**DME and DPRE Practical Test Standards FAQ**

Does a designee have to get approval from the supervising FSDO/IFO
before using their test developed using the PTS?

> The intent is to have the designee submit the test questions and
> projects to the FSDO/IFO [prior]{.underline} to being used. This
> affords the principal inspector the opportunity to review the
> information and respond to the designee. No formal approval or
> acceptance is required. The next change to the order will reflect this
> intention.
>
> **Are deviations to the 60-day transition time allowed?**
>
> Yes, since Order 8900.2 does not address an extension, what we have
> been telling those inquiring about extensions is that the designee
> should make a written request to their principal inspector detailing
> specifics as to the need for the extension and an estimated time of
> completion. If the principal concurs with the request, they will
> forward the request to the Regional office for approval. This request
> should be made to the FAA within 2 weeks of the end of the 60-day
> deadline.

Each powerplant test requires a minor propeller alteration and a minor
propeller repair. These are core competency items in the PTS. Will the
propeller projects be core competency for a retest even when they were
passed during the failed test?

> A core competency propeller project passed on a previous test need not
> be core competency for a retest. The 70% rule can apply. A core
> competency propeller project failed on a previous test must be core
> competency for a retest.

Where did the 80% overall average for 65.80 applicants (Chap. 5, par
5-2b(2) come from?

> Notice 65-25 of the Federal Register. It was a suggested
> recommendation for AMTS curriculum development that a student, in
> order to meet the "satisfactory progress" portion of the regulation,
> maintain an overall average of at least 80%. The intent of the order
> was to support that "recommendation". An AMTS must have the details on
> how they will determine the criteria to allow their students to test
> under 65.80. The 80% reference is directed toward the AMTS school
> curriculum development and inadvertently referenced in this order. It
> will be removed in the next revision to the order. An AMTS should
> follow the current 65.80 procedures of their curriculum.
>
> **Why are propeller minor alterations now added to the practical
> test?**
>
> 14 CFR, Part 65.79, demands that an applicant for a powerplant rating
> \"\...show his ABILITY TO MAKE minor repairs to and MINOR ALTERATIONS
> of propellers.\" It is the only place the regulations demand
> performance of any specific projects***.*** It should also be noted
> that it doesn\'t say describe a minor alteration on a prop \...It says
> "SHOW ABILITY to MAKE" (perform) a minor alteration. The only way an
> applicant can demonstrate, or show ability to do anything is through
> satisfactory accomplishment of at least a Level 2 project.
>
> **What are some examples of minor propeller alterations?**
>
> The Appendix of Part 43, in paragraph (a)(3), describes
> [major]{.underline} alterations of propellers as major alterations\"
> WHEN NOT AUTHORIZED IN THE PROPELLER SPECIFICATIONS ISSUED BY THE
> FAA\". It lists six changes that would be major if these changes
> weren\'t on the TCDS. One of them is installation of a governor. The
> TCDS for a Beech Baron lists at least two governors that are eligible
> for installation. If one model governor is on the aircraft, it could
> be removed and replaced with second type governor listed on the TCDS
> and, according to Appendix A of Part 43, an alteration has been
> performed\...but NOT a major alteration \...a MINOR alteration because
> the second type governor installed was listed in the specifications.
> The same would hold true for installation of different design blades
> in a hub,