Narrative:

After completing the oral portion of my initial CFI rating test, the FAA examiner and myself entered the aircraft that I rented from a flight school. The examiner noticed that the installed clock was not operating, the panel lights dimmer control knob was missing, and a required placard was peeling up. I explained that these items were an oversight on my part, and although the airplane might not be perfect, it was in an airworthy condition. The examiner informed me that these discrepancies were not a reflection on me and that we would have to continue the test at a later date. I then informed the examiner that I had an a&P certificate and asked if he would allow me to rectify the problems and continue the test. The examiner informed me that the test was over and that I would have to reschedule the test. I sighted far 91.213 (inoperative instruments and equipment), that says I could placard the instruments inoperative and make a logbook entry so we could complete the flight test. This option was not acceptable to the examiner. An FAA maintenance inspector was called upon by the examiner to review the situation. It was his determination that I had violated FARS and my commercial pilot's certificate and a&P certificate were in jeopardy. After a long, closed meeting of the 2 FAA personnel they informed me that I had failed the entire test and that I would need a ferry permit. The ferry permit was issued and I returned to my home airport. In my opinion I felt that I was treated unfairly, first by not being allowed to rectify the situation, and second, that I failed the entire test when told that I had passed the oral portion. In retrospect, I should have checked the operation of the clock and all other installed equipment, whether required for the flight or not, and placarded the panel appropriately. As a competent pilot and professional technician, I did not find any of these discrepancies a hazard to flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he received permission to be re-examined by a designated pilot examiner and was successful in passing the test. He believes that he probably aggravated the FAA examiner by insisting that he could make the aircraft airworthy since he was a certified a&P mechanic. However, the FAA inspector rejected the offer probably due to time restraints and the fact that the applicant had not recognized the unairworthy condition of the aircraft. So far, the reporter has not received any notices of a possible violation investigation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT INSTRUCTOR APPLICANT FAILED THE EXAMINATION AFTER IT WAS REVEALED DURING THE PREFLT OF THE ACFT THAT THE ACFT WAS TECHNICALLY UNAIRWORTHY.

Narrative: AFTER COMPLETING THE ORAL PORTION OF MY INITIAL CFI RATING TEST, THE FAA EXAMINER AND MYSELF ENTERED THE ACFT THAT I RENTED FROM A FLT SCHOOL. THE EXAMINER NOTICED THAT THE INSTALLED CLOCK WAS NOT OPERATING, THE PANEL LIGHTS DIMMER CTL KNOB WAS MISSING, AND A REQUIRED PLACARD WAS PEELING UP. I EXPLAINED THAT THESE ITEMS WERE AN OVERSIGHT ON MY PART, AND ALTHOUGH THE AIRPLANE MIGHT NOT BE PERFECT, IT WAS IN AN AIRWORTHY CONDITION. THE EXAMINER INFORMED ME THAT THESE DISCREPANCIES WERE NOT A REFLECTION ON ME AND THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO CONTINUE THE TEST AT A LATER DATE. I THEN INFORMED THE EXAMINER THAT I HAD AN A&P CERTIFICATE AND ASKED IF HE WOULD ALLOW ME TO RECTIFY THE PROBS AND CONTINUE THE TEST. THE EXAMINER INFORMED ME THAT THE TEST WAS OVER AND THAT I WOULD HAVE TO RESCHEDULE THE TEST. I SIGHTED FAR 91.213 (INOP INSTS AND EQUIP), THAT SAYS I COULD PLACARD THE INSTS INOP AND MAKE A LOGBOOK ENTRY SO WE COULD COMPLETE THE FLT TEST. THIS OPTION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE EXAMINER. AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR WAS CALLED UPON BY THE EXAMINER TO REVIEW THE SIT. IT WAS HIS DETERMINATION THAT I HAD VIOLATED FARS AND MY COMMERCIAL PLT'S CERTIFICATE AND A&P CERTIFICATE WERE IN JEOPARDY. AFTER A LONG, CLOSED MEETING OF THE 2 FAA PERSONNEL THEY INFORMED ME THAT I HAD FAILED THE ENTIRE TEST AND THAT I WOULD NEED A FERRY PERMIT. THE FERRY PERMIT WAS ISSUED AND I RETURNED TO MY HOME ARPT. IN MY OPINION I FELT THAT I WAS TREATED UNFAIRLY, FIRST BY NOT BEING ALLOWED TO RECTIFY THE SIT, AND SECOND, THAT I FAILED THE ENTIRE TEST WHEN TOLD THAT I HAD PASSED THE ORAL PORTION. IN RETROSPECT, I SHOULD HAVE CHKED THE OP OF THE CLOCK AND ALL OTHER INSTALLED EQUIP, WHETHER REQUIRED FOR THE FLT OR NOT, AND PLACARDED THE PANEL APPROPRIATELY. AS A COMPETENT PLT AND PROFESSIONAL TECHNICIAN, I DID NOT FIND ANY OF THESE DISCREPANCIES A HAZARD TO FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE RECEIVED PERMISSION TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY A DESIGNATED PLT EXAMINER AND WAS SUCCESSFUL IN PASSING THE TEST. HE BELIEVES THAT HE PROBABLY AGGRAVATED THE FAA EXAMINER BY INSISTING THAT HE COULD MAKE THE ACFT AIRWORTHY SINCE HE WAS A CERTIFIED A&P MECH. HOWEVER, THE FAA INSPECTOR REJECTED THE OFFER PROBABLY DUE TO TIME RESTRAINTS AND THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT HAD NOT RECOGNIZED THE UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION OF THE ACFT. SO FAR, THE RPTR HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY NOTICES OF A POSSIBLE VIOLATION INVESTIGATION.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.