New FAA designated pilot examiner for Europe

[SergeD]

I have just got this email passed to me. After all the troubles, this is great news.

===============

I will (finally) be coming to the UK and will be available from 16-24 February. I will be in the Denham area on the 16th, in the East Midlands area from 17-20, and in downtown London from 21-23. I will also be in Wellesbourne on the evening of the 22nd participating in the GASCo/CAA Safety Evening. If you (or any of your pilot friends) are still interested in an FAA 61.75 Certificate or still in need of a checkride, please let me know via email. I will do my best to accommodate your schedule.

It is quite certain that I will also be in Europe in June and again in the fall.

Thank you for your patience and I hope to see you soon.

Janeen Kochan, Ph.D.
Human Factors Scientist/Designated Pilot Examiner/Instructor Pilot
Aviation Research, Training, and Services, Inc.
17 Aviation Drive
Winter Haven, FL 33881
863-297-8080 (Office)
863-207-0484 (Mobile)
863-293-1718 (Fax)
[email protected]

email Janeen Kochan kochan [at] aviation-research.net

[IO540]

Ms Kochan was in the UK before, 1-2 years ago. Well spoken of.

[Cusco]

Indeed: I made the trip to Denham a coupla years ago where she dealt with me professionally and in a friendly manner.

There was a bit of a wait but not too long.

Her presence doesn't absolve you from the CAA authentication letter /nominated FSDO bit though so it's as well to get that out of the way before you see her>

Check with her by email which FSDO is required ISTR when I went it was NewYork FSDO.

I paid $220 in greenbacks for 61.75 conversion to plastic/addition of English Proficiency: much cheaper (in time as well) than a trip to USA.

Highly recommended.

Cusco

[Bricknall]

That is excellent news - she has a very good reputation - have had so many hassles in the past in this arena

[SNS3Guppy]

Certainly over here - you use one of the assigned DPE's for your specific region.
Which is probably the correct etiquette.

It's very common in the US for students to use designated examiners in or from another location. Particularly for multi-engine ratings, seaplane ratings, and ATP certificates and type ratings, students often travel to locations away from their home in order to get certification.

You're correct that in general, designated pilot examiners don't typically travel to get work, but then they don't have to. Most pilot examiners are too busy as it is.

Then again, the entire designated pilot examiner system is legalized extortion; taxes are paid to allow the FAA to operate, and individuals shouldn't have to pay designees to take a practical test. I find it a reprehensible program. When some students pay as high as six hundred dollars for a practical test, it's most certainly unethical, and borderline criminal.

These people have set up a business (many do have other occupations as well) and done whatever had to be done to get approved by the FAA.

If everybody who is qualified were to be given the same opportunity, that would be one thing. If the FAA regulated the DPE's and unified or standardized the fees that they charge (but shouldn't be able to charge), that would mean something.

I have no sympathy for the designated examiners, and they certainly have no place to whine if another DE steps up and flies with students.

Europeans really shouldn't have to go to the USA to get pilot certification, especially just for a piggy back certificate. For those who do make the trip, I hope it's a great experience, but there's no reason in the world that folks in the EU/UK shouldn't be able to do a checkride with a designated examiner closer to home.

[SNS3Guppy]

The problem is that no other federal agency issues licenses to operate, like the FAA does. When one takes a checkride from a Inspector, one doesn't pay for the checkride; it's a function of the FAA. The FAA is required to give checkrides.

The FAA attempts to expand it's base of manpower by the designated pilot examiner program, and rather than funding the DPE's, the FAA allows them to charge applicants. If the FAA standardized the fees or set limits, that would be one thing, but the FAA doesn't.

The FAA limits the number of DPE's. It's not a matter of competition. Many are qualified to be an examiner, but the FAA doesn't simply allow anyone who is qualified, to be an examiner. Very few are allowed to be examiners, and these few hold a corner on the market, and charge accordingly.

In some cases, the extreme conflict of interest of paying an examiner to give the test bears fruition; the examiner becomes known for granting certificates based on the students payment. Some DE's in the USA do this very thing, and thus run pilot certificate mills. One particular Las Vegas operator is known for the very thing

A student shouldn't have to pay to take a practical test. So long as the government requires the test and issues the certificate, the government should provide the manpower to test the applicant, and the applicant shouldn't have to pay. The applicant already pays taxes, and the FAA is a taxpayer funded agency. To require that the applicant take a practical test for a certificate, rating, or privilege, and then to authorize only a few selected individuals to administer that test, and to allow them to charge anything they like for something already paid by the applicant as a function of his or her government taxes is not only an outrage, but an ethical compromise. It defies the FAA mission: "to provide the safest, most efficient aerospace system in the world."

[youngskywalker]

As a European citizen and therefore not a US taxpayer I have to say I couldn't really object to the $400 or so that I paid for my various checkrides. For a US taxpayer I would agree with Guppy.

[FlyingGoat]

Thanks for the above. Has anyone got any workarounds to avoid paying north of £180 and a day wasted at Farnborough to take the IFP (Instrument Rating Foreign Pilot) written test?

And any bed-time reading in addition to ASA's 2011 Test Prep IR (about 15 quid at Amazon UK)?

[S-Works]

Thanks for the above. Has anyone got any workarounds to avoid paying north of £180 and a day wasted at Farnborough to take the IFP (Instrument Rating Foreign Pilot) written test?

And any bed-time reading in addition to ASA's 2011 Test Prep IR (about 15 quid at Amazon UK)?

yes, fly to the USA and do training for a US rating in the US.......

[FlyingGoat]

yes, fly to the USA and do training for a US rating in the US.......

Thanks, but why? I'm not intending to fly in the US, and the only 'training' I need, as far as I understand, is to read-up the IR theory (differences?).

[S-Works]

Ah right, so you want a US rating, never to use it in the US and you want to find a shortcut to getting it?

Understood.

Then you are into the £180 to Flight Safety and the money to the visiting DPE's.

[FlyingGoat]

You've got a point, Bose-X.

Visiting an FSDO in the States, sight of licence and taking the theory, I guess would be a fraction of the cost?

[IO540]

The huge advantage of a visiting DPE is that you can do a checkride in your own aircraft - the one you trained in and the one you know well.

Going to the USA means cheaper flying (though nowhere near as cheaper as it would have been 10 years ago) which makes financial sense if you are going to do a lot of training, but you have to pay for hotels and the airline tickets and the whole thing makes little sense if you will then be flying a different plane.

The main safety thing in flying is currency on type and this is why so many people have paid visiting DPEs. It focuses the training and the checkride (which is also a training flight) fully on the plane you normally fly.

For a 61.75 only, it cannot make sense to go to the USA just for that, if you can get it here.

[IO540]

Every visiting DPE has been visiting with the full approval of the FAA - since about 2003 and probably earlier. So there is little point in debating "jurisdictions".

[IO540]

It must be particularly useful if you're trying to work around EASA and the lack of customer service it exemplifies in it's geograpical area of operation.

The reality is that there are several thousand private IR holders in Europe of whom the great majority are FAA ones.

This is a simple consequence of the European regulators' screwing of the private IR, over many years.

I think historically most of these people did it all in the USA. This has always been the smoothest and - for any significant amount of flight training e.g. the IR - the cheapest option. A few have done it all in Europe, with visiting DPEs.

Nobody is actually "working around EASA" in that sense.

[moonym20]

Does anyone know if she would be able to sign off an 8710-1 for the issue of a rating or privilege?

[S-Works]

Does a visiting US citizen in this instance (presumably) have the required visa to work independently in the UK for remuneration as a visiting DPE...

What an interesting question. An examiner going the other way and doing it would be flayed alive.....

[porridge]

I am so pleased to hear this news. I have met with Janeen Kochan, some time ago, and she immediately impressed me as a no-nonsense professional.
I think this brings a breath fresh air to the very tainted atmosphere that was pervaded by another FAA DPE in UK/Europe. I certainly look forward to a positive working relationship with her. I can assure everyone that it is my opinion that she will restore the integrity on the FAA again in the UK/Europe!

[S-Works]

I know her. She is a thoroughly nice person and a regular at Winterhaven where I fly.

However she is a USC and as such requires a work permit to work in Europe. being a self employed FAA DPE is not grounds for such a work permit. Being a DPE doe not make her a representative of the US government anymore than being a JAA Examiner makes me a representative of the UK government.......

