if our findings during SEEDs where the CFI's were training to the test the DPE was giving. Also we witnessed CFIs giving nonverbal cues.It's now a policy decision not a FSDO one. We have communicated through public comment period and our outreach to the field focal points. Like any policy it will take a while to be fully realized. The current order 8900.2A was actually published on the web on May 11.
Click to expand...
 
Thus came out if our findings during SEEDs where the CFI's were training to the test the DPE was giving
Click to expand...

YGTBSM.. Excuse my English..but..It is the CFI's ****ING JOB to train to the test which the DPE is giving. That is the *ENTIRE* point of the practical test standards. That is what we ENDORSE and sign our name behind. If that is a problem, then the FAA needs to toss out the idea of the PTS.

The only thing a CFI could do is not teach the things the DPE doesn't cover in the PTS. If that's the case then that's the fault of the DPE not the CFI.

That's the worst justification they could have possibly written.

(Personally I've never observed a student's checkride)
 
Last edited:
Seems they have also hired 1st graders to write for them. Pretty sad even for the government.
 
There's a large part of the population that writes like that. Before I hire someone, I try to converse with them over email a bit just to assess this.
 
If the CFI is teaching to the DPE,that DPE must not be testing to the PTS. That's really not fair,to the student who goes by the rules.
 
jesse said:
YGTBSM.. Excuse my English..but..It is the CFI's ****ING JOB to train to the test which the DPE is giving. That is the *ENTIRE* point of the practical test standards. That is what we ENDORSE and sign our name behind. If that is a problem, then the FAA needs to toss out the idea of the PTS.

The only thing a CFI could do is not teach the things the DPE doesn't cover in the PTS. If that's the case then that's the fault of the DPE not the CFI.

That's the worst justification they could have possibly written.

(Personally I've never observed a student's checkride)
Click to expand...

No, it's the CFI's job to train a safe and proficient pilot. It is the DPE's job to assess whether they have accomplished that. The test is a tool, not a product or result.
 
Henning said:
No, it's the CFI's job to train a safe and proficient pilot. It is the DPE's job to assess whether they have accomplished that. The test is a tool, not a product or result.
Click to expand...

I agree when it comes to creating a pilot overall, but when it comes to the scope of sending someone to a checkride, it is our job to prepare the student to pass the DPE's checkride, as the DPE should be following the PTS precisely and we should ensure they can do everything in the PTS precisely. There should be no "advantage" or "negative" to a CFI seeing a DPE's checkride because the checkride itself is standard and already published.

The FAA wants us to legally endorse the following:
I certify that (John, A, Doe) has received the required training in accordance with
sections 61.107 and 61.109. I have determined he is prepared for the Private Pilot Single Engine Landing Practical Test.
[date] J. J. Jones 987654321 CFI Exp. 12-31-05
Click to expand...

The DPE must conduct the above practical test per the PTS guidelines:
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf

Since the DPE must test to a standard, and since the instructor must endorse that the student is prepared to pass that standard, the following makes no sense and invalidates how the FAA says a checkride should be conducted:
Thus came out if our findings during SEEDs where the CFI's were training to the test the DPE was giving
Click to expand...
The CFI is REQUIRED to WRITE and SIGN an endorsement stating the student is prepared to pass the test the DPE will be giving.
 
jesse said:
I agree when it comes to creating a pilot overall, but when it comes to the scope of sending someone to a checkride, it is our job to prepare the student to pass the DPE's checkride, as the DPE should be following the PTS precisely and we should ensure they can do everything in the PTS precisely. There should be no "advantage" or "negative" to a CFI seeing a DPE's checkride because the checkride itself is standard and already published.

The FAA wants us to legally endorse the following:


The DPE must conduct the above practical test per the PTS guidelines:
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf

Since the DPE must test to a standard, and since the instructor must endorse that the student is prepared to pass that standard, the following makes no sense and invalidates how the FAA says a checkride should be conducted:

The CFI is REQUIRED to WRITE and SIGN an endorsement stating the student is prepared to pass the test the DPE will be giving.
Click to expand...


