|
Originally Posted by sflpilot
(Post 3099249)
So I guess the cost of this is the responsibility of each individual pilot. What about the people that maybe haven’t flown in years? The really sad part is the airlines will hold this against applicants because it looks bad on paper. Whenever they do hire years down the line from now they will have stacks of applicants who don’t have this on their record.
For airline applicants, you'll need to get some human intervention to get past the computer screen un-penalized. Job fairs, meet-n-greets, or even have your buddy call HR or a CP. This should not be held against pilots once the facts are known, but you will probably have to check a box on the app depending on how they word it. |
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
(Post 3098404)
US version of Pakistan. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099360)
The FAA needs to CYA. If one of these pilots has an at-fault accident down the line the FAA would get hammered (and likely lose a lawsuit) for allowing questionable credentials to stand.
For airline applicants, you'll need to get some human intervention to get past the computer screen un-penalized. Job fairs, meet-n-greets, or even have your buddy call HR or a CP. This should not be held against pilots once the facts are known, but you will probably have to check a box on the app depending on how they word it. |
Originally Posted by itsmytime
(Post 3099465)
I don’t see why it would be an issue on an app? Have you ever had any certificate action? If I re-take and pass my check ride, no. The only action that will be taken is if I don’t re-take the ride within the time frame.
Right, and two weeks is a ridiculous time frame. |
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
(Post 3099469)
Right, and two weeks is a ridiculous time frame.
|
Originally Posted by itsmytime
(Post 3099465)
I don’t see why it would be an issue on an app? Have you ever had any certificate action? If I re-take and pass my check ride, no. The only action that will be taken is if I don’t re-take the ride within the time frame.
If you don't feel you have to check yes to any questions on the app due to this, I would probably let them know first thing at the interview. Otherwise if they find something in your file that looks like a 709 they won't be happy. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099496)
I don't know how the FAA documents the thing. If it's a 709 ride for example that will be a flag.
If you don't feel you have to check yes to any questions on the app due to this, I would probably let them know first thing at the interview. Otherwise if they find something in your file that looks like a 709 they won't be happy. |
Originally Posted by itsmytime
(Post 3099465)
I don’t see why it would be an issue on an app? Have you ever had any certificate action? If I re-take and pass my check ride, no. The only action that will be taken is if I don’t re-take the ride within the time frame.
|
Originally Posted by trip
(Post 3099576)
I'd argue that a 709 ride is a certificate action, I.E. your certificate is no longer valid. It will certainly be on your record and will show up in a search therefore will need to be disclosed.
A 44709 re-examination is not a certificate action, it's as the name implies, a re-examination. Pass the re-examination and there's no action. However, failing it could result in an certificate action. https://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v...07_001rev1.htm 49 U.S. Code § 44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.— (1) In general.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title. (2) Notification of reexamination of airman.—Before taking any action to reexamine an airman under paragraph (1) the Administrator shall provide to the airman— (A) a reasonable basis, described in detail, for requesting the reexamination; and (B) any information gathered by the Federal Aviation Administration, that the Administrator determines is appropriate to provide, such as the scope and nature of the requested reexamination, that formed the basis for that justification. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099496)
I don't know how the FAA documents the thing. If it's a 709 ride for example that will be a flag.
If you don't feel you have to check yes to any questions on the app due to this, I would probably let them know first thing at the interview. Otherwise if they find something in your file that looks like a 709 they won't be happy. |
Originally Posted by ninerdriver
(Post 3099654)
In this case, the notice explicitly states that all of these pilots who need a re-check are getting a 709 ride.
|
Originally Posted by Gone Flying
(Post 3099707)
yikes, feel bad for anyone who has to disclose that on an app now
It's only negative if one fails the ride. An explanation of the purpose of the re-exam should suffice if disclosed. |
Originally Posted by TommyDevito
(Post 3099768)
Why?
