Narrative:

I am flying instrument, qualified in 4/89, and employed by company a aviation, where I also received all my training for cpl/1R (sel) and CFI-a. My first student was a mr. B, who had come from the U.K. For his private pilot license. He had been issued with a third class medical by an FAA approved doctor in U.K. As company a aviation is a part 141 training school, with many foreign students, it is the normal practice for the chief flying instrument and his secretary to provide a student pilot certificate to holders of U.K. Issued third class medicals. Unlike the us third class medical, the U.K. Form does not also include or constitute a student certificate. When mr. B was prepared for solo flying, and x-country flying, I signed the required student certificate endorsements on the back of the U.K. Medical certificate, as I had not seen this type of medical certificate. Before, I asked mr. B if the school administration was aware of his medical certificate. He stated that they were, and had put a photocopy of his medical in his part 141 folder/records. It was on the basis of this information that I believed I was signing his student certificate by putting the endorsements on his medical certificate. Subsequently, I was issued with a letter from the stl FSDO stating that because of these events, my competence as a flight instrument may have been involved, and pursuant to section 609, a re-examination of my competence is necessary, which will consist of a flight instrument practical; ie, I must retake the oral and flight examination for CFI. If I do not accept this re-examination, proceedings will be initiated to suspend my pilot certificate. The FAA decided that mr. B should not be subjected to any further duress concerning this matter, which had arisen when mr. B was recommended by myself for a private pilot chkride. He was issued with a student pilot certificate by a designated FAA examiner (the operator of the school) on 7/xx/90, and on the same day passed his ppl chkride. On 7/xx/89, I was issued with a letter from the stl FSDO outlining their request for me to subject myself to re-examination, and I was asked to suspend my activities as an instrument until after my re-examination. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: in light of the relatively minor nature of the infraction by the reporter, complete re-examination of the competence of the reporter as a flight instrument seemed unreasonable, thus the analyst conducted a callback for additional information and current status of the FAA review. Information provided by the reporter during the callback indicated that an adversarial relationship between the owner/manager/chief instrument of the flying school (company a) and a specific rep of the FAA's FSDO office had existed for some period of time prior to this incident. This specific FAA rep initiated action against the reporter. Subsequent to the reporter's receipt of the letter from the FSDO, he contacted the FAA examiner who had recently issued the reporter's CFI certificate, and she advised the reporter that she would investigate the matter and 'take care of it.' subsequent activity by FAA reps indicated that she did. While the FAA demand for re-examination was not withdrawn, a third FAA examiner was dispatched to the reporter's home airport to conduct the review rather than have the reporter travel to the FSDO office. This examiner confined his re-examination to an oral review of documentation and waived additional oral review as well as a flight test. Additionally, the reporter was advised that no letter or other indicator would appear on the reporter's FAA file, and that the FAA considered the matter closed. As the analyst feels that primary responsibility for the conduct of an inexperienced flight instrument should lie with the chief pilot, the reporter was questioned as to the actions of his superior throughout this event. The reporter indicated that the owner/manager/chief instrument no longer enjoyed the privileges of a flight examiner, and as the flight school (company a) was under new management, had no further association with the company. The current situation is apparently satisfactory to FAA reps.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: NEW FLT INSTRUCTOR CERTIFICATES STUDENT PLT-MEDICAL PERMIT INCORRECTLY AND RUNS AFOUL OF A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAA.