Correct, there is one factor you are omitting though, the DPE is not required to test every discipline in the PTS, or how to test it, and typically don't due to the time required.

What this is about is that the CFIs don't learn what DPEs typically omit, then omit that from the training they give. According to the letter at least, this is the problem they observed they are trying to address.
 
Henning said:
Correct, there is one factor you are omitting though, the DPE is not required to test every discipline in the PTS, or how to test it, and typically don't due to the time required.

What this is about is that the CFIs don't learn what DPEs typically omit, then omit that from the training they give. According to the letter at least, this is the problem they observed they are trying to address.
Click to expand...

I understand that, but IMO that is a fault with DPE(s) giving bad checkrides not with CFI's observing the checkrides. This won't fix the bad checkride problem as the first thing instructors do is ask the student what was covered in the checkride.
 
jesse said:
I understand that, but IMO that is a fault with DPE(s) giving bad checkrides not with CFI's observing the checkrides. This won't fix the bad checkride problem as the first thing instructors do is ask the student what was covered in the checkride.
Click to expand...

Nothing is effective as long as people want to cheap out on a system. It's all just stuff to make it look like things are being fixed.
 
I've sat in on numerous oral exams. I always made sure I was out of line of sight for the candidate, an easy fix for one of the complaints.

It's obvious that DPEs conducting exams to the standards of the PTS (and soon, ACS) will still place different emphasis on certain areas. Especially in the oral, it isn't practical to cover every single detail. So, yes, a CFI can train for a specific DPE, but I don't see any problem with that at all. It's better to be prepared than to blunder on some unexpected topic or item.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How the heck does a CFI in the back seat give "nonverbal cues." They just don't want witnesses.
Click to expand...
I suspect the "nonverbal cues" were being given during the oral part.

My CFII was at my instrument oral and except for one instance when he backed me up when the DPE was wrong about something, faded into the woodwork. I tend to agree about witnesses. But CFIs as witnesses serve as an important deterrent against DPEs deviating from the PTS.

Nuts to this ruling, just the FAA flexing its muscles because it can.
 
write-stuff said:
I've sat in on numerous oral exams. I always made sure I was out of line of sight for the candidate, an easy fix for one of the complaints.

It's obvious that DPEs conducting exams to the standards of the PTS (and soon, ACS) will still place different emphasis on certain areas. Especially in the oral, it isn't practical to cover every single detail. So, yes, a CFI can train for a specific DPE, but I don't see any problem with that at all. It's better to be prepared than to blunder on some unexpected topic or item.
Click to expand...

The issue isn't CFIs training to the DPE, it's outside observers being witness to some of the kangaroo DPEs the FSDOs are protecting. Some of the FSDOs are notorious for this.
 
post-14790-0-32938200-1429670851_zpsbecrl0yc.png
 
midlifeflyer said:
Exactly. That's usually the reason for not wanting witnesses.
Click to expand...

Well, you have to look at both problems, and address which is worse. I suspect the amount of DPEs gaming the system and going off the reservation with regards to the PTS is a pretty small one, and they do address it as is obvious with the retest announcements over the last couple of years over decertified DPE and DMEs (I think that's what they call mechanic examiner designees).

It's not going to be particularly effective though since the training program itself is the failure, not the cheating it, that is producing substandard pilots. You just can't make chicken soup from chicken ****, and having the first flying job being CFI is using the blind to train the blind, deaf, and dumb. Until CFI becomes a 1500hr ticket, the training system will continue to produce the pilots it produces.
 
Henning said:
It's not going to be particularly effective though since the training program itself is the failure, not the cheating it, that is producing substandard pilots. You just can't make chicken soup from chicken ****, and having the first flying job being CFI is using the blind to train the blind, deaf, and dumb. Until CFI becomes a 1500hr ticket, the training system will continue to produce the pilots it produces.
Click to expand...

I dunno, the CFI initial exam does a good job at weeding out those not qualified and/or incompetent, wouldn't you agree?
 
midlifeflyer said:
How the heck does a CFI in the back seat give "nonverbal cues." They just don't want witnesses.
Click to expand...