It's only negative if one fails the ride. An explanation of the purpose of the re-exam should suffice if disclosed. Some employers may be suspicious that there may have been under-handed dealings on the part of the applicant as well as the DPE (was this guy known as Santa-for-the-right-price?). Rather than do the research and try to make a judgement, they might simply move on to the next applicant. Their objective is not to be fair, but to hire people with the minimum effort and expense on their part. That's why squeeky-clean is so popular with airline HR ladies... no in-depth research or risky judgement calls required. Hopefully most will weigh this appropriately and not hold it against the applicant. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099852)
The computer will lower your score for checking a box like that.
Some employers may be suspicious that there may have been under-handed dealings on the part of the applicant as well as the DPE. Rather than do the research and try to make a judgement, they might simply move on to the next applicant. Their objective is not to be fair, but to hire people with the minimum effort and expense. That's why squeeky-clean is so popular with airline HR ladies. Hopefully most will weigh this and not hold it against the applicant. |
Honestly, if I were in these guys shoes, I'd likely NOT check the box for 709 ride and do what Rick suggested in post #46.
Lets face it, the INTENT of the question on the application is whether or not you've taken a 709 ride, etc because of something YOU DID. Not because of the misconduct of another individual (who represents the FAA none-the-less) that the applicant likely had little idea about. Of course, if you KNOWINGLY went to this particular DPE because of him just handing out certs and you knowingly were aware that he'd likely get busted and you'd have to be reexamined, then I have less sympathy. At the end of the day, we need to do away with the computer being a firewall to selecting apps for interview. I mean....after all with the current method...freakin Sully of all guys, would be called in for an interview after someone with no accident on their record. That is asinine to the core.
Originally Posted by TommyDevito
(Post 3099854)
Those HR ladies and their processes is what has turned airline hiring into a joke.
|
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099865)
Honestly, if I were in these guys shoes, I'd likely NOT check the box for 709 ride and do what Rick suggested in post #46..
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099872)
Dangerous. They want you to be literally honest and answer the question they asked. The circumstances behind the question are theirs to judge, not yours. Not disclosing a 709 ride which they asked about on the app will get you deleted. About 100% sure on that.
Like I said, Sully or Haines would have had a lower score because they would have to check the accident box. How is that not absolutely absurd? |
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099865)
Exactly. We need to go back to the days where pilots hired pilots. I mean.......they are the ones who will have to spend 4 days at a time with said individual, and have a vested interest in weeding out the bad apples.
The number of airlines has drastically deceased in the last 20 years. As a result, each airline has to handle way more applicants. Relying on personal connections and trying to prove to HR that your drinking buddy is more qualified than someone doesn't scale well when you have 5,000 applications to go through. The new ways aren't perfect either, but to say pilots don't have control over who they hire is just false. A computer system may be in charge of who GETS the interview, but in the end, a group of pilots are heavily involved in the hiring process. Sure there are some HR people in the room, but contrary to what many pilots think, they are there for a good reason. While there are many great pilots who can fly a single engine approach perfectly, lots of them can't handle conflict well. They are type A personalities who only know who to work with other type A's. Airlines got sick of great pilots causing PR nightmares with passengers. Getting HR people involved with the hiring process helps weed those people out. |
Originally Posted by 2StgTurbine
(Post 3099879)
That also had its own problems. A CP's friend's son getting hired over someone who was more qualified, guard buddies blocking out civilian applicants, etc. When I first started, I lived in base but I was told I should still get a crashpad so I could network with mainline pilots. I thought it was ridiculous, but then a new captain I flew with met a person at FedEx at a crahspad who knew someone involved with the interview process and he got an interview way ahead of more qualified people.