Narrative: I AM FLYING INSTR, QUALIFIED IN 4/89, AND EMPLOYED BY COMPANY A AVIATION, WHERE I ALSO RECEIVED ALL MY TRNING FOR CPL/1R (SEL) AND CFI-A. MY FIRST STUDENT WAS A MR. B, WHO HAD COME FROM THE U.K. FOR HIS PVT PLT LICENSE. HE HAD BEEN ISSUED WITH A THIRD CLASS MEDICAL BY AN FAA APPROVED DOCTOR IN U.K. AS COMPANY A AVIATION IS A PART 141 TRNING SCHOOL, WITH MANY FOREIGN STUDENTS, IT IS THE NORMAL PRACTICE FOR THE CHIEF FLYING INSTR AND HIS SECRETARY TO PROVIDE A STUDENT PLT CERTIFICATE TO HOLDERS OF U.K. ISSUED THIRD CLASS MEDICALS. UNLIKE THE U.S. THIRD CLASS MEDICAL, THE U.K. FORM DOES NOT ALSO INCLUDE OR CONSTITUTE A STUDENT CERTIFICATE. WHEN MR. B WAS PREPARED FOR SOLO FLYING, AND X-COUNTRY FLYING, I SIGNED THE REQUIRED STUDENT CERTIFICATE ENDORSEMENTS ON THE BACK OF THE U.K. MEDICAL CERTIFICATE, AS I HAD NOT SEEN THIS TYPE OF MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. BEFORE, I ASKED MR. B IF THE SCHOOL ADMINISTRATION WAS AWARE OF HIS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. HE STATED THAT THEY WERE, AND HAD PUT A PHOTOCOPY OF HIS MEDICAL IN HIS PART 141 FOLDER/RECORDS. IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION THAT I BELIEVED I WAS SIGNING HIS STUDENT CERTIFICATE BY PUTTING THE ENDORSEMENTS ON HIS MEDICAL CERTIFICATE. SUBSEQUENTLY, I WAS ISSUED WITH A LETTER FROM THE STL FSDO STATING THAT BECAUSE OF THESE EVENTS, MY COMPETENCE AS A FLT INSTR MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED, AND PURSUANT TO SECTION 609, A RE-EXAM OF MY COMPETENCE IS NECESSARY, WHICH WILL CONSIST OF A FLT INSTR PRACTICAL; IE, I MUST RETAKE THE ORAL AND FLT EXAM FOR CFI. IF I DO NOT ACCEPT THIS RE-EXAM, PROCEEDINGS WILL BE INITIATED TO SUSPEND MY PLT CERTIFICATE. THE FAA DECIDED THAT MR. B SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY FURTHER DURESS CONCERNING THIS MATTER, WHICH HAD ARISEN WHEN MR. B WAS RECOMMENDED BY MYSELF FOR A PVT PLT CHKRIDE. HE WAS ISSUED WITH A STUDENT PLT CERTIFICATE BY A DESIGNATED FAA EXAMINER (THE OPERATOR OF THE SCHOOL) ON 7/XX/90, AND ON THE SAME DAY PASSED HIS PPL CHKRIDE. ON 7/XX/89, I WAS ISSUED WITH A LETTER FROM THE STL FSDO OUTLINING THEIR REQUEST FOR ME TO SUBJECT MYSELF TO RE-EXAM, AND I WAS ASKED TO SUSPEND MY ACTIVITIES AS AN INSTR UNTIL AFTER MY RE-EXAM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: IN LIGHT OF THE RELATIVELY MINOR NATURE OF THE INFRACTION BY THE RPTR, COMPLETE RE-EXAM OF THE COMPETENCE OF THE RPTR AS A FLT INSTR SEEMED UNREASONABLE, THUS THE ANALYST CONDUCTED A CALLBACK FOR ADDITIONAL INFO AND CURRENT STATUS OF THE FAA REVIEW. INFO PROVIDED BY THE RPTR DURING THE CALLBACK INDICATED THAT AN ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP BTWN THE OWNER/MGR/CHIEF INSTR OF THE FLYING SCHOOL (COMPANY A) AND A SPECIFIC REP OF THE FAA'S FSDO OFFICE HAD EXISTED FOR SOME PERIOD OF TIME PRIOR TO THIS INCIDENT. THIS SPECIFIC FAA REP INITIATED ACTION AGAINST THE RPTR. SUBSEQUENT TO THE RPTR'S RECEIPT OF THE LETTER FROM THE FSDO, HE CONTACTED THE FAA EXAMINER WHO HAD RECENTLY ISSUED THE RPTR'S CFI CERTIFICATE, AND SHE ADVISED THE RPTR THAT SHE WOULD INVESTIGATE THE MATTER AND 'TAKE CARE OF IT.' SUBSEQUENT ACTIVITY BY FAA REPS INDICATED THAT SHE DID. WHILE THE FAA DEMAND FOR RE-EXAM WAS NOT WITHDRAWN, A THIRD FAA EXAMINER WAS DISPATCHED TO THE RPTR'S HOME ARPT TO CONDUCT THE REVIEW RATHER THAN HAVE THE RPTR TRAVEL TO THE FSDO OFFICE. THIS EXAMINER CONFINED HIS RE-EXAM TO AN ORAL REVIEW OF DOCUMENTATION AND WAIVED ADDITIONAL ORAL REVIEW AS WELL AS A FLT TEST. ADDITIONALLY, THE RPTR WAS ADVISED THAT NO LETTER OR OTHER INDICATOR WOULD APPEAR ON THE RPTR'S FAA FILE, AND THAT THE FAA CONSIDERED THE MATTER CLOSED. AS THE ANALYST FEELS THAT PRIMARY RESPONSIBILITY FOR THE CONDUCT OF AN INEXPERIENCED FLT INSTR SHOULD LIE WITH THE CHIEF PLT, THE RPTR WAS QUESTIONED AS TO THE ACTIONS OF HIS SUPERIOR THROUGHOUT THIS EVENT. THE RPTR INDICATED THAT THE OWNER/MGR/CHIEF INSTR NO LONGER ENJOYED THE PRIVILEGES OF A FLT EXAMINER, AND AS THE FLT SCHOOL (COMPANY A) WAS UNDER NEW MGMNT, HAD NO FURTHER ASSOCIATION WITH THE COMPANY. THE CURRENT SITUATION IS APPARENTLY SATISFACTORY TO FAA REPS.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.