That's easy.

In 1977 another pilot and I were taking a 135 check. I was flying and we were going to an obscure airport.

The FAA inspector was in the front right seat. My pal was in the back right.

I had not seen it yet, but out of the corner of my eye I saw "pal" in the back seat pointing to it!

Later we flew corporate jets all over the world, so all is good!
 
Henning said:
Correct, there is one factor you are omitting though, the DPE is not required to test every discipline in the PTS,
Click to expand...
That's not true. The DPE is required to test every Area/Task as directed by the PTS.

or how to test it, and typically don't due to the time required.
Click to expand...
DPE's who omit Areas/Tasks are not following the rules, and if the FAA catches them, they lose their designation.

What this is about is that the CFIs don't learn what DPEs typically omit, then omit that from the training they give. According to the letter at least, this is the problem they observed they are trying to address.
Click to expand...
If that were true, then the problem is the DPE's who aren't following the rules, not the CFI's observing them.
 
jesse said:
I understand that, but IMO that is a fault with DPE(s) giving bad checkrides not with CFI's observing the checkrides. This won't fix the bad checkride problem as the first thing instructors do is ask the student what was covered in the checkride.
Click to expand...
Youre right...it won't fix the problem. But the problem as you presented it isn't bad checkrides, it's bad CFIs.
 
midlifeflyer said:
How the heck does a CFI in the back seat give "nonverbal cues." They just don't want witnesses.
Click to expand...
Some DPE's are foolish enough to let the observer sit where the applicant can see them but the DPE cannot instead of the other way around. However, that's a DPE failing, and it's easily corrected by less destructive measures.
 
jesse said:
YGTBSM.. Excuse my English..but..It is the CFI's ****ING JOB to train to the test which the DPE is giving. That is the *ENTIRE* point of the practical test standards. That is what we ENDORSE and sign our name behind. If that is a problem, then the FAA needs to toss out the idea of the PTS.

The only thing a CFI could do is not teach the things the DPE doesn't cover in the PTS. If that's the case then that's the fault of the DPE not the CFI.

That's the worst justification they could have possibly written.

(Personally I've never observed a student's checkride)
Click to expand...


Agreed.


That said, out of all the guys I've sent for rides I've never tagged along.

This is quite pointless, when the student debriefs the CFI anyway.
 
RotorAndWing said:
I dunno, the CFI initial exam does a good job at weeding out those not qualified and/or incompetent, wouldn't you agree?
Click to expand...

At least the FSDO ones seem to.

Average 6hr oral
 
James331 said:
At least the FSDO ones seem to.

Average 6hr oral
Click to expand...

But it's to a set of standards of a program that is inefficient at best. Training up coming airline pilots the way we do is not nearly producing the result it could, at an even lower cost of getting to the right seat. They should be training as airline pilots from primacy, and the system half assed tries to account for this by teaching bomber pattern sizes and landings that drag in under power from day one. The problem this creates is GA pilots flying 172s like the airliners they aren't. There really should be 2 training systems, one ab-initio for people who are heading for an airline career where they start in a disciplined team environment from day one, and one that is a GA route that stresses the more precise low energy regimes that are conducive to single engine emergencies and general operation, as well as the differences in CRM and ADM.

Every year there are failures of pilots in both capacities due to having a single training regime try to serve two disparate masters.
 
This is reminding me of the (very long) thread with the guy who claimed to have had a DPE with an issue over doing a video of his practical test.

"Well, if my CFI can't come along, I want to tape this."

A competent representative of the government shouldn't be afraid to have their work observed.

This is incredibly stupid on the part of the FAA.

Well no, it's the FAA, so it's par for the course.
 
dans2992 said:
There's a large part of the population that writes like that. Before I hire someone, I try to converse with them over email a bit just to assess this.
Click to expand...

People who think spelling, grammar, and punctuation don't matter, take note!

(And no, a spelling checker is not a substitute for proofreading.)
 
