All examinees of DPE Edward L. Lane to be required to re-test

zaitcev said:
I think at this point that someone needs to execute a FOIA procedure if we to know what happened.
Click to expand...
That may be redundant. I believe the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" (PBoR) is applicable to those affected. As I understand it, the statute now requires the FAA to apply the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Federal Rules of Evidence, which I think allows discovery of any evidence by a pilot whose certificate is threatened with revocation. It may even be that the FAA has a duty to disclose such evidence.

I think any advice made earlier to "not bother lawyering up" is based on pre-PBoR thinking and a dis-service to the affected pilots. As I understand it, the rights of pilots should now be more in line with standard civil procedures and more of the burden is on the FAA to show its case, not the other way around.

A well-heeled pilot who has been affected by this may consider employing a lawyer to plow through the statutes and regulations to see what the options are under the new PBoR.
 
alaskaflyer said:
I'm sorry, but has the issue now been exposed, or do we continue to pull speculations out of our nether regions to justify ****y whining about bureaucrats in general?
Click to expand...
If the FAA bureaucracy is allowed to whine about hundreds of pilots in a way that really hurts them, please explain why you think those pilots don't get to return the favor?

(Anyway, I wasn't aware that the FAA's order to reexamine hundreds of pilots who have not been claimed to have violated any specific regulations or shown specifically by their actions to otherwise be unqualified was an issue that was mere speculation.)
 
N801BH said:
We try to keep any and all laws to a bare minimum here in Wyoming.:yes:

As for the link you posted........ I am stunned that something like that is on the books anywhere....:eek::eek::eek::mad:
Click to expand...
Besides Colorado, I'm aware of similar laws in Utah, Oregon, and Washington. Almost certainly other states since water ownership laws go back at least to the Roman Empire. Probably best to start another thread on this.
 
alaskaflyer said:
And we know that Congress stated in the Public Act that is now codified in section 44709 that there does not need to be cause for reexamination, only for any subsequent action based on the results of that reexamination.

I'm personally suprpised that the "Pilot's Bill of Rights" or whatever it ended up being titled did not modify the language in 44709(a), but apparently it didn't.
§44709. Amendments, modifications, suspensions, and revocations of certificates

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.—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.
Click to expand...
Well consider the entire section 44709 (http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709 ) and suppose a pilot declines to be reexamined. The FAA then attempts to revoke that pilot's certificate or rating. The FAA has to "advise the holder of the certificate of the charges or other reasons on which the Administrator relies for the proposed action."

The pilot is allowed to appeal that proposed action to the NTSB. And the one part that the PBoR did amend of 44709 is that of the NTSB is no longer bound to apply FAA interpretations of regulations; all it now says is: "When conducting a hearing under this subsection, the Board is not bound by findings of fact of the Administrator."

The NTSB should ask, other than declining the reexamination, what charges or reasons does the FAA have that warranted the reexamination and subsequent revocation? The PBoR now makes the NTSB amost totally independent of the FAA's findings or fact and interpretations of the laws and regulations.

Lastly, the PBoR allows the pilot to file an appeal to any FAA or NTSB in a U.S. district court or court of appeals.

The FAA appears to be operating under the assumption that few to none of the hundreds of pilots affected will decline the reexamination, or if they do, that the FAA wont have to deal with hundreds of pilots appealing to the NTSB or the district courts. I doubt the FAA has the resources (or any legal basis) to successfully pursue hundreds of revocation actions winding their way through the courts.
 
KSCessnaDriver said:
Maybe where you live. Go to Florida or Arizona or any of the high volume training environments. It's difficult to get a DPE scheduled. I wouldn't be surprised if in Florida some of the DPE's easily make 200K a year, or more.
Click to expand...
According to FAA stats (http://www.faa.gov/data_research/aviation_data_statistics/civil_airmen_statistics/) the southwest region has ~17k students out of ~119k nationwide. So about 14% of the total. Nationally ~34K pilot check rides took place. So using 14% of ~34k, the southwest region probably had just under 5k check rides in 2011. That is about 14 a day for every day of the year. Using 200 days, that is about 25 check rides a day. How many examiners available for that region? I haven't counted, but the number could probably be determined using the designee locator here: http://av-info.faa.gov/DesigneeSearch.asp

EDIT: The designee locator returned 40 examiner records for private pilot for the Scottsdale office and 8 records for the Las Vegas office (both in western pacific region actually. Fortunately the number of students in the western pacific and south western regions are roughly the same for the purposes of estimations.)
 
rahi2026 said:
what about me FAA is killing me i was an international student from India did my Instrument checkride with eddie, did fly from livermore California(near SFO) to las Vegas just to give my checkride wasted a whole lot of money..then went to India for a conversion exam and when tried to come back to US to complete my MEIR, embassy just cancelled my visa, apllied twice and rejected twice..finally got a NZ visa to complete my course, had to do my PPL conversion( a checkride again) now when i am undergoing my CPL training FAA is asking me to come back to the states and hand them my license..
Can some one help in this..
If the FAA don't take my license away i still have to do my IR converison here in which i have to still sit a FLIGHT TEST anyway!!!!
Click to expand...
I assume you've seen this?:

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Notice/N 8900.194.pdf

It says that "If it is subsequently determined that an airman has been tested for an additional pilot certificate or rating with satisfactory results after the last test administered by DPE Lane, the reexamination letter will be rescinded." It doesn't say whether it has to be a rating issued by the FAA.
 
rahi2026 said:
excuse me all of you please stop making a mind that i went there so that i could pass...i was a part 141 student i was checked 3 times by a gold seal instructor and i passed my written with 97% i was even checked in my country for the conversion process..and i did fly from KLVK-KVGT because i had to do a 600 mile cross country for my conversion.
I am sorry for being rude but if you guys cant help me with something please don't make funny stories it make me sick..
Click to expand...
I recall that two people from Australia also ran into the same problem as you. Their post is here:

http://www.pilotsofamerica.com/forum/showpost.php?p=1000680&postcount=175

You could try clicking on their profile name and try to email them and ask them if they managed to work out a solution. It may be possible for you to find similar pilots who are willing to share legal expenses.

One of my contacts on LinkedIn.com is an aviation attorney; if you want his contact information send me a private message and I can forward it.
 
RotorAndWing said:
We actually had a complaint (formal) by an applicant who complained his checkride was too easy by an examiner. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Reporter: What would you do if you were elected?
William F. Buckley Jr: Demand a recount.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top