I did not know about that process for interviewing recent certificated applicants.
I was not suggesting that the CURRENT process was 'undercover', but that maybe such a program would be needed to check for complete evaluations.

Now that you point out the process in use - and one that obviously still relies on the truthfulness of the applicant - I wonder if anything will change. Doubtful. Like you know - this is not the first time this has happened. Do the ASIs get any type of debrief about such occurrences? Does a letter go out explaining what happened in detail, how it was brought to light. I'd be interested to know, but some would probably say that if the information was put out, unscrupulous ASIs/DPEs would use that as a learning tool on how to beat the system.

I wish there was some way to trust the offender and get a more accurate list of who he might have not given a proper checkride too instead of just saying every checkride for the last XX number of years. This one went one for quite some time. I also personally hope this guy gets in A LOT of trouble. The FAA won't be sued in this case IMO, but I wonder if he could personally when conducting checks as a DPE at least for any expenses incurred as a such to individuals having to retest (or lost wages). Can there be a Class Action lawsuit against a individual?

I can’t see why you couldn’t...but there is always the age old problem of collecting from an uninsured individual. IANAL but many suits can be wiped away via bankruptcy—then the plaintiffs are stuck with legal fees and nothing to show for it.

I've seen notices go out about having to conduct mass-reexaminations due to designated examiners. I don't see one on FSIMS for this, but it might be coming? I don't know of any way to determine which certifications were legit and which were not. As far as being liable, sure, the person is liable, but I'm not sure how someone would bring a suit. Perhaps if this caused them to lose their job, but then if said person also knew they didn't actually take a test, it would probably get thrown out. If it was someone who took a legit test and it had repercussions, I'm sure they could be liable. Then it's about convincing a jury, but I'm not enough of a legal expert to know how that would or could go down. Class action, I don't know?

AOPA did an article about this:

https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/...-reexamination

This isn’t the first time this has happened. Maybe ten years ago an operator in the southwestern US had a designee get tagged, and something like 600 folks either had to 609 or prove they earned an additional rating afterwards.

Fast Eddie, at Sheble. I heard numbers varying from 600 to 800. I forget how far back in time the retests went, but it was a similar setup. Surprise, you just got a notification from the FAA. Set up a checkride with us within the next couple weeks or else. I can’t even imagine the dread someone would experience in these situations.

The whole thing is ridiculous. Unless there is evidence of wrongdoing by an applicant, why should someone have to retake a ride because the FAA failed to adequately monitor and audit their people.

Because the FAA wants all the perks of industry oversight without any of the responsibility. See the 737 MAX debacle. The entire organization is full of guys that want the power without the responsibility.

#Truth

.....

It’s been a long time since I’ve read a statement with such truth.

And what are those "perks"?

https://media1.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/200.gif

Pakistan. That’s why.

Thats easy, steady Taxpayer funded income with a pension for life and the security of knowing no matter how poorly a job you do as a regulator that nobody is ever going to replace you. (Last bit is in relation to the entire FAA and no just a single inspector) The FAA doesn’t have to preform well to justify its existence and further funding, it just merely has to exist to get that.

This is what happens when you government.

I see. So an income that is less than what can be found in industry, and a pension that, again, will be usually less than found in industry (speaking of operations/airline) somehow offends you. Got it.

In every segment there are people that are poor performers. Even in your industry there are those that are subpar at best. Then, as in your industry, even in government there are those that strive to do the best job possible. And in government doing that job is often difficult considering the layers of bureaucracy, the whims of politicians and the pressure of industry.


Yea, right.

Of course you have absolutely no clue as to the inner workings of the agency, I understand that.

You aren't there when the budgets are submitted, or when congress mandates through law changes, but then refuses to fund the agency for those changes. Nor do you see the budget cuts that do take place.

Yea, I can see how you call those "perks"............

https://media1.giphy.com/media/qmfpjpAT2fJRK/200.gif

What flavor is the FAA kool-aid?

Having spent 22 years in the government I have few good things to say about it. It’s damn near impossible to fire anyone. The waste is ridiculous, and the way to the top generally goes to the ones stabbing people in the back.

Budget cuts, yup FAA is the only one that has to deal with those. . .

Bottom line, if something happened involving one of these airmen and it came out that the FAA knew or suspected their certification was questionable, the lawyers would have a field day. And some politicians.

Also, I'll say this... it's sounds like this guy was Santa-for-Hire. I'd imagine at least of some of these cert holders may have known, or should have suspected, they were taking a shortcut.

"If" the guy was a "Santa for hire" as you are saying, I am certain most knew about it. I mean hell, even today when people are going through recurrent everyone knows the examiners they want, the ones they dont want and certainly want to know about the new ones.

Sure, there could be some that didn't have a clue about the reputation of this guy, certainly all the instructors had to of known about him as well. I just cant see this being all ignorance on as everyones defense.

Didnt you imply in post #72 that the government has sovereign immunity from being sued and that the FAA would have to allow the suit?

So which is it? It can’t be both.

Both.

The bureaucrats don't make the Sovereign Immunity call, that goes up the food chain I suspect to the Secretary level. The bureaucrats don't want to have go hat-in-hand and explain to the Secretary why they need SI in the first place. That would be a tough conversation... "you knew about this guy when?!?!"

Put themselves on the spot, or put a few airmen on the spot? I think you know the answer.

Also my previous post was in reference to applicants suing the FAA for making them take a 709... in that case, the FAA didn't (yet) know about the DPE's behavior therefore SI is reasonable... can't just let every ambulance chaser use the federal treasury as his personal piggy bank.

But in the event of an accident AFTER the FAA knew about this... that would be one of those times where they might actually waive SI and allow lawsuits to proceed.

Would have been nice if they had supervised this guy to prevent this from happening but honestly, if people were buying checkride outcomes they might actually suck as pilots, and innocent pax might die. So I'm Ok with evaluating their credentials.

OK I follow your reasoning. Thx

FERS is not a simple pension and the simple pensions of 50 years ago are long gone. I've noticed the last few inspectors that "retired" died within a year or two of retiring. Pretty morbid, but the Government seems to save a lot of money on those "pensions". I know of a few that have gotten let go as well, not immune to poor performance.

Yes I'm no fan of the GS in general, but the pensions have been dramatically modified over the last few decades. Kind of like a 401k + enhanced social security.

From what I read he pushed some through without doing the test at all. Even a private pilot would know that’s not the way this works. I agree if you have a private and you take an additional check ride and do like two areas in the ACS or PTS then you know your getting off easy.

I keep saying I want to live to a 100 plus and the VA and Social Security both show up at my funeral to celebrate my demise and the end of having to pay out on my behalf.

I'll show'em :D

I’ll settle for being shot to death at 100 by a jealous husband of a 20 something fashion model while she and I are in bed together.

That’s that big money energy haha