Henning said:
But it's to a set of standards of a program that is inefficient at best. Training up coming airline pilots the way we do is not nearly producing the result it could, at an even lower cost of getting to the right seat. They should be training as airline pilots from primacy, and the system half assed tries to account for this by teaching bomber pattern sizes and landings that drag in under power from day one. The problem this creates is GA pilots flying 172s like the airliners they aren't. There really should be 2 training systems, one ab-initio for people who are heading for an airline career where they start in a disciplined team environment from day one, and one that is a GA route that stresses the more precise low energy regimes that are conducive to single engine emergencies and general operation, as well as the differences in CRM and ADM.

Every year there are failures of pilots in both capacities due to having a single training regime try to serve two disparate masters.
Click to expand...
What about the pilots who do both...or neither?
 
This is gonna just be more protection of jackwaggon DPE's. On BOTH my PPL and IFR DPE's they both pulled crap that if I knew what I know now I would have filed a formal complaint on both of them...but I passed both and didn't know much better at the time. I actually declined offers from both my CFIs to sit in as I was more comfortable that way but had they been in the room and/or plane the DPE crap would not have happened.
 
jesse said:
I agree when it comes to creating a pilot overall, but when it comes to the scope of sending someone to a checkride, it is our job to prepare the student to pass the DPE's checkride, as the DPE should be following the PTS precisely and we should ensure they can do everything in the PTS precisely. There should be no "advantage" or "negative" to a CFI seeing a DPE's checkride because the checkride itself is standard and already published.

The FAA wants us to legally endorse the following:


The DPE must conduct the above practical test per the PTS guidelines:
https://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/test_standards/media/FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf

Since the DPE must test to a standard, and since the instructor must endorse that the student is prepared to pass that standard, the following makes no sense and invalidates how the FAA says a checkride should be conducted:

The CFI is REQUIRED to WRITE and SIGN an endorsement stating the student is prepared to pass the test the DPE will be giving.
Click to expand...

I prepare my students to pass the check ride from any DPE the student choses for the test. I realize many CFI's like to funnel their students to one examiner, but it is a practice I disagree with.
 
Incompetence in this Administration is trickling down through all the agencies. Witness the controller hiring fiasco. This "statement" is just further evidence.
 
LDJones said:
Incompetence in this Administration is trickling down through all the agencies.
Click to expand...

There's unfortunately a lot of truth in this. We are seeing across the board absurdity coming down from various political appointees in high places.
 
Henning said:
But it's to a set of standards of a program that is inefficient at best. Training up coming airline pilots the way we do is not nearly producing the result it could, at an even lower cost of getting to the right seat. They should be training as airline pilots from primacy, and the system half assed tries to account for this by teaching bomber pattern sizes and landings that drag in under power from day one. The problem this creates is GA pilots flying 172s like the airliners they aren't. There really should be 2 training systems, one ab-initio for people who are heading for an airline career where they start in a disciplined team environment from day one, and one that is a GA route that stresses the more precise low energy regimes that are conducive to single engine emergencies and general operation, as well as the differences in CRM and ADM.

Every year there are failures of pilots in both capacities due to having a single training regime try to serve two disparate masters.
Click to expand...


Let's not mess with things or try to turn this place into Europe. That will be the death of GA.


There are many areas in this country where we need some work, where we need to catch to other parts of the world, I'm not one to say the US is number one on everything.

When it comes to aviation, I will say with zero hesitation, the US airsystem is number one, hands down, it is the system many other countries model themselves after and some other countries should try to emulate.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
AFS-600 has decreed that nobody other than an FAA Inspector may any longer observe any part of a practical test (ground or flight). Their justification is as follows (complete with their spelling errors):
Click to expand...

We don't allow anyone other than an ASI to watch an exam. Thus came out if our findings during SEEDs where the CFI's were training to the test the DPE was giving. Also we witnessed CFIs giving nonverbal cues.It's now a policy decision not a FSDO one. We have communicated through public comment period and our outreach to the field focal points. Like any policy it will take a while to be fully realized. The current order 8900.2A was actually published on the web on May 11.
Click to expand...

Ron, out of curiosity, is there a link to that order?
 
No observers, girls ride free.:lol: Damn cockblocking cfis ruining all the fun.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top