So unless she is being sponsored by a UK company for a work permit which is just as big a hassle as a Brit going to work in the US I am wondering how exactly she can come and take payment for work performed in the EU?

No axe to grind, just an inquisitive mind and would be interested in the answer.

[SNS3Guppy]

Actually, a DPE is a representative of the FAA, every bit as much as a medical examiner represents the FAA; both do, in their capacity.

[IO540]

Interesting axe grinding going on here.

You can perform a limited service in a foreign country in the context of a business. If this was not possible, every person (a representative of some manufacturer or service provider) who visits a customer abroad, and ends up sorting out some issue under e.g. some contractual obligation, or perhaps just to help out the customer, and his time is then billed for, flat rate or hourly, would need a work permit, which is patent bollox otherwise all forms of out-of-warranty (billable) engineering support could not be performed outside the principal's country (ignoring the intra-EU concession which is irrelevant to this anyway).

Let's say Boeing send out half a dozen engineers out of their factory to say the UK, to help out with some issues on some BA 747s. Out of warranty, their time will be billed for. Do they need work permits? Bollox :ugh:

Also, DPEs do have to sign an FAA contract. They are reps of the FAA.

[S-Works]

No there is no axe grinding. It is merely an open debate.

IO, you are quite correct an overseas employer may send out a member of staff to attend a meeting or sort an issue in Europe. However that member of staff is on the US payroll. In this cae the DPE is coming and collecting payment direct and not on behalf of the US government or an overseas company with a presence in Europe.

A DPE may sign a contract with the FAA in the same way that a CAA Examiner has a contract as an examiner with the the CAA. This does not make them an employee of the FAA or CAA and therefore not a government representative in the visa sense.

I represent the UK CAA as an Examiner. That would not get me a work visa or the right to work in the USA and the same applies here.

Janeen is an aviation consultant not an FAA employee and as such comes to Europe on a private basis. In order to receive payment directly in Europe she must come here on a working visa not a tourist visa. To get a working visa she must be sponsored. I am just wondering who is doing the sponsoring.

Like I said, no axe to grind as I think serious competition is needed in Europe but this does not over ride the need for a visa.

[IO540]

Read the 1st post...

Aviation Research, Training, and Services, Inc.

[S-Works]

Still not a government department and not entitled to a visa to take money in Europe. Being a US business and coming to Europe would allow them to come here and solicit business. But not take payment.

Come on IO you are normally so up on rules and regulations.

[Cusco]

Come on you chaps:

Do you want a DPE over here who provides a more user friendly service than current DPEs or not?

You risk killing off the whole business by your quest for (I'd say irrelevant) answers.

But then that's PPRuNe all over: Self agrandizement by the few.

[LH2]

The UK Border Agency (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visitingtheuk/businessandspecialvisitors/businessvisitors/) has this to say:

You will only need permission (known as 'entry clearance' or 'a visa') to come to the UK for a business visit of up to six months if you are a visa national.

US citizens are not considered "visa nationals (http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/policyandlaw/immigrationlaw/immigrationrules/appendix1/)".

If someone wanted to get all argumentative, then it could be considered that doing rating revals and that sort of thing means that (http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/doineedvisa/nonvisanationals)

you intend to take paid employment; or to produce goods or services within the UK, including selling goods or services directly to the public;

but that case is very easily circumvented by the permit-free employment (http://www.ukvisas.gov.uk/en/howtoapply/infs/inf14permitfreeemployment) rules.

In practice however, it's as IO describes, there are rules which are written for the general case, and then there are those of us who just go there, get the job done, and bugger off. Often abiding strictly by the rules would be counterproductive for everyone (host government included) so we don't.

I note btw that the above research took three minutes via Google, and I also note that it is considered impolite to post a question without having a shot at Googling the answer first.

[SNS3Guppy]

A DPE may sign a contract with the FAA in the same way that a CAA Examiner has a contract as an examiner with the the CAA. This does not make them an employee of the FAA or CAA and therefore not a government representative in the visa sense.

I represent the UK CAA as an Examiner. That would not get me a work visa or the right to work in the USA and the same applies here.

A DPE isn't a contract employee. A DPE is a direct extension of the FAA, and an official respresentative of the Administrator. The DPE is not employed by the FAA, and does not receive a paycheck from the FAA. Never the less, the DPE is most certainly a representative of the FAA.

