Can anyone cite where it gives an FAA inspector authority to insert themselves into a private, and customer paid for, training session? Not an exam, a training session.

What do you mean by "private"? Is this part 61, or is it 135/121/141/142/91K?

Here's one place: FSIMS Document Viewer

There are more, with the approval of training programs/courses, surveillance is mandated by those orders and the training program approval, and there is another order that outlines the work program requirements, which translates to the yearly surveillance for an operator, including training.

Thx JNB, I was thinking in particular about E2C Masters recent experience in the Sim. Personally I like to think of myself as a pretty good guy, though if I had an experience as E2C stated I might have not been so patient... I can completely understand oversight, Etc.; it just seems odd that a situation like this is/was allowed to take place. The training distraction being my major issue. I am just at odds with how this particular type of situation could be permitted as it is clearly a distraction and, even though the student passed, it was also a detriment to his educational experience. I understand, due to your occupation, if you don't feel comfortable commenting further on this issue, however if this happened to this guy, it is likely happening to others. I wonder how many have failed due to this situation. I wonder how much better and valuable the training experience would have been if the student was not unnecessarily distracted, and had been able to use the time the inspector was asking questions to ask his own questions. If the FAA wants to evaluate a situation like this they should possibly have this instructor, for example train some of their own (FAA) folks. Does not seem right at all to subject a student/customer to this. There are other ways as well. BTW, B) Onsite Activity 2) and 3) go along way in answering my question, very much appreciated. It is now obvious this inspector acted in error. I'm sure the situation will be corrected and shouldn't happen again. We all make mistakes.

Does the training involve the exercise of privileges of a certificate issued by the FAA, or does the training count towards the requirements for a certificate, or for currency or recency of experience?






.

Well, I'm sure you can read the order I posted as well as I can. If things are happening not according to it, then there might be something in what was being referred to in the other thread. The inspector in this case is looking at the certificate holder, which is the airline or training center, and they are required to sit in during training, evaluations, look at course materials, and so on. There is nothing "private" about an air carrier or similar operator, in the regulatory aspect. "Private" would be a pilot doing something on his own part 91, not associated with an airline, etc.

Training being conducted by a certificate holder would clearly be fair game, including 121, 135, 141, 142, (91K?), etc.

But if you were doing a part-91 training flight (or sim session) I think the fed would be limited to either a ramp check (airplane) or inspecting the sim's certificate. He would not have the authority to stand over your shoulder or invite himself along on a training flight if you didn't want to have him there.

But it's common for feds to be heavily involved in training if it's a new certificate, new training program, or a new fed. Just your bad luck to be a student in that situation...personally I avoid start-up training programs until they get the bugs worked out.

You're referring to this thread: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/fl...seat-days.html

How is it obvious that the inspector acted in error?

As I stated; the inspector did not conduct themselves in accordance with the guidance that JNB presented in his attachment. The inspector was clearly detracting from E2C's training experience, whether the student passed or not.

Be specific. You can't really say that the inspector didn't act in accordance with FSIMS. What part? What refernece?

With the linked thread, you have the perspective of one poster, one participant. I cannot see how you can make a determination that the inspector acted inappropriately. You don't have enough information, as it hasn't been given.

I've been through quite a few sim sessions as a trainee, including type, upgrade, recurrent, LOFT, etc, as have we all. Particularly when the pressure is on, which one could say it is for every sim session (there's really no such thing as a "no jeopardy" sim session), I've seen all kinds of blame placed by sim participants. I've also given quite a bit of sim training as operator and instructor, and check airman. I've seen all kinds of excuses, from blaming the simulator to the sim partner to external factors. It's not that uncommon, really.

On several occasions I've had trainees tell me that they were unable to fly an approach, or several times, taxi, because the simulator was causing a rudder hardover or trimming hard one way. I'm open minded; simulators are certainly subject to their fair share of ghosts. Each time, however, the problem couldn't be duplicated when I climbed into the seat. The problem was the pilot being checked, not the simulator.

On one occasion I represented a gentleman as his steward in a disciplinary hearing following a training failure. He had what I would have deemed to be an epic failure. Due to a previous failure in his program, his classmates had finished and moved on, and he was finally left with a cadre of check airman in the sim. His F/O, F/E, the sim instructor, and an observer were all check airmen. He asked for a union representative to ensure his ride would be fair. His account of the events that followed were vastly different than all observers, and most important, the reports of all present, save for the trainee, were uniform to the last detail.

The trainee saw things very, very differently, and believed he was persecuted and given a raw deal. What actually happened, however, was a tantrum by the trainee as he shut out one crew member after another. When given a minor inflight problem during vectors for an approach, he told others to work on it and leave him alone. He made multiple errors, ultimately turning away from the course and crashing into a hillside. While others on board tried to help him or advise him, he shut them out and turned a crewed cockpit into a single pilot operation.

The point is that one crewmember's obervation isn't necessarily a ringing indictment of the event; there's more to the story. Considering the whole picture is important, and we don't have the comments of the instructor here, nor the sim partner, nor the FAA. It's quite natural for the person being checked to be nervous and not uncommonly, to pre-blame outside influences for what may or may not have occurred.

Thus far we've heard incorrectly that the FAA may observe the checkride or training, but not both. We've heard without substantiation that the inspector acted inappropriately. We've heard a number of ideas without basis that the FAA isn't allowed, or shouldn't observe training.

Where the FAA oversees a give operation, such as a Part 142 training center, a Part 121 certificate, etc, the FAA has every right and responsibility to observe any phase of the operation so long as it doesn't impact safety of flight. One would be hard pressed to say that the FAA observing a simulator checkride impacts the safety of the flight.

The FAA does provide that realistic distractions be used throughout training.

I have had several occasions over the years in which I didn't feel good about a particular check airman on a line check or a simulator training. In each case, I spoke to the fleet captain or fleet manager or other individual in a position to hear my case and make a change, and in each case I was granted a change in date, location, airman, etc. I once had a simulator partner who made completing a sim session to be a real challenge. In his case, I didn't need to approach the training department about the matter, as they were observing, and called me in for an interview one afternoon, regarding the sim partner.

We don't live in a vacuum nor operate in one. No training session is perfect, but we do know that the Administrator is entitled to observe training and checking events, including the training leading up to a type ride, as well as the type ride, and may also observe check airman in the performance of their duties, too.

I did not perceive that E2C was making excuses, at all. His issue had its roots in the lack of decorum, professionalism and simple common courtesy displayed by this inspector. I am also a flight instructor and like most of us, have pretty much heard or seen it all, so to speak. As to distraction; the type E2C was referring to have no connection to those that are commonly introduced during a training event.