The number of airlines has drastically deceased in the last 20 years. As a result, each airline has to handle way more applicants. Relying on personal connections and trying to prove to HR that your drinking buddy is more qualified than someone doesn't scale well when you have 5,000 applications to go through. The new ways aren't perfect either, but to say pilots don't have control over who they hire is just false. A computer system may be in charge of who GETS the interview, but in the end, a group of pilots are heavily involved in the hiring process. Sure there are some HR people in the room, but contrary to what many pilots think, they are there for a good reason. While there are many great pilots who can fly a single engine approach perfectly, lots of them can't handle conflict well. They are type A personalities who only know who to work with other type A's. Airlines got sick of great pilots causing PR nightmares with passengers. Getting HR people involved with the hiring process helps weed those people out. No question that that would have its own set of problems. Every system certainly has its flaws. Just to be clear, I'm only talking about the computer firewall when it comes to getting an interview, not whether or not you are hired once you've interviewed. Big difference. Back to the original discussion......I don't recall ever being asked about 709 rides when I filled out the application to any of the 3 regionals I applied at. It only asked about violations, accidents, incidents, and failed checkrides...so I'm not even sure the question would come up. I do recall though that in lieu of a 709 ride, that one could take a checkride for another certificate or rating. That'd be a much safer path to go down (ASES would be a blast!) with the only risk being that its just another jeopardy event which of course you've done dozens of by the time you are competitive for a major |
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099876)
I totally understand. If they are going to take that tact then, on the other hand they need to completely do away with using the computer as a firewall.
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099876)
Like I said, Sully or Haines would have had a lower score because they would have to check the accident box. How is that not absolutely absurd?
|
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099883)
Back to the original discussion......I don't recall ever being asked about 709 rides when I filled out the application to any of the 3 regionals I applied at. It only asked about violations, accidents, incidents, and failed checkrides...so I'm not even sure the question would come up.
|
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3099911)
The majors have all gone from "have you ever failed a checkride" to a comprehensive inquisition covering checkrides, stage checks, 709, incompletes, re-exams, etc, etc. No way to dodge the question now.
|
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099883)
Back to the original discussion......I don't recall ever being asked about 709 rides when I filled out the application to any of the 3 regionals I applied at. It only asked about violations, accidents, incidents, and failed checkrides...so I'm not even sure the question would come up. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 3099091)
On another board, someone did some research and posted three others letters like this one from similar examples.
i work with many ex-ASIs and they told me some stories of similar circumstances too. The FAA actually has some type of investigative branch. I don’t know how you would catch these DPEs unless it were some type of undercover ‘give me check ride and let’s make sure you are doing it right’ operation or some checked student pilot/upgrade pilot turns the DPE in if s/he even knows what is/is not a valid check. I know of at least one ASI who was cooking the books. ———- Teterboro-based aviation safety inspector Harrington Bishop, 63, entered a guilty plea in a federal court Thursday on charges of receiving illegal gratuities in exchange for what court documents allege were hundreds of unauthorized pilot check rides. Bishop had been assigned to the Teterboro FSDO. On available days off, weekends, and holidays, from May 2004 to February 2011, he allegedly took pilots on check rides at Cave Flight School at Flying W Airport in Medford, NJ. Pilots who flew with him on those occasions ultimately numbered in the hundreds. None of the flights were authorized, each one illegally paid Bishop, and in almost every case a certificate was granted to the tested pilot. Pilots were allegedly tested for anything from private to airline transport pilot certificates. Bishop allegedly collected tips that amounted to $300 per flight on average from the hundreds of pilots he managed to fly with over seven years. This, in spite of the fact that while acting in an official capacity, Bishop was not allowed to accept payment from pilots in exchange for his services. By Bishop's own account, he passed almost every pilot who flew with him on those occasions. Each pilot then became officially certificated by the FAA as a result of Bishop's work. The official charge against Bishop was one count of receiving illegal gratuities while acting as a public official. He now faces a maximum potential fine of $250,000 and up to two years in jail. ——— I’m not sure if a DPE would get jail time, but this former ASI got some prison time. https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county...pemberton.html He must have had a pretty good thing going at McGuire AFB! |
Funny thing is he is back flight instructing; has been for years.
|
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3099883)
No question that that would have its own set of problems. Every system certainly has its flaws. Just to be clear, I'm only talking about the computer firewall when it comes to getting an interview, not whether or not you are hired once you've interviewed. Big difference.
