Narrative:

I, as private pilot, was an applicant for an instrument rating with a pilot examiner. At the direction of the examiner, I filed an IFR flight plan and received IFR clearance and flew into IMC conditions for the check ride. At no time was the examiner acting as PIC. After discussions with another instructor, I found that I was not legally able to file IFR as PIC nor penetrate IMC conditions even with an examiner aboard. After speaking with several other pilots, I found this is common with this examiner. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the examining ride did not go well. I must return and do 2 more IFR apches when examiners time and my work schedule are compatible. Examiner explicitly told me to file the plan in my name and list myself as PIC. Applicant advised me that no prior agreement was made by either party for the dpe to act as PIC. Even if there was an agreement in effect, the dpe could not act as both the PIC and as a pilot examiner, who is supposed to be an independent observer. The dpe certainly cannot act as an instructor on a check ride. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: normal procedure for an instrument rating ride is for it to be conducted in VMC conditions. Applicant can then file a VFR plan as PIC with examiner conducting the examination in VMC. An examining flight should never be conducted in IMC. Departure was in violation and applicant was in violation for filing IFR and flying in IMC.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PRIVATE PLT UP FOR AN INSTRUMENT RATING RIDE WAS ADVISED BY EXAMINER TO FILE THE IFR PLAN UNDER HIS NAME AS PIC.

Narrative: I, AS PRIVATE PLT, WAS AN APPLICANT FOR AN INSTRUMENT RATING WITH A PLT EXAMINER. AT THE DIRECTION OF THE EXAMINER, I FILED AN IFR FLT PLAN AND RECEIVED IFR CLRNC AND FLEW INTO IMC CONDITIONS FOR THE CHECK RIDE. AT NO TIME WAS THE EXAMINER ACTING AS PIC. AFTER DISCUSSIONS WITH ANOTHER INSTRUCTOR, I FOUND THAT I WAS NOT LEGALLY ABLE TO FILE IFR AS PIC NOR PENETRATE IMC CONDITIONS EVEN WITH AN EXAMINER ABOARD. AFTER SPEAKING WITH SEVERAL OTHER PLTS, I FOUND THIS IS COMMON WITH THIS EXAMINER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE EXAMINING RIDE DID NOT GO WELL. I MUST RETURN AND DO 2 MORE IFR APCHES WHEN EXAMINERS TIME AND MY WORK SCHEDULE ARE COMPATIBLE. EXAMINER EXPLICITLY TOLD ME TO FILE THE PLAN IN MY NAME AND LIST MYSELF AS PIC. APPLICANT ADVISED ME THAT NO PRIOR AGREEMENT WAS MADE BY EITHER PARTY FOR THE DPE TO ACT AS PIC. EVEN IF THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT IN EFFECT, THE DPE COULD NOT ACT AS BOTH THE PIC AND AS A PLT EXAMINER, WHO IS SUPPOSED TO BE AN INDEPENDENT OBSERVER. THE DPE CERTAINLY CANNOT ACT AS AN INSTRUCTOR ON A CHECK RIDE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: NORMAL PROC FOR AN INSTRUMENT RATING RIDE IS FOR IT TO BE CONDUCTED IN VMC CONDITIONS. APPLICANT CAN THEN FILE A VFR PLAN AS PIC WITH EXAMINER CONDUCTING THE EXAM IN VMC. AN EXAMINING FLT SHOULD NEVER BE CONDUCTED IN IMC. DEP WAS IN VIOLATION AND APPLICANT WAS IN VIOLATION FOR FILING IFR AND FLYING IN IMC.

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.