The FAA uses volunteers in it's safety program (FAAST Team members). These aren't paid either, but are also representatives of the Administrator.

Whether the Designee is eligible for a work visa or not doesn't change the fact that the DPE is still an official representative of the Administrator, and is required to abide all FAA rules, regulations, and policies when acting in that capacity.

[IO540]

What is permit-free employment?

Permit-free employment means certain types of work for which you do not need permission (or a Certificate of Sponsorship under the points-based system) to undertake. Examples are:
sole representative of an overseas company in the UKExactly :ok: Well done LH2.

What a pointless and irrelevant debate.

it is considered impolite to post a question without having a shot at Googling the answer first.

unless one has some other agenda...

[Fuji Abound]

SNS3Guppy

We have rarely agreed but the post prior to your last on this thread makes a great deal of sense.

With regards the other remarks on this thread I am greatly saddened by the protectionist attitude of some. It is a great service that this lady is prepared to come to the UK to support US pilots based here.

[englishal]

being a JAA Examiner makes me a representative of the UK government.......
Is that a Class Rating Examiner by chance?

[Fuji Abound]

being a JAA Examiner makes me a representative of the UK government.......


fraid not - over here you are a civil servant, a peg lower than the tea lady at the Home Office because at least she is directly employed by the government but you would only be responsible to an agency that has been partially privatised and is about to become a far flung satellite office of Brussels. ;)

[S-Works]

fraid not - over here you are a civil servant, a peg lower than the tea lady at the Home Office because at least she is directly employed by the government but you would only be responsible to an agency that has been partially privatised and is about to become a far flung satellite office of Brussels.

LOL, yeah that was exactly the point I was making...... :p

Al, FE and CRE. Why need an LST or LPC? ;)

Guppy no one said that the DPE was not a representative of the FAA. All examiners by appointment are a representative of the 'the authority' same in JAA land as FAA land. It doe not make them a government employee though, just someone empowered for the purpose of testing.....

Anyway as I said I have no axe to grind, I was just curious. As I said earlier, it is about time those who have had a monopoly and eye watering prices to go with it were given some competition.

Of course the next question is will she face the same problem that the other fixed wing DPE had and was banned from doing tests in the UK without a JAA CPL? Hopefully not.

[Barcli]

'banned from doing tests in the UK without a JAA CPL? Hopefully not.'

you forgot to add one of these on the end Bosey-Boy - ;)

might be some finger pointing if she does :=

Al, FE and CRE. Why need an LST or LPC? yaaawn , yaaawn , yaawn

[SNS3Guppy]

With regards the other remarks on this thread I am greatly saddened by the protectionist attitude of some. It is a great service that this lady is prepared to come to the UK to support US pilots based here.

I whole heartedly agree.

[FlyingGoat]

Slight thread creep here, but it's relevant.

If one's FAA certificate rides on a CAA or JAR licence, will 'we' (UK-based) have to go through the same rigmarole with the FAA again if/when we convert our UK licences to EASA? The cost appears to vary between £42 and north of £450 at the moment, depending on whether it's done in the UK or the US, and I'm not keen on forking out again.

[S-Works]

It would appear likely.

[IO540]

If one's FAA certificate rides on a CAA or JAR licence, will 'we' (UK-based) have to go through the same rigmarole with the FAA again if/when we convert our UK licences to EASA? The cost appears to vary between £42 and north of £450 at the moment, depending on whether it's done in the UK or the US, and I'm not keen on forking out again.

Definitely, which is why you should do standalone FAA licenses in all cases.

It's more than just money. It is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the 61.75 issue/mod route may disappear from Europe (it was never possible before about 2009, for example - you always had to go to the USA to get it issued or updated), and while I have no reason to think this will happen it would not shock me if the USA decided to fingerprint 61.75 holders or applicants. Especially if the EASA-FAA FCL treaty process breaks down, which nearly everybody I know who knows anything about it close-up thinks will happen.

When the ICAO English Language Proficiency add-on came in, Europe filled up with headless chickens running around like mad, trying to book an appointment with 1 of the 2 people who could "apparently" do it. I can't believe anybody is contemplating a 61.75 after that fiasco.