The FAA knows no limit to their pettiness

[Palmpilot]

Do DPEs do CFI checkrides?

 

[Doc Holliday]

Do DPEs do CFI checkrides?

Yes.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

YouTube also:

- Isn’t a government
- Owns the domain in question
- Owns the SSL key on the domain
- Actually uses it
- Doesn’t point it at a domain squatter’s web server to hand out a secondary link to yet another third party server they don’t operate

Bzzzt. Try again.

Hi Nate-

My question refers to you answer and the question quoted below-
How can you tell from that link that the site isn't really in Belgium, or going through Belgium?
This is a real question, I'm not trying to trip you up. It certainly looks like a country code top level domain, to me.
Also, when should I be concerned a that a link appears to be another country?

I can't read everything you wrote, but using links with a different ccTLD is itself not a sign of incompetence or lax security. Plenty of services do it for lots of reasons, ranging from link shortening to tracking to just thinking they're cute. It's totally normal in 2020. Here's a YouTube link:

https://youtu.be/eXK1_mcf0fc

YouTube is not in Belgium.

 

[denverpilot]

Hi Nate-

My question refers to you answer and the question quoted below-
How can you tell from that link that the site isn't really in Belgium, or going through Belgium?
This is a real question, I'm not trying to trip you up. It certainly looks like a country code top level domain, to me.
Also, when should I be concerned a that a link appears to be another country?

You can’t tell by DNS or IP where any particular piece of equipment handling it is.

 

[MauleSkinner]

a guy that demanded the FSDO perform his sons check ride after hearing what DPE charged....they said no, but he contacted his congressman and actually got them to do it.

Good on him. That was a similar exception I took with the SAT FSDO refusing to process my CFI renewal neither in person nor by mail. Complete dereliction of public duty they're chartered with.

Sounds like we need to all contact our congresscritters to get more inspectors hired.

 

[Cap'n Jack]

You can’t tell by DNS or IP where any particular piece of equipment handling it is.

I suppose because of going through a VPN or something?

Then why is a .gd, for example, bad? Why is the .be ok, and .gd, or .ly not? Or does it really matter?

Lol I had to look. .gd is Grenada.

I guess it’s slightly better than government agencies using the “bit.ly” link shortener and indirectly paying Libya. Hahaha.

Pound. Head. On. Desk.

Just what you want. Official emails from government with the embedded links using the official domain of Grenada.

What a bunch of absolute morons.

 

[hindsight2020]

Sounds like we need to all contact our congresscritters to get more inspectors hired.

Of course, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I have no quarrel with that appeal. Doesn't make the current DPE environment defensible in the least.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Of course, we can walk and chew gum at the same time. I have no quarrel with that appeal. Doesn't make the current DPE environment defensible in the least.

Not saying it does. The complaint is that it costs too much to take checkrides, and the FAA won’t do them for free. The reason the FAA won’t do them is staffing. The DPE program was not only never intended to be a full time job, it was never intended to exist.

Fix the problem, don’t just add another Band Aid.

 

[denverpilot]

I suppose because of going through a VPN or something?

Then why is a .gd, for example, bad? Why is the .be ok, and .gd, or .ly not? Or does it really matter?

Generally one can “trust” that a government domain is controlled by a government as well as often they’ll get pointed to an IP block also controlled by government.

Even if the latter isn’t true, it’s far more difficult to hijack a .gov than anything else, so whatever it’s pointed at is likely at least known to be a vetted/approved IP.

Whether it misbehaves after that, is still somewhat in question if it’s hosted by a private entity. If it has no published privacy policy that it can be held to under the law, or the subcontract doesn’t state it, that’s a problem. Should be mandatory.

Disclaimer: I say that as someone running a bunch of domains for governmental agencies. Would prefer they use their proper DNS and set it pointed at us themselves, as well as auditing us, but that costs money and they don’t want to pay for any of it. We still get audits by agencies waaaaay above the little customer level ones though, due to the type of websites they are.

FAA is high enough up that fake money food chain they can afford to do it correctly. Easily.

The shakeout from SolarWinds is going to be massive. And expensive. And it’s a Trojan Horse through the back door.

The front door isn’t even properly secured in most cases. Not that we run into many agencies that even have staff that understand it. When we do, they don’t have any say in it.

Incorrectly applied technology abounds online. Ohhh well. It’s the old, “We can build it correctly if you’re paying for it... if not, we’ll build whatever you want to whatever budget level you want. Sign here that you ignored our recommendation of best practices.”

Lots of shops aren’t even clueful enough to go that far. “My cousin made a website once so we decided to bid on this contract.” Or the more common, “We have an inside track to winning this bid that has nothing to do with us building things correctly.”

 

[Cap'n Jack]

Generally one can “trust” that a government domain is controlled by a government as well as often they’ll get pointed to an IP block also controlled by government.

