At 21:30 27 February 2005, Mark James Boyd wrote:
Someone had mentioned as well (maybe it was Mr. Eiler)
that one examiner hadn't had an exam check in 13 years,
and
another examiner had a 100% pass rate for many years
with
no inspections/sit in on the test.

Actually what I said was “ I know of another examiner
who has not had an inspector sit in on or state his
intention to administer a test, since his first qualifying
flight test (which was about 12 years ago).” This
examiner has indeed flown with an FAA inspector
yearly for his renewal, as well as periodically flying
with an Inspector so that he can sign the Inspector’s
own required proficiency checks. As for the other
designee who hasn’t failed an applicant in 8 years,
I assume this examiner also has yearly flight checks
(inspections) with an Inspector to renew his
designation. However although his pass rate is
100%, the FAA has not deemed it necessary to
conduct any additional inspections.

I may be misrepresenting this from my recollection,
but in
any case, I found at least one reference for the conversations
I'd had with examiners, and they seem consistent:

Order 8710-7 Sport Pilot Examiner Handbook

Chapter 4-2

All examiners must be inspected once a year for renewal.
Inspections
must include at least one visit every year by a Federal
Aviation
Administration (FAA) Aviation Safety Inspector (ASI).

The following circumstances may cause the need for
further
inspections of an examiner during the year.

(1) High activity examiners (...over 50 tests in a
quarter)
(2) A examiner's practical test passing rate exceeds
90 percent.
(3) ...certification file errors exceed 5 times in
12 months
(4) an examiner is the subject of a valid complaint
(5) an examiner is involved in an accident, incident,
or violation
of the regulations.

So what is an 'inspection?' I don't know if this
is sitting in
on a test, or testing the examiner as if he was testing
a student,
etc. Maybe either one.

Typically the inspection includes discussion of accidents
and current FAA concerns, as well as a review of the
examiner’s paper work, pilot certificates, examiners
designation, log books, as well as a review of his
available reference materials such as FAR’s, AIM,
examiner handbook, PTS, advisory circulars, flight
manuals, etc, etc. Additionally the inspector and
the examiner typically make a number of flights
which include a review of various tasks from the
PTS. My own experience is that this inspection
takes the best part of a full day.

Anyway, I also found page 5-16 interesting, where it

directs the examiner to advise the applicant that...
Perfection is not the standard.

Although the instructor is required to train the applicant
to meet the PTS standards, he has no obligation to
assure that the applicant has read or is familiar with
PTS standards or tolerances. An ill informed applicant
might therefore assume that perfection is expected.


I have found that examiners overall do a good job
following the standard, and allowing the tolerances
in the PTS, combined with good judgement, to apply
a fair test. I have also found when prepping applicants
that in almost all cases, the applicant either 'gets
it' or
'doesn't get it.' I haven't seen many in-betweeners.

Interestingly, just because an applicant “had it”
during flight training does not guarantee that an
applicant will “have it” when taking the flight test.
Most instructors are well aware of the concept that
applicants get “test jitters” and “brain lock”. This
is why, during the oral, an examiner will phrase a
question several different ways before determining
that the applicant actually doesn’t know the area
being questioned. Many instructors are of the
opinion that they do such a great job training their
students, that if the applicant fails, it must be the
examiner’s fault.

As far as my knowlege of examiners getting extra inspections,
I'm not aware of any that happened from 'valid complaints,'
or from 'file errors' but I am aware of (from readings
but
not personal experience) added examiner inspections
for the other reasons.

You may not be aware but I can assure you that it
does happen.

As far as glider examiners go, I have heard enough
anectdotal stories
about non-PTS references being used and combining emergency
procedures with the standards for normal procedures,
to
think that there is small but noticable variance in

examiner standardization for gliders. This appears
to
be the case for at least half a dozen glider examiners.

Again as I have mentioned before, if you’re looking
for respect and credibility, you need to use specific
first hand data rather than anecdotal stories. Although
we have never met, by the tone of your posts in
regard to examiners, the impression is that you have
failed a flight test in the past and you firmly believe
the
examiner was unfair.

I'd absolutely love to see an 'glider examiner only'
meeting
with DPEs and ASIs, perhaps at the next SSA convention,
to
talk about standardization

The reality is that inspectors have little disagreement
with how examiners conduct their tests. During the
examiner’s yearly inspection, the Inspector has ample
time to discuss any issues he may have with the
examiner. Would it surprise you to know that
generally speaking the examiners have far more
experience in gliders than the Inspectors, and that
examiners are typically selected because of their
wealth of experience?
It would seem that what you are looking for is not
really Standardization, but rather specifics and
inflexibility. You seem to overlook the reality that
all tests are not taken in the same make and model
glider; that not only does each airport have it’s own
variables, but that the weather conditions for each
test will also be different.

Should slips to landing be combined with normal landing
tasks?

Private PTS page 4 clearly allows examiners to
combine tasks.

What is the expectation and tolerances for simulated
off-field
landings?

Private PTS allows knowledge testing only.
Commercial PTS requires demonstrated performance.
The examiner needs to base those expectations and
tolerances on many variables, make and model of
glider, it’s operating limitations and braking authority,
along with other factors such as landing surface, and
existing meteorological conditions.

How sophisticated should the oral questioning be
for weather or ballast, etc?

Again you appear to be looking for specifics, rather
than areas of questioning. The examiner looks for
areas of deficiency, rather than zeroing in on a
specific question.

How many emergencies (no spoilers, no brakes, no skid

use on icy runway) can be combined and still fail the
applicant if he doesn't stop in x number of feet?

Here you are implying that examiners normally
combine emergencies with normal landings. To
my knowledge, I have never heard of an examiner
simulating a spoiler or brake failure while still
holding the applicant to the stopping point
tolerances. If you have specific information to
the contrary, please elaborate with the details,
as I’m sure the readers would also be interested.

How broadly can the 'other references' be interpreted,
excluding or including certain common/obscure gliding
or military references?

Again, I’m sure we would all find it interesting to
hear the details of how some applicant failed a
flight test based solely on some obscure gliding
or military reference.

I have long been a proponent of having an
examiner only and a separate instructor only
session at an SSA convention. I wish I could
say I believe they would be well attended.

I think US soaring as a whole can benefit from a tighter
dialogue between the geographically widespread glider
examiners and ASIs. As a maybe glider SPE myself
(yeah, I know, in title only, since I'd be recommending
any initial glider SPs get the Private Glider instead)
I would love to get these answers from the glider DPE
and
ASI community as a whole instead of just one glider
ASI
at the SP examiner course.

The odds are far better that a dialogue between
examiners and instructors could eventually be
developed.

M Eiler