Welcome Guest. Sign in or Signup

5 Answers

Letter of Discontinuance and class of rating sought

Asked by: 6674 views ,
FAA Regulations

I received a Letter of Discontinuance for my ATP-AMEL check ride after passing the oral due to maintenance problems with the aircraft. After finding out that it will be at least 3-4 weeks before the aircraft will be back in service (it is the only light twin in the area I have access to), the DPE asked if I wanted to do my ATP-ASEL while we waited (I had planned to get my ATP-ASEL at some point after the AMEL). I have access to a C172 from the same operator. The questions here is are we able to hop right into it and complete the flight portion of the check ride, since I already passed the oral? Or do we need to redo the oral as part of a separate check ride and come back to complete the AMEL flight at a later date?

On a similar note, I was wondering how it would work in the event we wanted to change the model of airplane initially entered into IACRA. For example, if I entered PA-44 and wanted to use a BE-76 instead since the PA-44 was found to be un-airworthy.

Thanks in advance!

Ace Any FAA Written Test!
Actual FAA Questions / Free Lifetime Updates
The best explanations in the business
Fast, efficient study.
Pass Your Checkride With Confidence!
FAA Practical Test prep that reflects actual checkrides.
Any checkride: Airplane, Helicopter, Glider, etc.
Written and maintained by actual pilot examiners and master CFIs.
The World's Most Trusted eLogbook
Be Organized, Current, Professional, and Safe.
Highly customizable - for student pilots through pros.
Free Transition Service for users of other eLogs.
Our sincere thanks to pilots such as yourself who support AskACFI while helping themselves by using the awesome PC, Mac, iPhone/iPad, and Android aviation apps of our sponsors.

5 Answers



  1. Lucas on Oct 29, 2014

    Technically the oral portion of an ATP check ride should be (for the majority) on the systems of the airplane to be flown during the flight portion of the Check Ride so changing the airplane would require additional oral testing. Also if you are going to add an ATP ASEL, that is a completely different check ride (and at this point it would not even be an ADD ON rating, it would be an initial) so the oral portion would need to be redone entirely.

    So in short yes in both cases you would need to repeat the oral portion of the check ride.

    Sorry!!!

    0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  2. Adrian on Oct 29, 2014

    (please note that the following is a reply to the reply above and is not directly relevant to the original poster’s question)

    “Technically the oral portion of an ATP check ride should be (for the majority) on the systems of the airplane to be flown during the flight portion of the Check Ride”

    I’m not sure how exactly to interpret the above. Certainly the ATP portion of an ATP ride should include considerable emphasis on aircraft systems, including especially those of the aircraft to be flown during the checkride. And, it’s also true that some more pliable DPEs, especially those working closely with “ATP assembly line weekend-course type places” in practice did what amounted to not much more than an almost routinized oral exam prep which was basically asking rote questions from the “oral exam prep cram booklet” provided by such courses. However, too many years of this has devalued the FAA ATP on a global scale (relative to the EASA/JAA ATPL, for example) and has mass produced many “ATP” pilots barely worthy of the title – basically, they took their Multi-Commercial-Instrument ride again in a light twin (or single) and not much more, which had potential safety (or at least overall competence and knowledge) implications.

    These are (at least partially) the reasons why the FAA has instituted changes to the FAA ATP recently. Speaking broadly, this means getting DPEs to do what many were doing all along but more should have done – turn the oral portion truly into a “PhD examination” of sorts covering a broad spectrum of topics, including, often, systems questions not directly associated with the aircraft being flown.

    So, therefore, while I think your comment may have been correct in terms of what happened in practice at some places for far too long, I don’t think it reflects either the future or the FAA’s guidance or recommendations to DPEs.

    / full disclosure: we make an ATP Checkride Oral Exam prep product at http://www.checkride.com / http://www.RideReady.com that has been well received – it covers the specific systems of common ATP training airplanes and a whole host of actual question topics far beyond aircraft systems that we have found appear regularly on ATP oral exams. The question database is large – far larger than those “ATP oral exam prep booklets” and largely illustrated. It’s available for PC, Mac, iOS, and Android.

    -1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 2 Votes



  3. Kris Kortokrax on Oct 29, 2014

    Adrian,

    You mentioned the “ATP portion of the ATP ride”. Just out of curiosity, what would be the non-ATP portion of the ATP ride?

    The ATP PTS contains language such as “Exhibits satisfactory knowledge appropriate to THE airplane”, “Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of the contents of THE POH” and “Describes (as appropriate to THE airplane)”. Where did you get the idea that the applicant must display knowledge of systems and performance for a wide selection of aircraft?

    How would “asking rote questions from the ‘oral exam prep cram booklet’ provided by such courses” differ from asking rote questions from “RideReady FAA Practical Test Preparation” software? I’ve not looked at your software, just asking how cramming using a piece of software differs from cramming using a booklet?

    I am unfamiliar with the recent changes made by the FAA to the ATP PTS which you reference. The current PTS was issued in 2008 with Change 7 made in July of 2014 to address the new Multi-engine ATP regulations.

    It appears that most of your post does not address the question at hand and you stated that in your post. As a practical matter, something off topic should be addressed in a separate post. Many people who might be interested in your words, might not see them because they wouldn’t look at the post with the title as shown.

    Lucas and I have at times disagreed in the past, however, I agree completely with his answer in this case. The oral portion of the practical should address the aircraft supplied for the test, not a representative sample of all airplanes manufactured.

    +3 Votes Thumb up 3 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes



  4. Adrian on Oct 29, 2014

    Kris- sorry for my mistype: I meant the “oral” portion of the ATP ride.

    I of course didn’t mean that the applicant would be expected to know the specific systems of an aircraft he/she isn’t flying in. Nobody’s going to ask a pilot flying a Seneca what such and such a button on a 737’s FMS does. What I meant is that in answering questions fully, a well prepared candidate will be able to draw on comparative knowledge of aircraft systems. For example, the ATP PTS specifies that the applicant

    “Exhibits satisfactory knowledge of performance and limitations, including a thorough knowledge of the adverse effects of exceeding any limitation.”
    “Demonstrates good planning and knowledge of procedures in applying operational factors affecting airplane performance.”
    “Describes the effects of meteorological conditions upon performance characteristics and correctly applies these factors to a specific chart, table, graph, or other performance data.”
    “Recognition of wing contamination to icing.”
    “Adverse effects of wing contamination in icing conditions during takeoff, cruise, and landing phases of flight.”

    These particular items are not specifically linked to the aircraft being flown (in that they do not have “(as appropriate to the airplane)” or similar phrases associated with them, as other items explicitly do) and give the examiner some leeway in probing the applicant’s knowledge where it otherwise might be “too rote.” I don’t want to make this discussion “about this”, but our materials differ in that we try to provide a mix of rote, analytical, and scenario example questions that better apply to such more broadly understandable areas of the PTS. Applicant answers on everything from flight planning to meteorology and beyond become richer and more credible when the applicant has wide-ranging and comparative knowledge to draw on. Or to put it another way – would an applicant who quite literally knows nothing outside of the specifics of Twin Comanche systems and direct Twin Comanche operations really be a great applicant? Somehow I don’t think so.

    Anyway, this is why i asked the question. If i strayed from the topic I apologize – this is why I prefixed my comment with a disclaimer. I have deleted Lucas’ “rather aggressive” post in the hopes that we can return to civil discussion on aviation topics, though I’ll take full responsibility if indeed what I thought to simply be a probing legitimate follow-on question/discussion to the topic at hand did not come off that way. Thanks for your thoughtful response and discussion.

    0 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 1 Votes



  5. Traffic in Sight on Oct 29, 2014

    Thanks for the answers guys. The DPE called his POI for clarification and he confirmed that both scenarios call for a separate check ride. He did add that the DPE can, “at his discretion”, opt not to reexamine areas already tested, particularly those that are not specific to the aircraft.

    In response to the discussion Adrian started, I did feel like I was sort of retaking my Commercial ME check ride as I was being quizzed during the oral so I can see where he is coming from. Though I’m pretty sure the case would be different had I been doing a type rating ATP ride. I also agree that the point should’ve been raised in a separate post.

    Lucas, I read your deleted comments on my email inbox. I’ve been reading this website for several years now and I hope this doesn’t set a precedent of how things will be after the Dauntless acquisition.

    +1 Votes Thumb up 1 Votes Thumb down 0 Votes


Answer Question

Our sincere thanks to all who contribute constructively to this forum in answering flight training questions. If you are a flight instructor or represent a flight school / FBO offering flight instruction, you are welcome to include links to your site and related contact information as it pertains to offering local flight instruction in a specific geographic area. Additionally, direct links to FAA and related official government sources of information are welcome. However we thank you for your understanding that links to other sites or text that may be construed as explicit or implicit advertising of other business, sites, or goods/services are not permitted even if such links nominally are relevant to the question asked.