Even if the latter isn’t true, it’s far more difficult to hijack a .gov than anything else, so whatever it’s pointed at is likely at least known to be a vetted/approved IP.

Whether it misbehaves after that, is still somewhat in question if it’s hosted by a private entity. If it has no published privacy policy that it can be held to under the law, or the subcontract doesn’t state it, that’s a problem. Should be mandatory.

Disclaimer: I say that as someone running a bunch of domains for governmental agencies. Would prefer they use their proper DNS and set it pointed at us themselves, as well as auditing us, but that costs money and they don’t want to pay for any of it. We still get audits by agencies waaaaay above the little customer level ones though, due to the type of websites they are.

FAA is high enough up that fake money food chain they can afford to do it correctly. Easily.

The shakeout from SolarWinds is going to be massive. And expensive. And it’s a Trojan Horse through the back door.

The front door isn’t even properly secured in most cases. Not that we run into many agencies that even have staff that understand it. When we do, they don’t have any say in it.

Incorrectly applied technology abounds online. Ohhh well. It’s the old, “We can build it correctly if you’re paying for it... if not, we’ll build whatever you want to whatever budget level you want. Sign here that you ignored our recommendation of best practices.”

Lots of shops aren’t even clueful enough to go that far. “My cousin made a website once so we decided to bid on this contract.” Or the more common, “We have an inside track to winning this bid that has nothing to do with us building things correctly.”

Nate- thanks.
I read the reply to mean the .gov domain is far more likely to be a .gov domain, and the others are more likely be hijacked or otherwise not be the purported site.

Thank you for taking the time to reply.

 

[WWFeldman]

Not saying it does. The complaint is that it costs too much to take checkrides, and the FAA won’t do them for free. The reason the FAA won’t do them is staffing. The DPE program was not only never intended to be a full time job, it was never intended to exist.

Fix the problem, don’t just add another Band Aid.

The oddest part of the DPE situation to me is that it's encouraged and widely known to pay them in cash. No where else I can think of are the feds cool with not getting their cut of the money.

 

[Doc Holliday]

The oddest part of the DPE situation to me is that it's encouraged and widely known to pay them in cash. No where else I can think of are the feds cool with not getting their cut of the money.

I've heard the IRS closely scrutinizes tax returns from DPE's. The few DPE's I know keep very detailed records.

For this kind of service cash would be preferred over a check or credit card/debit card. Just think what an applicant could do if they failed the check ride then decided they wanted to retracted the payment.

 

[RyanShort1]

I've heard the IRS closely scrutinizes tax returns from DPE's. The few DPE's I know keep very detailed records.

For this kind of service cash would be preferred over a check or credit card/debit card. Just think what an applicant could do if they failed the check ride then decided they wanted to retracted the payment.

That makes sense...

 

[MauleSkinner]

The oddest part of the DPE situation to me is that it's encouraged and widely known to pay them in cash. No where else I can think of are the feds cool with not getting their cut of the money.

“Encouraged” by whom? As @Doc Holliday noted, it’s more self-defense on the part of the examiner, and it’s pretty tough to deny the feds their cut.

The IRS knows who to look hard at. The rest of us turnips they largely ignore.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Hindsight2020-
There was an effort years ago to allow CFIs with a certain level of experience, such as a gold seal or number of sign offs, to reinstate their expired CFI rating without paying for a check ride, in order boost number of CFIs and add experience to the ranks. Not sure how far it got in the policy process and I expect was likely shot down by FAA or more likely simply continued to be put off until most forgot about it or gave up.

I think it’s a good idea. I let mine expire once and ended up having to rent a C182 and take a reinstatement ride.... luckily the ride renewed my CFI instrument and multi rating as well as, at least at that time, one ride would renew all ratings on CFI certificate. not sure that’s still the rule. BUT I wouldn’t go through that again. Maybe the national CFI association will take up the cause as they have a voice with FAA.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Hindsight2020-
There was an effort years ago to allow CFIs with a certain level of experience, such as a gold seal or number of sign offs, to reinstate their expired CFI rating without paying for a check ride, in order boost number of CFIs and add experience to the ranks. Not sure how far it got in the policy process and I expect was likely shot down by FAA or more likely simply continued to be put off until most forgot about it or gave up.

I think it’s a good idea. I let mine expire once and ended up having to rent a C182 and take a reinstatement ride.... luckily the ride renewed my CFI instrument and multi rating as well as, at least at that time, one ride would renew all ratings on CFI certificate. not sure that’s still the rule. BUT I wouldn’t go through that again. Maybe the national CFI association will take up the cause as they have a voice with FAA.

A CFI reinstatement covers all CFI certificates held. Still the same.

CFI reinstatements are not a big item as far as demand, so the current ASI/DPE force can handle them when they come up. Bottom line is not to let the certificate lapse, and in today's world that's fairly simple to accomplish.

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Disagree. DPEs around my place are over 1 month out for scheduling. Got a buddy needing a CFI ride and was closer to 2 months out and going out of state for it and costing $1200 for the privilege. My fly club met with FSDO about getting more DPEs and told it was adequate. FAA doesn’t want to take on the oversight or has resources for it, so this is just another condition we just have to accept. You should not have to wait more than 2 weeks out, especially if you are paying cash to a private party protected by a government sponsored monopoly. If best wait is more than 3 weeks, FSDO should have to do it (this would change things quick). I understand this topic will be on AOPAs hit list this year.

 

[denverpilot]

Disagree. DPEs around my place are over 1 month out for scheduling. Got a buddy needing a CFI ride and was closer to 2 months out and going out of state for it and costing $1200 for the privilege. My fly club met with FSDO about getting more DPEs and told it was adequate. FAA doesn’t want to take on the oversight or has resources for it, so this is just another condition we just have to accept. You should not have to wait more than 2 weeks out, especially if you are paying cash to a private party protected by a government sponsored monopoly. If best wait is more than 3 weeks, FSDO should have to do it (this would change things quick). I understand this topic will be on AOPAs hit list this year.

Not defending it too hard, but this is one of the reasons they opened up cross-FSDO rides. If you're in a big hurry you can always toss in a small XC to go where it's not quite as overloaded.

Don't think that works for CFI initials though.

 

[RyanShort1]

Disagree. DPEs around my place are over 1 month out for scheduling. Got a buddy needing a CFI ride and was closer to 2 months out and going out of state for it and costing $1200 for the privilege. My fly club met with FSDO about getting more DPEs and told it was adequate. FAA doesn’t want to take on the oversight or has resources for it, so this is just another condition we just have to accept. You should not have to wait more than 2 weeks out, especially if you are paying cash to a private party protected by a government sponsored monopoly. If best wait is more than 3 weeks, FSDO should have to do it (this would change things quick). I understand this topic will be on AOPAs hit list this year.

Yeah, "recency" and "proficiency" aren't well-served by checklists that take eons to schedule. It's an burden.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Disagree. DPEs around my place are over 1 month out for scheduling. Got a buddy needing a CFI ride and was closer to 2 months out and going out of state for it and costing $1200 for the privilege. My fly club met with FSDO about getting more DPEs and told it was adequate. FAA doesn’t want to take on the oversight or has resources for it, so this is just another condition we just have to accept. You should not have to wait more than 2 weeks out, especially if you are paying cash to a private party protected by a government sponsored monopoly. If best wait is more than 3 weeks, FSDO should have to do it (this would change things quick). I understand this topic will be on AOPAs hit list this year.

How many checkrides that were already scheduled several weeks in advance should the FSDO cancel or postpone so they can do the ones that DPEs can’t get done in 3 weeks?

 

[AlphaPilotFlyer]

Not sure it should be complicated. If airman applicant cannot get a ride within a 3 week period, airman should be able to call and schedule with FSDO within that 3 week window. Question remains, what’s acceptable waiting period for a check ride and what’s a reasonable cost? FAA has no policy over designees, just saying maybe they should and have some incentive (or penalty, depending on view) to adequately staff designees and help GA get back to where it needs to be and not put burden or extra expense on applicant trying to stay current for a ride.

 

[hindsight2020]

Hindsight2020-
There was an effort years ago to allow CFIs with a certain level of experience, such as a gold seal or number of sign offs, to reinstate their expired CFI rating without paying for a check ride, in order boost number of CFIs and add experience to the ranks. Not sure how far it got in the policy process and I expect was likely shot down by FAA or more likely simply continued to be put off until most forgot about it or gave up.

I think it’s a good idea. I let mine expire once and ended up having to rent a C182 and take a reinstatement ride.... luckily the ride renewed my CFI instrument and multi rating as well as, at least at that time, one ride would renew all ratings on CFI certificate. not sure that’s still the rule. BUT I wouldn’t go through that again. Maybe the national CFI association will take up the cause as they have a voice with FAA.

Agree wholeheartedly.

On my particular case it's moot, I'm .mil IP so the updated regs will cover my CFI reinstatement sans checkride. Cheers!

 

[Lindberg]

I've heard the IRS closely scrutinizes tax returns from DPE's. The few DPE's I know keep very detailed records.

For this kind of service cash would be preferred over a check or credit card/debit card. Just think what an applicant could do if they failed the check ride then decided they wanted to retracted the payment.

This. Any DPE skimping on taxes would be pretty foolish, considering that every ride they give is going to be documented in several places.

And it's clear that some people don't know what "monopoly" means.