Beyond reason?

Handling checkride disagreements with examiners

By Dave Wilkerson

After investing dozens of hours and thousands of dollars learning how to fly, the thought of your fate as a pilot being decided by one pilot examiner can be a little frightening. What if you believe the examiner has treated you unfairly? What if you and the examiner disagree about your performance on the checkride or oral exam? Do you have any recourse?

Designated examiners don't intentionally alienate customers. They know that, in many places, students and instructors have a choice when selecting an examiner to administer the practical test. They want instructors to keep bringing students to them almost as much as they want to ensure that candidates for the private pilot certificate are ready to take on those privileges and responsibilities safely. Of course, that doesn't mean that there isn't room for confusion and disagreement.

Logbook endorsements are often at the heart of disputes over whether or not a candidate is qualified to take the practical test. These endorsements must be precisely worded to meet the standards set out in the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). For many years, instructors endorsed their students' logbooks with the words, "I have given the necessary instruction and find the student competent to pass the checkride." Updated language for FAR 61.39 calls for the endorsement to say that the student "has received and logged" the appropriate training time and is "prepared for" the checkride. This change was designed, in part, to help students who have had more than one instructor save time and money. Under the old wording, the instructor signing the endorsement was required to provide all of the needed instruction. The newer wording allows a student's second or subsequent instructor to provide the endorsement even though another instructor provided some portion of the training. According to FAR 61.49, an instructor endorsing a student to retake the practical test must say that the student is "proficient to pass" the exam. The exact wording of an endorsement may seem trivial, but many examiners are reluctant to accept wording that they consider to be obsolete.

While disagreements over actual test procedures are infrequent, you can reduce the likelihood of running into problems by familiarizing yourself with the rules, which are described in FAR 61.43. The examiner may also explain the ground rules to you before the test begins. Professional test-givers know that applicants relax when they understand the process from the outset.

A few of the words in FAR 61.43 have led to disputes, particularly the phrase that students must demonstrate "mastery of the aircraft with the successful outcome of each task performed never seriously in doubt." Occasionally when an instructor fails an applicant, the applicant will argue that he or she never felt the outcome of a given maneuver was in doubt. In one such instance, tower controllers instructed a student to go around during an exam. The student began transitioning to the correct configuration, full power, flaps to 20 degrees, only to stop the transition to full power with the throttle halfway forward to respond to the tower. The student argued that he had to respond to the tower controller and that his actions were not dangerous, but the examiner failed him because that airplane's operating procedures stipulated full power for a go-around. The examiner won this dispute and the applicant had to retake the checkride.

When it comes time to retake the checkride, the student may choose to take the test with the same examiner or a different one. Either way, a strong potential for disagreement exists at this point. Popular wisdom says that on a retake, the applicant needs to perform the failed maneuver. This is only partially true. In the "unsatisfactory performance" section of the introduction, the practical test standards (PTS) say that, "during the retest and at the discretion of the examiner, any task may be reevaluated, including those previously passed." The fact is that the examiner may ask the applicant to perform any and all required tasks listed in the PTS.

A high percentage of disagreements occur during oral testing. Frequently, however, it is the instructor, not the student, who is ready to do battle over the outcome of an oral exam. In one case, an examiner asked a student about obtaining Special VFR clearances. The student made a guess at how to do so, but guessed wrong. The examiner rephrased the question, but the applicant again guessed wrong. The examiner failed the applicant. Although the student was not upset and set about preparing to retake the exam, his instructor was furious that the examiner would fail a student over a single question. Again, however, that is the examiner's right.

If a disagreement between an applicant and an examiner becomes serious, the applicant may contact the FAA's governing Flight Standards District Office (FSDO). In such cases, the FSDO will normally have the applicant fly with an FAA inspector. The applicant will generally be asked to perform the disputed maneuver or procedure as well as any untested tasks and any other tasks that the inspector chooses. When this happens, nobody leaves the field satisfied. The applicant feels powerless. The examiner feels his professionalism has been questioned. The overworked FSDO inspector feels that his or her time has been misspent, and the FSDO manager worries that the FAA has suffered a credibility dent. This is a no-win situation that can usually be prevented with professionalism on the part of all concerned.

It is important to remember that disagreements with examiners are infrequent. When they do happen, they're seldom major events. Aviators at every level can be mistaken or misinformed and may confuse old regulations and procedures with new ones. They also can be (dare I say it) just plain wrong. At the same time, examiners are responsible for promoting the correct standards and procedures, and when confusion or disagreements do arise, they are usually sufficiently seasoned to treat applicants and instructors with courtesy and respect.