Back to the original discussion......I don't recall ever being asked about 709 rides when I filled out the application to any of the 3 regionals I applied at. It only asked about violations, accidents, incidents, and failed checkrides...so I'm not even sure the question would come up. I do recall though that in lieu of a 709 ride, that one could take a checkride for another certificate or rating. That'd be a much safer path to go down (ASES would be a blast!) with the only risk being that its just another jeopardy event which of course you've done dozens of by the time you are competitive for a major |
I have an ATP and a Commercial ASEL so I would still have had to retake the ASEL ride.
Yea. *Its still asinine. Who determines if a candidate is ready for a checkride? The CFI that signs the logbook. All these applicants have received the required training and demonstrated their skills. An independent contractor is hired to verify. The verification process lacked, doesn’t mean the training did. I seriously doubt an instructor would run the risk of not providing any training and sending a candidate off to Santa. Lets stop pretending this has any risk. It doesn’t. Zero. |
I sense a ma$$ive lawsuit coming against the FAA. Deep pockets galore.
Even if not going after $$ and simply trying to get an injunction, this certainly meets the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, since it has nothing to do with a particular airman’s qualification (or lack of). |
How is he permitted to participate in any part of the flight training process after pulling something like this?!
|
Originally Posted by firefighterplt
(Post 3100066)
How is he permitted to participate in any part of the flight training process after pulling something like this?!
if Bishop I guess you’d say second chances? i suppose he would have lost all of his original certificates; so if he is still instructing then he had to get them all back. |
Originally Posted by Bahamasflyer
(Post 3100056)
I sense a ma$$ive lawsuit coming against the FAA. Deep pockets galore.
Even if not going after $$ and simply trying to get an injunction, this certainly meets the “arbitrary and capricious” standard, since it has nothing to do with a particular airman’s qualification (or lack of). |
Originally Posted by TommyDevito
(Post 3100095)
This is administrative law. Also, USC 49 comes into play. Good luck on taking this to court, and good luck on suing the former DPE. The DPE acted outside the scope of his designation, not the FAA.
|
When I took my CFI checkride with Puehler he was an ASI for the FAA, not a DPE. At the time, only the FAA was allowed to do CFI checkrides, DPE's could not. I'm pretty annoyed about having to do another checkride after earning my CFII and Gold Seal.
Myself, and everyone I've talked to that's known Puehler highly doubts he ever collected a fee or took a bribe. That is completely out of his character, I don't know where that rumor started but I highly doubt that it's accurate. |
Originally Posted by midwestpilot
(Post 3100543)
When I took my CFI checkride with Puehler he was an ASI for the FAA, not a DPE. At the time, only the FAA was allowed to do CFI checkrides, DPE's could not. I'm pretty annoyed about having to do another checkride after earning my CFII and Gold Seal.
Myself, and everyone I've talked to that's known Puehler highly doubts he ever collected a fee or took a bribe. That is completely out of his character, I don't know where that rumor started but I highly doubt that it's accurate. |
Originally Posted by midwestpilot
(Post 3100543)
When I took my CFI checkride with Puehler he was an ASI for the FAA, not a DPE. At the time, only the FAA was allowed to do CFI checkrides, DPE's could not. I'm pretty annoyed about having to do another checkride after earning my CFII and Gold Seal.
Myself, and everyone I've talked to that's known Puehler highly doubts he ever collected a fee or took a bribe. That is completely out of his character, I don't know where that rumor started but I highly doubt that it's accurate. '...issued certificates and/or ratings to airmen when the airmen did not demonstrate the qualifications to hold the certificate and/or rating for which they were tested.' |
My mistake, got my rumors from FB mixed up with the stuff on here and only just saw the template. At the moment I'd really like to see a reasonable basis beyond "did not demonstrate the qualifications to hold the certificate and/or rating for which they were tested" and the evidence associated with that.
I wish it were just the case of "just pass the 709 ride" though. I haven't practiced the CFI/ commercial maneuvers in years. |
???
Read the link in the first post of this thread. If this affects you then you should read every word of it. TWICE. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 3100902)
???
Read the link in the first post of this thread. If this affects you then you should read every word of it. TWICE. |
Originally Posted by USMCFLYR
(Post 3099091)
On another board, someone did some research and posted three others letters like this one from similar examples.
i work with many ex-ASIs and they told me some stories of similar circumstances too. The FAA actually has some type of investigative branch. I don’t know how you would catch these DPEs unless it were some type of undercover ‘give me check ride and let’s make sure you are doing it right’ operation or some checked student pilot/upgrade pilot turns the DPE in if s/he even knows what is/is not a valid check. I know of at least one ASI who was cooking the books. —- Teterboro-based aviation safety inspector Harrington Bishop, 63, entered a guilty plea in a federal court Thursday on charges of receiving illegal gratuities in exchange for what court documents allege were hundreds of unauthorized pilot check rides. Bishop had been assigned to the Teterboro FSDO. On available days off, weekends, and holidays, from May 2004 to February 2011, he allegedly took pilots on check rides at Cave Flight School at Flying W Airport in Medford, NJ. Pilots who flew with him on those occasions ultimately numbered in the hundreds. None of the flights were authorized, each one illegally paid Bishop, and in almost every case a certificate was granted to the tested pilot. Pilots were allegedly tested for anything from private to airline transport pilot certificates. Bishop allegedly collected tips that amounted to $300 per flight on average from the hundreds of pilots he managed to fly with over seven years. This, in spite of the fact that while acting in an official capacity, Bishop was not allowed to accept payment from pilots in exchange for his services. By Bishop's own account, he passed almost every pilot who flew with him on those occasions. Each pilot then became officially certificated by the FAA as a result of Bishop's work. The official charge against Bishop was one count of receiving illegal gratuities while acting as a public official. He now faces a maximum potential fine of $250,000 and up to two years in jail. — I’m not sure if a DPE would get jail time, but this former ASI got some prison time. https://www.nj.com/gloucester-county...pemberton.html He must have had a pretty good thing going at McGuire AFB! FAA Order 8000.95 CHG 5: (2) Interviews of Recently Tested Airmen. Each managing specialist will conduct interviews of recently tested airmen. These interviews are to ensure that the examiner is properly following the PTS/ACS when the FAA is not in attendance. Inform interviewees that the questions are to evaluate the testing procedure and are not a reexamination of their certificates. Conduct a sufficient number of interviews each four quarters (at least five randomly selected airmen or 50 percent of the airmen newly certificated by the designee, whichever is fewer) to provide confidence that the designee is properly conducting the test. If the interviews indicate satisfactory performance by the designee, the schedule for direct observations developed by DMS may be followed. However, if the interviews of recently tested applicants indicate a deficiency with designee performance, the managing office must conduct additional direct observations. Note: Interview results are risk indicators used to determine the frequency of direct observations. Surveys and scripted interview questions must not be used. Closed-ended questions should be avoided and the ASI should have a relaxed but directed conversation with the recently tested airman about their check ride experience with the designee. Ask followup questions based on what the airman says. The goal is to determine if the designee is giving an adequate test. Is the designee teaching, allowing repeat maneuvers, failing to test all of the required items in the PTS/ACS for the certificate or rating tested? Using interviews properly will give the managing specialist a picture of how the designee is conducting their work on behalf of the FAA. |
Originally Posted by itsmytime
(Post 3099465)
I don’t see why it would be an issue on an app? Have you ever had any certificate action? If I re-take and pass my check ride, no. The only action that will be taken is if I don’t re-take the ride within the time frame.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 09:28 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands