# EMERGENCY REQUEST

for FAA Administrator Intervention due to Inspector Misconduct/Ethics Violations at Washington HQ & Local Offices

[Bookmarked pdf file with password can be accessed by emailing: morris@sheffield.com]



# From: Eric W. Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

Introduction-1 Office of the Administrator Attn. J. Randolph Babbitt Federal Aviation Administration 800 Independence Ave., SW Washington, DC 20591

February 24, 2010

Dear Mr. Babbit,

Sheffield School of Aeronautics, established in 1948, is requesting your immediate assistance in putting an end to several ongoing problems that have now reached anational scope, including provable misconduct on the part of individuals within AFS200/220. We have also reached our limit of how much abuse and harassment we can take from the Certificate Management Office (CMO) overseeing us.

We recognize that it is unusual for such a request to be forwarded directly to your office. However, we’ve been advised of a rewrite in progress for Order 8900.1 that, if enacted, will be discriminatory to a certain group of individuals and will open the door to legal action against the Federal Aviation Administration. We are requesting that your office take immediate action to suspend any rewrites to Volume 13 of Order 8900.1, pending a full review and investigation into the misconduct and ethics breaches that will be detailed herein. This rewrite, if enacted, would also have a devastating effect upon aircraft dispatcher certification immediately upon implementation.

There are two chief concerns that require review.

First, Order 8900.1, Volume 13 regarding the Designated Aircraft Dispatcher Examiner (DADE) program has been written in such a way as to destroy certification activities of approved Part 65 courses, especially at those schools conducting large classes. The authoring of this policy was conducted behind closed doors, without any input from the industry; we can and will provide evidence that the origination of this policy appears to have its roots in personal vendettas held by the past and current occupants of AFS-200/220 against Sheffield School, and directly violates the ethics and conduct standards for inspectors as outlined in Order 8900.1.

We will demonstrate that the policies regarding the limitations on DADEs are dangerously flawed, and actually discriminate against a certain group of individuals overseen by the FAA – indeed, we’ve already heard discussions by some of the affected parties of potential class action lawsuits against the FAA if this continues.

Second, the actions and inactions of AFS-220/200 and our local CMO in their dealings with us, both as DADEs and as course operators, has gone beyond the level of harassment and abuse. Our requests for clarification of policy, suggestions for potential rewrites to solve some of the problems the policy creates, and requests for our FAA Specialist to exercise the authority that is given to him in existing national policy to grant waivers and exemptions have been met with threats and changing stories at the local level, and attempted rewrites at the national level to avoid having to answer our questions – and that is in the cases when we’ve received replies. Most often, we have been ignored and many of our communications with these offices have not even been acknowledged.

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

Introduction-2 We are not the only school and examiners affected by this. We have been advised by another school owner halfway across the country that he is currently in contact with his representatives in Congress to request investigation into discriminatory practices of the Flight Standards Service in creating and enforcing these policies; and his is not the only plan for Congressional intervention that we’ve heard. We’ve also heard from graduates of other programs who are desperately seeking assistance because they can no longer get practical exams administered in a reasonable amount of time.

The scope of misconduct on the part of local Dispatch Aviation Safety Inspectors and AFS-200/220 necessitates the involvement of the highest office of the Federal Aviation Administration. I recognize that this document is lengthy, and that you have many other important tasks to perform as well. However, please consider the amount of time that it took me, a small business owner, to put all of this together over the last few months, and how significant a problem it must be for me to have to put aside the day-to-day operation of my business to write this.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics was established in 1948, and pre-dates the Federal Aviation Administration. We have always worked to assist the FAA wherever possible, which is why we are directing this to your office. The actions of a select few within the FAA have opened the door to litigation, Congressional intervention and investigations by both the Small Business Administration and the Department of Justice, and we’d like to help the FAA avoid this, if your office is able to right the wrongs that have been committed.

Respectfully,

Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948) 499 NW 70 th Ave, Suite 110 Plantation, FL 33317 954-581-6022

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

i 

### Table of Contents

• Preface & school history 1

• Present & Past linked 5

• History & Objectivity & Our Service to FAA 5

• Past relationship with FAA compared to present day 7

• Excerpts from an ASI report 9

• Vendetta/FOIA/Irony 11

• Order 8900.1 Sequence 13

• Selected Order 8900.1 Policy with suggestions 14

• New Order 8900.1 Policy 19

• Objectivity (as owners, directors, instructors) 19

• Lack of customer service towards DADEs 20

o CMO-29 20

 Recent exam schedule/local FAA office

 Fatigue

 DADE relief from inside or outside district

o Southern Regional Office 26

o AFS-200 27

o AFS-220 27

o Assistance and relief sought and not received 30

• Questions (authoring of Order 8900.1) 31

• Summary 37

APPENDICES

A – Sheffield 2009 customer/airline list B – CB email C – EP email D - Objectivity E – Sheffield–2009 dropouts/failures list F - Original request for policy relief sent to AFS-220 & CMO-29 G - Subsequent request for policy amendment/rewrite sent to AFS-200 H – Original denial of policy amendment/rewrite sent from AFS-200: Dec 16, 2009 I – Practical exam schedule per 8900.1 policy (~60 hours-based with LESS test security) J – Practical exam schedule following 8900.1 policy if approved for simultaneous flight plan exercise (~33 hours-based with COMPLETE TEST SECURITY) K – Complete Aviation Safety Inspector report on Sheffield School – W. Bonatti L – Stagger exams request – to prevent FATIGUE M – CMO-29: statements & false accusations N – January 29, 2010 telephone call w/CMO-29 log O – Inspector misconduct in classroom P – Ownership restrictions for examiners Q – Response to Certified letter from CMO-29 R – FOIA excerpts linked to vendetta origin S – Highlighted references of Personal Ethics and Conduct policy violations

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

1 Preface

On September 30, 2008, the Federal Aviation Administration implemented national policy regarding the Designated Aircraft Dispatcher Examiner (DADE) program. These changes were published in Change 35 to FAA Order 8900.1 in Volume 13, Chapter 3. Neither the sweeping redesign of this policy nor its implementation were conducted with any consultation with those in the industry who would be affected by it – namely, the existing DADEs and Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher Certification Course operators.

In our discussions with other DADEs and operators, the consistent theme that we have heard is that all of them were blind-sided by the changes and found out about them after the fact. The fact that no consultation with the industry occurred is a violation of Order 8900.1 ethics and customer service standards. Sheffield School of Aeronautics was established in 1948; we are the world’s oldest aircraft dispatcher certification course operator, and DADEs attached to Sheffield School have administered over 4,500 aircraft dispatcher practical exams. If anyone in the industry were to be consulted, we would have expected to be on the list so that we could offer our input as to what works, what does not work, and what improvements could be made to the program.

Indeed, Mr. Babbit, it appears that you agree with this philosophy based upon your speech before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation when discussing the FAA’s safety programs:

“It is essential that those who have captured the essence of the professionalism have opportunities in and out of the cockpit to pass it on. Experience is a wonderful teacher, and there is no substitute for learning at the hands of someone who has already been there. The inexperienced people in the system need to meet the ones who have been around the block. They need to seek them out and mine whatever golden nuggets they have. That is one of the main reasons I think we need to see more mentoring throughout the industry.”

December 10, 2009 Statement of J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator Before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation, Subcommittee on Aviation on the Federal Aviation Administration’s Safety Programs

We completely agree with and respect the above statement, but this philosophy has been disregarded at virtually every level of the Aviation Flight Standards Service with which we have dealt in the last few months. We were only made aware of the new policy in October 2009, when the oversight of our DADE responsibilities was transferred to Mr. , a Dispatch Aviation Safety Inspector attached to Certificate Management Office (CMO) – 29 in South Florida.

It became clear to us from our initial meeting with Mr. (who indicated in the first 90 seconds of our initial meeting that he did not want this assignment, did not ask for this assignment, and would need to spend more of his time on the “more important” work of overseeing air carrier dispatch sections), that this policy had been designed behind closed doors without any input from the industry.

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

2 Some of the restrictions added in this new policy not only cripple certification activities at programs with large classes, but also discriminate against certain existing designated examiners without cause. These new restrictions on the conduct of the examinations that invalidate long-standing approved methods of conducting the exams with no reasons provided, and significantly reduce test security. In some cases, the new policy contradicts the existing (and still current) Practical Test Standards, and apparently there has been no attempt to reconcile the differences.

Our concerns are not only technical, in terms of contradictions and procedures that are flawed. They are also based on the fact that this “rulemaking by policy” approach avoids any opportunity for those who are affected by the policy to comment, and is effectively an end-around of the requirement for rulemaking to consider the impact on small business entities – of which the vast majority of dispatcher certification programs happen to be. That we were not afforded the opportunity to comment means that much of the policy creates undue burden on us, and is highly contrary to the public interest.

Our efforts to address these concerns to the local office have been met with threatsand harassment, and our efforts to address petitions for changes to policy to AFS200/220 have been meet with non-answers, and in many cases, lack of acknowledgement – from the very office that is responsible for promulgating changes to policy when it is deemed inadequate.

After months of attempting to work within the system, and having been threatened and bullied by our local office for daring to ask any questions, we simply cannot abide any further mistreatment. We have had a harmonious relationship with the local offices of the FAA for our entire 62-year history prior to being transferred under CMO-29. We would encourage your office to contact past Principle Operations Inspectors who have overseen operations at Sheffield School across the years – we have nothing to hide.

However, after having apparently angered a previous occupant of AFS-200 when we asked questions several years ago on other matters, pointed out the illegal approval of an aircraft dispatcher certification program in the Middle East (which may have had implications for terrorism, since there is a distinct possibility that one airline’s confidential security procedures were in manuals used in that course outside the USA) and helped others in the FAA fix that error; and having been completely exonerated in a failed attempt at a “sting operation” (one inspector’s choice of words in an email located in a FOIA search) thereafter, it is clear to us that those in Washington who have harbored a vendetta against us began writing a policy aimed directly at destroying our business – this policy is the current Volume 13, Chapter 3 of Order 8900.1.

If that sounds beyond belief, this report will lay out a compelling case that there is no other logical explanation for some of the changes implemented in the policy that was initiated under that individual’s tenure in AFS-200, and we can and will prove that AFS-200/220’s treatment of us in this matter in the last several months is a clear violation of customer service and ethics standards established for all inspectors.

There is so much information to follow, all of which is interconnected, that some items will seem repetitive, and it is difficult to lay it all out in any simple format. Because of the simultaneous actions of multiple FAA offices and individuals, even a

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

3 chronological approach will be difficult because it would take away from the attention that we wish to bring to the problems of each individual piece.

Briefly, in order to establish context, we will review the history of both ourrelationship with the FAA and the DADE program. This is not intended to be selfserving, but rather to frame the current problems in the light of how things have functioned historically, and to highlight the incredible and in many cases shameful changes that have been initiated in the last 18 months.

We will then list the specific portions of Order 8900.1, Volume 13 that are not only objectionable, but absolutely crippling to the entire DADE program when combined with the unwillingness of local Flight Standards District Offices (FSDOs) and Certificate Management Offices (CMOs) to perform their certification duties as required by the Order. This is not only affecting us. Because of these changes and the unwillingness of local offices in another part of the United States to help, we have been advised that another schools’ graduates are being told to expect a wait time of fully two to three MONTHS to be able to take a practical exam for aircraft dispatcher certification. Why? Because an existing DADE with years of experience was not allowed to continue under the new policy, and the local office there either cannot or will not administer the exams in a timely fashion.

During that portion of the discussion, we will also point out which portions of the new policy are apparently being rewritten to remove any possibility of local FAA Specialists granting local waivers to operators who are unduly burdened – which, if allowed to happen, will force the application of a discriminatory standard that may subject the FAA to legal action

. This pending rewrite, which has been mentioned to us by our local inspector, needs to be halted before it is published in Order 8900.1 to avoid potential litigation against the FAA from other course operators, and almost certain Congressional inquiry. We have heard that all of this WILL happen if this rewrite restricts some operators even further, and at the time of this writing, we are already aware of one of our competitors who plans to meet with his Congressman regarding the subject.

We will then outline additional aspects of the application of the new policy, which violate existing Federal Aviation Regulations – which has not stopped Dispatch ASIs from proceeding anyway. Again, if the FAA is knowingly acting outside of regulation, then the likelihood of Congressional intervention and/or civil action cannot be discounted.

We will go on to point out that, when the responsibility of oversight for Part 65 aircraft dispatcher certification courses was transferred from local offices who were familiar with overseeing schools, to Dispatch ASIs that have neither the time nor the training to oversee certification programs, that disastrous results have followed. The lack of the required training as dictated by other portions of Order 8900.1 is not a random allegation – it was confirmed by Mr. of CMO-29 during discussions that were witnessed. We will also bring into question the examination process for Dispatch ASIs to gain their inspector credentials, based upon statements BY AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTORS, both past and present, who have indicated that their internal testing was laughable, and in some cases, nonexistent.

All of the above have national implications. However, we have been forced to tolerate an excessive amount of abuse, harassment, lies, changing stories, false accusations, threats and non-answers from our local Certificate Management Office

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics

4 since this shift of oversight responsibility. We understand that these are serious charges that we are making. We will provide documentation and specifics for of all of the above. Aside from our desire to see the national policy scrapped until proper policies can be formulated in consultation with the industry, we are asking for your intervention in these issues as well. It is inconceivable that the FAA believes that having our school and DADEs overseen by CMO-29 in light of the evidence that we will offer, is in the best interests of the FAA or Sheffield School. We are requesting to be transferred out from under not only our current Dispatch ASI, , but also out from the jurisdiction of CMO-29 completely. Having seen this office’s conduct toward us after having simply requested relief from one aspect of the new policy , we ABSOLUTELY expect that CMO-29 will engage in retaliatory action against us, notwithstanding FAA policies to the contrary. Again, they have already been engaging in retaliation, so we have no reason to expect that to

cease.

We believe that disciplinary action, and indeed even termination, is warranted in the case of several FAA inspectors mentioned herein. This is, of course, your decision, but we will be documenting multiple, consistent violation of inspector ethics and conduct standards not only at the local level, but also within AFS-200/220 . It is because some of this misconduct has been committed in the Washington Headquarters of the Flight Standards Service that our report cannot be addressed directly to any AFS office, and must go above the level of AFS-1.

Finally, we will present a list of questions regarding the formulation of the national policy. We respectfully request to be provided answers to each of those questions.

At the end of this report, there are numerous appendices. We realize that this report alone is quite lengthy and will take ample time to read and digest. However, we STRONGLY request that you read through all of the appendices as well. They contain a significant amount of specific documentation that will provide necessary insight into the nature of misconduct that many within the FAA have been committing.

To be clear – we would like for this all to be resolved within the FAA, as we believe the FAA should have the chance to fix the problem. However, the rapid pace at which we have been told the next 8900.1, Volume 13 rewrite is being pushed, and the ever-increasing abuse at the local level both mean that we cannot wait long. We are a small business, and this is our livelihood. If we cannot get rapid resolution to these problems, then we must pursue every avenue available to us to seek relief. These include Congressional inquiry, escalation to the Office of the Secretary of Transportation and above , the Small Business Administration, media and legal action if required. We do not WANT this – it is our sincere desire to work WITH the FAA to resolve these issues, but please understand that we must defend ourselves when agents of the government agency charged with both overseeing us and assisting us, instead choose to attack our livelihood. And we are requesting your assistance because although we know your office directly has nothing to do with what has transpired, these individuals are undermining the credibility of the FAA on your watch.

### 5 Present & Past linked

“Another challenge is (that) the school is not able to find an examiner, which could takes months....”

Excerpt from email (see Appendix B for full email) sent to Sheffield School from graduate of another school seeking assistance – December 3, 2009 09:39:53 (PST). An example of how new restricting policy has not only eliminated some DADEs, but also exposed the unwillingness or inability of the FAA to conduct a practical examination in order to assist this person.

“..an inspector in the Phoenix office...who would like to take the school’s ability to conduct practical examinations.”

Excerpt from email (see Appendix C for full email) sent to Sheffield School from owner of another school regarding alleged FAA bullying – September 11, 2002 3:36 PM

My report will link these two emails along with a vast number of other events to present my school’s appeal for relief from portions of the Order 8900.1 and its’ relatively new and questionable DADE policy. I am also requesting an improvement of customer service from various levels of the FAA.

You are my next step in attempting to “right” a wrong. Our case presented herein is completely reasonable, logical, safe, true, and in the very best interest of the public. We’ve worked the way we have for decades, and have been approved by the FAA to do so due to our size. We have NEVER committed any questionable testing activities; yet now, due to closed-door policy with ZERO coordination with us, we are asked to fatigue ourselves for many consecutive days and delay our customers’ return back to work, which defies public interest in every way possible. From the local level and above, there is ZERO interest to recognize these issues and coordinate and effectively communicate with me in a timely manner. I hope you can help me.

History & Objectivity & Our Service to FAA Normally, FAA customer service over the years has been better than our recent experience. I have had much respect for the FAA as did my father, Ron Morris; however, I am closer to calling him out of retirement to help rectify a variety of issues regarding Aircraft Dispatcher Certification policy and customer support. Ron Morris bought Sheffield School of Aeronautics in 1971, and the school has operated successfully, and without any problems, under the Morris family for nearly four decades. He also mentored me, served in important appointed positions under four Presidents and four Florida Governors (both Democrat & Republican), and was asked at one time by influential Reagan supporters to submit his name for the position of FAA Administrator, which he respectfully declined. Unfortunately, he is as unhappy as I am regarding the following, and we are appealing to your office for assistance.

The FAA Dispatch Aviation Safety Inspector oversight and training program and its Order 8900.1 policy, including how inspectors wrote it, apply it, misapply it, misread it, and REWRITE portions of Volume 13 when tough questions are presented is in need of an immediate review. I also believe the FAA should not threaten personnel who LEVERAGE the FAA’s workload; such threats have occurred on the local level. I actually received a veiled threat regarding contacting upper FAA offices.

### 6I am President of and operate Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948), an FAAapproved aircraft dispatcher certification school – a SMALL BUSINESS. As you can see, we pre-date the FAA. This is our 62 nd year in business without any problems, shutdowns, name changes, etc.. We are the world’s oldest and most reputable Aircraft Dispatcher Certification school in the world (see our customers – Appendix A ). I am also a Designated Aircraft Dispatch Examiner (DADE), who likely leads the world among active Aircraft Dispatcher examiners in total number of AD practical exams conducted. My father, who retired, has conducted over 2600 “check rides”; therefore, we know what we’re doing and have proven so countless times. Unfortunately, the FAA has chosen to seriously affect my business with either ignorance-laced policy or vendetta-based policy, which this report will detail.

Sir, as an airline pilot for Eastern Airlines, you are fully aware of the importance of the role of the aircraft dispatcher in operational control of flights. You promote a “mentoring” way of learning. My mentors are Mr. Ron Morris, my father, who dispatched for Eastern for 10 years, and Mr. Leon Jansen, who sadly passed away in December 2009, and had dispatched for Eastern Airlines for 40 years.

This small business has been in my family for nearly 40 years. It appears now that the FAA is trying to put me out of business. This presents a problem that I will get fixed one way or another, but preferably with your help.

Sheffield School, through the use of its’ DADES, have collectively conducted approximately 4,514 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher practical examinations (“check rides”) since October 29, 1976. My father, Ron Morris, and I together have conducted over 3,400 exams. Sheffield School was established in 1948, is now in it’s 62nd CONSECUTIVE year of operations/dispatcher training. We are not only the oldest dispatcher school in the world, but the most reputable as well. This results in a LARGE number of students/graduates , resulting in our school consistently using the DADE concept to relieve the local FAA offices that otherwise is required to conduct these examinations . We act as examiners for our school due to our efficiency, objectivity (many students do not get signed off for the practical exam), and professionalism. We have NEVER had an issue with the conduct of our examinations . Our objectivity has never been questioned – we have PROOF that our school, who typically employs its own DADEs, as approved by the FAA, have likely on many occasions had more students fail or resign than most other schools have passed. (See Appendix E ). We have likely issued more pro rata refunds to students who’ve never even reached the practical exam, than many other schools have grossed. We have SUBMITTED this information following EVERY CLASS to the FAA for years BEFORE IT WAS EVER REQUIRED! How can anyone within the FAA question the objectivity of Sheffield School DADEs or their exam procedures? Yet Order 8900.1 condemns and restricts many of our past practices. There was no logic, no discussion with local district offices or us regarding any questionable rumors – NOTHING. Nobody officially or formally mentioned any concerns to us. It now appears that more DADEs must be hired, trained, checked, and if that plan of action fails, the FAA must administer these exams, as policy mandates. One problem now appears to be poorly trained DADEs.

February 1, 2010 3:12:00 PM EST email

“The FSDO set about to get some new DADEs. They used us to train them. One quit and the other needs more training.” - From another Aircraft Dispatcher school

### 7 The other problem is that our local FAA office, and likely others, have claimed everything from “we won’t do exams” to “nobody in this office can give exams” to recently, after prodding by the Southern Regional office per my request, “we have a limited number of inspectors to help you, but here’s a list of DADEs.”

If you average the amount of time required for each exam, the production of certification paperwork involved, the time lost on the phone due to others’ clerical errors, we have likely saved the FAA between 25,000 to 40,000 hours of work over the past 34 years alone. We believe that the public interest has been greatly served by Sheffield School and its examiners, whether it is saving FAA inspectors’ time or increasing the quality and quantity of time available for of airline oversight due to the extra 25-40,000 hours.

During the past 34 years, the amount of money that Sheffield DADES have earned is ZERO . In good faith, we decided not to charge graduates extra fees for practical exams – in fact, we paid Leon Jansen (Eastern dispatcher for 40 years) to assist us because we were so busy. So busy, in fact, that the local FAA permitted 4 DADEs WITHIN SHEFFIELD to simultaneously conduct exams. This is UNHEARD OF and speaks volumes for the quantity of qualified applicants requiring certification and processing. You are welcome to check our graduation rate as well as our EXAM pass rate over the past 4 decades.

Based on either a lack of logic or a vendetta towards our school for some ironic reason, Sheffield School has now been handcuffed based on the most recent policy change to Order 8900.1. We respectfully asked for our case to be heard and for relief to be granted until the next policy change. We sought relief (see APPENDIX F/G ), but were denied ( Appendix H ) without specific reasons, including having one request completely ignored and unanswered. As stated multiple times within this document, there is a very simple, effective, logical, secure, and safe solution. Hopefully, you will agree.

Sheffield School, and it’s associated Designated Aircraft Dispatch Examiners (DADEs) are asking for an immediate emergency waiver/exemption from Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175(b-c-d.)

Past relationship with FAA compared to present day For the past 40 years, my family has operated Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948). Between my father, Ron Morris, and myself, we have had a good working relationship with the FAA. Usually, if we had a question or comment for the FAA, it was respectfully presented, and subsequently answered respectfully by the FAA, whether we agreed or not. Unfortunately, over the past 6-8 years I’ve noticed a trend that I find uncomfortable and disappointing. Beginning with Theodore Perry, now deceased, and apparently continuing to present day, I’ve noticed a reluctance of the FAA on the national level to coordinate harmoniously with my school. We’ve also never had a problem on the local level, until recently. In minor defense of the local CMO, the recent transition to dispatch Aviation Inspectors assigned the task of FAR Part 65 school oversight (with DADE oversight) has been rockier than foreseen. However, as a Designated Dispatch Examiner since 1995, having conducted over 840 FAA practical examinations in addition to operating the most successful and respected FAR Part 65 school in the world, I feel that I’m due a bit of courtesy and understanding from those tasked with working harmoniously with me for the sake of aviation safety, efficiency, and the public interest, which includes my customers and

### 8 students. I can handle oversight by those untrained and/or inexperienced with theirassigned tasks; however, I shall not accept vague answers, slow responses, nonanswers, changing answers or directives, from the local level through the national level.

Just 2-3 weeks ago, there was a national dilemma regarding over 47% of the aviation testing centers being shut down due to the lack of a “backup plan.” I wrote a strong, but fair statement to AFS-630 who quickly called me, were extremely courteous, clarified the situation, assisted me for the next two days, then proceeded to rectify the entire situation much more rapidly than initially planned. This was a stellar example of the FAA working with the public . I’ve had good experiences with various inspectors within AFS-200 and AFS-220 in the past regarding the shutdown of illegal schools outside the U.S.A., the revocation of FAA dispatcher certificates issued to unqualified applicants in New York, and other questionable practices. I’ve always applauded those who listened to my father and myself, and took action without feeling they were bullied or degraded. Any owner/operator of a small business cannot afford to have an uneven playing field. However, I now feel acrimony from people who are supposed to assist me, work with me, coordinate with me, etc..

I am a DADE and course operator who is not receiving consistent and timely assistance from various levels of the FAA; therefore, I am turning to your office for assistance.

Beginning on page 9 are excerpts from an ASI report (Appendix K) years ago conducted as a “sting operation” on Sheffield School (FAA’s words per FOIA.) The following specific questions are in regard to the FAA report quotes that follow:

1. Why have these quotes now been discounted as worthless or no longer valid?

2. What has transpired between the date of the report and the 8900.1 policy change date to alter policy to hamper a large school’s operations?

3. The report praises how Sheffield handled 9 applicants performing individual flight plan exercises, effectively, efficiently, and securely. With FAA policy now severely restricting how we administer exams in addition to the number of daily exams, how are we to NOT continue with this methodology considering the current graduating classes average 18-20 students requiring testing? [We have had over 35 in 2 classes in the past!]

[We appeal to you now because recent requests and questions asked of our local office and AFS-200/220 have been met with no replies, slow replies, or vague replies or conflicting statements, applicable to not only the school’s DADEs, but the approved course curriculum as well.]

4. Inspector William Bonatti’s report, which completely exonerated Sheffield of any alleged misconduct, and highly praised our complete operation, was addressed to Ted Perry who apparently despised Sheffield*. [We can provide the terse emails from him at any time, upon request.] Did Mr. Perry even forward this glowing report to ALL others who were a part of the authoring process of 8900.1? If so, who? If not, why not, since its dissemination could have lead to more effective and fair policy?

### 9 *Mr. Perry seemed disgruntled with Sheffield for asking a series of ETOPS questions following ETOPS rule changes a few years ago. We waited 3 months for a reply, rewrote our request, and were eventually replied with a terse statement complaining that the ETOPS expert required over 8 hours of research, and that “my instructors should do more of their own homework.” He also had issue with me requesting an investigation of a local school allegedly instructing in Spanish. Since I was informed of this by a South American airline, and I’ve lost business because of this, I decided to ask the FAA to investigate. Only terse unprofessional responses resulted, including “this matter is now closed.”

From a source within AFS-220, Mr. Perry was terminated. Did the reason for his termination have anything to do with his ability to author policy fairly? We are deciding whether to pursue this matter as well. It does not matter if he is alive or dead. If his attitude toward Sheffield, which appeared to break multiple rules of ethics and conduct codes for inspectors, as evidenced in emails I possess, had ANYTHING to do with current policy that was initiated by him (as indicated by verbally in a Fall 2009 meeting in my office), or if he influenced those who followed him, then we will pursue legal action or a thorough investigation, if required.

Another statement below from of CMO-29:

“The 8900.1 policy came from few currently in AFS-220 – it was more from the time Ted Perry was still in the FAA.”

Things appear to add up to validate my points – that policy was authored with intent to harm Sheffield School even after vindication, further local approval, further oversight of our exams and school operation.

5. Since the policy rewrite was either initiated by, or included this person and others who may or may not have disseminated the Bonatti report, coupled with the fact that my sources within the FAA claim that Mr. Perry was terminated from his position, I would like to know the reason for his demotion or termination since it may affect the validity of how this entire Order 8900.1 rewrite came about.

Inspection report excerpts - Bonatti quotes July 14, 2003 “A review of the course materials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations showed that the school has spent a lot of time and effort to prepare affective and efficient training and testing materials. The course materials used are current and up to date with the industry, and far exceed the needs of the course. In many cases Sheffield School of Aeronautics has produced materials that the student can use throughout their industry employment.”

“The Procedures used by Sheffield School of Aeronautics and the Designated Aircraft Dispatch Examiners (DADEs) to conduct Area of Operation 1 “Dispatch Exercise” Task A “Flight Planning” is not commonly found, however it does meet the requirements of the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-10A). The applicants are all given their Flight Planning Exercise at the same time. All applicants are required to remain in the testing room the entire time while being observed by one of the DADEs. This portion of the examination is commonly conducted on a one on one basis by other designees, however they are normally only

### 10 working with one applicant at a time. In the environment that Sheffield is conducting this portion of the Dispatcher Practical, it is as secure and allows the designee the ability to test the specific areas in which knowledge and skills must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate with more efficiency and less time consumption. The security measures used to assure that each applicant does his own work are different exercises for each applicant and the exercise is observed by the DADE.”

[Every note in bold above shall no longer hold true for large schools with a high number of graduates, due to the 8900.1 rewrite barring simultaneous examinations. It makes ZERO sense, is illogical, and offers ZERO test security. If all FAA offices agree to deny our appeal as AFS-200 has, for our previous, more secure and time efficient method of flight plan testing, then we shall assume that the FAA will go on record advocating the reduction of FAA Practical examination test security .]

“The methods and procedures used by the DADEs while conducting the oral portion to 2 applicants at the same time were also found acceptable. The DADEs were very effective in their questioning process and in directing specific questions to each applicant to assure that both applicants were questioned to an adequate level.”

[Although this does not disturb us as much as other sections we shall assume that the FAA will bar ALL FAA simultaneous oral testing, regardless of the TYPE of certificate sought.]

“The DADEs did not allow personal prejudices to interfere with objective evaluation of an applicant, and the oral portion of the practical test was conducted in a private area free from distractions.”

[If we were objective back then, why after another 7 years following Mr. Bonatti’s report, including our 62nd year of continuous operation, would we now decide to become unobjective with our examinations? Why would we fail more students that other schools enroll if we were unobjective? Why would we issue more pro rata refunds that exceed the gross or net income at most or all other schools, if we were unobjective? I’m sure none of the above were considered by the authors of Order 8900.1. Anybody could have contacted the local FAA and dozens of Sheffield graduates at airlines to verify every word of the aforementioned.]

### 11 Why VENDETTA?

Middle East “FAA-approved” Dispatcher School operation Some people probably weren’t happy with my demands to force a shutdown of an illegally authorized school set up to operate in the Middle East during the period prior to and shortly after 9-11 . My apologies, but when Sheffield had requested FAA certification ability outside the USA since 1971 and were politely denied, we accepted it; however, I refused to allow the FAA to create an uneven playing field regarding my business. It was disgraceful for a Dallas district office in combination with a New York International field office to pull an end-around on the Washington FAA group, according to Mr. Jim Gardner. I could have had my people subpoena the American Airlines’ dispatchers working at that time who were displeased with AA flight and operations manuals possibly floating around the Middle East, but I did not, because Mr. Jim Gardner, who understood the seriousness of this seriously flawed decision, respected my viewpoint and took action. To my knowledge, Congress is still unaware of this “incident.” I would like to know what the final disposition was following this matter – were the FBI or others contacted? Who were the persons within the Dallas office and NY IFO responsible for this “approval”, are they still employed by the FAA? Did any of these individuals directly or indirectly affect the Order 8900.1 policy suspiciously aimed at Sheffield School and its examiners? Obviously, certain individuals were reprimanded for these actions and likely harbored resentment against Sheffield School.

Imagine my thoughts and others within AA on December 23, 2001, the day after Richard Reid’s eventful American Airlines flight. We politely moved forward. So if anybody thinks I do not try to cooperate with the FAA, they are sadly mistaken – I have done quite the opposite. My father still recalls telling the FAA their own rules regarding this Middle East matter.

A reply that “aircraft performance manuals aren’t that bad,” or the like, is not only feeble, but cannot refute the issue of pre-911 SECURITY PROCEDURES that are also found within various operating manuals. Where are these manuals now? All accounted for? What were the exact contents?

Sheffield has never instructed students in (or allowed them access to) security-based airline procedures. Hopefully, nobody else has.

Past “Sting” Operation It happened before resulting in an ASI surprise visit to our school during exams. Bogus exaggerated reports floated around the FAA personnel resulting in a plan to “sting” Sheffield School according to information obtained via FOIA. Unfortunately, for those trying “to get Sheffield”, the high praising FOIA-obtained report (See Appendix K ) backfired. I can provide all reports and names of those who tossed the word “sting operation” around and are still employed by the FAA.

FOIA Revelations – See Appendix R Perhaps certain authors of policy weren’t pleased with my past FOIA requests (made due to false allegations about my operation), which resulted in a few past embarrassing situations. See Appendix R for excerpts from FOIA’d communications within the FAA leading up to the “Sting operation” on my school. Included are numerous rumors, exaggerated hearsay from 2 nd -hand sources who witnessed nothing. Appendix R details in chronological order how the FAA decided that sneaky

### 12 tactics would be the method of operation. Despite our vindication ( Appendix K ), Appendix R’s contents indicate how future 8900.1 policy emanated.

Leaks When I receive reports from current ASIs and other sources, of rumors during FAA Safety Inspectors’ meetings (such as one held at the Marriot-Hollywood Beach hotel, in south Florida during the week of April 18-25, 2009), regarding me or my school or my exams, without ANYBODY officially notifying me for confirmation, verification, or observation requests, it appears that policy was authored based on hearsay, rumor, and/or vendetta.

Implications from past inspectors When I’ve had past local inspectors imply certain ASIs within AFS-220 have made disparaging remarks about me or my school, I note this for future slander and/or libel-based lawsuits. I expect denials across the board, but I will have people investigated and subpoenaed, if required. Ron Morris had to admonish one inspector working at a major airline for spreading falsehoods regarding why students fail on occasion at Sheffield. The inspector had no reply, knew he erred, BUT now works within AFS-220.

Order 8900.1 issues & stories: Order 8900.1 policy written without any Sheffield input even though our inspector claimed to us verbally “long-time DADEs were contacted.”

Too many DADE test procedures changes targeted at Sheffield. Ted Perry, who was uncooperative with Sheffield on Spanish issues, ETOPS issues, and helped instigate the past Sheffield “sting” operation was, according to Mr. , “likely part of the working group who put the 8900.1 changes together”, or words to that effect.

Prior questions apparently upsetting people I’ve always posed questions to AFS-220 and individual inspectors as to how other schools can give open note open book tests, guarantee jobs, guarantee certification – yet never receive replies except from inspectors’ personal email addresses, but never an answer. These questions are for the sole purpose of leveling the playing field – since it is unlawful for a Federal Agency to unfairly act against a small business, I simply wanted to look out for the school and protect the public interest by continuing to serve the greatest number of students annually in the world.

IRONY How ironic is it now to be forced to endure restrictive policy implemented by Aviation Safety Inspectors, WHO WE OFFERED TO TRAIN FOR FREE, but were politely declined. When told years ago by one inspector currently within the A FS -220, that training could not be free, we offered a prep-based course for $1.00 - evidence that we tried to work with and assist the FAA. Ron Morris also offered certification training in the 90’s to FAA personnel for free, including an offer to pay their transportation and hotel costs – we knew then that proper training from those who had the unmatched expertise in this field could help those formulating test standards, course approval standards, etc.. in the future. [see Mr. Babbit’s statement on the opening page – his statement reflects our objective.] We certainly understood the FAA’s position to decline for whatever official reasons existed, but WE TRIED.

### 13 We also find DADE restricting policy from inspectors ironic considering the “interview” or “oral” exam for the hiring of Aviation Safety Inspectors appears to be suspect. According to one former ASI, his “interview was non-existent.” According to another ASI, his oral consisted of “(ASI name), you know this s---, right?” His “telephone practical” ended within 30-60 seconds or less – open notes, open book as well, from my recollection.

Order 8900.1 Sequence: In early April 2003, our local FAA office received a telephone call from Mr. Theodore A. Perry, AFS-200, Washington, D.C. concerning a complaint lodged by an unidentified source regarding the conduct of our training and the method by which our FAA Designated Examiners conducted the FAA Practical Examination for the FAA Aircraft Dispatcher certificate. It was also clearly stated to Mr. Perry by me, via telephone that same week, that we were being accused by an unidentified individual, or parties, for violating a non-existent FAA regulation. ALLEGATIONS WERE NOT ONLY proven false, we received a complimentary report from FAA inspector William Bonatti – See Appendix K

. Because the ASI sting operation backfired and resulted in FAA praise by the inspector to the dismay of those apparently anxious to bring Sheffield down, coupled with the absolutely ludicrous rumors heard by us then and currently, it appears painfully obvious that certain individuals do not like us even though Sheffield School has done more for aviation than any other dispatch school in history. Whether it is jealousy, our inquisitive nature regarding Middle East schools, questionable ETOPS rules, Spanish replacing English at certain schools, claims of FAA certification outside the U.S. in a variety of countries, pointing out diploma mill practices, or protecting my graduates from ignorance on the job, I must protect myself and the reputation of my business. I could not stand by and allow advertised claims of FAA certification by schools in the Middle East or elsewhere outside the U.S.. I also have a problem with reports or implications from FAA inspectors of other inspectors’ disdain for Sheffield School, whether due to rumor, hearsay, jealousy, etc.. When I think of that unprofessionalism, coupled with the number of FAA personnel who have praised us online and to others, including one assistant manager within AFS-900 who has sent 2 family members here (one in my CURRENT class), the irony of all this in unfathomable to me. Therefore, I must assume that AFS-200/220 and others apparently authored the rewrite of Order 8900.1, including how Designated Dispatch Examiners (DADEs) are to conduct examinations, to hamper us.

The Order was altered in 2008, yet no long-time DADEs appear to have been consulted , including those of Sheffield School – DADEs who have collectively, as well as in 2-3 individual cases, conducted more FAA Aircraft Dispatcher examinations than any other examiners in the world combined.

Policy appears to also be written to prevent the unscrupulous from profiting from administering easy exams. Was any consideration provided to the FAA from existing DADEs regarding what they charge per exam? We charge $0.00. We provide a service to our graduates to allow them an “in-house” exam requiring no outlay of funds or travel issues AND we provide relief for local CMOs/FSDOs.

What if we resign? As you know, the district offices are held responsible for this task of either finding new DADES and training them or conducting the exams themselves with the paperwork processing, OR BOTH. We would like

### 14 to continue providing this service, but to continually be cut down at the knees with denials, non-answers, or inconsistent answers regarding policy, coupled lately with threats or harassment; well, there really is no point in trying to help those who do not realize who is actually relieving whom...

Selected Order 8900.1 Policy with suggested future amendments: Current policy in question as of January 20, 2010 4:15pm ET is below with our notes in bold/brackets :

Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175

13-175 LIMITATIONS. A DADE will not:

A. Test Outside the Certificate

_ Holding District Office. Conduct practical tests at locations outside their supervising certificate

_ holding district office (CHDO) unless approved and coordinated between the supervising CHDOs.

NOTE: DADE designation should be limited to one CHDO area of responsibility. If additional areas of responsibility are added the action must be coordinated between both CHDOs and their FAA specialists.

[We find the above paragraph fair and reasonable for all types of DADEs, whether operating individually or in conjunction with a school.]

B. Administer More than One Test at a Time. Except as provided in 307(c), administer more than one practical test at a time, to include no more than two full practical tests per day. In addition to the two full tests, a retest may be administered on the same day depending on the amount of material that must be covered.

[We DO NOT find the above paragraph fair and reasonable for DADEs, affiliated with a large school with 15-30+ graduates, many of whom are required by airlines to return to work in a matter of a few days. It is also contrary to public interest. Even with the 2 current DADES at Sheffield, and “only” 18 potential graduates in our most recent graduating class, it took both DADEs 5 consecutive 11 to 12-hour days. Since one phase of the practical examination is a written Flight Plan, we have in the past been authorized by the FAA to test the entire class of graduates in that phase at the same time, in a controlled environment, completely monitored by the examiner, with each person having a different flight plan from the adjacent graduates. Our method worked flawlessly, effectively, and has been approved and inspected by the FAA resulting in a glowing ASI report a few years ago. The origin of this technique rests with the FAA in Miami who conducted Flight Engineering practicals with 2 applicants at a time. Ron Morris, then operator of the school, inquired about this technique and was granted the ok, based on the large number of graduates to be processed efficiently. YOU (the Miami FAA) taught us how to do this! Additionally, nobody from the FAA intending to rewrite policy EVER asked us why simultaneous oral exams were used. Did anyone consider it a method of protection – one witness for the other? This technique used among compatible applicants of the same level of ability is actually a validation method that no single person was treated unfairly by a DADE.]

### 15 [Also, the reference to 307c appears to be obsolete and invalid.]

Our proposal: Administer More than One Test at a Time, unless approved by the FAA specialist. The decision should be made based on historical past performance results, and shall not exceed two applicants tested simultaneously for the oral/verbal portion of the examination, with flight plan portion not to exceed the approved student-to-instructor ratio approved by for the course operator of a Part 65 school. If approved as stated above, no more than 4 full practical examinations can be conducted per day by a single examiner.

Except as provided above, administer more than one practical test at a time, to include no more than two full practical tests per day. In addition to the two full tests, a retest may be administered on the same day depending on the amount of material that must be covered. No retests may be given if 3 or more full practical examinations are scheduled in a single day.

Sheffield note: This allows an ethical school to conduct 2 orals exams at a time, if busy schedules dictate, along with the entire simultaneous, time efficient, and more secure testing of the Flight Plan portion.

In the least, we KNOW there is NOTHING insecure or unsafe with the allowance of a group of students doing a flight plan simultaneously – NONE. Even if oral exams can no longer be held simultaneously using compatible applicants, the flight plan portion of the practical exam should be able to be observed and approved on a DADE-by-DADE or school location/capacity basis.

C. Test More Than One Simultaneous Applicant. Conduct any portion of the practical test with more than one applicant at the same time. The option to “stagger” the tests (start the oral portion of the first test, and start the practical portion of the second test in conjunction with first test) will be allowed only if approved by the specialist.

[Same comments as in “B”. Additionally, since being denied any flexibility to what has always been an FAA allowance for Sheffield, we submitted a SEPARATE “stagger” request (see Appendix L) to our local CMO-29 office on January 11, 2010 in an attempt to reduce our EXAM workday to under 10-12 hours, and possibly eliminate one day from a 5-8+ consecutive day period of testing, all in the name of FATIGUE. One current school operator in Kentucky HAS WITNESSED THE FAA CONDUCTING STAGGERED EXAMS. We expected the usual legalese reciting of policy or simply no answer unless provoked multiple times. Instead, the CMO-29 office claimed multiple stories regarding the staggered request: “we sent you an answer a week ago,” and the answer was “no”, reasons of which could not be given, which preceded a story that the December 16, 2009 denial of our 8900.1 relief request was basically the denial for staggering as well. The Appendix has the denial letter from AFS-200 WITH a pasted clause stating an exception for “staggered” exams may be allowed by the FAA Specialist” – it is IN THE POLICY! Yet I hear from the local office that it is not or I’m asking for a “deviation from National Policy” which I’m not because the words are IN THE 8900.1 POLICY! Also relayed to me from CMO-29 is that policy is being

### 16 rewritten to exclude those terms – whether Mr. meant the “staggering” allowance or the “approved by the FAA specialist” phrase, it still appears to be amended guidance to avoid tough questioning . To rewrite policy hurriedly, behind closed doors, as a RESPONSE to my concerns, is a disgrace. Even if I’m incorrect, the fact that the FAA does not even wish to explain their motivation behind any of the policy changes, the non-answers, and the alleged quick rewrites is NOT reflective of the Mission statements or objectives of the FAA. It produces a wall of distrust between entities that should work together in the interest of safety. Any responsible FAA official would NEVER debate this point.

The irony of this “staggered exams” request is that the FAA apparently has no problem with an applicant being tested in one room, while another unmonitored applicant is taking a flight plan test in another room - yet will not allow Sheffield to group 15-25 applicants together in a quiet, controlled, non-verbal, secure environment monitored by a DADE. So we resorted to a stagger request due to all denials – we are in essence requesting a less secure testing environment for flight planning than what we have conducted for over 35 years which the FAA ALSO APPROVED AND OBSERVED! We all know what will happen once the first 2 flight planners have seen 2 of the scenarios and meet outside with the next group. After 2-3 more individual testing sessions, the entire remaining group to be tested (remember 15-40 people at times) will know the basic scheme of all required flight plan scenarios. It is absolutely a less secure method than our previous method of testing all at once with different flight plans, but same ENDING times, and no cheating, resulting in more legitimate certification. The FAA already set a precedent with simultaneous testing of Airmen knowledge tests. Whether taking a test on a computer or on paper with other applicants at the same time, both have been conducted securely at Sheffield School for decades.

[The staggered exams allowance would never have been written if the authors of Order 8900.1 would have contacted Sheffield School for our opinion. After 4500+ exams and a stellar reputation among airlines around the world, you’d think perhaps we could have assisted, and exemplified Mr. Babbit’s words to Congress.]

We also initially asked for this “relief” from our FAA Specialist within CMO29 via email on December 9, 2009, who promptly responded that this is an AFS-200 issue, while specifically avoiding the term “FAA Specialist.” It took a request to the Southern Region to prompt the CMO-29 office to admit that is the FAA specialist. Why he did not want to admit what was on a hand-delivered letter from the CMO-29 office during our initial meeting in October 2009 is beyond me, other than perhaps he did not feel comfortable exercising the authority allowed in these paragraphs and stated, “as approved by the FAA Specialist.” Is this a problem with all Dispatch ASIs?

[Mr. will claim, as he did during a January 29, 2010 phone call, which is documented in the Appendix, that I “confuse the 2 different specialist authorities”: one overseeing DADEs and the other authority of overseeing a school. Although I’ve explained repeatedly that if I ask him to exercise authority as an FAA specialist to allow me, as a DADE, to conduct “staggered” exams, or eventually, to conduct exams, as an owner (which

### 17 current policy still permits), then I’m asking a DADE-based question due to the absence of the word SCHOOL. 8900.1 policy is also likely being rewritten because the FAA wants to bar me from having ANY possibility of getting ANY approval to CONTINUE TO DO WHAT I’VE DONE EFFECTIVELY, SECURELY, EFFICIENTLY, AND OBJECTIVELY FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. Any FAA official rewriting policy to avoid answering to the public, including their own DADES, should be terminated on the spot. Congress, based on the past, most likely would concur.]

The FAA has not been able to explain in writing why they are not answering questions or if policy is being rewritten. They simply choose not to communicate for the record. What is the harm in writing, “Mr. Morris, regarding your questions, they may become moot in the near future due to policy changes, hence the reason for not directly granting your requests for approval per FAA specialist, etc..” Is that difficult? Is that against policy?

D. Be Employed in a Part 65 Dispatcher Course. Be employed as an instructor, owner, or contractor of an approved Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 65 dispatcher course in his/her district unless approved by the FAA specialist.

[We DO NOT find the above paragraph fair and reasonable for DADEs, affiliated with a large school with 15-30+ graduates required by airlines to return to work in a matter of a few days. It is also contrary to public interest and damaging to small business owners. In addition to all aforementioned bold notes, how is nullifying a DADE currently leading the world among active DADEs in FAA AD exams conducted helping the public interest or relieving local FSDO/CMO’s future workload? If a DADE is also an owner and has been proven to administer substandard exams, then he/she must be advised, observed, and perhaps have their DADE authority revoked or suspended until further notice. If a DADE is also an owner and has repeatedly proven his ability to administer excellent exams, produce outstanding graduates and been virtually flawless in their submission of FAA certification paperwork, then he/she should be allowed to continue operating as normal without restriction or penalty. We believe policy was written based on vendetta or unverified allegations of suspicious testing activity. To corral the innocent with the guilty and effectively remove inspector authority (“if approved by the FAA Specialist”), is just lazy policy.

Any inspector even slightly suspicious of my objectivity as a course operator or owner, should have contacted my local office, sought records of students failed, or who did not even graduate. Why would I apparently be objective, as a business owner, regarding course graduation rate, but not regarding exam pass rates? I RETURN $$$ when people discontinue the course per the pro rata refund policy. I DO NOT REFUND $$ for failing a practical exam.

E. Test Non

_ Graduated Applicants. Conduct tests for applicants who have not graduated from an approved 14 CFR part 65 dispatcher course, unless approved by the specialist.

### 18 [We find the above paragraph fair and reasonable for all types of DADEs, whether operating individually or in conjunction with a school, ALTHOUGH little or no thought appears to have been given for the typical ATP or other qualified airmen who meets all knowledge and experience requirements for a Dispatcher practical examination. Since no DADE can examine this applicant per NEW 8900.1 policy, the responsibility falls on the district office/CMO, designated to conduct exams by the respective regional office. According to all local offices I have dealt with in the past and present, they prefer not to perform this task due to their demanding workload; however, they appear reluctant to even admit their ability to administer exams. Any pilot or other qualified individual who possesses a valid Aircraft Dispatcher (ADX) Knowledge Test Airmen report along with FAR 65.57 experience requirements MUST BE EXAMINED BY AN FAA INSPECTOR – NOT A DADE. If these people are told they must wait weeks or months for an exam (as I was recently informed), then they will be writing the FAA headquarters, AFS-1, the Administrator, or Congress. Personally, I do not ever give exams to applicants unless they passed SHEFFIELD’s FAA certification course. We tried many years ago only to discover that most non-Sheffield “graduates” or “qualified applicants” were less than qualified to pass our exam; therefore, we could not care less about this DADE restriction. The local FSDO/CMOs, however, should care. Those are the offices that I will now refer all applicants to for testing that are not graduates of a Part 65 course. It is not my intent to burden my local office, but I cannot lie to these applicants seeking examiners – we receive 1-2 calls every 2-3 weeks regarding this matter. I hope all Dispatch ASIs are prepared.]

Please see Appendix N regarding the local office’ stance of large airline groups of FAR Part 65.57 applicants. A sincere question from me was not only misunderstood, but then resulted in a threat toward me.

There seems to be an ignorance of ASIs in their ability to distinguish between Part 121 air carriers they are accustomed to overseeing and the Part 65 certification schools that they were recently assigned to oversee as a new task. We have been asked questions that have nothing to do with Part 65. “Are your Jeppesen charts up to date?” We’re not flying the line – they are current anyway, and most schools can’t even afford a Jeppesen subscription which we have; therefore, we DO have access to current Jeppesen charts, but are NOT required to use such a format in a certification class. We DO because that is what real-life presents most graduates after leaving here. (Many more examples within Appendices.

“I’m not experienced at this task” - our FAA Specialist (verbally at initial meeting).

It also appears that waivers have been granted allowing untrained ASIs to perform a new task; i.e. train/oversee DADES and Part 65 schools. The FAA can waive policy to help themselves due to an ASI shortage or lack of Federal funds, but the small business owner is not afforded any waivers or any approvals AS ALLOWED IN CURRENT POLICY.

### 19 F. Conduct Competency Checks. Conduct competency checks for a 14 CFR part 121 Dispatcher Training Program, unless employed as an Air Transportation supervisor or qualified ground instructor for that operator.

[We find the above paragraph fair and reasonable for all types of DADEs, whether operating individually or in conjunction with a school.]

New Order 8900.1 Policy Basically, this document now severely restricts how designated examiners are to conduct exams. I heard the following from a few FAA personnel “Order 8900.1 is just guidance for inspectors.” Wrong – it is more than that – it dictates specific DADEs qualifications, test procedures, etc.. and often conflicts with the Practical Test Standards Guide, which poses another issue regarding statements from the FAA such as “there is only one test standard.” Some of the content appears to be written for the less busy examiner working with only a few individuals every month or two, and NOT for a large certification school working with 15-35 graduates every 5-8 weeks. Our school falls under the latter category, but is under the oversight of an understaffed and apparently overworked office of inspectors too busy with air carrier oversight. There have been two missed opportunities for the oversight by the local CMO of our practical examinations, the last being from February 6-10, 2010, for 10- 12 hours each day - hours due to large number of graduates coupled with illogical time-wasting less secure 8900.1 exam policy.

“Why is CMO-29 overseeing you? They are air carrier – that’s why I was removed from you.”

Inspector via phone call with Sheffield School, 2009.

Objectivity (as owners, directors, instructors) Are Part 141/142 schools more objective by the allowance of staff examiners, than Part 65 school operators? If policy is to change, as rumored, then apparently, ALL schools (including Part 141/142) must change examiner-on-staff policy or it will be seen as disparate treatment. See Appendix P for our complete statement regarding the rumored-to-be complete prohibition of dispatch staff examiners.

February 2, 2010, 3:00pm at offices of Sheffield School: A student received an oral check to see if a signoff for the AD practical exam would occur. He failed. He also possesses a Commercial Pilot certificate along with other experience, but it did not matter – he failed. I, Eric Morris, as an owner, could have been unethical for the 1 st time in my life, and ordered my instructor to sign him off, then directed my DADE to give him a freebie certificate in order to make his airline, a Sheffield customer, happy. Well, I did not, and I never have done such a thing – a 62-year reputation worldwide is typically built on ethics, quality, and customer service, with no compromises. We do not operate unethically and never have. Will the airline be upset and take their business elsewhere? I do not know and do not care. Other students exit earlier in the course or do not come close to passing the course, and therefore, receive no FAA practical exam. Why would I, as an owner now, after all the aforementioned grief, decide to pamper my graduates through their exams? The local FAA is supposed to have all of this on record to verify ANY and ALL claims made by me. More students drop our course or fail before a practical exam, than pass other schools. HOW IS THAT BEING UNOBJECTIVE AS AN OWNER?? Why fail anybody on the practical exam? Why not sign off everyone for the exam, make everyone happy, and increase profits? Those operators are the types the FAA should target - not the oldest most reputable dispatcher school in the world.

### 20 Lack of customer service towards DADEs

Since October 2009, when the FAA decided to enforce policy that was not previously enforced under the concept of the Dispatch ASI, I have been inundated with inconsistent information, bad information, position-changing information from all levels of the FAA and it has stymied my productivity and affected my small business, established in 1948.

The FAA appears to be damning the people who have taken up the task to assist them as DADEs. By authoring policy restricting DADE activity due to the indiscretions of a few, you are in essence lumping the good with the bad, and handcuffing the most experienced and busiest examiners in the world – Sheffield’s DADEs. By continuing this agenda, you are not only harming the DADE program, but the District and Certificate Management offices who will now be tasked with performing DADE activities, or in other words – one of their responsibilities as designated by their respective Regional Office. To act as a DADE is a privilege – I know; however, it appears that the authors of Order 8900.1, all of whom have virtually no experience operating a Part 65 School and/or have given few, if any, FAA Aircraft Dispatcher practical examinations to large groups of Part 65 school graduates over consecutive days, believe it is their job to severely restrict the testing activities of examiners who have been tasked with doing the FAA’s certification work because the inspectors are overloaded, have no time, and/or have no resources to hire additional inspectors.

To be clear, I make ZERO money as a DADE. I perform the task in the interest of the public and to assist my local FAA office, which have never given me a difficult time, until recently.

CMO-29 To summarize, I am working with an inexperienced (with FAR Part 65 schools oversight) office, with ever-changing positions and directives, who will not approve parts of Order 8900.1 as approved by the FAA Specialist to assist me, will not seek outside DADEs applicants to train and approve to assist me, and will not give the FAA exams themselves to assist me. They also will not efficiently and effectively answer questions that are not in their self-interest. When combined with threats, insults, classroom disruption (Appendix O) by the FAA, an unsalvageable relationship between my school and the local FAA office has developed.

My local office seems to have difficulty answering my questions unless prompted multiple times by the Southern Regional office, or me and continues to be reticent in replying to our needs and inquiries. Often-changing CMO-29 management appears to be in a state of flux or confusion. I mailed a copy of my petition to former CMO-29 Manager, with a request to send me an email confirming receipt. He did not – I was told, “he only replies by certified mail” to “he’s retiring” to “send me the email to me and I’ll forward to him, but he’s retired.”

I sent an email asking for a list of INSPECTORS who are authorized to conduct Aircraft Dispatcher exams, with a statement that I DO NOT NEED A DADE LIST. The Southern Region prompted CMO-29 to answer (following December 21, 2009 email to from me). Naturally, CMO-29 replied with a vague reference to “limited number of inspectors...” along with, of course, a DADE list.

### 21 I can try to accommodate their recommendations and contact the closest DADEs possible to my school’s location. I emailed the FAA specialist (email on January 29, 2010) for the email addresses of 2 DADEs he oversees, to expedite communication, only to receive no answer. Other details are found throughout this report and in the Appendices. This was an inspector who we actually assisted on another matter recently, and very quickly, so I assume he was since directed not to assist us.

Regarding policy, the CMO’s “I/We don’t write policy” statements lose their luster after a while – they do not appear concerned with my workload and subsequently their potential workload. It took a minor battle to have the CMO office finally admit that was not only the FAA Specialist for Brett Bories and myself, as DADEs, but also the FAA specialist for the school. As a FAA specialist, he has the authority to make decisions independent of upper AFS management. That authorityhas yet to be used, apparently out of some fear of wrongdoing or because of AFS200/220 edicts. I do not believe it is my job to point out to FAA offices what a particular person’s authority is so that he/she can logically apply it to assist my school or myself. I also do not enjoy taking the Southern Regional office’s time to have them force an official answer from a district office.

During a phone call on January 29, 2010, with our FAA specialist, informed me that my “staggered exams” request ( Appendix L ), which is currently in the Order 8900.1 policy, was not approved; however, he waffled on answers to my questions about the so-called “denial.” He disregarded my workload concern and FATIGUE issues ( Appendices L/M ) with an insulting statement, and launched a veiled threat during an answer to a sincere question. See ( Appendix N) for all details regarding this phone conversation. He told me on the phone that I should determine if my school would require outside DADEs, and if so, to use those already approved even if out of district, out of county, and even as far as Orlando, to assist me. If no DADEs could assist me, he said, only then would he solicit for more DADEs. At that point, Mr. Miles was emailed (to no avail), for DADE email contact assistance – still no answer received, no “out of office” reply, only silence. I simply wanted to inquire whether these DADEs can assist me, and how often. Email is most efficient. So it appears to me that the CMO-29 office now questions my motives for seeking DADE contact information. This general distrust of each other is why we, as DADES, and as a school, must request a different inspection office. Previous inspectors should be contacted as to what type of relationship existed with Sheffield School in the past. Whether acting as a DADE or course operator, I’ve never had to endure incessant abuse, ignorance, and harassment. Neither has Sheffield School of Aeronautics, established in 1948.

On Monday, February 1, 2010, the frontline manager of CMO-29 telephoned our school. He was told by an assistant that email is preferred, and was offered my email address. He has not emailed yet; therefore, we believe it was likely a threat-planned call since the last call went poorly with Mr. That phone call of January 29, 2010, which included insults toward me, was followed by an email from me to Mr. cc’d to the managers, admonishing him from making derogatory comments regarding my workload.

This office may still be upset that I pushed for an answer to the following question: Who oversees Sheffield School officially? An FAA link indicated (and likely still indicates) as our POI. Mr. denied being our POI. So at one point, we had no letter from CMO-29 as to who oversees Sheffield SCHOOL, in

### 22 addition to DADE oversight, and nobody claiming to do so. I’m unsure why seeking these answers upsets people. Perhaps the office should understand that when I spend 1-2 hours attempting to determine which higher office to seek assistance from and who directly to email, I lose time and money.

Recent exam schedule/local FAA office Recently, I prepared the upcoming FAA practical exam schedule including the time blocks reserved for each day of testing – see Appendix I. Based on the new policy within the Order 8900.1, I and one fellow DADE of Sheffield School of Aeronautics were forced to work 5 consecutive 11-12+ hour days, that could EASILY have been reduced to less than 10 hours per day with a simple, more secure authorization allowing the simultaneous testing of the written portion of the practical exercise, specifically, the flight plan portion. See Appendix J for an example of a more test secure, efficient, less time-consuming schedule - a method that has been proven to work according to the FAA – Appendix K . It is unreasonable to change policy which affects my school the most, without any allegations of impropriety, yet NOBODY WITHIN THE LOCAL CMO OR AFS-200 OR AFS-220 is even willing to address my concern or reply to me as to the reasons preventing its approval, or why it was authored in the first place . As a long-time examiner, currently leading the world in FAA Aircraft Dispatcher examinations, I expected more collaboration, and advice. Our recent class had approximately 20 graduates – past sessions have reached over 35 (double our current average load) when simultaneous classes have been held. The future classes, once the economy recovers, will reach those levels again for our institution. Therefore, for the future, do you feel that 10 consecutive 12+ hour days is fair and reasonable? Is this the official stance of the FAA? To force large schools and their DADEs into a tiring exam schedule based on untested policy? All for the purpose of HELPING leverage the FAA’s workload?!

If the FAA response, exemplified by our local CMO, is simply to “add more DADES”, that idea has been considered, but they do not offer a long-term solution to this problem – details are within this report and Appendices. Seeking assistance from the local FAA office appears to be out of the question based on the cumulative statements from them. (See Appendix N and below.) This also does not solve the problem effectively if my associate or me either retire, are summoned for jury duty, must instruct a class due to instructor issue/sickness, or become ill or incapacitated. Who will give these exams in a timely manner based on current policy within Order 8900.1? Too many variables can adversely affect the testing schedule if prolonged by50% or more, which is what the new policy produces at Sheffield School. The CMO29 office does not feel the need for a backup plan or to ask upper offices for assistance on our behalf to revisit Order 8900.1 policy. The CMO-29 office has verbally said “we cannot do exams.” This verbal statement, of course, will be denied, but it occurred multiple times during meetings in 2009 with ASI It also contradicts what the Southern Region apparently designated the CMO-29 office to do. Asking outside DADES within a 20-30 mile vicinity to show up for long multiple days poses many obstacles including conflict of interest, and reliability – if there is any personal history between myself or my school and another individual asked to examine my students, obviously, that will not work. The local office also claimed that I must seek assistance for outside DADE relief from as far away as Daytona Beach and Orlando. I was told to use DADEs out of district, before they will even attempt to locate local DADE applicants or assist us themselves, as designated per 8900.1 (regional office). First, many students are unable to drive to these remote locations because many (including airlines) do not rent cars in order to save money. Second,

### 23 even if outside DADEs would travel to Sheffield, for 4-5 or more consecutive days, what will they charge for test fees, transportation, and hotel? This simply is not feasible, and is not a reasonable plan, all for the CMO-29 office to avoid doing some work - whether administering exams themselves or soliciting the industry for a LOCAL DADE, or two.

Mr. Bories and myself, work FULL weekends and holidays during practical examinations in order to accommodate the large number of graduates to be tested. If we are banned from giving exams, which outside DADEs or FAA inspectors will guarantee Sheffield School that they will do exactly the same? NONE!

To summarize why outside exam help is suspect:

• Our graduates work with a specific large airplane with a very advanced flight plan format – this would not be able to be accommodated efficiently by outside DADEs unfamiliar with our methods, which creates testing difficulties for the applicant, and inequity among exams taken by students within the same class.

• No outside DADE will arrive at our school at 5:30am to conduct practicals to assist Asians or Europeans to make their flight. [Yes, we have a large international student demographic, and yes, it has happened.]

• Will they show up for 5-10 consecutive days, including full weekends and most holidays when we need them? No.

• Paying outside DADEs may also be a problem for students with little extra money, who were expecting to be examined from a Sheffield School DADE, as we have for decades.

• Outside DADEs must be acceptable to this owner/operators of the school. It is unacceptable to have outside DADEs who were a past competitor or are a current business competitor, to give exams. School feedback from a DADE* could be suspicious or vindictive.

* 8900.1 - 13-207 RECURRENT TRAINING . The FAA specialist is responsible for providing the DADE with recurrent training every 12 months. The recurrent training will include at least the following topics:

· DADE’s roles and responsibilities, · Paperwork discrepancies, · Applicable changes to 14 CFR, · New FAA policy and procedures, · Conducting the practical test, · Review and updating test scenarios,

· Feedback on approved 14 CFR part 65 dispatch courses , and · Foreign student applicants.

By the way, the bold statement above appears to contradict FAR Part 183 regarding the responsibilities of the DADE. Evaluating Part 65 courses via “feedback” exceeds the regulatory scope of FAR 183.1 – “for the purpose of....” Also, Order 8080.6 violates FAR 183.25(f)(1) – “written.”

### 24 If a school’s renewal is partially based on DADEs’ 1 st take pass rates, how is this fair to a small business? If your reply is that DADEs must be found to be trustworthy, etc.., then you might as well rescind all DADE-restricting policy as it now stands, because it is obviously based on a general distrust of DADEs, whether or not they are owners, instructors, etc.. Policy should be written to capture the mal-offenders, but NOT severely hamper ALL small business owners and other examiners.

Aside from lack of reliability, lack of familiarity with Sheffield’s course airplane, and other factors, outside poorly-trained or ineffective DADEs is not an option. Locating DADE candidates at local airlines may also be interesting – one local airline with multiple FAA violations enlisted Sheffield for a “refresher” type of dispatcher training. I have no interest in having some of these locals who could NOT determine the ceiling and visibility on a TAF to become an examiner for my students. For one, I believe the graduate should not be more knowledgeable than the examiner. I work full weekends for examinations, and most holidays. For me to find an outside DADE for assistance and to determine reliability quotient, I’ll need to quiz them on their ability to work long days, full weekends, and most holidays – NOBODY WILL AGREE TO THAT, which pushes for a local FAA office to NOT limit the available DADEs in an area. There MUST be a backup plan – telling 12 Germans, Brits, Asians, or Americans that, “well, I can’t examine you because I’m an owner, my other DADE had to step in to teach a portion of the certification course (which now disqualifies him from conducting exams), and of the 2 outside DADEs in the next county, one is attending church, or doesn’t feel like coming in on Sunday due to football while the other guy is in Europe on vacation.” This will not sit well with airlines trying to get their employees back home for airline training in less than a week.

Planning ahead and warning all future applicants IS BEING TAKEN CARE OF BY US already, but there is NO SOLUTION FOR VERY REAL CONTINGENCIES THAT SHALL ARISE . Nobody wants to believe this fact! When the AFS-200 writes back with “no justification for a rewrite” without addressing specific questions we posed, or AFS-220 says “we can’t help you – AFS-200 can” and have ZERO CONCERN FOR MY QUESTIONS , then the local office replies to applicants’ exam delays due to new test policy restrictions with “ it’s their problem ”, or accuse me of “wanting my cake and eat it too”, it is appalling, does not work in the public interest, and does not exemplify a harmonious working relationship. I know how to operate a school with many applicants, and have experience with airline managers - who do not want to hear from me that their 5-week class is now 7-8 weeks due to “policy.”

An AFS-900 Assistant Manager is sending a 2 nd family member through my course. Should they be warned that it might take 6-7 weeks before certification?

NOBODY WITHIN AFS-200, AFS-220, OR ANY LOCAL OFFICE EVER APPROACHED ME FOR ANY ADVICE OR CONCERN OR INPUT REGARDING THE ORDER 8900.1 POLICY. To solicit no assistance or opinion whatsoever does not quite fit Mr. Babbit’s words below to Congress in December, 2009:

“There is no substitute for learning at the hands of someone who has already been there.”

Again, we examine anywhere from 15-35+ applicants every 5-7 weeks, 6-7 times per year. Check our class pictures online over the past 10 years as

### 25 proof. This cannot be efficiently accomplished per current policy with 2 DADEs for larger classes. This is virtually IMPOSSIBLE if one of Sheffield’s DADEs is not renewed, dies, becomes ill, or resigns.

Fatigue: I realize that airlines which are governed by the FAA are exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938; however, we are all aware of duty-time limitations and the effects of fatigue on mental alertness and effectiveness, whether piloting an airplane or planning the operation of a flight or conducting certification examinations. Unfortunately, in the case of examiner fatigue, this does not seem to be an issue with the FAA, particularly my local office as seen in the Appendix N . If 8900.1 policy effectively elongates my testing day AND halves my exam limit per day, then my overall workload doubles, complete test security for the flight plan portion is virtually non-existent, and I no longer have the ability to help my fellow DADE if he becomes incapacitated or unavailable for some reason, which has happened. No outside DADE will come in a 6:00am on a Sunday to sub for an ailing examiner to help an applicant meet their flight by later afternoon. If Mr. Bories has a throat infection or some other issue arises for him or me, PER CURRENT 8900.1 POLICY, neither DADE can help the other, and conduct 3 or 4 exams instead of 2, or have 3-4 students sit in 4 corners of a classroom with 4 different flight plans while monitored to save 9 HOURS of work in a day – IT HAS HAPPENED!

Perhaps outside DADE relief can work but... I have no problem if Sheffield graduates who were trustworthy, excellent students, contact us or the FAA directly for advice regarding becoming a DADE, then to let the local office decide if they qualify. Citing conflict of interest against these particular DADE candidates is invalid since the FAA already permits ASIs to oversee their alma mater (as in our case and which I oppose), and dispatch ASIs who oversee schools operated by their former co-workers or bosses, something I also disagree with. If the DADE candidate can successfully pass initial training provided by our FAA specialist, and poses no conflict of interest, then I do not object. Sheffield graduates are permitted free refresher training anyway, so it would be the perfect solution to bringing someone up to speed on our airplane runway analysis and performance, instead of having on outside person bumble through an inefficient exam, assuming they show up. I still believe this will not be a simple task since our FAA specialist who (understandably) claims to be very busy with other tasks, who is (understandably) frequently out of the office based on automated email replies I receive, appears to have little time to perform these training DADE tasks. Locating legitimate DADEs in a time-efficient manner to assist us is nice in theory, but I would need more than a few to use since not all of them will be ready, willing, and able to conduct 5-10 consecutive days of 10-12+ hours of exams, based on new restrictive policy.

What if outside DADEs are employed by an airline. Will they be able to assist us for 3, 4, 5+ days for 5-10 hours or more each day? If so, how is that possible without being on vacation or on a leave of absence?

What if an outside DADE is incompetent or resigns suddenly? It won’t affect a small school in Arizona, which had one DADE quit, and is now retraining another DADE , according to a February 1, 2010 email from them to me. But that WOULD AFFECT SHEFFIELD, with 15-25 or more students 6 times every year.

### 26 The CMO overseeing me, as a DADE:

1. Does not see a problem. 2. Won’t conduct exams. 3. Won’t solicit for new DADEs.

Am I to accept this as a DADE leveraging FAA workload? Am I now forced to ask higher offices to take action against inaction? As of a few days ago (and weeks AFTER this report was initiated), not only have Mr. Bories and myself been deleted from the FAA’s database, but also the two closest outside DADEs. What is going on now??

Simple solution to this matter: Allow Sheffield School to conduct it’s practical examinations as it has for the past 3+ decades, as authorized, observed, approved, and reported on by every local inspector including one Dispatch ASI (See Appendix). This includes inspectors providing oversight of Sheffield School AFTER the 8900.1 rewrite date of September 20, 2008, and prior to our new ASI/FAA specialist. Our pre-8900.1 methodology was more efficient and more test secure than what we are currently being forced to do. The local CMO-29 office refuses to acknowledge or accept this logic – their continual stance is “we don’t write policy.” Unfortunately, I believe very few district offices and their ASIs fully realize that DADEs exist to help them, TO LEVERAGE THEIR WORKLOAD, to quote the FAA. Local ASIs are more than welcome to administer these exams as prescribed per Order 8900.1. How many of these ASIs already have their Flight Plan scenarios prepared?

Appendices M & N detail questionable issues and statements from ASI

Southern Regional Office – only bright spot so far Although the Southern Regional office has an acting manager, they referred my queries to an inspector with very little Part 65 experience, in his own words, to try to answer my questions that the local office avoided. He helped, but could not directly answer my question “Which district offices in South Florida have been designated to administer FAA Aircraft Dispatcher exams?” Mr. provided a name within a single office, which is better than nothing, but it took two emails over 4 days, to prompt a response from CMO-29 to finally admit “there are a limited number of inspectors” within the office able to give exams. Again, they provided no names, yet provided a list of DADEs for me – a list that I earlier told them was NOT needed. I know the list. I have the list already. I am ON the list.

On February 12, 2010, I sent Mr. an email requesting different oversight for myself, as a DADE, as well as the school I operate. On February 16, 2010, I emailed Mr. a copy of my response (Appendix Q) to a certified letter sent to me from of CMO-29. (See Appendices N & Q for specific reasons for my request.)

### 27 AFS-200 We also wonder why most ASIs typically do not reply to, or acknowledge most questions or concerns emailed by us in the past. Are they too busy? Have they been gag-ordered? Based on their lack of replies, I assume that the FAA does not care about:

• Schools guaranteeing certification and jobs,

• Open note/book online tests,

• Unqualified Nigerians and others fleeing one school for another after failure, including related visa issues (which nowadays poses security questions.)

I received NO RESPONSE, other than the private emails from a few inspectorsaffirming that my concern is valid, regarding these issues. At least some of the prePerry era would have responded directly and addressed the issues – not anymore. From his era and thereafter, silence seems to be the preferred method of response.

AFS-220/AFS-200 Both AFS-200 and AFS-220 seem to excel at referrals and denials, but prefer not to answer or even reply to apparently difficult questions. Other schools have reported to me that AFS-220 personnel do not reply to their emails or return phone calls. I suggest that all course operators be contacted to confirm a potential universal problem.

It appears to us that this Order 8900.1 policy change has either been based on the typical DADE who may conduct a small number of individual exams that are spread out throughout the year, not a large Part 65 School who graduates 15-25, or more students every 5-6 weeks, even during a global recession . If the latter is not the case, then this policy rewrite, based on how it was conducted, and how it is being enforced, including the non-replies to questions posed, appears to be vendetta-based towards Sheffield School of Aeronautics. This would be ironic since we were established in 1948, pre-date the FAA by 10 years, and have produced the world’s most qualified dispatch graduates on a consistent basis for 62 CONSECUTIVE years. The quality of customer service from nearly every CMO/AFS level has been less than upfront and courteous. Especially ironic is the fact that Sheffield School was sought early on for assistance in providing ASI course materials.

We firmly believe that the late Ted Perry, who had no affinity for Sheffield School, has influenced current AFS-200/220 personnel. He likely influenced the Order 8900.1 policy contributors and others currently rewriting it now. Another statement in a 2009 meeting to the effect of “policy originated when Ted Perry was around” seems to validate this claim.

We are now calling for an investigation into the reasons for Mr. Perry’s apparent termination or resignation from his position. If he assisted, contributed, or initiated the authoring of Order 8900.1, in addition to already having proven his dislike for Sheffield School, I believe the validity of Order 8900.1, as it pertains to DADEs, may be in question based on reasons for his dismissal, if termination or resignation, occurred. “Mr. Perry is can no longer be contacted...” is not an acceptable response because the Order, 8900.1, is alive.

### 28 Petition Included in this mailed packet (Appendices F/G) is our nearly 5,000-word request mailed to AFS-200, dated November 13, 2009, for an exemption to applicable DADE policy based on previous FAA local approvals, already-existing exemptions, and inspections (inspection report included) with a request for any reasons for denial AND a request for future coordination of future policy in order to work in harmony with the FAA.

Our petition was denied ( Appendix H ) by John S. Duncan, Manager Air Transport Division, on December 16, 2009 with the general reason stated as “no substantive reasons exist to change current policy.” Our 2 nd item in the request was completely disregarded. Additionally, I was emailed a consolation-type email by Leo Hollis of AFS-220, referring me to 14 CFR Part 11 to address processes available to request exemptions from specific regulations; unfortunately, 14 CFR Part 11 has nothing to do with policy exemption rewrites or requests, which is what we were seeking. I replied with a “thank you, I don’t agree but will follow” answer. Unfortunately, my questions asked of Mr. Hollis (AFS-220) and Mr. Kirkland (AFS-200) on December 10, 2009 and followed up on January 4, 2010 have gone unanswered, which is a contributing reason for this appeal to you. The questions were regarding the 2 or 3 paragraphs which include the phrase “if approved by the (FAA) Specialist.” The questions arose from my local FAA specialist’s refusal to act as the specialist to grant us certain approvals, based on the wording directly in the Order 8900.1.

The 3 questions are below. They have not been answered or replied to....twice. I question this lack of customer service, regardless of whether my questions are being debated by a legal team or not. Common courtesy would be to acknowledge the email with a simple statement claiming that “we are seeking an answer.” If questions are not being answered based on future pending policy changes to eventually nullify my questions, then this will open an entirely different can of worms. We hope that is not the case.

---From: Eric Morris <morris@sheffield.com> Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:12:08 -0500 To: <Greg.Kirkland@faa.gov>, <Leo.D.Hollis@faa.gov> Subject: Sheffield School question

Mr. Kirkland and/or Mr. Hollis,

My apologies, but I’m unsure who to address this to. I appreciate any help you can offer me.

Q1: Who is the official FAA Specialist for the DADE program under/used by/approved for Sheffield School of Aeronautics? I do not require a citation of 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph 13-140 – I know the definition/description. The issue is that my local CMO prefers not to confirm the answer, and I’m seeking an answer in writing.

Q2: If my assigned ASI is in fact, the FAA Specialist, may that person approve on his/her own, per the wording “if approved by the specialist” or “approved by the FAA specialist”, without consultation or coordination with AFS-200, any provisos/exceptions/exemptions, within 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175c and 13-175d, for the DADE(s) under their supervision?

Q3: If the answer is “no” to Q2, then what reference mandates that the FAA Specialist shall never exercise such authority?

### 29 Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

Best Regards,

Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

---Date: Mon, 04 Jan 2010 12:38:33 -0500 To: <Greg.Kirkland@faa.gov>, <Leo.D.Hollis@faa.gov> Subject: Sheffield School question - 2nd request

Mr. Kirkland and/or Mr. Hollis,

I am still seeking the answers (based on current policy) to Questions 2 & 3 below. The local CMO was able to answer #1 in writing.

Thank you. Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

Q1: Who is the official FAA Specialist for the DADE program under/used by/approved for Sheffield School of Aeronautics? I do not require a citation of 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph 13-140 – I know the definition/description. The issue is that my local CMO prefers not to confirm the answer, and I’m seeking an answer in writing.

Q2: If my assigned ASI is in fact, the FAA Specialist, may that person approve on his/her own, per the wording “if approved by the specialist” or “approved by the FAA specialist”, without consultation or coordination with AFS-200, any provisos/exceptions/exemptions, within 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175c and 13-175d, for the DADE(s) under their supervision?

Q3: If the answer is “no” to Q2, then what reference mandates that the FAA Specialist shall never exercise such authority?

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

Best Regards, Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

We did not receive a reply when resent on January 4, 2010. That coupled with statements made by our local inspector on Dec. 23, 2009 lead me to believe that policy is being hurriedly rewritten to nullify any remaining questions I, or others, may have and to further restrict our operation.

### 30 We sought assistance and relief

During our initial introduction and meeting in October 2009, with the assigned ASI of CMO-29, we were informed of policy changes to be enforced. We presented our objections and reasons for objections, and were simply met with “I don’t write policy” from At a subsequent meeting, Mr. informed us that he called Leo Hollis at AFS-220, who allegedly mentioned that there was no relief allowed or something to that effect. We then sought a solution – exemption orpossible rewrite of policy which was submitted to AFS-220, who claimed that AFS200 was to be contacted instead. We did so on November 13, 2009. AFS-200 turned down our request on December 16, 2009 without specific reasoning. Additionally, we asked to be informed of future policy and hence FAA compliance with Order 8900.1, Vol. 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1-177. The latter was completely ignored and not acknowledged or replied to. For that reason along with how the policy was authored behind closed doors, with no understanding of WHY these policies required a rewrite along with the fact that we, as DADEs were not consulted - (our local ASI claimed “long-time DADEs were consulted in this rewrite”), we have come to the conclusion that this action appears vendetta-based or ignorance-based, or both.

Additionally, Mr. who read our appeal, contacted AFS-220 or AFS-200, and claimed part of our appeal’s statements were inaccurate. He told Mr. Bories and me that he mentioned to AFS-200 that he “did not write AFS-220” asking about relief for Sheffield. This is an early example of how stories change – he told 2 witnesses at Sheffield School that he CALLED/phoned. Our appeal mentioned the word CALLED. I don’t know if he forgot what he told us or made one of many future misstatements, but if our denial from AFS-200 (John Duncan) was based on any input from Mr. then there is a problem and I’m asking for another review. (see Appendix H for AFS-200 denial letter.)

Also, RE: FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1-177) – not addressed correctly.

We asked for the FAA to comply with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1-177, it’s own “Standards of Professionalism for Flight Standards (AFS).” In the first paragraph in the denial letter found within appendix H, Mr. Duncan states that I asked for relief from YOUR OWN ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODES, which makes no sense. This indicates that major portions of our original requests in Appendices F & G were not even read or understood.

We are requesting an investigation into this matter, if our original requests for policy relief are not approved.

### 31 Regarding the authoring of Order 8900.1, were the following factors considered? If so, how?

1. Who were the contributors to the DADE-related policy changes made to the Order 8900.1? “Contributors” means “names of individuals” or “names of individuals within working groups.” “The FAA or the Administrator wrote it”, is not what I’m asking.

2. Does Order 8900.1 rewrite account for large schools? [Appears to have been produced based on isolated examiners giving limited number of exams.]

3. Consider how a small business would be affected?

4. Consideration toward the lack of a CMO backup plan? (I have sent a planned practical exam schedule for 2010 totaling over 50 possible days. The math speaks for itself.) If an instructor or DADE becomes ill or is unavailable, what happens then? Are we to inform the 10-20 students, many of who have flights, employer demands, and visa time limitations, to just “hang out an extra week or 3?”

5. Consider public interest? Were airlines trained by Sheffield School ever contacted as to how this new policy would affect their airline initial training scheduling requirements?

6. Was policy authored based on rumors verbally passed around inspector conferences, emails, text messages, phone calls, etc..?

7. Was any consideration given to the ASI William Bonatti’s report of Sheffield School? If it was disregarded and considered of no importance to the modus operandi of Sheffield School, then why not? Was the report disseminated from Ted Perry to any significant inspectors who were a part of the Order 8900.1 rewrite? If yes, to whom? If not, why not?

8. Was any consideration given to the airline industry and how it universally agrees that Sheffield School sets the standard of Aircraft Dispatcher certification training? [“Sheffield School is the platinum standard for dispatcher training” – Dispatch ASI David Porter.] Why are quotes like these found in my email box and online over the years, but now I supposedly compromise the integrity of practical exam testing as an owner?

9. Any consideration based on statements or viewpoints from your own ASIs withinAFS-220, whether they are a Sheffield graduate or not? Is there a fear from AFS220 personnel to speak up in Sheffield’s defense? [Question arises from virtual silence from many who know us personally and what our school represents, yet will not apparently defend us or even answer us.]

10. Why the differences between the Practical Test Standards and Order 8900.1? Am I to follow both including different procedures? Am I to disregard parts of the 8900.1 because of the statements within the PTS? Why are the authors of the PTS and 8900.1 different groups? One is authored by AFS-200-220, the other AFS-630. PTS is recommended to test takers and test givers as guidelines yet how many applicants are even aware of the Order 8900.1, let alone the differences between the 2 documents??

### 32 11. What were the reasons behind not contacting Sheffield School’s DADEs or other “long-time DADEs” affected by the new policy? Sheffield DADEs were NOT contacted, including Ron Morris (over 2500 exams), Leon Jansen (over 500 exams), Eric Morris (over 850 exams), and Brett Bories (over 300 exams).

12. What was the proposed plan for airlines that send groups for 4 or more to Sheffield School (large schools), with strict policies on return trips within 2-3 days to begin airline basic indoctrination or initial training?

13. Were any questions raised as to why or how Sheffield, having overwhelmingly the highest enrollment in history, would be affected?

14. Was any consideration given to contacting us with any alleged rumors, complaints, or hearsay, in order to substantiate, verify, or confirm all claims?

15. Was the local district office ever contacted prior to the September 2008, Order 8900.1 rewrite, regarding complaints about Sheffield School’s testing procedures? [If so, we received no information.]

16. Why wasn’t the local FAA office instructed to guide us regarding any upcoming future policy changes? Specifically, before the appearance of a new untrained ASI, and after the amendment date of 8900.1 CHG 35?

17. Was any consideration given towards the sickness, death, unavailability of a DADE, and what the backup plan would be now that new policy effectively halved our testing flexibility and doubled at a minimum, the time required to complete examinations.

18. Was Sheffield’s local FAA office contacted regarding their historical DADE requirements in formulating new policy?

19. Did anyone within the FAA consider the fact that Sheffield School once had 4 simultaneous DADES due the certification boom of the late 90’s and many other recent years as well? Or that due to ADX testing requirements, we had to reduce the DADES to 3, and eventually 2 due to retirement, sickness, and death? Did anyone subpoena our historical exam logs from our district office to verify the aforementioned, including that we currently spend 2-6 consecutive day periods completing a multitude of graduates – and this is the time required BEFORE the Order 8900-1 rewrite. Since that required time effectively doubles, and delays the public’s return home, a greater need for relief by FAA offices to administer exams is required.

20. Any consideration for the fatigue factor for DADEs of large schools – see our “smaller class” exam schedule of 5 consecutive 12-hour days. [See Appendix.]

21. Anyone consider asking our local office for our DADE – practical exam passing rate?

22. If so, or if hearsay spread that our pass rate exceeds 90%, was our local office asked to supply the class graduation pass/fail rates, which we indicate by listing EVERY student who begins our course, but does not complete the course within the specific reason provided? Provided immediately following a class – we do not

### 33 wait 12 months to report it. These are lists of students who do not even meet the qualifications to take the FAA practical examination.

23. In case school objectivity was questioned, was any consideration given to the fact that Sheffield signs off a lower percentage than probably every other school in the country – were those numbers requested from each school’s district office, compared, analyzed, and studied for trends prior to policy rewrite?

24. Any consideration for increased workload among district offices designated to administer practical examinations when DADEs are unavailable or resign?

25. Any consideration given that regional offices may be unaware that they SHALL be required to designate a district office to conduct examinations, and therefore, complete all FAA certification paperwork?

26. Any consideration to the fact that although being a DADE is a privilege, and not a right, this does not equate to requiring DADEs to beg for assistance or relief from untested policy, as I have been for the past 3 months? As we all know, theconcept of the DADE is to assist the FAA local offices. Current AFS-220 and CMO29 behavior is to treat us like they’re doing us a favor, not the other way around.

27. Any consideration given to what each DADE, whether an owner or not, charges for each exam? Any consideration given towards each DADE’s motivation? Is it for profit or the public interest? [Sheffield charges $0 for a practical exam.]

28. Any consideration as to how the policy affects owners who have provided over 800+ practical examinations within a school with a history of conducting over 4- 5000 exams, and what the quality of the graduates has consistently been?

29. Any consideration given towards interviewing ASIs or others with any affiliation with Sheffield School? Were comments positive or negative? And were any negative comments, if any, allowed to stand or was the school or DADE allowed to defend themselves?

30. Any consideration given towards how policy will affect one small business many more times than others and what that perception may lead to?

31. Any consideration given to extra required workload for inspectors needing to train, authorize, and oversee multiple DADES required to assist large schools with current DADEs who will eventually be phased out due to policy restrictions regarding ownership, employees, etc?

32. Any consideration given for the fact that many, if not all inspectors overseeing schools or DADEs have little or no experience overseeing Part 65 schools. [We can provide specific examples of ignorance upon request.]

33. Any consideration for a school’s longevity, DADE error paperwork rate, FAA problems?

34. Anyone subpoena or directly question ASIs regarding rumors prior to authoring new policy?

### 34 35. Did any previous Sheffield-initiated FOIA requests affect the development of certain procedures aimed at large schools, owners of schools, or schools authorized to conduct simultaneous exams? Could such actions be construed?

36. Any policy considered for schools advertising 100% pass rates, 100% job placement rates? [It appears that DADEs and ASIs testing such “mills” should be observed and reviewed.]

37. Consideration towards the greatly reduced practical exam phase I (flight plan) test security by disallowing a controlled observation of the conduct of simultaneous flight plans with 3-6 different scenarios all begun at the same time and ended at the same time, with no chance for applicants to discuss destination alternate selections, burn values, no-go questions asked, etc.. Based on newly enforced policy, giving 1 flight plan at a time, with the other 20-25 applicants simply waiting in the wings, whether outside the office building, back in student housing, or hotels, any information may be communicated to others directly or electronically. Since I can only advise, recommend, and warn against cheating, I do NOT have the ability to violate constitutional amendments and ban free speech, etc.. Our previous more secure test methods – REQUIRED for large classes - seemed to suit all previous inspectors, including Mr. Bonatti – see report Appendix K . Please explain how the FAA sees equivalent or improved test security with the new policy, requiring each flight plan conducted separately and at different times and days.

38. Any consideration towards the apparent non-uniform application of authority regarding the phrase “if approved by the FAA specialist?” [FAA specialists who fear application of the phrase “if approved by the FAA specialist.”] Why do certain ASIs fear decision-making based on policy? Why can’t AFS-200/AFS-220 answer (or even respond to) my questions posed on Dec. 10, 2009 and followed up on January 4, 2010 (posted earlier.)?

39. Is there a policy that permits these inspectors to avoid questions while rewriting policy? And if policy is NOT being rewritten as you read this, why did ASI at CMO-29 verbally state to me on December 23, 2009 at a meeting in my office that certain rules are being rewritten such as instructor restrictions to testing applicants, etc.?

40. Any understanding that U.S.-based graduates, who may be pushed to the end of a long practical exam schedule due to international student flight commitments for airlines, will be unwilling to wait 2 weeks for an oral exam, choose to go home, only to repeatedly contact the nearest ASI/district office for assistance? [For those individuals/airlines qualifying for an exam per FAR Part 65.57, I have no choice but to publish all ASI/CMO contact names and addresses for all students to contact for an exam if they are not pleased with Sheffield’s 4-8+ day plans, if policy is not repaired .]

41. Referring to #40, what happens if a local FAA office (not designated to provide exams) with no DADEs available is contacted for an FAA AD exam? (See Appendix B email). Will that office contact the applicable Regional office to execute an emergency designation. If all of this cannot be accomplished within the 90-day time frame following the graduation certificate date from our school,is Sheffield now required to force this student to return to Sheffield for a reevaluation to receive a 30-day extension to their graduation certificate?

### 35 42. Any consideration made for the number of international students enrolled at large schools who attend on a time-limited student visa?

43. How many of the authors or contributors of the FAA Order 8900.1 rewrite/chg have actually given FAA practical exams to FAR Part 65 certification school graduates? I’m sure it pales in comparison to what Sheffield’s DADEs have historically given (over 4,500 exams). Have any inspectors ever operated a Part65 school and understand what the effects of this rewrite would be to an FAAapproved institution that pre-dates the FAA by 10 years - a company that has never conducted operations unethically, who has only reaped the praises of many of your own inspectors, and were NEVER consulted regarding any of our experiences, recommendations, etc.. [This was written with either a lack of understanding of the effects to Sheffield School, the most populous dispatch certification school in the world, or with vendetta in mind.]

44. Was the economic impact on extremely busy small businesses by new policy studied?

45. Which ASIs have conducted over 10-12 hours of practical exams in a single day? And if any, for how many consecutive days? Have any current ASIs reprimanded airlines working dispatchers over 10 hours per day? If so, then why are DADEs’ fatigue issues (forced upon by new policy) being ignored or discounted?

46. Does the public know that DADEs can charge exam fees, but ASIs cannot charge, (to the best of my knowledge)? They may learn that the ASIs are limited yet will knock on their door first for an exam, especially in today’s economy.

47. Was any consideration given to the large number of pilot layoffs that may (have) occurred? My estimate is that over 8,000 pilots have been furloughed over the past 2 years, all meeting FAR Part 65.57 experience requirements. How many inspectors have their scenarios prepared for the 400-1500 who may want to pay $100 for an ADX test, then contact an inspector for an exam? Per new 8900.1 policy, DADEs cannot give those exams.

48. Ref. Vol 5 - ch5 sect 10 5-1365

C. Development of Practical Test Scenarios. 1) Each district office designated to conduct aircraft dispatcher certification shall develop at least three practical test scenarios and acquire the materials necessary for their presentation. The scenarios and materials shall be revised when necessary to ensure they reflect contemporary practices.

Does CMO-29 or any other office for that matter, have the required 3 scenarios that match the particular large airplane used by our students? Nobody from the local office has contacted me about attaining or developing the required performance tables and graphs, etc.. yet they claimed via phone on January 29, 2010, to have their 3 scenarios ready. (But interestingly enough, without our aircraft performance data.)

### 36 49. Ref. Vol. 1 GENERAL INSPECTOR GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION CHAPTER 3 INSPECTOR RESPONSIBILITIES, ADMINISTRATION, ETHICS AND CONDUCT Section 2 Personal Ethics and Conduct

-Informs customers of guidance material.

-Through their conduct, ASIs working in direct contact with operators and with the public bear great responsibility in the determination of public perception of the FAA.

-Do not make irresponsible, false, or defamatory statements that attack, without foundation, the integrity of other individuals or organizations (ASIs are accountable for the statements they make and the views they express).

Regarding policy above, was any thought given during the authoring of Order 8900.1 as to the number of inspectors who may or may not follow these guidelines – see Appendices M/N/O.

50. Any consideration for the possible deterioration of working relationships between the FAA and those designated to:

1- HELP the FAA? 2- Serve the public interest?

### 37 

### SUMMARY

As stated in the introduction, the solution is very simple: allow Sheffield School the option to continue to conduct FAA examinations as it has for the past 3+ decades, as previously approved by the FAA, conducted with the FAA’s stamp of approval, INSPECTED and PRAISED by the FAA during a “sting operation” inspection (FAA’s words according to emails received via the FOIA). We welcome competent and capable additional oversight at any time.

I would like to finalize this issue successfully at your level, and no others within or outside the FAA.

I have been patient. I’ve endured the rudeness of past and present inspectors. I’veendured the implications of slander from members of AFS-220 and potentiallylibelous statements received via the FOIA. I’ve lost business to an illegal Middle Eastern school approved by the FAA. I wondered who my POI was for nearly 10 months during 2006. I did not complain to the regional office regarding the local office losing entire groups of certification paperwork (only to be found by ME during a visit to their office). I’ve been patient with local offices making certification paperwork errors. I’ve been patient with the Airmen Branch and their inconsistent application of policies regarding certification paperwork – I even rewrote portions of Order 8400.10 to assist them. I never complained that one local office lost all of the historical documentation pertaining to Sheffield School. I’ve been patient with a countless number of inspectors calling my office over the years with dispatcher certification paperwork questions, which I assisted them with.

Therefore, I believe I am owed consideration at this point.

If you approve our requests stated within this report and summarized on the following page, then I thank you very much for your time, consideration, and understanding. Please forward your decision to all involved or affected, and please remind them of all “retaliation policies.”

I am sure that the FAA is a proponent of efficient certification testing, increased testsecurity, reducing fatigue, and increasing customer service towards the public, longstanding DADEs and long-time educational institutions; however, if your office still feels differently and cannot see the reason and logic behind our appeal, and chooses not to assist us, please inform me soon. We will continue this appeal through the DOT, Congress, and other channels.

If you cannot or will not approve this request, then we respectfully request that all questions be answered to help our understanding of the motivation behind these policy changes. If questions cannot be answered, we shall locate others outside the FAA, to assist us.

I will understand that any denial of our request followed by unsuccessful appeals mandates that I follow ALL applicable Order 8900.1 policy. In so doing, I understand that ALL inspectors will also be required to follow ALL of Order 8900.1 as well.

The irony here is that I’m requesting relief from the people I relieve, who also have no interest in working with me to solve the problems AFFECTING US COLLECTIVELY. If the FAA can’t relieve me and my daily workload resulting from new closed-door policy, how am I supposed to continue to relieve you – the FAA.

### 38 I’m kindly requesting:

1. A complete review of Order 8900.1, Volume 13, a freeze on all policy rewrites pending further investigation, with the ability to return to the testing procedures our large school has used for years, as previously approved and observed by the FAA. A reply of “but current/new policy mandates...” is not acceptable since the policy itself (or what may be hurriedly rewritten now) and/or the authors’ motivation appears suspect at best. We also request a guarantee of immediate termination of any FAA employees found guilty of any retaliatory acts towards Sheffield School, whether in the past, present, or future. 2. A statement that future policy changes will be considerate of the innocent, especially when aimed at the guilty, and will be void of secrecy or vendetta; and that accusations, hearsay, and rumor will not be ANY motivation behind policy or regulatory changes until first investigated and confirmed. 3. A complete review of our local CMO-29 office to determine if anyone within, including management, has the ability to be objective and work with Sheffield School and any DADEs attached to or affiliated with Sheffield School in the future. A change to a different oversight office appears to be the best solution for all parties involved, as it will prevent retaliatory acts by the FAA, and lawsuits with Congressional hearings initiated by us, if those acts occur. Any unnecessary delays or renewal denials, without cause, whether applicable to DADE or school renewals, shall be construed as retaliatory. More reports will then follow to your office, the Secretary of Transportation, and my advisors. 4. To allow a group testing of the written flight plan scenarios in a single sitting at one time in a purely secure testing environment. EVERY other requirement established within the 8900.1 and PTS shall be followed, but this is the only reasonable, efficient method of testing large groups requiring written information and not verbal. Verbal questioning, if still required, for portions of the flight plan would be asked separately for each individual during their respective oral examination. 5. An allowance, under extreme conditions, or for large schools, for owners and staff to continue as DADEs within their operation, with additional oversight, if the FAA deems necessary. We welcome it. 6. Answers to all questions within this report, if any part of 1 though 5 above cannot be accommodated.

Thank you for your time and assistance in these matters. If you need additional names or any further information, we will provide them. If you need more details regarding specific details about specific individuals who’ve shown to be anti-Sheffield and why, we can provide the details.

VOLUME 13 FLIGHT STANDARDS DESIGNEES CHAPTER 3 DESIGNATED AIRCRAFT DISPATCH EXAMINER Section 2 Duties and Responsibilities of the Designee

13-173 GENERAL. DADEs leverage the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) workforce and provide certification services to the public. Designation is a privilege, not a right, and designees are appointed by the Administrator to meet FAA needs. DADEs are expected to exercise the privileges of their designation within the limitations set forth in the DADE’s FAA Form 8430

_ 9, Certificate of Authority, and the DADE’s letter of authorization (LOA).

I cannot find anywhere in the above paragraph that the FAA has the right to harass,threaten, insult, or ignore the Designated Examiner or the operator of an FAAapproved certification school.

### 39 You have been presented with a case of a small business being hounded by government for no apparent reason, which runs 100% against the grain of President Obama’s recent State of the Union address.

The contents within the Appendices clearly detail many problems.

All we are asking is to allow us to do our job and tell the local offices and above to do theirs. I am willing to meet with anyone above AFS-200 to resolve these issues. As stated earlier, I am willing to work WITH the FAA . We always have, and that is the reason your office received this report from.... me

. Respectfully,

Eric W. Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

# APPENDICES

### Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

Number of countries/airlines trained by Sheffield School during the past 12+ months

Jan 09 -U.S.A, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Greece, Germany, India, Iceland, Italy, Nigeria, Switzerland, Netherlands

-Air Berlin, Thomas Cook, FedEx, Comcast, Hapag-Lloyd, Quatar Airways, (TUI), DC Aviation, Virgin Nigeria Airways, ABU DHABI AIRPORT SERVICES (ADAS)

Feb 09 -U.S.A., Bahamas, Germany, Croatia

-Air Berlin, System Airline Service, BahamasAir, Western Air, Croatia Airlines

April 09 -U.S.A., United Kingdom, India, Spain, Germany, Italy, Gambia, Nigeria, Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Qatar

-Air Evac, Air Italy, DC Aviation

June 09 -U.S.A., Germany, United Arab Emirates

-DC Aviation, Windrose, Abu Dhabi Aviation, American Eagle, Pentastar Aviation, Executive Airlines

Aug-Sept 09 - Germany, UAE, Bahamas, and U.S.A

- Abu Dhabi Aviation, Pentastar Aviation, Sky Bahamas, DC Aviation, Executive Airlines, Windrose Air

Oct 09 -Germany, Canada, The Gambia, China, Switzerland, Uganda, Singapore, Russia, Antigua, Qatar, and U.S.A

- DC Aviation, Shanghai Airlines, LIAT, Swiss Private Aviation, Uganda Air Cargo Corp., Simco Air Service

Jan 2010 -United Kingdom, Germany, Ghana, Switzerland, Spain, South Korea, U.S.A. and Cape Verde

- Thomas Cook, Air Berlin, CTK CityLink, Swiss International Airlines, European Air Ambulance, and U.S. Department of Defense

2009 was a “slow” year. Click http://www.sheffield.com/ourcustomers.html for a full view of who we work with.

Appendix A-1

### Name & email can be provided upon coordination:

From: xxx xxx <xxx@xxx.com>

Date: Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:39:53 -0800 (PST) To: morris@sheffield.com Subject: Aircraft Dispatch Course

Good Afternoon,

I contacted your school this morning, and they suggested I contact you directly regarding my situation. I decided to attend another dispatcher school in California, and it has not been a great experience.

I have completed the entire course the 13-weekends, and I am not feeling prepared for the practical exam. Another challenge is the school is not able to find an examiner, which could take months , and I do not want to wait that long. I just finished the course as of 11/29/09. I have already taken and passed the ADX Written Exam.

I would like to know if I can attend a shorter course that you offer, instead of the 5 week course. I would prefer the 5 week, unfortunately I can't afford the cost.

I look forward to hearing from you soon.

Best Regards,

Xxx xxx

Appendix B-1

### Below is either a case of school problems or FAA bullying, or a combination of both. Either way, the comments are intriguing regarding individuals who may be currently in positions of authority. The statements below were simply relayed to me. I cannot vouch for their validity, and do not proclaim them to be true or false; however, I recommend that the FAA look into these issues, and question those involved. Eric Morris.

Sent from on 09/11/2002 to Sheffield School:

Hi Ron & Eric:

This might be a sign of things to come with the new PDI inspectors who are running around out there who have probably less than 5 years experience as a dispatcher and want to take over the school's ability to conduct practical exams.

There is an inspector in the Phoenix office, Leo Hollis, who I feel personally, is a real loser as he has been fired from quite a few jobs, who would like to take the school's ability to conduct practical exams. I questioned his ability to conduct the exams as I know that he once was a designated examiner in the Phoenix area and I know for a fact that he gave practical exams to two persons who did not qualify for just a practical. He even said several things to and I that were not correct and we called him on it and now he is going to teach us a lesson.

I received a letter the other day from the Phoenix office that stated that when our next class is completed on Oct. 21, all of our students will be tested by the FAA, either Mr. Hollis or someone from the Los Angeles area named

. Then after they test our students they are going to review Jim and I conducting the practicals before they will renew our designated examiner status.

As far as I know, Mr. Hollis nor Mr. are designated examiners and I wonder how they can conduct the practical without the designation.

Just wanted to let you know what is being passed around by the so-called new "PDI's".

I'll be with you if you want to take them to task but I sure hope this does not happen to you.

Best Regards

Appendix C–1

### OBJECTIVITY (as an Owner & Course Operator)

NOTE: 22 students over 6 classes, as seen in Appendix E were failed or dropped out of our courses in 2009. Many of these people were issued pro rata refunds, monies that we could have kept if we simply pushed them through and passed them. We have always operated in this manner, and not “handed out” tickets.

A school, it’s owner, and employees cannot exhibit a better example of objectivity.

Appendix (E) includes specific examples pertaining to individual classes over the past year. This data for EACH class has been submitted to our local FAA BEFORE IT WAS EVEN REQUIRED.

Below is yet another example of school/owner/instructor objectivity:

February 2, 2010, 3:00pm at offices of Sheffield School: A student received a oral check to see if a signoff for the AD practical exam would occur. He failed. He also possesses a Commercial Pilot certificate along with other experience, but it did not matter – he failed. I, Eric Morris, as an owner, could have been unethical for the 1 st 

### time in my life, and ordered my instructor to sign him off, then directed my DADE to give him a freebie certificate in order to make his airline, a Sheffield customer, happy. Well, I did not, and I never have done such a thing – a 62-year reputation worldwide is typically built on ethics, quality, and customer service, with no compromises. We do not operate that way. Will the airline be upset and take their business elsewhere? I do not know and do not care. Other students exit earlier in the course or do not come close to passing the course, and therefore, receive no FAA practical exam. Why would I, as an owner now, after all the aforementioned grief, decide to pamper my graduates through their exams? The local FAA is supposed to have all of this on record to verify ANY and ALL claims made by me. More students drop our course or fail before a practical exam, than pass other schools. HOW IS THAT BEING UNOBJECTIVE AS AN OWNER?? Why fail anybody on the practical exam? Why not sign off everyone for the exam, make everyone happy, and make more money? Those are the types to go after. Not the oldest most reputable dispatcher school in the world.

Appendix D–1499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-1 

### December 23, 2009

**To:** – ASI 2895 SW 145 Ave Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

Date Due: January 31, 2010 Date Submitted: December 23, 2009

In Compliance with 14 CFR Part 65.70 (a)(2) – [Aircraft Dispatcher Certification Courses: Records]

**Sheffield School of Aeronautics – 2009**

**Names of Students who failed or withdrew from Part 65 Course – 2009**

**&**

**Reasons for their Withdrawal**

- See following pages which are the accumulation of individual reports for each class which were previously submitted to, accepted by Jr. – POI.

- Last group of names are from the latter 2009 classes as submitted to,

accepted by inspector – ASI/FAA Specialist.


### Thank you for your attention in this matter. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me as soon as possible.

Thank you.

Eric W. Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948) 499 NW 70 Ave, Suite 110 Plantation, FL 33317 (954) 581-6022499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-2 February 18, 2009

Mr. Jr. Federal Aviation Administration Ft. Lauderdale Jet Center, Suite 201 1050 Lee Wagener Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315

Dear Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft dispatcher Certification.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our January-February, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

n Academic Standards at course conclusion:

Sickness/Death in Family - Family emergency: None.

show (during class – did not return to class):

Was passing course, but decided against pursuing dispatch profession:

none

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-3 April 6, 2009

Mr. Jr. Federal Aviation Administration Ft. Lauderdale Jet Center, Suite 201 1050 Lee Wagener Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315

Dear Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft dispatcher Certification.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our February-March, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

ntain Academic Standards at course conclusion:

Sickness/Death in Family - Family emergency: None.

o show (during class – did not return to class):

Was passing course, but decided against pursuing dispatch profession:

none

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-4 June 4, 2009

Mr. Jr. Federal Aviation Administration Ft. Lauderdale Jet Center, Suite 201 1050 Lee Wagener Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315

Dear Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft dispatcher Certification.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our April-May, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

ntain Academic Standards at course conclusion:

Sickness/Death in Family - Family emergency: None.

Resigned or No show (during class – did not return to class):

Was passing course, but decided against pursuing dispatch profession:

none

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-5 July 17, 2009

Mr. Jr. Federal Aviation Administration Ft. Lauderdale Jet Center, Suite 201 1050 Lee Wagener Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315

Dear Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft dispatcher Certification.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our June-July, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

aintain Academic Standards at course conclusion:

in Family - Family emergency:

Resigned or No show (during class – did not return to class): None.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-6 October 19, 2009

Mr. Jr. Federal Aviation Administration Ft. Lauderdale Jet Center, Suite 201 1050 Lee Wagener Blvd. Ft. Lauderdale, FL 33315

Dear Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft dispatcher Certification.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our September-October, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

ademic Standards at course conclusion:

class – did not return to class):

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix E-7 November 23, 2009

Federal Aviation Administration Certificate Management Office - 29 Attn. or 2895 SW 145 Avenue, Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

Dear /Mr.

Attached is the recent class paperwork for FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification. The ratio of graduates passing the practical examination in this submission of FAA certification paperwork was 23/24 = 96%.

The following student(s) did not successfully graduate from our October-November, 2009 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Certification courses for the following reasons:

ain Academic Standards at course conclusion:

Resigned (during class – did not return to class): None.

Thank you for your attention in this matter.

Sincerely,

Eric Morris President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

# APPENDIX F

(Request for Relief from Requirements of Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 13-175 and FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1- 177)

### 1 November 13, 2009

Request for Relief from Requirements of Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Para 13

- 175 and FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Para 1

- 177.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics, and all Designated Air craft Dispatcher Examiners (DADEs) attached to the school, are hereby requesting a continuation of an existing exemption from Paragraph 13

- 175 in the Flight Standards Information System. We are also requesting to be included as customers in future policy

- making initiatives that may have an impact on us or in which we may be able to assist the Flight Standards Service, in accordance with requirements in Paragraph 1

- 177.

Paragraph 13

- 175 states, in pertinent part, that a DADE will not administer more than o ne aircraft dispatcher practical exam at a time. However, the practice of allowing for practical exams to be administered to a maximum of two applicants simultaneously has been allowed and even encouraged by the Administrator in the case of Sheffield Sch ool for decades.

Paragraph 1

- 177 outlines standards of professionalism and customer service requirements for all aviation safety inspectors.

Our petition is based on the following:

• The practice of administering practical examinations for not more than t wo simultaneous applicants has been allowed for us and approved by numerous FAA inspectors, including a Dispatch ASI who approved of the practice in a formal report (included in Appendix);

• The exemption allowing us to continue this practice, if granted, do es not reduce aviation safety (and may actually increase it, as detailed below);

• This exemption, if granted, serves the public interest, and not allowing the exemption would be contrary to the public interest;

• The process by which many restrictions on the conduct of aircraft dispatcher practical examinations were included in Order 8900.1, without the ability of those who would be affected by the changes to comment, was in violation of the customer service and professionalism standards required of all Aviat ion Safety Inspectors of the Federal Aviation Administration.

Background

The ability for DADEs at Sheffield School of Aeronautics to administer two simultaneous practical examinations was granted in the mid

- 1970s. It was noted that at the time, Flight E ngineer practical examinations were given by FAA inspectors in pairs. Sheffield School inquired if this would be possible for aircraft dispatcher practical examinations as well, and the Miami Flight Standards District Office, which oversaw Sheffield Schoo l at the time, granted permission. The process has been allowed to

### 2 continue without interruption and with full knowledge and approval of all principal operations inspectors assigned to Sheffield School since that time.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics has been in continuous operation for approximately 62 years. Our founding predates the establishment of the Federal Aviation Administration. Over its lifetime, Sheffield School has gained a reputation for operating the world’s foremost ab initio aircraft dis patcher training program. Sheffield remains the school of choice for dispatcher training for many air carriers not only in the United States, but also internationally. A formal or informal poll of U.S. and international airlines’ operations offices would validate that claim 100%. We do not relax our certification standards or guarantee certification as others do. We do not utilize what has devolved into a memory exam (standardized “knowledge” exam) as the core of our certification course. Many inspectors r eceiving this report are Sheffield graduates or have worked for airlines utilizing our training. In March 2003, one of you complained in an email “that (my) company keeps hiring from "podunk schools" and they had 2 of the last 3 wash out.” Some airlines th at some of you have worked for required that a Sheffield

- passed Aircraft Dispatcher course (whether the student was already FAA

- certified or not) was required before working in their ops department. This prerequisite was also, at one time, required by the United States Air Force. Some of you within the inspector list have openly admitted that Sheffield is the “Platinum Standard” of training.

We encourage those who would question our complete dedication to quality and safety to do research within the indust ry. There are also posts available on the internet from managers of dispatch and senior dispatchers at major airlines at the time, who have since gone on to become Dispatch ASIs. The industry does not question our desire to produce only those dispatchers who are properly qualified and knowledgeable. Sheffield School challenges its students and maintains high academic standards; it is not unusual for some students attending the school to fail to graduate because they could not demonstrate mastery of the d esired skills by the end of the Part 65 course. Over the past 46 classes since summer 2002, there have been approximately 198 students who did not or could not complete our course

– those who DID NOT EVEN GET TO THE PRACTICAL EXAM. Many of those students, who are not signed off to take practical exams, have gone to other institutions, been granted anywhere from 60

- 199 hours of credit for failing at Sheffield, and then taken and passed onsite rubber

- stamp practical exams. I’m sure some of you are well

- aware of how one still

- in

- business “operator” would grant massive credit to those who failed Sheffield

– it turned out that a transcript from us was not even required, only a RECEIPT from the student.

Sheffield School’s refusal to graduate unqualified individu als has had two consequences. First , it has generated a demand for sham course operators who will give quick sign

- offs and softball practical exams. In one such case, a student who unsuccessfully completed the Sheffield program with a class average in t he 40s

– who could not even read a METAR

-- went on to be certified by a “competitor” after less than 10 hours of further instruction and a so

- called practical exam.

### 3 To be clear: We do applaud the FAA for trying to reign in those individuals who seek to profit from this with no regard for the industry. We realize that it is not a simple task.

Second , it has established an understanding internationally that graduates of the Sheffield program ARE qualified, which has led to a greater demand from our progr am than any other. This means that it is not uncommon for Sheffield School to operate classes with enrollment in excess of 20 students, many of whom are attending from outside the USA. These students have to contend with limitations of student visas and must make their flight arrangements and preparations for accommodations often 2

- 12 months in advance.

Given the size of some of the classes that graduate from Sheffield School’s Part 65 program, it becomes necessary to administer a large number of practic al exams in a very short duration. When properly overseen by the Administrator, a single examiner administering not more than two practical exams simultaneously does not jeopardize safety, but does allow the Flight Standards Service to efficiently leverag e its DADEs and maximize the time available to inspectors to oversee air carrier flight operations.

Basis for Request

On November 5, 2009, DADEs at Sheffield School of Aeronautics were advised that this established practice could not continue. There was no explanation offered other than that this was “national policy.” When pressed, Dispatch ASI mentioned that “another operator” had been accused of administering seven examinations simultaneously and implied that this policy that will affect our operations was a result of misconduct by a DADE attached to another Part 65 institution. However, Mr. mentioned no evidence or allegations of any wrongdoing or safety issues on the part of DADEs attached to Sheffield School of Aeronautics.

Mr . who is commended for trying his best to help us, also advised us that he had called Washington to ask for an exception to the national policy and that the request was immediately turned down

– we were not a party to this request and in fact were unaware that Mr. had made the call until after the fact. Mr. has been very recently assigned to us and our first contact with him had been only a week before. Therefore, Mr. did not yet have the opportunity to gain familiarity with o ur operation and the reasons that the FAA had consistently allowed this exemption in the past. It is clear that whomever he spoke with in Washington made no further effort to understand why this policy had been in place. We are concerned about this becau se there was a breakdown somewhere in the process during which the concerns and needs of the customer were never sought and such questions were never asked

– despite the fact that this is absolutely required by the personal ethics and conduct standards of all FAA inspectors that are clearly enumerated in Order 8900.1.

We are further concerned because this standing exemption that we have had for years actually helps the Flight Standards Service, but since we were not contacted as part of the
process, we wer e not able to offer an explanation as to why. In denying this request out

### 4 of hand, the headquarters has tied the hands of one of the Dispatch ASIs moving forward and created an additional workload concern for him. We are requesting this exemption in part to assist Mr. who, having not been around our operation until very recently, may not realize the additional difficulty that this answer from Washington is creating for him

– and potentially for Dispatch ASIs everywhere when the economy improves.

Since we are unaware of any established protocol or standard to be met in requesting an exemption from non

- regulatory policy, we believe that a reasonable standard that we need to meet in our petition would be the same standard used for air carriers reque sting relief from various portions of 14 CFR

– that safety and the public interest allow for the exemption.

Effect on Aviation Safety

Although it initially seems reasonable to expect Sheffield School to offer proof that safety is not compromised by such an exemption, the Flight Standards Service has already done so. We defer to your judgment

– as exercised by numerous inspectors already, including William Bonatti. During surveillance several years ago, Mr. Bonatti observed a practical exam in which two oral examinations were given simultaneously by the same DADE. This was in keeping with policy that had been established for years
, and Mr. Bonatti concluded that the administration of the dispatcher practical exam in this fashion was consistent with safet y . His written report is attached to our petition. Thus, it has already been established by the Administrator that this is safe and appropriate

. Given that there has been no reason provided to us to suggest that such practical exams would be less safe n ow than before, we have to assume that the Flight Standards Service does not see a safety issue.

However, we would like to offer additional reasons why this practice is valid.

First, we believe that the intent behind the rule to limit these examinations to one applicant at a time is to ensure that a DADE can properly assess each applicant in the performance of the required tasks. This can be done, as we have demonstrated historically, with alternating questions between applicants, covering similar tasks for both applicants at the same time. In setting the schedule for exams when this allowance has been used, the instructors have offered pairings based upon similar aptitude and communication styles with an eye toward minimizing any distractions or tension

. Further, Sheffield DADEs that have used this allowance have, in rare cases where we have felt the pairing to be potentially distracting or have felt that it would be difficult to assess either applicant’s performance, split the pair and continued the ex amination one

on

- one with each individual applicant. This strategy ensures that if one applicant is experiencing difficulty, the other will not be “dragged down” and can still be given a fair, objective assessment. Daily verbal questioning of students by the instructor during class helps determine ability and compatibility.

### 5 Working with two applicants at a time offers an advantage that working with one applicant at a time does not; it affords an examiner the opportunity to gauge interaction between two ap plicants and “exercise proper DRM competencies,” as stated in the Aircraft Dispatcher PTS. In a single applicant environment, the examiner can and should simulate a pilot

- dispatcher interaction in which the examiner plays the role of a PIC. However, havi ng two applicants at a time allows the examiner to view interaction between the applicants at a peer level

– something that is much harder to do one

- on

- one. Given that competent dispatching is highly dependent upon interpersonal communication, that intang ible skill can be evaluated more easily in a two

- applicant scenario.

Since we have not been advised of any safety reasons requiring that we abandon this procedure and given that the FAA has already found it to be acceptable, we believe that this demonstra tes that safety will not be jeopardized by allowing the exemption. We further believe that if there are safety concerns that have arisen from other schools’ DADEs having attempted to administer 5, 6, 10, or more daily exams, whether simultaneous or not, a dding restrictions to our program for wrongdoing that we did not commit is capricious at best, and actionable at worst.

We’ve all heard some of the stories: regulations

- less orals, coaching during orals, open

book orals, meeting failed students to admini ster orals at airports, etc.. A gem from “up north” is a guy charging over $400 for a practical exam, but would only give a 15

- minute oral one Friday “because I need to get home and you took too long on your flight plan.” Others “won’t come in for less th an four people.” This information is fed to me all the time from current students, graduates, and prospective students.

THESE are examples that compromise airline safety in addition to being unethical. Certifying applicants in any manner stated above is a sin and spits in the face of a profession rooted in the concept of a “checks and balances” system. As you are all aware, many pilots view airline dispatchers as “clerks” which defeats the purpose and successful application of 121.533/535 and 121.601.

If our petition is denied on the basis of safety, we request an explanation as to the reasons that safety would no longer permit an established practice that the Administrator has already deemed to be safe.

Public Interest

The general public is not affecte d by this exemption. The greatest impact is on those who choose to attend not only Sheffield School of Aeronautics, but also any Part 65 aircraft dispatcher training facility that routinely enrolls large classes, or will occasionally enroll large classes following the next economic recovery.

As mentioned previously, a significant portion of the enrollment of a typical Sheffield School certification class are international students, who, out of necessity, must make their travel and visa arrangements far in advance. Under policies that have been in place

### 6 until now, a single examiner could give two practical exams per day, with a maximum of
two applicants at a time. Therefore, each DADE has had the capacity to evaluate a total of four applicants in a day. By limiting this to two exam sessions, this allowed DADEs to be efficient in their evaluation of a class of graduates, while at the same time avoiding the fatigue issues that would certainly arise from administering four consecutive exams.

This allows for a student who is planning to attend a dispatcher school to be able to plan for a minimal period of time after completion of the Part 65 course to allow for the scheduling of a practical examination. Even in the event of a large class of graduates waiting to take practical exams, the waiting period would still be a matter of several days. Some applicants are asked to interview at airlines THE DAY AFTER GRADUATION while others are (unfairly) requested to return to their workplace 1

- 3 days after the class
gr aduation date.

We believe that the public interest IS served by continuing to allow for this practice, and that the public interest is NOT served by disallowing the practice. In the event that only one DADE and no ASIs are available to examine a group o f 25 individuals, even if two

a

- day exams are given with no days off for that DADE, this means that two individuals would be examined fully 13 days after the completion of a course. This places a significant burden and expense upon those individuals.

We believe, therefore, that suddenly adding this restriction places additional hardships on those who are seeking certification, and therefore that removing the ability to conduct simultaneous practical exams for not more than two applicants is not in the pub lic interest.

Before requesting this exemption, we considered alternative solutions to this problem, and found that all of them create additional difficulties not only for us, but also for the Flight Standards Service

. First, by disallowing an establishe d practice, the FAA ostensibly assumes the responsibility to provide the practical examinations. It is clear to us from conversations with Mr. that the FLL CMO is experiencing a period of extreme workload in overseeing Part 121 operations, and that the CMO cannot provide inspectors on a regular basis to perform this task.

The other solution would be to secure the services of additional DADEs within the area. Although there are several Part 121 dispatch sections in the area, this proves problematic for numerous reasons.

First, DADEs who are not affiliated with a school who are active Part 121 dispatchers cannot be expected to be available regularly, six, seven, or more times per year. Their primary responsibility and focus will be their “primary” job of Part 121 dispatch. Simply appointing additional DADEs does not guarantee that they will be available, and therefore does not reliably solve the problem. In order to ensure the necessary coverage for a school that graduates as many students as does Sheffield School even during a

### 7 recession, numerous additional DADEs would need to be found. This is similar to the problem that a dispatch manager may face in covering open shifts; there may be numerous individuals qualified, but work rules, vacation and sick days and other obligations mean that even four or five potential candidates may not be available.

In addition, were the CMO to secure the services of additional DADEs, this would mean additional oversight. The CMO would be responsible for initial a nd recurrent training of the DADE, maintenance of records and a continuity book, scheduling of observation for that many additional examiners throughout the year, etc. Again, our CMO is already facing critical workload issues based upon the information pr ovided by Mr. this option does not seem to be the best available from that perspective. (We note that in such a critical workload situation, appointing and managing additional DADEs might actually jeopardize aviation safety by requiring additional resources of the CMO.)

Finally, we have concerns about some of the operations from which Mr. might seek DADE candidates. Dispatch at one of the largest operators in this area was recently found to be deficient in multiple areas during a major ins pection. With the knowledge and encouragement of the Dispatch ASI (and we believe it was Mr. Sheffield School was contracted to perform a rapid refresher course of general topics including aviation weather, aeronautical charting, regulations and OpSpecs, AIP specific to the area of operations and also DRM. During the conduct of this training, we were alarmed at some of the deficiencies that we witnessed, which included some of the dispatchers inability to consistently interpret visibility and cei ling information from TAFs during given ETA blocks or consistently apply 121.619; ironically, some of the more senior dispatchers had the most difficult time. Although graduates of any approved Part 65 dispatcher certification course will be instructed an d examined in large turbojet aircraft, this operator utilizes only turboprops; therefore, we would question whether their dispatchers would have sufficient knowledge of turbojet systems, limitations and characteristics to be a DADE for such a program; a gr aduating student who is applying for the practical exam would conceivably know the aircraft better than the examiner. This difference between the DADE’s experience and knowledge and the material to be covered in the practical exam would be grounds for add itional oversight of the new DADE by the CMO.

The other large operator whose dispatch office is overseen by the FLL CMO is an air carrier for which both current DADEs assigned to Sheffield have been previously listed as ground instructors. Both DADEs, i n that ground instructor capacity, have provided general topics instruction as part of that air carrier’s recurrent training program. We also found and expressed concerns about similar topics there. Although this operator does work with turbojets, theirs are from a different manufacturer with different systems and planning practices.

This is not to state that there are no potentially qualified applicants in this area, but simply to point out that we have reasons to be concerned about a portion of the po tential pool, and to highlight the challenges that the CMO would face in resolving the problem both short

- and long

- term by adding DADEs in this area.

### 8 In the end, we believe that the public interest would be better served by allowing the continuation of t he existing practice, with due FAA oversight and surveillance. This would ensure reasonable scheduling of practical exams, while at the same time ensuring that the examiners are well versed in the aircraft and simulated company procedures with which the a pplicant is already familiar. It also seems to be the most expedient solution available to the CMO.

In the event that the Administrator determines that continuing this practice is not allowed by the public interest, we request a written explanation as to why a practice that has already been deemed to be consistent with the public interest, no longer serves that interest.

Concerns Regarding the Development of National Policy

In requesting this exemption, we would also like to protest the fashion in which this national policy was developed. We believe that the process used to create this new policy violated multiple standards of customer service and professionalism that are demanded by Order 8900.1 to be demonstrated by all ASI’s.

In general terms, Volum e 1, Chapter 3, Section 2 states that professionalism is a set of behavioral traits that enhances mission effectiveness by, among others, fostering collaboration with others and focusing on customer service. We recognize that the FAA is charged with overs eeing operators and has a very careful line to walk between oversight and customer service responsibilities.

However, given the tasking to establish national policy regarding examiners, we believe that the customer service standards were overlooked. Am ong others, this section of the Order stipulates that the inspectors will:

• Understand customer requirements at the outset of assignments.

• Ask questions to assure understanding of customer expectations.

• Ensure that requirements are incorporated into final work products and designs.

• Explain recommendations and decisions in a manner appropriate for the audience

• Listen to, accept, and act on customer feedback.

• Work with the public and industry to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance and improve safety.

• A void action or inaction that contributes to the public perception of unfair or disparate treatment.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics has long tried to assist the FAA by requesting interpretations of regulations and national policy on behalf of our graduate s who ask us, forwarding concerns from active dispatchers about their carriers who were afraid to do so directly, forwarding complaints about known and documented regulatory violations, and expressing opinions on existing policies.

### 9 If you review the rec ords of all DADEs attached to Sheffield School throughout its history, you will find that we have collectively administered over 3,000 practical examinations over a period spanning decades.

It is therefore inconceivable to us that when the Flight Standard s Service decided to generate national policy to improve the administration of aircraft dispatcher practical examinations, we were not contacted until after the policy rewrite was completed. In an active dispatch environment, failing to approach a colleag ue who has years of experience when you are having a problem could be deemed to be a breakdown of DRM. Yet, the authors of this policy apparently made no attempt to contact those in the industry who could offer advice about best practices, what works, wha t does not work and any concerns going forward.

This is all the more surprising to us in light of recent attempts to add policy in the 8900.1 to allow for contract dispatching, which, as a concept, violates Flight Standards Policy. Nevertheless, there w as closed

- door authoring of procedures in Order 8900.1 to allow for that, with strong conflict

- of

- interest ties to a particular company that was already beginning their strategy to advertise and supply this service before this policy writing was completed. The outcry of the Airline Dispatcher’s Federation and indeed Congressional intervention prevented this closed

- door rewrite of national policy from being enacted.

With this history in mind, we were positively stunned that we were not offered a chance
to offer advice or concerns about any proposed improvements. Sheffield School would welcome the opportunity to work with the FAA to create sound policy; that we were excluded from this process in violation of customer service standards after the contract di spatch affair is inconceivable, unless the policy was crafted with the specific intent of tying our hands in mind.

Mr. in his visit on November 5, made the statement to us that “you guys are different,” in reference to the size of our program and the volume of applicants that we process. That is true, but it also means that the FAA is aware of this. If you are a Dispatch ASI reading this petition, then the chances are quite good that we know you personally or have had contacts with you at some po int. All of you, having ties with the industry, are aware of the size and status of this school.

Therefore, our most grave concern is that this policy that was crafted outside the public view, was written in such a way to affect the operations of the one school that currently, even during a global recession, has sufficient size and volume to be affected. One of our DADEs noted in a recent discussion with an ASI, that the imposition of this policy that would affect our operations but not others when we ar e doing our best to uphold the standards seemed like disparate treatment. That Dispatch ASI did not disagree or debate that point; and therefore, we believe this is an admission that the ASI customer service standards were not followed.

In recent contact s, when we asked who authored the new policy, we were told by another Dispatch ASI that is was “the Administrator,” which is of course legally correct.

### 10 However, neither Mr. Babbitt himself nor AFS

- 1 has the technical expertise to author these standards. Therefore, we have to assume that this was collective work by the 39 Dispatch ASIs in the name of the Administrator. We cannot believe that all 39 ASIs were actually involved with this project, but it is difficult to believe that not one of the ASIs who d id work on this saw the ethical and customer service standards violation

– particularly so soon after the contract dispatch affair.

It is not our intent to excoriate the ASI cadre, as we understand that you are all severely overworked at the moment. We r ealize that involving customers in these changes would delay the process. We would like to believe that this was simply a rush to bring a difficult project to completion. But in so doing, we believe that a violation occurred, and we would like to request for the record that we have the ability to participate as a collaborative partner in the future.

### 11 Summary

In summary, we request the following:

• Sheffield School of Aeronautics, and the DADEs attached thereto, request an exemption from national policy to conduct practical examinations for not more than two applicants simultaneously. Under such exemption, DADEs would still adhere to the two

- full

- exam

- per

- day criterion; but would be able to examine a maximum of two applicants during each exam, for a tota l of maximum four applicants daily.

• If there is a concern about examiner fatigue, Sheffield School would agree to waive the DADE’s allowance to also conduct a retest in the same day.

• We understand that such an exemption would mean that additional oversight and surveillance could be warranted. We welcome that, and we encourage Dispatch ASIs to observe and offer any feedback which may result in better exam practices.

• We recognize that one

- applicant

- at

- a

- time is still the preferred method of administering the practical examination and would utilize the two

- at

- a

- time exemption only when class size and student travel requirements demand it. We also agree that it is appropriate to notify the inspector having jurisdiction over the DADEs when such exemption is req uired to be used, if so requested by the ASI.

• We encourage a revision to the relevant parts of Order 8900.1 to allow this exemption to be granted by local inspectors who are responsible for the approval and maintenance of DADEs, as the needs of the local i nspector require. We understand that it is conceivable that other Part 65 programs could face unexpected, unusually large classes that would similarly exceed the ability of the inspectors and existing DADEs to manage. This exemption, if allowed, national ly, will allow the Dispatch ASIs to rapidly accommodate a sudden increase in demand for practical examinations without any decrease in the quality of service offered to the public.

Finally, we request that we be included in the process of drafting any add itional policy regarding Part 65 courses or DADEs. We understand that we are a customer and that the final policy

- making rests with the FAA, but we would like to assist in any way we can. To quote one ASI, we need to “raise the bar” on dispatcher certifi cation, and we at Sheffield School would welcome any opportunity we have to assist you in that end.

Attached is a quick

- view comparison table along with an official school evaluation from....you.

Respectfully,

Eric W. Morris

- President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

### 12 

## APPENDIX Why using DADEs outside of legitimate Part 65 schools diminishes airline safety & overburdens FAA FSDOs and their respective safety inspectors, and why DADES attached to a school be tter serve public interest.

Sheffield DADEs ASIs & Non

- Sheffield DADEs Employees or officials of 62

- year institution. Overworked ASIs with primary responsibility of overseeing a multitude of Part 121 air carriers or airline employees working shifts. DAD Es have the ability to conduct, complete all practical exams AND required FAA certification paperwork for 25+ POTENTIAL APPLICANTS, up to 6 times per year, within a reasonable period of time. Also, have the time and expertise to deal with a multitude of ce rtification paperwork issues ranging from lost certificates to rectifying errors committed by others. We also are willing to spend the time on the telephone on hold with the FAA Airman Branch for technical issues, questions, and other matters. DADEs will N OT have the ability to conduct, complete all practical exams AND required FAA certification paperwork for 25+ POTENTIAL APPLICANTS within a reasonable period of time. A currently buggy IACRA system will provide no relief from checking, rechecking for error s, and calling tech support at the FAA Airman Branch for lost paperwork, missing or lost permanent certificates. Will the ASI trying to run to the local 121 airline or the assigned DADE trying to make his shift have time to call the Airman Branch to explai n why the ADX test is not to be included on a newly

- turned 23

- yr old applicant’s paperwork or how to rectify his/her South Korean’s applicants’ address on the permanent certificates?

- the ones with ‘North Korea’ typed in. [true story.] Tech support: We a nswer all questions ranging from “how do I change my address?” to “I lied

– my eyes aren’t blue

- what now?” to “now I’m a girl

– do I need to tell the FAA?” Tech support? Desire or time to do this?

DADEs will have no problem submitting all paperwork wit hin required 7

- day period. DADEs will be UNABLE to consistently submit all paperwork within required 7

- day period for any reasonably

- sized class. Work at school full

- time. Work at FSDO or airline. Available everyday including weekends. May not be availab le or limited consecutive days. Can conduct exams at ANY time of day to help meet applicants’ travel schedules. Cannot or will not always conduct exams at ANY time of day to help meet applicants’ travel schedules. Requires no travel by applicant. May req uire travel and appointment by applicant. DADE familiar with ALL SPECIFIC subject matter instructed at school. DADE NOT familiar with ALL SPECIFIC subject matter instructed at school. DADE familiar with LARGE TURBOJET subject matter instructed at school. DADE MAY NOT BE familiar with LARGE TURBOJET subject matter instructed at school. DADE familiar with FLAG OPS subject matter instructed at school. DADE MAY NOT BE familiar with FLAG OPS subject matter instructed at school. DADEs have proven track record of email requests on interpretation of current and proposed subject matter. DADE MAY be employed by an airline and may not be well

- versed on recent material required by FAA that is not found within their OPS manuals. DADE familiar with ALL TYPES of appro aches instructed at school. DADE may not be familiar with ALL TYPES (i.e. LPV) subject matter instructed at school. DADE requires no additional airplane manual references studied at school. DADE must provide or request additional airplane manual reference s from applicant that were studied at school. DADEs welcome any and all inspectors to observe FAA practical exams at any time. DADEs may not have FAA practical exams monitored. Sheffield DADEs have cumulatively conducted 1000s of FAA practical exams. DAD Es will likely have very little or zero experience conducting FAA practical exams. Sheffield DADEs have proven continuously that the conduct of our practical examinations is exemplary, including detailed ASI report from July 2003. Newly qualified ASIs’ an d newly qualified DADEs’ experience will be minimal or nil; that, coupled with being already assigned other tasks, or other jobs, may raise safety concerns.

# Memorandum

Orlando Flight Standards District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Citadel International, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32822



### Subject: INFORMATION : Findings from Special Inspection of Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School Date: July 14, 2003

From: Aviation Safety Inspector Reply to Attn. of: William L. Bonatti: (407) 812

- 7763 FAX: (40 7) 812

- 7710

To: Theodore A. Perry, AFS

- 200 THRU: Dawn Veatch, ASO

- 201

This memo outlines the inspection that was conducted, per your request, at the Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School.

The Inspection started o n 07/09/2003 with a briefing with Mr. Eric W. Morris, President, and Mr. Ronald L. Morris Owner of Sheffield School of Aeronautics. In this briefing I informed them that I was conducting a special inspection of their facilities, program, training materials , and Practical Examination procedures. During this briefing Mr. Eric Morris gave me a full briefing as to the policies and procedure used by the school in conducting training, testing, and the Practical Examinations conducted. I was also given a copy of a ll the course materials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations for my review. At the completion of the briefing I was given a tour of the training facilities, which were found to be in compliance with 14 CFR Part 65.65.

A review of the course mater ials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations showed that the school has spent a lot of time and effort to prepare affective and efficient training and testing materials. The course materials used are current and up to date with the industry, and far exceed the needs of the course. In many cases Sheffield School of Aeronautics have produced materials that the student can use throughout their industry employment.

The Procedures used by Sheffield School of Aeronautics and the Designated Aircraft Dispatc h Examiners (DADE’s) to conduct Area of Operation 1 “Dispatch Exercise” Task A “Flight Planning” is not commonly found, however it does meet the requirements of the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (FAA

- S

- 8081

- 10A). The applicants are all given their Flight Planning Exercise at the same time. All applicants are required to remain in the testing room the entire time while being observed by one of the DADE’s. This portion of the examination is commonly conducted on a one on one basis by other desi gnees, however they are normally only working with one applicant at a time. In the environment that Sheffield is conducting this portion of the Dispatcher Practical, it is as secure and allows the designee the ability to test the specific areas in which kn owledge and skills must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate with more efficiency and less time consumption. The security2



### measures used to assure that each applicant does his own work are different exer cises for each applicant and the exercise is observed by the DADE.

I physically observed this graduating class of 9 applicants complete this portion of the examination on 07/10/2003. The briefing was conducted by one of the DADE’s Mr. Brett J. Bories. The briefing was very detailed and covered everything that the applicants required to be able to conduct the exercise. Applicants were given 2 hours and 10 minutes to complete the exercise. Each applicant had his own desk, materials, and no sharing or talking was permitted. This allowed the applicant ample room to work within a comfortable environmental. Out of the 9 applicants the first finished the exercise in 1 hour and 28 minutes and received a score of 93%. The last applicant to finish the exercise comple ted it in 2 hours and 10 minutes and received a score of 100%. The average time for all applicants was 1 hour and 55 minutes with an average score of 87%.

The remaining Areas of Operations requiring examination are conducted by oral questioning. Sheffield ’s DADE’s conduct the oral portion of the examination in two different formats. One of the formats is with the DADE conducting oral questioning on a one

- on

- one basis with an applicant, while the other format is with the DADE conducting oral questioning wit h 2 applicants at the same time. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the one

- on

one type oral were found to be acceptable and in accordance with normal practical test procedures and the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standard s. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the oral portion to 2 applicants at the same time were also found acceptable. The DADE’s were very effective in their questioning process and in directing specific questions to each applican t to assure that both applicants were questioned to an adequate level. The procedures and methods used were in accordance with the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards, 8700.1 Volume 2 Section 3 paragraph 5(B), and the 8710.3C Chapter 5 paragraph 1 9(C).

The oral portions of the examination averaged 2 hours and 30 minutes for a one

- on

- one type oral, and 3 hours and 50 minutes for an oral conducted with 2 applicants. With these times, and the times from the flight planning exercise, the average pra ctical examination time was 4 hours and 25 minutes for a one

- on

- one exam and 5 hours and 45 minutes for group testing.

To summarize, the DADE’s conducted all practical tests in accordance with regulations, the Practical Test Standards, and procedures foun d in FAA guidance. The DADE’s did not allow personal prejudices to interfere with objective evaluation of an applicant, and the oral portion of the practical test was conducted in a private area free from distractions. The DADE’s gave the applicants their undivided attention during the test and ensured that any discussion of test results with the applicants was done in private unless, by mutual agreement, a person other than the applicants were present.

William L. Bonatti

File: WP: Q: \ TYP ING \ UNIT3 \ Bonatti \ Sheffield.doc ASO

- FSDO

- 15:W Bonatti:WLB:(407) 812

- 7763:07/14/2003

# APPENDIX G

(Request for Revision to Order 8900.1, Volume

13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 13-175 and FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1-177)

### 1 November 18, 2009

[note: some wording is based on that fact that this document was originally sent to all ASIs and our local CMO as an exemption request.]

REQUEST FOR REVISION TO ORDER 8900.1, VOLUME 13, CHAPTER 3, SECTION 2, PARAGRAPH 13

- 175(C) and FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Para 1

- 177.

We request that the above mentioned paragraph be amended to read as follows:

“C. Test More Than One Simultaneous Applicant. Conduct any portion of the practical test with more th an one applicant at the same time, unless approved by the FAA specialist.

The specialist may grant approval for a DADE to conduct practical tests with not more than two simultaneous applicants , when the volume of practical tests required in a short peri od exceeds the ability of available DADEs and ASIs to conduct the practical tests within a reasonable amount of time. (For example, approved Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher courses may graduate 25 applicants per class, and may conduct simultaneous classes. In such cases, applicants for the practical test could conceivably be scheduled weeks after the course completion, placing an undue burden upon those applicants who have traveled from outside the area to attend the course.)

When this approval is granted, the DADE will be limited to two full practical tests per day, with a maximum of two simultaneous applicants per practical test. The DADE should notify the specialist in advance when it is anticipated that this approval must be used, and the FAA specialist is encouraged to monitor practical tests with two simultaneous applicants in order to ensure that each applicant is thoroughly evaluated. The DADE should be discouraged from administering retests on dates when this approval is used.”

Sheffield School of Aeronautics, and all Designated Aircraft Dispatcher Examiners (DADEs) attached to the school, are hereby requesting either a continuation of an existing exemption from Paragraph 13

- 175 in the Flight Standards Information System or if not possible, a Reques t For Revision To Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13

- 175(C). We are also requesting to be included as customers in future policy

- making initiatives that may have an impact on us or in which we may be able to assist the Flight Stan dards Service, in accordance with requirements in Paragraph 1

- 177.

Paragraph 13

- 175 states, in pertinent part, that a DADE will not administer more than one aircraft dispatcher practical exam at a time. However, the practice of allowing for practical exa ms to be administered to a maximum of two applicants simultaneously has been allowed and even encouraged by the Administrator in the case of Sheffield School for decades.

### 2 Paragraph 1

- 177 outlines standards of professionalism and customer service requirem ents for all aviation safety inspectors.

Our petition is based on the following:

• The practice of administering practical examinations for not more than two simultaneous applicants has been allowed for us and approved by numerous FAA inspectors, including a Dispatch ASI who approved of the practice in a formal report (included in Appendix);

• The exemption or an approved revision request to Order 8900.1, allowing us to continue this practice, if granted, does not reduce aviation safety (and may actually incr ease it, as detailed below);

• This exemption, if granted, serves the public interest, and not allowing the exemption would be contrary to the public interest;

• The process by which many restrictions on the conduct of aircraft dispatcher practical examinatio ns were included in Order 8900.1, without the ability of those who would be affected by the changes to comment, was in violation of the customer service and professionalism standards required of all Aviation Safety Inspectors of the Federal Aviation Admini stration.

Background

The ability for DADEs at Sheffield School of Aeronautics to administer two simultaneous practical examinations was granted in the mid

- 1970s. It was noted that at the time, Flight Engineer practical examinations were given by FAA ins pectors in pairs. Sheffield School inquired if this would be possible for aircraft dispatcher practical examinations as well, and the Miami Flight Standards District Office, which oversaw Sheffield School at the time, granted permission. The process has been allowed to continue without interruption and with full knowledge and approval of all principal operations inspectors assigned to Sheffield School since that time.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics has been in continuous operation for approximately 62
y ears. Our founding predates the establishment of the Federal Aviation Administration. Over its lifetime, Sheffield School has gained a reputation for operating the world’s foremost ab initio aircraft dispatcher training program. Sheffield remains the sch ool of choice for dispatcher training for many air carriers not only in the United States, but also internationally. A formal or informal poll of U.S. and international airlines’ operations offices would validate that claim 100%. We do not relax our certif ication standards or guarantee certification as others do. We do not utilize what has devolved into a memory exam (standardized “knowledge” exam) as the core of our certification course. Many inspectors receiving this report are Sheffield graduates or have worked for airlines utilizing our training. In March 2003, one of you complained in an email “that (my) company keeps hiring from "podunk schools" and they had 2 of the last 3 wash out.” Some airlines that some of you have worked for required that a Sheff ield

- passed Aircraft Dispatcher course (whether the student was already FAA

- certified or not) was required before working in their ops department. This prerequisite was also, at one time, required

### 3 by the United States Air Force. Some of you within the insp ector list have openly admitted that Sheffield is the “Platinum Standard” of training.

We encourage those who would question our complete dedication to quality and safety to do research within the industry. There are also posts available on the internet from managers of dispatch and senior dispatchers at major airlines at the time, who have since gone on to become Dispatch ASIs. The industry does not question our desire to produce only those dispatchers who are properly qualified and knowledgeable. Shef field School challenges its students and maintains high academic standards; it is not unusual for some students attending the school to fail to graduate because they could not demonstrate mastery of the desired skills by the end of the Part 65 course. Over the past 46 classes since summer 2002, there have been approximately 198 students who did not or could not complete our course

– those who DID NOT EVEN GET TO THE PRACTICAL EXAM. Many of those students, who are not signed off to take practical exams, have gone to other institutions, been granted anywhere from 60

- 199 hours of credit for failing at Sheffield, and then taken and passed onsite rubber

- stamp practical exams. I’m sure some of you are well

- aware of how one still

- in

- business “operator” would grant massive credit to those who failed Sheffield

– it turned out that a transcript from us was not even required, only a RECEIPT from the student.

Sheffield School’s refusal to graduate unqualified individuals has had two consequences. First , it has genera ted a demand for sham course operators who will give quick sign

- offs and softball practical exams. In one such case, a student who unsuccessfully completed the Sheffield program with a class average in the 40s

– who could not even read a METAR

-- went on to be certified by a “competitor” after less than 10 hours of further instruction and a so

- called practical exam.

To be clear: We do applaud the FAA for trying to reign in those individuals who seek to profit from this with no regard for the industry. W e realize that it is not a simple task.

Second , it has established an understanding internationally that graduates of the Sheffield program ARE qualified, which has led to a greater demand from our program than any other. This means that it is not uncomm on for Sheffield School to operate classes with enrollment in excess of 20 students, many of whom are attending from outside the USA. These students have to contend with limitations of student visas and must make their flight arrangements and preparations for accommodations often 2

- 12 months in advance.

Given the size of some of the classes that graduate from Sheffield School’s Part 65 program, it becomes necessary to administer a large number of practical exams in a very short duration. When properly ov erseen by the Administrator, a single examiner administering not more than two practical exams simultaneously does not jeopardize safety, but does allow the Flight Standards Service to efficiently leverage its DADEs and maximize the time available to inspe ctors to oversee air carrier flight operations.

### 4 Basis for Request

On November 5, 2009, DADEs at Sheffield School of Aeronautics were advised that this established practice could not continue. There was no explanation offered other than that this was “n ational policy.” When pressed, Dispatch ASI mentioned that “another operator” had been accused of administering seven examinations simultaneously and implied that this policy that will affect our operations was a result of misconduct by a DAD E attached to another Part 65 institution. However, Mr. mentioned no evidence or allegations of any wrongdoing or safety issues on the part of DADEs attached to Sheffield School of Aeronautics.

Mr. who is commended for trying his best to h elp us, also advised us that he had called Washington to ask for an exception to the national policy and that the request was immediately turned down

– we were not a party to this request and in fact were unaware that Mr. had made the call until aft er the fact. Mr. has been very recently assigned to us and our first contact with him had been only a week before. Therefore, Mr. did not yet have the opportunity to gain familiarity with our operation and the reasons that the FAA had consi stently allowed this exemption in the past. It is clear that whomever he spoke with in Washington made no further effort to understand why this policy had been in place. We are concerned about this because there was a breakdown somewhere in the process d uring which the concerns and needs of the customer were never sought and such questions were never asked

– despite the fact that this is absolutely required by the personal ethics and conduct standards of all FAA inspectors that are clearly enumerated in O rder 8900.1.

We are further concerned because this standing exemption that we have had for years actually helps the Flight Standards Service, but since we were not contacted as part of the process, we were not able to offer an explanation as to why. In d enying this request out of hand, the headquarters has tied the hands of one of the Dispatch ASIs moving forward and created an additional workload concern for him. We are requesting this exemption or an approved revision request to Order 8900.1, in part t o assist Mr. who, having not been around our operation until very recently, may not realize the additional difficulty that this answer from Washington is creating for him

– and potentially for Dispatch ASIs everywhere when the economy improves.

S ince we are unaware of any established protocol or standard to be met in requesting an exemption or revision to Order 8900.1, we believe that a reasonable standard that we need to meet in our petition would be the same standard used for air carriers reques ting relief from various portions of 14 CFR

– that safety and the public interest allow for the exemption or Order 8900.1 revision.

Effect on Aviation Safety

Although it initially seems reasonable to expect Sheffield School to offer proof that safety is not compromised by such an exemption or Order 8900.1 revision, the Flight Standards Service has already done so. We defer to your judgment

– as exercised by

### 5 numerous inspectors already, including William Bonatti. During surveillance several years ago, Mr . Bonatti observed a practical exam in which two oral examinations were given simultaneously by the same DADE. This was in keeping with policy that had been established for years , and Mr. Bonatti concluded that the administration of the dispatcher practic al exam in this fashion was consistent with safety . His written report is attached to our petition. Thus, it has already been established by the Administrator that this is safe and appropriate

. Given that there has been no reason provided to us to sugge st that such practical exams would be less safe now than before, we have to assume that the Flight Standards Service does not see a safety issue.

However, we would like to offer additional reasons why this practice is valid.

First, we believe that the in tent behind the rule to limit these examinations to one applicant at a time is to ensure that a DADE can properly assess each applicant in the performance of the required tasks. This can be done, as we have demonstrated historically, with alternating ques tions between applicants, covering similar tasks for both applicants at the same time. In setting the schedule for exams when this allowance has been used, the instructors have offered pairings based upon similar aptitude and communication styles with an eye toward minimizing any distractions or tension. Further, Sheffield DADEs that have used this allowance have, in rare cases where we have felt the pairing to be potentially distracting or have felt that it would be difficult to assess either applicant’s performance, split the pair and continued the examination one

on

- one with each individual applicant. This strategy ensures that if one applicant is experiencing difficulty, the other will not be “dragged down” and can still be given a fair, objective ass essment. Daily verbal questioning of students by the instructor during class helps determine ability and compatibility.

Working with two applicants at a time offers an advantage that working with one applicant at a time does not; it affords an examiner th e opportunity to gauge interaction between two applicants and “exercise proper DRM competencies,” as stated in the Aircraft Dispatcher PTS. In a single applicant environment, the examiner can and should simulate a pilot

- dispatcher interaction in which the examiner plays the role of a PIC. However, having two applicants at a time allows the examiner to view interaction between the applicants at a peer level

– something that is much harder to do one

- on

- one. Given that competent dispatching is highly depend ent upon interpersonal communication, that intangible skill can be evaluated more easily in a two

- applicant scenario.

Since we have not been advised of any safety reasons requiring that we abandon this procedure and given that the FAA has already found it to be acceptable, we believe that this demonstrates that safety will not be jeopardized by allowing the exemption or Order 8900.1 revision. We further believe that if there are safety concerns that have arisen from other schools’ DADEs having attempted t o administer 5, 6, 10, or more daily exams, whether simultaneous or not, adding restrictions to our program for wrongdoing that we did not commit is capricious at best, and actionable at worst.

### 6 We’ve all heard some of the stories: regulations

- less orals, coaching during orals, open

book orals, meeting failed students to administer orals at airports, etc.. A gem from “up north” is a guy charging over $400 for a practical exam, but would only give a 15

- minute oral one Friday “because I need to get home and you took too long on your flight plan.” Others “won’t come in for less than four people.” This information is fed to me all the time from current students, graduates, and prospective students.

THESE are examples that compromise airline safety in addition to being unethical. Certifying applicants in any manner stated above is a sin and spits in the face of a profession rooted in the concept of a “checks and balances” system. As you are all aware, many pilots view airline dispatchers as “clerks” which defea ts the purpose and successful application of 121.533/535 and 121.601.

If our petition is denied on the basis of safety, we request an explanation as to the reasons that safety would no longer permit an established practice that the Administrator has alrea dy deemed to be safe.

Public Interest

The general public is not affected by this exemption or Order 8900.1 revision. The greatest impact is on those who choose to attend not only Sheffield School of Aeronautics, but also any Part 65 aircraft dispatcher training facility that routinely enrolls large classes, or will occasionally enroll large classes following the next economic
recovery.
As mentioned previously, a significant portion of the enrollment of a typical Sheffield School certification class are international students, who, out of necessity, must make their travel and visa arrangements far in advance. Under policies that have been in place until now, a single examiner could give two practical exams per day, with a maximum of
two applicants at a time. Therefore, each DADE has had the capacity to evaluate a total of four applicants in a day. By limiting this to two exam sessions, this allowed DADEs to be efficient in their evaluation of a class of graduates, while at the same time avoiding the fa tigue issues that would certainly arise from administering four consecutive exams.

This allows for a student who is planning to attend a dispatcher school to be able to plan for a minimal period of time after completion of the Part 65 course to allow for the scheduling of a practical examination. Even in the event of a large class of graduates waiting to take practical exams, the waiting period would still be a matter of several days. Some applicants are asked to interview at airlines THE DAY AFTER GRADUA TION while others are (unfairly) requested to return to their workplace 1

- 3 days after the class graduation date.

We believe that the public interest IS served by continuing to allow for this practice, and that the public interest is NOT served by disall owing the practice. In the event that only

### 7 one DADE and no ASIs are available to examine a group of 25 individuals, even if two

a

- day exams are given with no days off for that DADE, this means that two individuals would be examined fully 13 days after the completion of a course. This places a significant burden and expense upon those individuals.

We believe, therefore, that suddenly adding this restriction places additional hardships on those who are seeking certification, and therefore that removing the ability to conduct simultaneous practical exams for not more than two applicants is not in the public interest.

Before requesting this exemption or Order 8900.1 revision, we considered alternative solutions to this problem, and found that all of them cre ate additional difficulties not only for us, but also for the Flight Standards Service

. First, by disallowing an established practice, the FAA ostensibly assumes the responsibility to provide the practical examinations. It is clear to us from conversatio ns with Mr. that the FLL CMO is experiencing a period of extreme workload in overseeing Part 121 operations, and that the CMO cannot provide inspectors on a regular basis to perform this task.

The other solution would be to secure the services of a dditional DADEs within the area. Although there are several Part 121 dispatch sections in the area, this proves problematic for numerous reasons.

First, DADEs who are not affiliated with a school who are active Part 121 dispatchers cannot be expected to be available regularly, six, seven, or more times per year. Their primary responsibility and focus will be their “primary” job of Part 121 dispatch. Simply appointing additional DADEs does not guarantee that they will be available, and therefore does not reliably solve the problem. In order to ensure the necessary coverage for a school that graduates as many students as does Sheffield School even during a recession, numerous additional DADEs would need to be found. This is similar to the problem that a dispatch manager may face in covering open shifts; there may be numerous individuals qualified, but work rules, vacation and sick days and other obligations mean that even four or five potential candidates may not be available.

In addition, were the CMO t o secure the services of additional DADEs, this would mean additional oversight. The CMO would be responsible for initial and recurrent training of the DADE, maintenance of records and a continuity book, scheduling of observation for that many additional examiners throughout the year, etc. Again, our CMO is already facing critical workload issues based upon the information provided by Mr. this option does not seem to be the best available from that perspective. (We note that in such a critical wo rkload situation, appointing and managing additional DADEs might actually jeopardize aviation safety by requiring additional resources of the CMO.)

Finally, we have concerns about some of the operations from which Mr. might seek DADE candidates. D ispatch at one of the largest operators in this area was recently

### 8 found to be deficient in multiple areas during a major inspection. With the knowledge and encouragement of the Dispatch ASI (and we believe it was Mr. Sheffield School was contract ed to perform a rapid refresher course of general topics including aviation weather, aeronautical charting, regulations and OpSpecs, AIP specific to the area of operations and also DRM. During the conduct of this training, we were alarmed at some of the d eficiencies that we witnessed, which included some of the dispatchers inability to consistently interpret visibility and ceiling information from TAFs during given ETA blocks or consistently apply 121.619; ironically, some of the more senior dispatchers ha d the most difficult time. Although graduates of any approved Part 65 dispatcher certification course will be instructed and examined in large turbojet aircraft, this operator utilizes only turboprops; therefore, we would question whether their dispatcher s would have sufficient knowledge of turbojet systems, limitations and characteristics to be a DADE for such a program; a graduating student who is applying for the practical exam would conceivably know the aircraft better than the examiner. This differen ce between the DADE’s experience and knowledge and the material to be covered in the practical exam would be grounds for additional oversight of the new DADE by the CMO.

The other large operator whose dispatch office is overseen by the FLL CMO is an air carrier for which both current DADEs assigned to Sheffield have been previously listed as ground instructors. Both DADEs, in that ground instructor capacity, have provided general topics instruction as part of that air carrier’s recurrent training program . We also found and expressed concerns about similar topics there. Although this operator does work with turbojets, theirs are from a different manufacturer with different systems and planning practices.

This is not to state that there are no potential ly qualified applicants in this area, but simply to point out that we have reasons to be concerned about a portion of the potential pool, and to highlight the challenges that the CMO would face in resolving the problem both short

- and long

- term by adding D ADEs in this area.

In the end, we believe that the public interest would be better served by allowing the continuation of the existing practice, with due FAA oversight and surveillance. This would ensure reasonable scheduling of practical exams, while at the same time ensuring that the examiners are well versed in the aircraft and simulated company procedures with which the applicant is already familiar. It also seems to be the most expedient solution available to the CMO.

In the event that the Administ rator determines that continuing this practice is not allowed by the public interest, we request a written explanation as to why a practice that has already been deemed to be consistent with the public interest, no longer serves that interest.

### 9 Concern s Regarding the Development of National Policy

In requesting this exemption or Order 8900.1 revision, we would also like to protest the fashion in which this national policy was developed. We believe that the process used to create this new policy violat ed multiple standards of customer service and professionalism that are demanded by Order 8900.1 to be demonstrated by all ASI’s.

In general terms, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2 states that professionalism is a set of behavioral traits that enhances missi on effectiveness by, among others, fostering collaboration with others and focusing on customer service. We recognize that the FAA is charged with overseeing operators and has a very careful line to walk between oversight and customer service responsibili ties.

However, given the tasking to establish national policy regarding examiners, we believe that the customer service standards were overlooked. Among others, this section of the Order stipulates that the inspectors will:

• Understand customer require ments at the outset of assignments.

• Ask questions to assure understanding of customer expectations.

• Ensure that requirements are incorporated into final work products and designs.

• Explain recommendations and decisions in a manner appropriate for the audien ce

• Listen to, accept, and act on customer feedback.

• Work with the public and industry to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance and improve safety.

• Avoid action or inaction that contributes to the public perception of unfair or disparate treatment.

Sh effield School of Aeronautics has long tried to assist the FAA by requesting interpretations of regulations and national policy on behalf of our graduates who ask us, forwarding concerns from active dispatchers about their carriers who were afraid to do so directly, forwarding complaints about known and documented regulatory violations, and expressing opinions on existing policies.

If you review the records of all DADEs attached to Sheffield School throughout its history, you will find that we have colle ctively administered over 3,000 practical examinations over a period spanning decades.

It is therefore inconceivable to us that when the Flight Standards Service decided to generate national policy to improve the administration of aircraft dispatcher prac tical examinations, we were not contacted until after the policy rewrite was completed. In an active dispatch environment, failing to approach a colleague who has years of experience when you are having a problem could be deemed to be a breakdown of DRM. Yet, the authors of this policy apparently made no attempt to contact those in the industry who could offer advice about best practices, what works, what does not work and any concerns going forward.

### 10 This is all the more surprising to us in light of rece nt attempts to add policy in the 8900.1 to allow for contract dispatching, which, as a concept, violates Flight Standards Policy. Nevertheless, there was closed

- door authoring of procedures in Order 8900.1 to allow for that, with strong conflict

- of

- intere st ties to a particular company that was already beginning their strategy to advertise and supply this service before this policy writing was completed. The outcry of the Airline Dispatcher’s Federation and indeed Congressional intervention prevented this closed

- door rewrite of national policy from being enacted.

With this history in mind, we were positively stunned that we were not offered a chance to offer advice or concerns about any proposed improvements. Sheffield School would welcome the opportunit y to work with the FAA to create sound policy; that we were excluded from this process in violation of customer service standards after the contract dispatch affair is inconceivable, unless the policy was crafted with the specific intent of tying our hand s in mind.

Mr. in his visit on November 5, made the statement to us that “you guys are different,” in reference to the size of our program and the volume of applicants that we process. That is true, but it also means that the FAA is aware of this . If you are a Dispatch ASI reading this petition, then the chances are quite good that we know you personally or have had contacts with you at some point. All of you, having ties with the industry, are aware of the size and status of this school.

There fore, our most grave concern is that this policy that was crafted outside the public view, was written in such a way to affect the operations of the one school that currently, even during a global recession, has sufficient size and volume to be affected. One of our DADEs noted in a recent discussion with an ASI, that the imposition of this policy that would affect our operations but not others when we are doing our best to uphold the standards seemed like disparate treatment. That Dispatch ASI did not dis agree or debate that point; and therefore, we believe this is an admission that the ASI customer service standards were not followed.

In recent contacts, when we asked who authored the new policy, we were told by another Dispatch ASI that is was “the Admi nistrator,” which is of course legally correct. However, neither Mr. Babbitt himself nor AFS

- 1 has the technical expertise to author these standards. Therefore, we have to assume that this was collective work by the 39 Dispatch ASIs in the name of the Ad ministrator. We cannot believe that all 39 ASIs were actually involved with this project, but it is difficult to believe that not one of the ASIs who did work on this saw the ethical and customer service standards violation

– particularly so soon after th e contract dispatch affair.

It is not our intent to excoriate the ASI cadre, as we understand that you are all severely overworked at the moment. We realize that involving customers in these changes would delay the process. We would like to believe that this was simply a rush to bring a difficult project to completion. But in so doing, we believe that a violation occurred, and we would like to request for the record that we have the ability to participate as a collaborative partner in the future.

### 11 Summar y
In summary, we request the following:

• Sheffield School of Aeronautics, and the DADEs attached thereto, request an exemption or Order 8900.1 revision from national policy to conduct practical examinations for not more than two applicants simultaneously. Under such exemption or Order 8900.1 revision, DADEs would still adhere to the two

- full

exam

- per

- day criterion; but would be able to examine a maximum of two applicants during each exam, for a total of maximum four applicants daily.

• If there is a concern about examiner fatigue, Sheffield School would agree to waive the DADE’s allowance to also conduct a retest in the same day.

• We understand that such an exemption or Order 8900.1 revision would mean that additional oversight and surveillance could be warra nted. We welcome that, and we encourage Dispatch ASIs to observe and offer any feedback which may result in better exam practices.

• We recognize that one

- applicant

- at

- a

- time is still the preferred method of administering the practical examination and would utilize the two

- at

- a

- time exemption or follow the Order 8900.1 revision only when class size and student travel requirements demand it. We also agree that it is appropriate to notify the FAA specialist having jurisdiction over the DADEs as required.

• We e ncourage a revision to the relevant parts of Order 8900.1 to allow this exemption or approval to be granted by local inspectors who are responsible for the approval and maintenance of DADEs, as the needs of the local inspector require. We understand that it is conceivable that other Part 65 programs could face unexpected, unusually large classes that would similarly exceed the ability of the inspectors and existing DADEs to manage. This exemption or Order 8900.1 revision, if allowed, nationally, will allo w the Dispatch ASIs to rapidly accommodate a sudden increase in demand for practical examinations without any decrease in the quality of service offered to the public.

Finally, we request that we be included in the process of drafting any additional polic y regarding Part 65 courses or DADEs. We understand that we are a customer and that the final policy

- making rests with the FAA, but we would like to assist in any way we can. To quote one ASI, we need to “raise the bar” on dispatcher certification, and w e at Sheffield School would welcome any opportunity we have to assist you in that end.

Attached is a quick

- view comparison table along with an official school evaluation from the FAA.

Respectfully,

Eric W. Morris

- President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

### 12 

## APPENDIX Why using DADEs outside of legitimate Part 65 schools diminishes airline safety & overburdens FAA FSDOs and their respective safety inspectors, and why DADES attached to a school better serve public interest.

Sheffield DADEs ASIs & Non

- Sheffield DADEs Employees or officials of 62

- year institution. Overworked ASIs with primary responsibility of overseeing a multitude of Part 121 air carriers or airline employees working shifts. DADEs have th e ability to conduct, complete all practical exams AND required FAA certification paperwork for 25+ POTENTIAL APPLICANTS, up to 6 times per year, within a reasonable period of time. Also, have the time and expertise to deal with a multitude of certificatio n paperwork issues ranging from lost certificates to rectifying errors committed by others. We also are willing to spend the time on the telephone on hold with the FAA Airman Branch for technical issues, questions, and other matters. DADEs will NOT have th e ability to conduct, complete all practical exams AND required FAA certification paperwork for 25+ POTENTIAL APPLICANTS within a reasonable period of time. A currently buggy IACRA system will provide no relief from checking, rechecking for errors, and cal ling tech support at the FAA Airman Branch for lost paperwork, missing or lost permanent certificates. Will the ASI trying to run to the local 121 airline or the assigned DADE trying to make his shift have time to call the Airman Branch to explain why the ADX test is not to be included on a newly

- turned 23

- yr old applicant’s paperwork or how to rectify his/her South Korean’s applicants’ address on the permanent certificates?

- the ones with ‘North Korea’ typed in. [true story.] Tech support: We answer all questions ranging from “how do I change my address?” to “I lied

– my eyes aren’t blue

- what now?” to “now I’m a girl

– do I need to tell the FAA?” Tech support? Desire or time to do this?

DADEs will have no problem submitting all paperwork within requir ed 7

- day period. DADEs will be UNABLE to consistently submit all paperwork within required 7

- day period for any reasonably

- sized class. Work at school full

- time. Work at FSDO or airline. Available everyday including weekends. May not be available or limi ted consecutive days. Can conduct exams at ANY time of day to help meet applicants’ travel schedules. Cannot or will not always conduct exams at ANY time of day to help meet applicants’ travel schedules. Requires no travel by applicant. May require trave l and appointment by applicant. DADE familiar with ALL SPECIFIC subject matter instructed at school. DADE NOT familiar with ALL SPECIFIC subject matter instructed at school. DADE familiar with LARGE TURBOJET subject matter instructed at school. DADE MAY NOT BE familiar with LARGE TURBOJET subject matter instructed at school. DADE familiar with FLAG OPS subject matter instructed at school. DADE MAY NOT BE familiar with FLAG OPS subject matter instructed at school. DADEs have proven track record of email requests on interpretation of current and proposed subject matter. DADE MAY be employed by an airline and may not be well

- versed on recent material required by FAA that is not found within their OPS manuals. DADE familiar with ALL TYPES of approaches inst ructed at school. DADE may not be familiar with ALL TYPES (i.e. LPV) subject matter instructed at school. DADE requires no additional airplane manual references studied at school. DADE must provide or request additional airplane manual references from app licant that were studied at school. DADEs welcome any and all inspectors to observe FAA practical exams at any time. DADEs may not have FAA practical exams monitored. Sheffield DADEs have cumulatively conducted 1000s of FAA practical exams. DADEs will li kely have very little or zero experience conducting FAA practical exams. Sheffield DADEs have proven continuously that the conduct of our practical examinations is exemplary, including detailed ASI report from July 2003. Newly qualified ASIs’ and newly qu alified DADEs’ experience will be minimal or nil; that, coupled with being already assigned other tasks, or other jobs, may raise safety concerns.

# Memorandum

Orlando Flight Standards District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Citadel International, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32822



### Subject: INFORMATION : Findings from Special Inspection of Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School Date: July 14, 2003

From: Aviation Safety Inspector Reply to Attn. of: William L. Bonatti: (407) 812

- 7763 FAX: (40 7) 812

- 7710

To: Theodore A. Perry, AFS

- 200 THRU: Dawn Veatch, ASO

- 201

This memo outlines the inspection that was conducted, per your request, at the Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School.

The Inspection started o n 07/09/2003 with a briefing with Mr. Eric W. Morris, President, and Mr. Ronald L. Morris Owner of Sheffield School of Aeronautics. In this briefing I informed them that I was conducting a special inspection of their facilities, program, training materials , and Practical Examination procedures. During this briefing Mr. Eric Morris gave me a full briefing as to the policies and procedure used by the school in conducting training, testing, and the Practical Examinations conducted. I was also given a copy of a ll the course materials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations for my review. At the completion of the briefing I was given a tour of the training facilities, which were found to be in compliance with 14 CFR Part 65.65.

A review of the course mater ials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations showed that the school has spent a lot of time and effort to prepare affective and efficient training and testing materials. The course materials used are current and up to date with the industry, and far exceed the needs of the course. In many cases Sheffield School of Aeronautics have produced materials that the student can use throughout their industry employment.

The Procedures used by Sheffield School of Aeronautics and the Designated Aircraft Dispatc h Examiners (DADE’s) to conduct Area of Operation 1 “Dispatch Exercise” Task A “Flight Planning” is not commonly found, however it does meet the requirements of the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (FAA

- S

- 8081

- 10A). The applicants are all given their Flight Planning Exercise at the same time. All applicants are required to remain in the testing room the entire time while being observed by one of the DADE’s. This portion of the examination is commonly conducted on a one on one basis by other desi gnees, however they are normally only working with one applicant at a time. In the environment that Sheffield is conducting this portion of the Dispatcher Practical, it is as secure and allows the designee the ability to test the specific areas in which kn owledge and skills must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate with more efficiency and less time consumption. The security2



### measures used to assure that each applicant does his own work are different exer cises for each applicant and the exercise is observed by the DADE.

I physically observed this graduating class of 9 applicants complete this portion of the examination on 07/10/2003. The briefing was conducted by one of the DADE’s Mr. Brett J. Bories. The briefing was very detailed and covered everything that the applicants required to be able to conduct the exercise. Applicants were given 2 hours and 10 minutes to complete the exercise. Each applicant had his own desk, materials, and no sharing or talking was permitted. This allowed the applicant ample room to work within a comfortable environmental. Out of the 9 applicants the first finished the exercise in 1 hour and 28 minutes and received a score of 93%. The last applicant to finish the exercise comple ted it in 2 hours and 10 minutes and received a score of 100%. The average time for all applicants was 1 hour and 55 minutes with an average score of 87%.

The remaining Areas of Operations requiring examination are conducted by oral questioning. Sheffield ’s DADE’s conduct the oral portion of the examination in two different formats. One of the formats is with the DADE conducting oral questioning on a one

- on

- one basis with an applicant, while the other format is with the DADE conducting oral questioning wit h 2 applicants at the same time. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the one

- on

one type oral were found to be acceptable and in accordance with normal practical test procedures and the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standard s. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the oral portion to 2 applicants at the same time were also found acceptable. The DADE’s were very effective in their questioning process and in directing specific questions to each applican t to assure that both applicants were questioned to an adequate level. The procedures and methods used were in accordance with the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards, 8700.1 Volume 2 Section 3 paragraph 5(B), and the 8710.3C Chapter 5 paragraph 1 9(C).

The oral portions of the examination averaged 2 hours and 30 minutes for a one

- on

- one type oral, and 3 hours and 50 minutes for an oral conducted with 2 applicants. With these times, and the times from the flight planning exercise, the average pra ctical examination time was 4 hours and 25 minutes for a one

- on

- one exam and 5 hours and 45 minutes for group testing.

To summarize, the DADE’s conducted all practical tests in accordance with regulations, the Practical Test Standards, and procedures foun d in FAA guidance. The DADE’s did not allow personal prejudices to interfere with objective evaluation of an applicant, and the oral portion of the practical test was conducted in a private area free from distractions. The DADE’s gave the applicants their undivided attention during the test and ensured that any discussion of test results with the applicants was done in private unless, by mutual agreement, a person other than the applicants were present.

William L. Bonatti

File: WP: Q: \ TYP ING \ UNIT3 \ Bonatti \ Sheffield.doc ASO

- FSDO

- 15:W Bonatti:WLB:(407) 812

- 7763:07/14/2003

# APPENDIX H

(Denial: Request for Relief from Requirements of Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 13-175)

(Denial: Request for Revision to Order 8900.1, Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 13-175)

RE: FAA Compliance with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1-177)

– not addressed correctly.

We asked for the FAA to comply with Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2, Par. 1- 177, it’s own “Standards of Professionalism for Flight Standards (AFS).” In the first paragraph in the denial letter that follows, Mr. Duncan states that I asked for relief from YOUR OWN ETHICS AND CONDUCT CODES. This indicates that major portions of our original requests in Appendices F & G were not even read or understood.

We are requesting an investigation into this matter.

# APPENDIX I

Practical exam schedule per Order 8900.1 policy (~60 hours and based on LESS test security)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com 

### January 22, 2010

To:

– ASI 2895 SW 145 Ave, Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

Date Submitted: January 22, 2010

In Compliance with CMO

- 29 request for exam TIMES for: [Jan

- Feb Aircraft Dispatcher Certification Courses: FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Examinations.]

Sheffield School of Aeronautics

– February 2010 Note

- FAA Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Examination Schedule/times

– below are the only dates/presumed block times that can be confirmed at this point due to all aforementioned rea sons stated in December 28, 2009 submission of test dates to your office.

Eric W. Morris

– 12 hours Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 10:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Satu rday, February 6, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories

– 12 hours Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 10:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Saturd ay, February 6, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Eric W. Morris

– 12 hours Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 1 0:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories

– 12 hours Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Flight Plan Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2 :30 pm

– Oral Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Flight Plan Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 6:30pm

– 9:30 pm

– Oral499 N.W. 70 th AVE.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com 

### Eric W. Morris

– 12 hours Monday, February 8, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Monday, Febr uary 8, 2010

– 10:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Monday, February 8, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Monday, February 8, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories

– 12 hours Monday, February 8, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Flight Plan Monday, February 8, 20 10

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral Monday, February 8, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Flight Plan Monday, February 8, 2010

– 6:30pm

– 9:30 pm

– Oral

Eric W. Morris

– 12 hours Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 10:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories

– 12 hours Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Flight Plan T uesday, February 9, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Flight Plan Tuesday, February 9, 2010

– 6:30pm

– 9:30 pm

– Oral

Eric W. Morris

– 12 hours Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 7:00

– 10:00 am

– Flight Plan Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 10:30am

– 1:30 pm

– Oral Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 2:00pm

– 5:00 pm

– Flight Plan Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 5:30pm

– 8:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories

– 12 hours Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Flight Plan Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Flight Plan Wednesday, February 10, 2010

– 6:30pm

– 9:30 pm

– Oral

Thank you for your attention in this matter. If there are any questions or concerns, please contact me as soon as possible. I will assume that you do not require this schedule to be mailed since it is printable.

Eric W. Morris

- President

- Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

# APPENDIX J

Practical exam schedule following Order 8900.1 policy if approved for simultaneous flight plan exercise (~33 hours-based with COMPLETE TEST SECURITY)499 N.W. 70 th AV E.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com 

### How these 5 days SHOULD be conducted to avoid fatigue, be time efficient, enable complete flight plan test security, and remain in the public interest of individuals and airlines. This maintains the 2 full exams per day limit requirement, but permits th e flight plan to be given at one time, with different versions in a 100% controlled secure testing environment.

Sheffield School of Aeronautics

– February 2010

Eric W. Morris & Brett J. Bories

– 9 hours Saturday, Feb ruary 6, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Flight Plan

Eric W. Morris Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bories Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 11 :30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral Saturday, February 6, 2010

– 3:00pm

– 6:00 pm

– Oral

Eric W. Morris

– 6 hours Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Oral Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral

Brett J. Bor ies

– 6 hours Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 8:00

– 11:00 am

– Oral Sunday, February 7, 2010

– 11:30am

– 2:30 pm

– Oral

Etc....

For approximately ~33 hours over 5 days would be required to examine 20 students, instead of 60 hours in the same period. Remember, these times EXCLUDE retests, and assumes both DADES will be available, and will not rely on the local office for assistance.

Eric W. Morris

- President

- Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

# APPENDIX K

Findings from Special Inspection of Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School – July 14, 2003

William L. Bonatti Aviation Safety Inspector

# Memorandum

Orlando Flight Standards District Office 5950 Hazeltine National Drive Citadel International, Suite 500 Orlando, Florida 32822



### Subject: INFORMATION : Findings from Special Inspection of Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School Date: July 14, 2003

From: Aviation Safety Inspector Reply to Attn. of: William L. Bonatti: (407) 812

- 7763 FAX: (40 7) 812

- 7710

To: Theodore A. Perry, AFS

- 200 THRU: Dawn Veatch, ASO

- 201

This memo outlines the inspection that was conducted, per your request, at the Sheffield School of Aeronautics 14 CFR Part 65 Aircraft Dispatcher School.

The Inspection started o n 07/09/2003 with a briefing with Mr. Eric W. Morris, President, and Mr. Ronald L. Morris Owner of Sheffield School of Aeronautics. In this briefing I informed them that I was conducting a special inspection of their facilities, program, training materials , and Practical Examination procedures. During this briefing Mr. Eric Morris gave me a full briefing as to the policies and procedure used by the school in conducting training, testing, and the Practical Examinations conducted. I was also given a copy of a ll the course materials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations for my review. At the completion of the briefing I was given a tour of the training facilities, which were found to be in compliance with 14 CFR Part 65.65.

A review of the course mater ials, handouts, exercises, and course examinations showed that the school has spent a lot of time and effort to prepare affective and efficient training and testing materials. The course materials used are current and up to date with the industry, and far exceed the needs of the course. In many cases Sheffield School of Aeronautics have produced materials that the student can use throughout their industry employment.

The Procedures used by Sheffield School of Aeronautics and the Designated Aircraft Dispatc h Examiners (DADE’s) to conduct Area of Operation 1 “Dispatch Exercise” Task A “Flight Planning” is not commonly found, however it does meet the requirements of the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (FAA

- S

- 8081

- 10A). The applicants are all given their Flight Planning Exercise at the same time. All applicants are required to remain in the testing room the entire time while being observed by one of the DADE’s. This portion of the examination is commonly conducted on a one on one basis by other desi gnees, however they are normally only working with one applicant at a time. In the environment that Sheffield is conducting this portion of the Dispatcher Practical, it is as secure and allows the designee the ability to test the specific areas in which kn owledge and skills must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate with more efficiency and less time consumption. The security2



### measures used to assure that each applicant does his own work are different exer cises for each applicant and the exercise is observed by the DADE.

I physically observed this graduating class of 9 applicants complete this portion of the examination on 07/10/2003. The briefing was conducted by one of the DADE’s Mr. Brett J. Bories. The briefing was very detailed and covered everything that the applicants required to be able to conduct the exercise. Applicants were given 2 hours and 10 minutes to complete the exercise. Each applicant had his own desk, materials, and no sharing or talking was permitted. This allowed the applicant ample room to work within a comfortable environmental. Out of the 9 applicants the first finished the exercise in 1 hour and 28 minutes and received a score of 93%. The last applicant to finish the exercise comple ted it in 2 hours and 10 minutes and received a score of 100%. The average time for all applicants was 1 hour and 55 minutes with an average score of 87%.

The remaining Areas of Operations requiring examination are conducted by oral questioning. Sheffield ’s DADE’s conduct the oral portion of the examination in two different formats. One of the formats is with the DADE conducting oral questioning on a one

- on

- one basis with an applicant, while the other format is with the DADE conducting oral questioning wit h 2 applicants at the same time. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the one

- on

one type oral were found to be acceptable and in accordance with normal practical test procedures and the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standard s. The methods and procedures used by the DADE’s while conducting the oral portion to 2 applicants at the same time were also found acceptable. The DADE’s were very effective in their questioning process and in directing specific questions to each applican t to assure that both applicants were questioned to an adequate level. The procedures and methods used were in accordance with the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards, 8700.1 Volume 2 Section 3 paragraph 5(B), and the 8710.3C Chapter 5 paragraph 1 9(C).

The oral portions of the examination averaged 2 hours and 30 minutes for a one

- on

- one type oral, and 3 hours and 50 minutes for an oral conducted with 2 applicants. With these times, and the times from the flight planning exercise, the average pra ctical examination time was 4 hours and 25 minutes for a one

- on

- one exam and 5 hours and 45 minutes for group testing.

To summarize, the DADE’s conducted all practical tests in accordance with regulations, the Practical Test Standards, and procedures foun d in FAA guidance. The DADE’s did not allow personal prejudices to interfere with objective evaluation of an applicant, and the oral portion of the practical test was conducted in a private area free from distractions. The DADE’s gave the applicants their undivided attention during the test and ensured that any discussion of test results with the applicants was done in private unless, by mutual agreement, a person other than the applicants were present.

William L. Bonatti

File: WP: Q: \ TYP ING \ UNIT3 \ Bonatti \ Sheffield.doc ASO

- FSDO

- 15:W Bonatti:WLB:(407) 812

- 7763:07/14/2003

# APPENDIX L

Staggered exams request – to prevent FATIGUE499 N.W. 70 th AVE.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com 

### January 7, 2010

To: Federal Aviation Administration Certificate Management Office

- 29 Attn. ASI 2895 SW 145 Avenue, Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

Mr.

Request Due to the recent denial of our request to continue conducting simulta neous FAA practical examinations as approved by the FAA for the past 3+ decades, as per the relatively new Order 8900.1, we are now kindly requesting the approval by our assigned FAA Specialist, to allow the DADEs of Sheffield School (Eric Mo rris and Brett Bories) the flexibility of “staggered” practical examinations per Order 8900.1 Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13

- 175c and Order 8900.1 Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 4, Paragraph 13

- 223

- (General note). We would not plan “staggerin g” of examinations during any FAA observation time unless authorized to do so.

Background Sheffield School has historically had such a large quantity of students and graduates that we have, at any one time, had anywhere from 2

- 4 DADEs prepared to cover al l FAA Aircraft Dispatcher practical examinations. The Sheffield School historical records within your office will verify that statement.

The FAA Aircraft dispatcher practical exam consists of two portions or phases

- the flight plan exercise and oral port ion. Since we have demonstrable proof of larger than typical class sizes, including the current class enrollment of 21 students, we will require many consecutive days of testing. We plan to conduct the practical exams based on newly enforced policy using t he two DADEs for as long as 4

- 8 consecutive days. If one of the DADEs becomes unavailable, the possible exam days double without assistance.

The flight plan portion could conceivably take 3 hours for an applicant to complete as it is based on manual plann ing. The oral portion usually takes anywhere from 2

- 4 hours, and as stated in Order 8900.1, there is no mandatory maximum time limit, only a suggested cumulative limit of 6 hours. Since short breaks may be required periodically for human functions along wi th the

non
- predictable average pause length between questions and answers, one single applicant may take as long as 6

- 7 hours for a FULL practical. Since we now should document the correctness of EVERY question per one recommendation within Order 8900.1, t his will add time to the oral portion. Since we are only allowed 2 full practical exams per day and have received no flexibility from AFS

- 200, AFS

- 220, or CMO

- 29, to conduct more exams per day, we need many consecutive days of exams. Since we cannot limit ourselves to only one exam per day and keep graduates around for over 2 weeks, we are in a potential position to need to conduct two499 N.W. 70 th AVE.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com practical exams per examiner, per day, for conceivably 12

- 14 hours per day for 4

- 8 consecutive days in order to serve the p ublic interest and airline employee scheduling requirements. Staggering exams would help alleviate this problem.

To conduct 2 non

- staggered practical exams per day may extend our working day to over 12 hours. We consider this a fatigue issue. As evidenced in a variety of FAR duty

- time limitations, fatigue appears to be a regulatory concern after 8

- 10 consecutive hours of duty or work; by not allowing us the opportunity and flexibility to stagger our practical examinations we would conceivably be exceeding the duty time limitations of a working Part 121 aircraft dispatcher. To avoid having a 10

- 14 hour day for a string of 4

- 8 days, we kindly ask for approval to permit a “staggering” of practical exams per wording in the aforementioned Order 8900.1 paragraphs . This should not be considered as an exemption request from National Policy. The FAA Specialist assigned to us has the ability, per current policy, to approve this request. We can locate no policy prohibiting the FAA Specialist from making an informed dec ision. If there is such a policy, please let us know so that we can forward/copy all requests directly with AFS

- 200, and possibly AFS

- 1 from now on.

Other complicating factors without “staggering” authorized : Many students depart in the late afternoon, es pecially the high percentage of European students enrolled at Sheffield

– they will not be able to be scheduled for the 2 nd test of the day since they cannot complete the exam by their departure time. This leaves them only able to take the exam in the earl y AM. If most flights are scheduled this way, and we have no control over how individuals or airlines schedule their flights even with specific warnings from us regarding exam delays, this could in fact double the days needed to accomplish this task withou t the ability to stagger and complete the 2 nd full practical of the day before late evening to midnight.

Assigning additional DADEs to perform these duties outside of their normal hours of employment is counterproductive to their own fatigue issues based on the referenced duty time limitations in FAR 121.465 or any other related duty time limitations within the regulations. Although conducting practical examinations may not count toward their company’s duty time limitations, repeated days of 10

- hour shifts plus 6

- 7 hour practical exam sessions will render those dispatchers fatigued while on duty.

Using outside DADEs is not a viable option since they are to be located, trained, authorized, be familiar with our aircraft used, and be properly overseen outside their district, all by early February

– when our first 2010 practical exams commence. They would also need to be available outside of normal business hours and during weekends and holidays.499 N.W. 70 th AVE.

– STE.110

– PLANTATION,FL 33317

- 7572

– (954) 581

- 6022

– FAX: (954) 584

- 8980

– www.sheffield.com Conclusion Approval of this request may prevent the local Dis trict Offices from having to relieve Sheffield DADEs due to fatigue. If this request is denied, please state clearly the reasons for the denial, as this is NOT a request to deviate from National policy based on the wording of Order 8900.1.

If any instruct or resigns or is terminated from employment, Mr. Bories shall become the instructor, leaving a single DADE to handle and process 15

- 30 graduates at a time; therefore, if this scenario arises, a “staggering” allowance would greatly assist

us.

As your recor ds must show, Sheffield School has had 5 DADEs over the past 34 years. For approximately 2 years, we used and needed 4 DADEs at the same time. For a 6

- year period, we were approved and utilized 3 DADEs. For the past 5 years, we’ve reduced the number of DAD Es to 2 due to retirement, DADE resignation, and death. We believe that since we have had our previously FAA

- approved method of flexible operation greatly restricted due to policy change and denial of rewrite or exemption, it is a reasonable request to ask for “staggering” of exams. To reduce a 10

- 14 hour workday to 6

- 9 hours and/or reduce the total number of consecutive days of exams by one over a week’s period is more than reasonable, safe, and in the public interest.

This request is based on policy chec ked online via FSIMS and current as of January 4, 2010.

Thank you for your time and understanding.

Eric W. Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

Brett J. Bories Assistant Director of Trai ning Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)Appendix M-1 

### Appendix M – ASI statements

RE: CMO-29 office, ASI

We feel that Mr. is either unqualified for this task or is trying to be difficult, or both. We are seeking that this matter be resolved so that Sheffield School of Aeronautics, established in 1948, without a blemish on it’s record, can continue to work harmoniously with the FAA and proceed forward. We suggest assigning an ASI/FAA Specialist to myself and Brett Bories, as DADE oversight, and to Sheffield School as a school inspector, who is both capable and competent, and has the time to assist us effectively and efficiently. We have NEVER had oversight issues, apparent conflicts, and lack of timely assistance from any inspectors, until recently.

Likely rebuttal: “Sheffield and others are finally getting true oversight.”

Our counter argument to this supposedly “better oversight” is below:

Oversight questions: We were handed a letter from the CMO-29 office indicating ASI was the FAA Specialist assigned to Mr. Bories and Eric Morris, as DADEs; however, school certificate/oversight contact or official statement was missing.

Part 65 schools online indicate of FSDO-19 as our school inspector. Mr. denied being our school inspector in an email and stated he was told we should have been under CMO-29 all along.

(located in CMO-29 building or FSDO-19) on phone – “Why are CMO-29 watching you? They are air carrier – that’s why I was removed from you.”

statements: 1st meeting (Oct 2009): “I have been assigned to you.” “I did not request this assignment.” “I am busy overseeing twenty-one Part 121 air carriers.” [By a December 23, 2009 meeting, it reduced to “4 air carriers.” [The word “I” was always used.]

“I am willing to learn from you, I have no expertise.”

“I am not your FAA Specialist” followed by “I am your FAA specialist” within 30-45 seconds. All within 30 minutes after handing me a October 26, 2009 dated letter from CMO-29 office stating that “ is now the assigned FAA Specialist maintaining oversight of your designated examiner appointment.”

“I’m not your POI.” to Brett Bories and Eric Morris after inquiring about school oversight, followed shortly thereafter by “I am your POI” to my instructor in the classroom.

Mr. did not understand the difference between an Airmen report and practical examination requirements - he claimed that the ADX Knowledge test is part of practical exam and asked why the ADX report did not state “take 2” on a FAA practical exam retake – this validates Mr. inexperience and /or training.Appendix M-2 “For exam retests, just email me – if I can get to it or not (oversight) – fine.” [nothing wrong – just documenting for the record to prepare for a change of position or denial of statement.]

“Can send paperwork after 7 days if coordinated with me.” [nothing wrong – just documenting for the record to prepare for a change of position or denial of statement.]

Initial TCO requests were – “just send differences for shorter classes, not entire thing.” This evolved into sending “full TCOs”, edits, more edits, and now provisional acceptances with delays for final approvals. We have not heard of any progress on these TCO approvals since January 5, 2010, which were edited EXACTLY as directed (multiple times). We were granted a “temporary approval” until further reviewed. Delay tactic now at 8 weeks without any further communication or guidance.

“Ted Perry and associated group likely authored current 8900.1”, which is huge conflict of interest, as indicated elsewhere in this report.

Statements to Brett Bories on phone in early December 2009: “How was course credit granted if no short course TCO?” We replied with all inspectors have been ok with it , and approved everything . Additionally, FAR Parts 65.61d and 65.57 are wide open and AUTHORIZE credit.

“How can you advertise 200 hours if now only 5-weeks?” After having our advertising information and access to our web site, we had to explain yet again how we instruct longer days resulting in the same 200-hour requirement being met, etc.. Statement (tone) was accusatory and not appreciated.

Dec 8 meeting: “Long-time DADEs were consulted for the rewrite of 8900.1.” [not me (over 850 exams), not Ron Morris (over 2500 exams), not Leon Jansen (over 500 exams), or Brett Bories (over 300 exams).] If this statement is not true, then ethics standards have been violated; if true, then this must be viewed as vendetta action from higher offices. One other long-time DADE in Kentucky was also not consulted, as verbally told to me about 2 weeks ago.

Following 3 statements are typical of the ever-changing story: “Acting Manager only replies by certified mail or return receipt requested.” – then:

“ resigned” after I mentioned that he refuses to email a quick reply to me, regarding receipt of mail sent to him from my office.

“Just found out today that he resigned” after I mentioned that “he’s resigning” and “answering only via certified mail” are 2 different things.”

TCO change of directives: Par. #13 – 2-3x – Mr. confirmed MULTIPLE (3) TIMES that adding “previous experience along with FAR 65.61d” would suffice, then changed story via email requesting details of how we credit per FAR 65.57, which was never discussed in terms of credit amounts.

Office requests everything in writing “for accounting purposes” now after I asked “can the CMO-29 office print an email pdf attachment?” Story then morphed intoAppendix M-3 “office can’t print the color logo on your letterhead because we only have a black and white printer.”

“The NTSB info is missing from TCO” = wrong, it was there.

From Dec. 8: – Mr. claimed TCO errors with classroom information when he was missing a page – all were emailed and mailed. Wrong again.

- “did you receive the denial (to our petition for 8900.1 relief) letter from AFS-200?” then looked for a copy in his notebook, but claimed he did not know what was in the letter. He stated that it will be our decision on how to proceed – he implied we have to submit a reply to the letter. All the while denying what he knew about the letter. Brett Bories and I are still confused to this day.

– “(an off-the record comment reserved for later, if needed)” after discussing ownership and exam policy.

– veiled threats – “if you continue swimming against the flow, you will drown.” He said we shouldn’t contact AFS-1, regarding various matters.

– Accused us for errors we did not make on certification paperwork: Hana Yoo – graduate who failed practical on initial take, then passed retest - see below:

During the visit by Dispatch ASI on Tuesday, December 8, 2009

The following communication occurred: At 4:40pm, Mr. brought up a note from the paperwork for the retest of administered by Eric Morris. First, he suggested that there could not be a retest within 30 days unless the applicant had received additional instruction. However, Mr. , our instructor, had signed that additional instruction had been provided. Also, he told Eric that “he’d let it go this time,” but that “the remarks of Form 8400-3 should indicate, for retests, which topics had been retested.” In retrospect, this guidance from Mr. was incorrect. The portion of Order 8900.1 that deals with retests is Volume 13, Para 13-232 does not stipulate that each retested element be stated in the remarks; nor does it state that for original applicants. The only requirement is for the examiner or inspector to indicate “S” or “U” for satisfactory or unsatisfactory, and to explain any elements found to be UNsatisfactory. Also, the only requirement for retraining or tutoring is for a “certificated dispatcher” – not necessarily an instructor – to certify in the appropriate space on the form. That had been done. And, there is NO requirement in Order 8900.1 or the PTS for a waiting period of any amount, and certainly not 30 days. That may be true of the ADX test, but not the practical test. Therefore, Mr. accused Eric Morris of having committed an error on the paperwork, when no such error had been committed. This once again speaks to our growing concern that Mr. by his own admission , lacks the expertise to perform the functions for which he’s been assigned.

At an earlier meeting, Mr. stated that due to Ms. Yoo’s practical exam retake requirement, there should have been a “Take #2” on her FAA ADX Airmen test report. Incorrect – we explained to him that the ADX is a prerequisite toward FAA AD certification, but it is NOT a part of the FAA AD practical examination.Appendix M-4 TCO change of position timeline: December 8 meeting: requests edit of item #13. I verbally state “can I simply include a reference to FAR Part 65.61d – is that ok?” He verbally confirms “yes” 2-3 times even after I asked “to confirm now, this is all you require?” However,

December 10 email of #13 draft was sent to him with agreed-upon amendments. He replied to email requesting that we need to elaborate, which was never said to me. He also quoted an Order 8900.1 paragraph referring to experience requirements for a practical, not the course credit as we agreed upon. I asked if these changes are what he truly wants now for the 5-week TCO even though I stated numerous times that it does not apply to a full-time residency course, but will gladly add it if he confirms to me. No reply to my Dec 10, 7:07pm email.

Dec 15 email him at 1:23pm – with other issue and that “I’m ready to send all TCOs once you let me know if you truly want me to add the FAR Part 65.57 clause.” – no reply.

Dec 17, left phone message 10:17am kindly asking for an answer to TCO questions and will follow-up with email. No return call or email.

Emailed same on Dec 17 at 10:29am – no reply since then. Also, mentioned that I will assume that if you require anything else of me or Sheffield School that he would inform us. – no reply.

Earlier requests that were unanswered via email were at least returned with an “out of office” reply. None of the above transmissions resulted in such a reply nor did Mr. frontline manager feel a need to assist me even though he was cc’d on all of the above.

This is not assisting customers in a timely or professional manner per the ethics or conduct codes within the Order 8900.1.

My prediction: the TCOs will suddenly contain more problems that were not previously there or discussed, including on December 23, 2009.

Respectfully, I will not tolerate this any longer. After 62 years, with no inspection or inspector problems, and an unparalleled reputation in the aviation training industry, I refuse to accept this treatment as the new standard, regardless of new inspector assignments or inexperience or whatever lame reason the guilty feel they must provide. Also, anything verbally said or written about me or Sheffield School should be confirmed with me before action or inaction is taken.

More nonsense occurred on November 9, 2009 when Mr. decided to visit our classroom during a test (see Appendix O ). Appendix N details a January 29, 2010 telephone call, and Appendix Q is yet another example of what I’ve endured for the past 4 months.

Again, I appreciate your assistance in this matter.

Eric Morris – President - Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-1 

### Appendix N

Below was drafted for the local Certificate Management Office (CMO29), but my advisors suggested that it would be useless, and recommended I send in to a higher office.

E.M.-Sheffield School (est. 1948)

--------------------- January 29, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Certificate Management Office - 29 2895 SW 145 Avenue, Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

To: CMO-29; [

I am still trying to figure out if only one local inspector is trying to be overly difficult with my certification school and me as a DADE or if it stems from the entire office, or if it is coming from AFS-200/220. You’re welcome to let me know or I’ll figure it out soon. I simply am having a difficult time adjusting to the inconsistency of customer service, which has ranged from good to adequate to nit-picky to nil. Below is what I can recall from my telephone conversation today with Mr.

Report: telephone conversation January 29, 2010; approx. 10:30-11:30am between and Eric Morris.

Apparently Mr. and/or your office appear upset that I have asked sincere questions, and sought assistance from others when not assisted by you.

Recent email and “staggered” exams request Mr. called my office on Friday, January 29, 2010 regarding the following email sent today from me to him and cc’d to his managers:

“Unless otherwise informed directly by your office, I will assume that you have all required paperwork from Sheffield School of Aeronautics, including all additional requests, and are seeking “hard copies” of nothing else for the time being.”

To preclude the “We never received this or that” statements in the future, we posed the question above. It was also to prompt SOME TYPE OF RESPONSE to my “staggered exams” request per Order 8900.1 since we had not received a response or acknowledgement even though it was requested via email and mail.

When asked what I meant by “other requests,” I told Mr. of the “staggered exam” request sent via email to your office on January 11, 2010 at 10:27am, and subsequently mailed later the same day by 2:30 pm. The email request was addressed to Mr. Mr. and Mr. The only email response received was from Mr. on the same day acknowledging that the CMO-29Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-2 office has a limited number of inspectors who can assist me. He included a list of DADEs, which I noted in an email on January 7, 2010, was not needed. No reference was made to the “staggered exams” request.

Mr. said that the request was answered and “mailed about a week ago.” I told him that I have not received it and when asked what the answer was, he replied the answer was “no” – that my request was denied. When asked for reasons, he quoted a December 16 2009 email from AFS-220 and the mailed denial of ourrequest for relief from Order 8900.1 Vol. 13, Ch3 Section 2, par. 13-175c, from AFS200. So I was possibly “mailed a denial by CMO-29 about a week ago” or I was not, but the December 16 denial supposedly answered my post-December 16, 2009 request anyway, depending on which version, from Mr. I should believe. To be clear – the paragraph from Order 8900.1 reads:

C. Test more than one simultaneous applicant. Conduct any portion of the practical test with more than one applicant at the same time. The option to “stagger” the tests.... is allowed only if approved by the specialist.

Mr. Duncan of AFS-200 graciously cut and pasted that paragraph with others in his denial letter to me on December 16, 2009. To be as clear I can possibly be, there are 2 sentences in the above paragraph that follow the title. We were asking to be able to conduct our flight plans simultaneously, and hopefully other portions of the practical, if needed. The 2 nd sentence includes an allowance by a non-AFS200/220 person within the CMO-29 office. The “stagger” option will be allowed only if approved by the specialist. The FAA Specialist works within the CMO-29.

My request for “staggering” was made on January 4, 2010, clearly AFTER December 16, 2009; therefore, it is obvious that I’m asking my FAA specialist to approve “staggering” exams, if needed, to relieve our workload due to large classes. I did not receive a reply from your office approving or denying this request. It was either mailed to me “about a week ago”, which has not arrived as of today, or there was noletter. But it appears that everyone is considering the December 16 denial from AFS200 to be a blanket denial with nobody willing to inform me unless continually prompted , as in today’s email. Mr. eventually claimed that he assumed that I accepted the December 16 denial since I sent a schedule of non-staggered exams – wrong assumption

. How can I send your office a schedule, including staggered exams, WITHOUT APPROVAL? I sent the “non-staggered” schedule out of courtesy assuming your office was still deciding whether to grant approval or not. So I’m unsure what the actual story is at this point. If your office claims that staggering exams will be deleted in the future, fine. Common courtesy would have been to inform me, instead of having me wait or have me assume that AFS-200 denied ALL of the PARAGRAPH ABOVE. If the latter is true, that AFS-200’s denial includes barring the FAA Specialist from approving his own locally overseen DADEs, THEN AFS-200 IS NOW the FAA SPECIALIST for Mr. Bories and myself, or AFS-200 has overstepped it’s bounds . They obviously, are not the Specialist overseeing me and Mr. Bories as DADEs. is my specialist as a DADE, not only for my school. THESE ARE ALL DADE-BASED QUESTIONS. Mr. continues to believe that I cannot distinguish between an FAA specialist for a DADE versus an FAA Specialist for a school, even though HE is the person who handed me a letter dated October 26, 2009 stating “Inspector is now the assigned FAASheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-3 Specialist maintaining oversight of your designated examiner appointment.” However, when questioned about FAA Specialist approval authority FOR DADES on the same day, he replied that “I’m not the Specialist” followed by “I am the specialist”, which may have been reversed yet more than once – we cannot remember the number of answer reversals. This is now irrelevant since he is now BOTH a Specialist for both DADEs and Sheffield School; however, not knowing if and when to exercise authority as an FAA specialist to assist a school and/or its assigned DADEs who are leveraging his workload is disturbing to me.

I realize that I am being restricted by Order 8900.1 policy as a DADE since the DADE has the exam restrictions, NOT THE SCHOOL. After giving over 840 exams, I know the rules and I know how to read. I also know how to serve the public interest and leverage FAA workload. The most recent schedule is a testament as to the number of DAYS I’m saving the local FAA office. All I request is a bit more coordination and cooperation.

So I will assume that Mr. of CMO-29 does not want to allow myself and Mr. Bories as DADEs to stagger exams because AFS-200 or 220 or both told him so, and that eventually rules to that effect will eliminate the possible “FAA specialist approvals” entirely. If so, please send me the denial (with reasons) from your office in writing for my record keeping, stating which office has specifically denied my “staggered exams” request, as an acting DADE, of January 11, 2010. Since you require a hard copy, which your office apparently did not receive, although it was mailed, I suggest that you open my previously emailed attachment of a pdf file on letterhead and print it, since mail delivery may or may not work and this entire process has been delayed unnecessarily. Then feel free to send me the official denial from CMO-29 in writing upon receipt of my request. If the denial is in any way based on AFS-200 or AFS-220 feedback, I assume that you will include those statements as well.

Mr. also mentioned that there would be NPRM on these future Order 8900.1 policy changes possibly in early 2010. I replied “how, if it is policy and not regulatory, especially since this past Order 8900.1 rewrite was behind closed doors without any NPRM?” Mr. confirmed so or replied “yes” or words to that effect. Note: 8900.1 was also written without the assistance of Sheffield’s long-time DADEs, although Mr. mentioned that “long-time DADEs were consulted in the 8900.1 changes” to Mr. Bories and myself in a 2009 meeting. I would like to contribute very much to any NPRM, assuming it will exist.

I am unaware of any NP P M, Notice of Proposed Policy Making.

Using outside DADEs I was told that I must use outside DADEs before attempting to enlist others to apply for a DADE position with your office. I mentioned that using outside DADEs may be possible, but there cannot be any conflict of interest due to other DADEs being past or present competitors of Sheffield School. They also must be reliable and be well versed in the airplane used by the graduating students of Sheffield School.Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-4 I asked Mr. if outside DADEs were to supply school feedback to inspectors. He claimed “no, to give exams and certify” or words to that effect. I pointed out that Order 8900.1 calls for the inspector to train new DADEs in how to provide school feedback – he then agreed that is true or said “that’s right/correct” or words to that effect. In addition to yet another answer switch, I pointed out that this “feedback training” issue conflicts with FAR Part 183. This contradiction is obviously one of my concerns - ignorance is another.

Hopefully, outside DADEs used by Sheffield School will be dependable, available (including complete weekends and most holidays), objective, knowledgeable, periodically overseen, and charge a reasonable exam fee, and work in harmony with myself and Mr. Bories. If all 7 points cannot be accommodated, (example – “I’m not doing long flight plans or 2 exams per day”, “I don’t work weekends” etc..), then we shall have a problem; I will then kindly ask that your office seek more DADEs or kindly recommend that your office be prepared to provide exams, as designated by the Southern Regional office. Are these outside DADEs willing to produce a 3-hour flight plan with a 2-3 hour oral in the interest of fairness and uniformity among ALL Sheffield graduates, using different DADEs? I cannot have graduates complaining of unequal quality or disparate treatment having to wait for his/her exam because ‘Johnny DADE’ is in Europe for a week or won’t do weekends. I mentioned that I’m willing to try to work with outside DADEs, but NOBODY aside from us is used to conducting the quantity of exams that Sheffield School alone requires.

Mr. did mention that due to varying experience, some exams may not last the full 3 hours per portion. True – it’s also wishful thinking. The FAA prerequisites for the course are basic: know English, be at least 21, and have a pulse. The only advantage for a student to finishing his/her flight plan early is that more time is now allowed for “discussion” of it to the next group. Something easily avoided if ANY office within the FAA would be willing to admit it and do something about it.

The bad news is that according to Mr. my “complaining about five 12-hour days would be a problem”; if that is standard policy, then any outside DADE with similar complaints would also have “a problem” with the FAA. I am willing to do the work – are others? 12-hours for 5-10+ consecutive days is simply ludicrous when a simple logical waiver to allow simultaneous flight plans in a 100% secure environment using different flight plans between adjacent applicants is permitted, thus cutting a DADE’s daily workload under 10 hours. This has already been proven effective for the past 34 years, and previously approved by Flight Standards, yet for some odd reason, most levels within the FAA, now prefer lower test security per new policy, and nobody seems to care or actively comment onthis problem, other than me. A reply from anyone within the FAA citing that oralbased questions pertaining to the flight plan, (no-go items, etc..), cannot be achieved in this type of test setting is incorrect. My reply: oral-based questions regarding the flight plan exercise can be asked during the....ORAL portion of the practical exam.

Special Inspection – July 14, 2003 ASI – Bonatti The Procedures used by Sheffield School of Aeronautics and the Designated Aircraft Dispatch Examiners (DADE’s) to conduct Area of Operation 1 “Dispatch Exercise” Task A “Flight Planning” is not commonly found, however it does meet the requirements of the Aircraft Dispatcher Practical Test Standards (FAA-S-8081-10A). The applicants are all given their Flight Planning Exercise at the same time. All applicants are required toSheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-5 remain in the testing room the entire time while being observed by one of the DADE’s. This portion of the examination is commonly conducted on a one on one basis by other designees, however they are normally only working with one applicant at a time. In the environment that Sheffield is conducting this portion of the Dispatcher Practical, it is as secure and allows the designee the ability to test the specific areas in which knowledge and skills must be demonstrated by the applicant before the issuance of an Aircraft Dispatcher Certificate with more efficiency and less time consumption . The security measures used to assure that each applicant does his own work are different exercises for each applicant and the exercise is observed by the DADE.

The good news is Mr. claimed to already have his 3 exam scenarios; therefore, he can step in whenever outside DADEs fail to assist us for five to ten 10- 12 hour days – hopefully, the scenarios will eventually match our airplane’s runway analysis and performance. I am willing to assist those who need it with materials. Also, any FAA office providing exams when outside DADEs are unable to, or illegal to (FAR 65.57 applicants), is in the public interest due to the lack of test fees required, to the best of my knowledge. This backup plan will also help in case an instructor, or any DADE, including myself and Mr. Bories, becomes ill, serves jury duty, etc..

I highly recommend hiring and training at least one outside DADE as a backup plan – this was mentioned to Mr. but he prefers that I depend only on current DADEs. Once again for the record, Sheffield has large classes, even during a recession. Thinking of the future recovery, our history, and new restricting Order 8900.1 policy - one day, there will be a problem with our DADEs or other current DADEs and we will need assistance. I’m sure you have other things to do rather than sit with an applicant for 2-3 hours, twice, then process his paperwork, and possibly repeat this sequence multiple times. A newly appointed and well-trained outside DADE or two (preferred), in addition to those already designated, will alleviate this issue. Naturally, I expect this to be met with “we don’t have time”, “we don’t have money”, “we don’t have resources.”

Prepare ahead of time for large classes Mr. told me to prepare ahead for large classes for scheduling purposes. I replied that we have done so, and have emailed classes ahead of time to plan on many extra days due to new restricting FAA policy. My concern for airlines requiring up to 2 weeks to receive exams in large classes was met with “it is their problem” by Mr. He stated that I “want to have my cake and eat it too.”

[Actually, I simply prefer not to provide poor customer service. It is a bit analogous to the FAA over-restricting the same people who leverage their workload. If DADEs quit, as one recently did in Arizona, do inspectors actually believe they do not have to solicit for, interview, and train new DADEs or be prepared to conduct practical exams themselves AND process the certification paperwork? So if a DADE quits 3 days before exams are scheduled to begin, will an FAA inspector, authorized and designated to conduct FAA AD practical exams do so, or simply tell the airlines and individuals to wait – “it is your problem.” BAD POLICY. BAD IN THE PUBLIC’S EYE. BAD FOR SMALL BUSINESS. ]

I will therefore assume that this the policy of CMO-29 - to not seek appeal to higher offices when obviously there exists a policy problem. My new understanding, is that my job is to notify you officially in writing. You are THEN able to OFFICIALLY deny assistance/relief/waivers for my request due to policy, and/or if required, send mySheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-6 requests up to AFS-200/220 for them to deny everything without answering or stating specific reasons. It used to be different over the past 40 years for my father and myself – that’s why it has taken me a while to figure this out.

Apparent threat following question I posed the following scenario, which may develop. What would happen if a group of 20 Asian students arrive, met FAR Part 65.57 experience requirements with supervisor letters, have passed the ADX exam, and request a practical exam without passing a 200-hour approved course? Mr. quoted or referred to FAR 65.57 and the experience time required, and that we have limitations with our TCO regarding credit granted. I realize this – after 62 years, we understand this. This is a regulation that I did not write, which involves policy in Order 8900.1 that I also did not write. It appeared to me that Mr. took this to be me trying to get away with something - he appeared to feel the need to emphasize that he will check our files for credit letters, etc.. and mentioned that all must be in order or DADE authority may be removed , he gave me the impression that he believes I’m trying to be sneaky – he missed my point. The intention of my question was to forewarn your office that these people cannot be examined by DADEs per your policy - it was not to be threatened by an FAA inspector. It would be completely out of my hands – who would check their background? YOU. Who would be required to conduct the practical exam? YOU. Order 8900.1 now PROHIBITS me and any other DADE from doing so. He was informed that I was not pleased with that implication. He mentioned that the applicants would have to make an appointment/arrangement and it “may take 3 months.” I replied that I understood. He also mentioned that if students have to wait 2-3 weeks for exams, or have visa issues “that is their problem.” I will assume that CMO-29 feels this is an example of working with the public harmoniously. To assist the FAA, I’d recommend coordinating or researching student visa and non-student visa time limitations and fees with the Department of State – a 3-month delay coupled with additional transportation and new visa costs are NOT in the public interest.

The scenario was based on an actual offer I sent to an airline for possible arrival here for training in 2010, hence the question. The plan is to pass the Part 65 course and examine them without requesting any local FAA assistance, as usual. I’m trying to assist your office, but I will not lie to qualified applicants who meet FAR 65.57 and want an exam in less than a week or two, and if it is their intention to be examined, I have no right to blockade them – all I can do is send them to your office for YOU to evaluate their experience, check their Airmen report, administer the exam, and complete their paperwork. Again, I did not write your policy banning DADEs from examining applicants who meet experience requirements in this manner alone. I am not being difficult in recommending that you have your scenarios prepared – I cannot conduct their exams because I am not allowed to.

To ask a legitimate question based on a recent offer sent to an airline with over 20 experienced students, who plan to arrive later this year, then have it twisted into a threat is abuse and harassment . What are my options? To NOT ask questions to avoid threats, but have 20+ people contact your office without warning. Do I forewarn the FAA to assist them for planning purposes? Apparently, this school operator and DADE loses either way. Very unfortunate.Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-7 Simultaneous flight planning I mentioned to Mr. that I would continue to push at any level required for the allowance of group testing of flight planning because of the test security lost if conducted separately. I clearly pointed out that after giving 1-2 flight plans, then followed by 1-2 more pairs, that the entire class now had the ability to communicate vital points. This was mentioned in earlier meetings with Mr. as well. It is beyond my comprehension that Mr. or others within your office are upset that I seek answers outside of your office when I cannot get anyone within YOUR office to approve certain clauses solely as the acting Specialist per Order 8900.1, whether the policy is flawed, going to change, etc.. The policy was written and your office along with AFS-200 and AFS-220 chose not to allow its application. I have received NOTHING in writing explaining these reasons for avoiding my requests.

I also explained EXACTLY how students would have the ability to discuss all flight plans since everyone will be taking them at different times. I believe Mr. then quoted that I require 3 scenarios as a DADE and Mr. Bories requires 3 different scenarios. I noted that they are already prepared, but we all know 3+3 = 6.... not 19 or 25 or 35+ test-taking applicants over 2 simultaneous classes, as we’ve had in the past.

At this point, we will agree to disagree. I will presume that the official stance of the CMO-29 office is that there is no test security issue involved with this method of testing, and that your office can offer no relief due to Order 8900.1 policy and will not seek answers from above offices to rectify this situation. I have no problem if this is your official stance, but kindly request for your office not to become irritated with me when I seek assistance outside your office. As a small business operator with rights, it is in my best interest as well as the public’s best interest to seek assistance in this matter.

AFS-200/220 were sent an email on December 10, 2009 with 3 specific questions based on Mr. refusal to act as an approving FAA Specialist for me, Eric Morris, as a DADE. THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE LACK OF A STATEMENT REGARDING MR. AS A SPECIALIST FOR THE SCHOOL. I repeated this statement 2-3 times for him. These questions were “specialist overseeing DADE” issues only. Mr. seems to believe that since the denial letter was dated December 16, 2009, which was 6 days after my 3 questions from December 10, 2009 were sent to AFS-200/220, that my questions were answered. Well, to me it seems logical that if the questions were repeated on January 4, 2010 with a request of “still seeking answers”, that would imply that I am still seeking answers that were not found within the denial template sent on December 16, 2009. See EXACTLY what these questions were, who they were addressed to, and when they were sent on the following pages.Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-8 In case you need the email history prompting my questions of AFS-200:

I asked Mr. about the staggered practical exam request in person. He told me to send him an email. I did. See below:

Date: Wed, 09 Dec 2009 12:16:54 -0500 To: < faa.gov> Subject: Sheffield School update

Mr.

..... Since you are officially the FAA Specialist for Mr. Bories and myself, according to the definition within the 8900.1, we kindly request the approval of “staggered” practical exams. Obviously, the authors of this paragraph felt that this allowance could be beneficial for a variety of reasons. For us, this would allow us both as DADES to avoid the fatigue issue from an excessive number of examination hours for larger classes, including our next fully booked class - times that may exceed 8, 9, 10, or more hours daily, which would be repeated for possibly many consecutive days.....

Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

He replied avoiding the term “FAA Specialist.” See below. Not knowing if he was the SCHOOL’s FAA specialist was NOT the issue. Email above states “FAA Specialist for Mr. Bories and myself.” I did not mention “school” and I do not confuse the two, as he seems to think. Now “email” request changed to “formal written” request, he avoided the ‘FAA specialist’ term, and now claims I’m asking for a deviation from National Policy, which I’m not. “If approved by the FAA specialist” IS ALREADY IN THE POLICY!!!!!

From: aa.gov Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 13:59:25 -0500 To: Eric Morris <morris@sheffield.com> Cc: Jack. aa.gov Subject: Re: Sheffield School update Mr. Morris, Thank You, as the assigned Dispatch-Aviation Safety Inspector assigned to the two DADEs at Sheffield, please submit a formal written request enumerating your reasoning from a deviation from national policy. We will evaluate your request and advise as soon as a decision is made.

Below in an answer from Mr. the story now shifts to AFS-200 who appears to be calling the shots regarding FAA specialists. I do not care if they plan to rewrite policy, unless it is to avoid my questions and restrict me further. They are overstepping their bounds based on current policy. Excerpt: Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 16:34:38 -0500 Subject: Re: Sheffield School questions

Q: To which FAA Specialist am I to submit a formal written request to, enumerating my reasoning from a deviation from national policy? A- Requests for deviation from national policy shall be sent to AFS-200 as detailed in Order 8900.1 Volume 13 Chapter 3 Section 2 paragraph 13-177.Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-9 Following this email above, it was apparent that neither Mr. nor his management at that time, felt a need to clarify matters further or assist us, only to avoid applying the authority of the FAA specialist; therefore, the following 3 questions were posed for AFS-200 & AFS-220, which received ZERO response. The questions are clear and respectfully request specific answers, which were NOT included in their blanket denial dated December 16, 2009. A follow-up email was sent to AFS-200 and AFS-220 in January 2010 requesting answers to Questions 2 and 3, since Mr. provided verbally as well as in writing that he was not only the FAA Specialist for myself and Mr. Bories as DADES, but also as the specialist for Sheffield School.

Questions 2 and 3 below have never been answered or replied to. Hopefully,policy changes were not initiated after these dates. That would be a slamdunk case for us.

Date: Thu, 10 Dec 2009 18:12:08 -0500 To: <Greg.Kirkland@faa.gov>, <Leo.D.Hollis@faa.gov> Subject: Sheffield School question

Mr. Kirkland and/or Mr. Hollis,

My apologies, but I’m unsure who to address this to. I appreciate any help you can offer me.

Q1: Who is the official FAA Specialist for the DADE program under/used by/approved for Sheffield School of Aeronautics? I do not require a citation of 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 1, Paragraph 13-140 – I know the definition/description. The issue is that my local CMO prefers not to confirm the answer, and I’m seeking an answer in writing.

Q2: If my assigned ASI is in fact, the FAA Specialist, may that person approve on his/her own, per the wording “if approved by the specialist” or “approved by the FAA specialist”, without consultation or coordination with AFS-200, any provisos/exceptions/exemptions, within 8900.1 CHG 35 Vol. 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175c and 13-175d, for the DADE(s) under their supervision?

Q3: If the answer is “no” to Q2, then what reference mandates that the FAA Specialist shall never exercise such authority?

Thank you for your interest in aviation safety.

Best Regards,

Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-10 The December 16, 2009 letter of denial from AFS-200 even stated I had certain privileges if approved by the FAA Specialist. Even if my logic is incorrect, Mr. Hollis/Kirkland were STILL sent a follow-up email on January 4, 2010 asking again for answers to Q2 and Q3 since your office answered Q1. As of today, I still have received no answer which breaks many ethics and conduct codes for inspectors. It is unacceptable to be ignored as a DADE with questions, who is working for free to leverage the FAA’s workload.

New inspectors - reason for all the changes Mr. explained that I might be feeling uncomfortable with the changes because we have never truly had inspectors with dispatch certificates.

[There may be truth in that statement, but the statement, by itself, appears to mock our previous inspectors, many of whom HAD prior experience overseeing a Part 65 school and still work for the FAA. Mr. has never overseen a FAR Part 65 school, and has never observed someone overseeing a FAR Part 65 school during OJT, to the best of my knowledge. I believe Mr. received no training for this task. According to verbal statements during our first meeting, I know he did not ask for this task – he was “assigned this task.”]

[I also would not completely discount prior inspectors’ effectiveness including the Dispatch ASI who performed his “surprise” inspection on us during practical exams, resulting in high praise. I’ve never been falsely accused of incorrect certification paperwork from inspectors without a dispatcher certificate, as I have been by Mr. They have done their job well and always worked together with us trying not only to oversee us, but learn the specifics of a Part 65 school operation, which I admire. Before Mr. arrival, Sheffield School never experienced an FAA disruption during a test. ]

Mail in addition to email I was told to mail in requests, regardless of whether attached letterhead was already emailed, because your office does not have a color printer, which I find incredible. What would you think if you handed me a black and white letter from your office, which you have, and it was refused because “I need the FAA’s logo in color.” I shall comply - you’ll get everything mailed as requested – there’s no point in saving me any time since I’m not an air carrier, only a lowly certification course operator. The FAA priorities have been clearly spelled out for me by Mr.

Resume not matching DADE renewal application Mr. mentioned that my supplied (abridged) résumé did not exactly matchmy DADE renewal application. I know of no policy requiring me to include nonpertinent employment, but I complied. Please note that if this is current policy or becomes National Policy, then DADE applicants with more than 4 different positions or titles of employment on their résumé will be unable to comply, due to space limitations on the DADE application. This has never been requested before, and appears to be another example of your office trying to be difficult because I have had questions and sought outside assistance. You will be mailed a new résumé, in color, on letterhead matching what the application states.Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980 –www.sheffield.com

Appendix N-11 Different inspector ok I mentioned to Mr. that this arrangement does not appear to be working and I would have no problem if another inspector were assigned to us.

[He appears too busy for our operation and too incompatible with Mr. Bories and myself. We have NEVER experienced this before within the school’s history nor have any of the 5 DADES who have examined Sheffield’s graduates. I doubt Wilbur Sheffield ever did as well. I’m also uncomfortable with a Sheffield graduate overseeing Sheffield School or any of its’ assigned DADES. In addition to everything else, this appears to be a conflict of interest.]

Summary - The DADEs of Sheffield School have conducted more than 4,514 FAA Aircraft Dispatcher practical exams, which has “leveraged” anywhere from 25,000 to 40,000 hours of workload from South Florida inspectors. The amount of $$$ earned for those exams performed FOR the FAA is ZERO. It is our time, our postage, our paper, our Airman Branch phone calls for others’ mistakes, etc. that SAVE the FAA’s time.

There once was an era in which inspectors wrote us letters of thanks and commendation for reaching certain exam plateaus, who would approach Washington with pressing issues to assist us or defend us, who would understand our concerns, and who would communicate with us in a timely manner. Nowadays, all I do is place my “Small business” on hold while writing daily logs for reports for your office, and others. In addition, I have to listen to an inspector tell me that five 12-hour days is not bad out of 30 days (as if I have little to do on non-exam days), and that any complaints about it, “would be a problem” or “that’s a problem.” I feel too much acrimony from your office. Whether intentional or not, that last comment was disrespectful considering I worked everyday, including holidays since Mr. introduced himself to me. It also assumes I do nothing for 25 days prior to exam days. I’m disgusted with the time spent on minutia, bad policy from “headquarters”, and threats of DADE removal, and am losing patience. I have lost a multitude of business productivity because of this, so I’ll be in here all weekend...working hard.

Is there a problem for [local airline] Gulfstream or other airlines, likely overseen by CMO-29, working “5 consecutive 12-hour” days, and more?

I’m sure most or all of the above statements may be denied. If so, I am requesting a written report to be forwarded to me so that I can submit it along with mine to other offices. Aside from today’s phone call and the December 23, 2009 meeting, I have at least one witness for everything, and more.

A few excerpts from the FAA web site: Our Vision .... We are responsive to our customers and are accountable to the taxpayer and the flying public. Our Values * Quality is our trademark. We serve our country, our stakeholders, our customers, and each other. * People are our strength. We treat people as we want to be treated."
The evolution of restricting policy from the national level without coordination or contribution from the users and public is sadly expected, but I’ve always had a good relationship with the local FAA offices. If you don’t want to support me, fine, but I could use less of the threats and insults, whether real or implied. I would like to move forward.

Eric W. Morris - President-Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

### Appendix O-1 ASI CMO-29 Misconduct - 1

Excerpts from Instructor email to Eric Morris:

From: < yahoo.com> Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 15:32:18 -0800 (PST) To: morris@sheffield.com Subject: For the record -

Eric, For documentation...if ever [hopefully never] necessary.

Today [November 4th, 2009] entered the classroom while students were testing under official FAA business. He stated he wanted to sit and observe the testing session, and requested copies of the test. I provided him with copies of AIM/Jepp for review (returned afterward).

We pulled in an office chair for him from the second classroom, since all desk space was occupied. He set his briefcase and other personal effects on desk before he sat down, momentarily distracting him and others around him during examination time.

With 40 minutes remaining in the exam, Mr. walked to the front of the room, and told me we'd have to change the TAF in the test (while directly pointing to a METAR) because it was presented under the old format. I explained we are using the new format and he was pointing to a METAR. He then flipped through until he found the KORD TAF and defended (incorrectly) that this was the old TAF format. I responded quietly that it was - however at this point most eyes were up front (more distraction).

I have absolutely no problem with FAA spot inspections, however I don't feel that FAA Inspector's normal duties should disrupt the learning and/or testing process of others. Announcing, albeit incorrectly, that the TAF Format is wrong invalidates the test to those who were currently taking it. I've been through a few airplane ramp checks acting as PIC previously, and I always gave the FAA unfettered access right up until departure time - at that point if they had no further issues they couldn't interrupt the normal course of business by making me late. I don't see much of a difference here. I'll be happy to comment further about this at any time, ...

Respectfully,

-

### Appendix O-2 ASI CMO-29 Misconduct – 2

Excerpts from student email to Eric Morris:

From: " < > Date: Sat, 12 Dec 2009 10:23:51 +0100 To: Eric Morris <morris@sheffield.com> Subject: Re: Sheffield

Dear Eric,

...I remember during the Test, it was the AIM Test, the FAA inspector came into the class, without asking for permission. Then the Inspector took a chair and was sitting behind me. He put his books on my desk, also without asking me. Then he looked at the test sheet, I think for around about 10 seconds. Than he was sitting again in the rear and looked at the class. I think, there was a discussion with several times, they both leave the class several times. I think, was little bit upset, above the behaviour of the Inspector. I didn ́t remember what was the topic of the discussion. ....., I think the inspector mixed METAR and TAF`s.

... the behaviour of the Inspector was not the best, he disturbed the concentration during a live test ,and I think he must speak with the teacher before the test and not just go in, without asking....

If you have any further questions, contact me, you have my full support......

If you want to use my name for the report, you can do this, you have my full support.

All the best for you and with very best regards,Appendix P-1 

### Owners acting as DADEs

We believe that the restriction against owners, instructors and contractors employed by a Part 65 dispatcher course being approved as DADEs, as mentioned in Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, paragraph 13-175(D), was written to exclude us specifically. Further, we must assume that this bolsters our case for vendetta action since AFS-200/220 have refused to answer our questions about this clause – and indeed, have not even replied to our questions in direct violation of the customer service standards for inspectors as written in Order 8900.1. Although it is true that there is statement at the end of the paragraph cited above that states “unless approved by the FAA specialist,” we have been advised that AFS-200/220 is currently working on a rewrite of this section that will remove the possibility of an exception – the timing of which would be after we asked the questions, which looks even more conspicuous.

If there can be any other logical reason for exclusion of the staff of Part 65 programs as DADEs, we kindly ask that such explanation be provided to us. This is especially important to us because there had never been such a restriction prior to the closed-door authoring of Order 8900.1.

However, we cannot accept potential conflict of interest as a reason. Outside of dispatch, there are many other designated examiners who are employees of training institutions. Parts 141 and 142, for example, allow for designees who are employees and instructors. And even within dispatch, the proposed Part 121 allowance for combined certification and initial training of dispatchers not only allows for employees of the company to give practical exams for certification under Part 65, but also requires that such designees be employees of the certificate holder. We submit that employees of a Part 65 training program are no less trustworthy in representing the FAA than any of the other designees mentioned in this paragraph. If AFS-200/220 would like to go on record stating that Part 65 course owners and instructors are less capable of exercising the required judgment than other airmen, then that would be libelous. Please let us know if that is their stance.

If this is NOT the position of the Flight Standards Service, then potential conflict of interest cannot be cited as a reason for the inclusion of such a limitation in Order 8900.1 . If this IS the position of the Flight Standards Service, then we further request an immediate rewrite of Parts 141 and 142 along with the pending changes to Part 121 to eliminate those employees from being able to conduct certification activities. Without that, we would need to forward our concerns of disparate treatment to the DOT Inspector General’s office (among others) for investigation as to why the FAA is singling out one group of individuals for higher scrutiny than others, without probable

cause.Appendix P-2 

### Also, we cannot accept this restriction on the basis that DADEs should provide objective feedback about the strengths and weaknesses of an approved Part 65 school to the FAA specialist. This idea is mentioned in the wording/logic of Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 3, Paragraph 13-206(A)(8), which describes the content of DADE initial training as including the “importance of providing feedback on the approved part 65 dispatch courses (strengths and weaknesses) to the FAA specialist.”

Unfortunately, this is not only impossible for a DADE to ascertain, but also in violation of 14 CFR 183 and needs to be removed from Order 8900.1 because of the conflict. 14 CFR 183.1 states that the FAA may designate private persons to “act as representatives of the Administrator in examining, inspecting and testing persons and aircraft for the purpose of issuing airman, operating and aircraft certificates.” Evaluating the content or effectiveness of an approved training program is beyond the scope allowed for designees by Part 183. Paragraph 183.25(f)(1) and (2) state that a DADE may “accept applications for, and conduct, written and practical tests necessary for issuing aircraft dispatcher certificates under Part 65” and “issue temporary aircraft dispatcher certificates to qualified applicants.” Neither subparagraph states that the DADE may evaluate an approved Part 65 course.

To have a DADE assess the strengths or weaknesses of a program on the basis of his/her observations of applicants is not just flawed reasoning – it is impossible. It assumes that any deficiency noted during a practical exam is directly tied to a deficiency of the training program, which is false logic. An applicant may be found deficient in a task for myriad reasons that have nothing to do with the training itself – poor phrasing of questions by the DADE, distraction due to personal/family crises, individual IQ, nerves, applicant fatigue and an applicant’s poor memory all come to mind. In the last case, consider that an applicant can take a practical exam 89 days after the course completion certificate is signed; if such an applicant arrives for a practical exam that long after completion of the course without reviewing materials during the intervening timeframe, then that can hardly be considered a weakness of the training program.

During the conduct of a practical examination, the examiner’s focus shall be on one function ONLY – determining whether the applicant can perform all of the required tasks and behaviors as outlined in the Practical Test Standards. The FAA does not provide DADEs with separate training on how to assess a Part 65 program based on applicant responses, and provides no job aids on how to perform this function. But again, all of that is moot because Part 183 does not allow for a DADE to evaluate strengths and weaknesses of such a program in the first place. To thoroughly evaluate a school’s training program, a significant amount of time must be spent in the classroom, which we know is virtually impossible. The FAA has always had an open invitation to sit through any portion of our course.Appendix P-3 

### Even if this were the reason for such an exclusion of employees of Part 65 courses, did AFS-200 consider that non-affiliated DADEs could have as much (or even more) bias in the conduct of their examinations and in their assessment of program strengths and weaknesses? For example, appointment of non-affiliated DADEs who have had a history of animosity toward a Part 65 program and who are appointed without consultation with the Part 65 course operator, would also create a conflict of interest. While this does not serve the best interests of the Flight Standards Service, there is no requirement in Order 8900.1 to check with the course operator before appointing a DADE that would examine that course’s graduates.

Besides, if the FAA truly believed that the owner/employee restriction was necessary on the basis that school-employed DADEs would never forwardconcerns about deficiencies of their employer to the FAA, then why does AFS10 manage a Whistleblower Protection Program in the first place? DADEs may not officially be Federal employees, yet they represent the FAA.

In point of fact, each Part 65 school historically has been assigned a Principle Operations Inspector, or more recently, a Dispatch ASI to provide oversight of their training. Those are the individuals who should be evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the programs based on their own observations and surveillance.

Finally, if the reason for the inclusion of the restrictions against Part 65 program employees is due to provable improprieties committed by other DADEs at other schools in the past, then those persons should have their DADE privileges revoked – but it makes no sense to limit the continued ability of DADEs with spotless records to continue the performance of their duties.

Therefore – we are asking for an explanation of the reasoning behind the exclusion of owners, instructors or other employees of Part 65 programs. If AFS-200/220 cannot provide any valid, logical reasons for the inclusion of this restriction or any explanation of why this provision was written without consultation of the most experienced DADEs in the world, then we kindly request that AFS-1 require its removal from Order 8900.1.Eric Morris – DADE

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980

Appendix Q-1 February 16, 2010

Federal Aviation Administration Certificate Management Office - 29 Attn. ASI 2895 SW 145 Avenue, Suite 291 Miramar, FL 33027

Mr.

I received your certified letter (text below) on Friday, February 12, 2010, allowing me 5 days to determine what specifically to respond to.

February 10, 2010 The FAA has received your application for renewal of your Designated aircraft Dispatch Examiner (DADE) SO-19-605. Your application for renewal can not be considered at the present time until supporting documentation has been submitted to indicate compliance with FAA guidance 8900.1 Volume 13, Chapter 3, Section 2, Paragraph 13-175. In order to separate your duties and responsibilities as a DADE your communications with the FAA should be submitted on a DADE letter head. Please respond in writing within five (5) days of receipt of this letter Thank you. - Aviation Safety Inspector

My official response within the required 5-day limit is below: Instead of directly informing me of the missing supporting documentation, to save us all time and effort, which also contradicts what you verbally told me via telephone on January 29, 2010 (“we have all documentation required”), it appears that it is now my task to determine what you specifically mean.

You were not specific in what was missing and how to satisfy your request. So to assist us all, we will address each paragraph and hopefully, I have pinpointed what “supporting documentation” is required. If I am incorrect, I kindly request that you specifically inform me what is still missing and precisely what format you need the documentation in.

For your convenience, the text from Order 8900.1 is included below:

13-175 LIMITATIONS. A DADE will not: A. Test Outside the Certificate

_ Holding District Office. Conduct practical tests at locations outside their supervising certificate

_ holding district office (CHDO) unless approved and coordinated between the supervising CHDOs.

NOTE: DADE designation should be limited to one CHDO area of responsibility. If additional areas of responsibility are added the action must be coordinated between both CHDOs and their FAA specialists.

DADE Eric Morris reply: Unless policy changes, we will not conduct practical tests at locations outside our supervising certificate

_ holding district office (CHDO) unless approved and coordinated between the supervising CHDOs.

B. Administer More than One Test at a Time. Except as provided in 307(c), administer more than one practical test at a time, to include no more than two full practical tests per day. In addition to the two full tests, a retest may be administered on the same day depending on the amount of material that must be covered.

DADE Eric Morris reply: I kindly request that exemption 307c be explained to me in writing. Regarding the remainder text, unless policy changes, I will not administer more than one practical test at a time, to include no more than two full practical tests per day. In addition to the two full tests, I understand that a retest may be administered on the same day depending on the amount of material that must be covered. The recent 5 days of exams, which you did not oversee, complied with all current policy.Eric Wayne Morris – DADE

499 N.W. 70 th AVE.–STE.110–PLANTATION,FL 33317-7572–(954) 581-6022 – FAX: (954) 584-8980

Appendix Q-2 C. Test More Than One Simultaneous Applicant. Conduct any portion of the practical test with more than one applicant at the same time. The option to “stagger” the tests (start the oral portion of the first test, and start the practical portion of the second test in conjunction with first test) will be allowed only if approved by the specialist.

DADE Eric Morris reply: I emailed and mailed my “staggered exams” request on January 11, 2010. No official written reply following January 11, 2010 was ever received from your office, as explained via telephone to you on January 29, 2010. I will continue to send exam schedules, as I previously did, in a non-staggered format, until a decision has been officially made. Otherwise, unless policy changes, I will not conduct any portion of the practical test with more than one applicant at the same time. The recent 5 days of exams complied with all current policy.

D. Be Employed in a Part 65 Dispatcher Course. Be employed as an instructor, owner, or contractor of an approved Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 65 dispatcher course in his/her district unless approved by the FAA specialist.

DADE Eric Morris reply: I am assuming this may be the issue - ownership. Since it has been determined that you are my FAA Specialist regarding this DADE matter, and this is current policy, what is your decision? I still have not received an official written notification of approval or denial (with reasons) from my assigned FAA specialist pertaining to this paragraph section. And to jump ahead, and reduce these continual delays, please specify EXACTLY what you require of me as a statement of changed ownership. As of December 23, 2009, you “require a letter stating a change in ownership with names of signatures of both parties” or words to that effect. Is this still your official answer or has it changed? If it has changed, please indicate clearly what your office requires.

E. Test Non

_ Graduated Applicants. Conduct tests for applicants who have not graduated from an approved 14 CFR part 65 dispatcher course, unless approved by the specialist.

DADE Eric Morris reply: We shall not conduct tests for applicants who have not graduated from an approved 14 CFR part 65 dispatcher course, unless approved by the specialist. Since we will likely not be approved by you, the specialist, we have no option, but to refer all qualified applicants, who are not Part 65 course graduates, to CMO-29 since Order 8900.1 mandates that inspectors conduct the practical examinations, not DADEs.

F. Conduct Competency Checks. Conduct competency checks for a 14 CFR part 121 Dispatcher Training Program, unless employed as an Air Transportation supervisor or qualified ground instructor for that operator.

DADE Eric Morris reply: We shall not conduct competency checks for a 14 CFR part 121 Dispatcher Training Program, unless employed as an Air Transportation supervisor or qualified ground instructor for that operator.

One last question: What else do you need sent or resent using “DADE letterhead?” I will assume a non-response to indicate that I have satisfied all paperwork submission requirements.

I will also assume that “DADE letterhead” consisting of my full name and address, as indicated on your February 10, 2010 certified letter, can be located at the top and/or bottom of the document, as submitted herein, with nothing else required. This shall suffice, unless directed by your office, or if your office provides Order 8900.1 “DADE letterhead” sample forms or guidance.

Reminder: emails to my office to save time, are welcomed.

Regards,

Eric Wayne Morris - DADESheffield School of Aeronautics

Appendix R-1 

### FOIA notes from 2003 & possible vendetta origin

03/13/2003 10:42am To Dave Malloy, Theodore Perry Subject: Practical’s at Sheffield in FLL

Dave, Some feed back from through the NWA DADES is that employees currently being sent to Sheffield for a 4-week course have 300 questions to study from for the practical. A few of the practicals have taken only 90 minutes. It seems to me that we have a rubber stamp going on. My concern on this comes from my oversight of the NWA folks asking why I am so by the book and in FLL they are giving the certificates away.

I am not sure what to do with this feedback so I am sending it to you and Ted as an FYI.

Gordy Rother Aviation Safety Inspector/Aircraft dispatch FAA NWA CMO

Sheffield reply: Students are instructed to study all material within their notebooks, study sheets, handouts, and flight plans. There were no “90-minute” practicals. An FAA AD practical exam consists of 2 parts: a flight plan exercise and oral portion. Our flight plan averaged 2 hours in 2003. Our oral portion typically ranged from 1:45–3 hours in 2003, and were based on how quick and intelligent the applicant is.

There was no “rubber stamp going on” as there never has been. Mr. Rother should have considered the source of this information, confirmed it, and contacted me and my local office and other Sheffield graduates (just pick any airline) directly. He chose not to, which is intriguing since the plural “NWA DADES” later becomes singular.

Mr. Rother should also understand that the method of qualifying for an AD practical exam,whether passing a true AD school vs. a diploma mill vs. receiving “training” from a coworker at an airline, flying the line for 2 years, etc.., should determine how deep BOTH sections of an exam should be conducted. Personally, if I had to examine anyone outside of Sheffield, especially airline personnel without formal schooling, the exam would last for 2-3 days.

Mr. Rother should be lucky that the origin of the line “in FLL they are giving the certificates away” was not ever investigated. He would have been requested to produce the person(s) who uttered it, so as not be held accountable for it himself. informed me that NOBODY ever mentioned such a statement, only the contrary.

------------- 04/15/2003 02:29pm To Dawn Veatch/ASO/, Clark Schadle/ASO, Thomas Penland/AWA

Dawn, It has been brought to my attention by Gordon Rother, one of our new hire Dispatcher Inspectors in the Minneapolis NWCMO, that something might not be right in the way that the dispatcher Practical Exams are conducted by the Sheffield School of Aeronautics in Plantation, FL under the oversight of the FLL FSDO and the POI, This information was received by Inspector Rother through his feedback from through the NWAA DADES that he oversees. He stated that some of the Dispatcher Practical Exams given have been completed in only 90 minutes which seems to be very short time. A normal Dispatcher Practical Exam averages between 5-6 hours total time.

I telephoned the POI, concerning the above statement. He didn’t think that there was a problem to be worried about. He called and passed the information on to Erick Morris, the CEO, at Sheffield School. The following day, I received a semi irate telephone call from Erick. He wanted names and more information on the facts. I told him that I was just looking into the situation and that I would get back to him if and when I had more information. The next day, I received anotherSheffield School of Aeronautics

Appendix R-2 telephone call. This time it was Ron Morris, Erick’s Father and owner of the school. He was not as upset as Erick. He proceeded to tell me that he “is an attorney and of his airline and government connections. He also mentioned a slander lawsuit that he might bring against someone that made the statement about his school.”

I have discussed the situation with Jim Gardner, Dave Malloy and Bill Bonatti who are all well qualified SME’s in the dispatcher field. The feeling is that the school, it’s training and testing might need to be looked at by someone qualified to do so. If you are looking for a well qualified person to take a look into the facts at the Sheffield School, I recommend Bill Bonatti at MCO. He has volunteered to do the inspection if funded.

I have been told to pass this information on to your region and let you handle it. I have the original hard copy of Gordon Rother’s email that I can fax to you if you need it. If I can be of any additional help please let me know. Please keep me apprised of your findings.

Ted Perry AFS-220

Sheffield reply: Fascinating that Gardner (who we asked to close an illegal Middle East School claiming FAA approval), and Malloy (who we asked to investigate AD certificates handed out in a matter of days to Arabs in NY after FAILING Sheffield) thought we were shady. How do you go from following all policy and failing unqualified students, thus preventing them from taking a practical exam, to “rubber-stamping” the Dutch.

Additionally, we have always clamored for better oversight and have extended open invitations to the FAA to observe. Unfortunately, it took a “sting operation”, according to Dawn Veatch’s words below, to initiate a visit.

-------------
04/17/2003 10:18am

To Ted Perry, Dave Malloy, James Gardner Subject: Florida Practicals

Ted, As requested, I have had some e-mail dialogue with the individual that expressed the concerns about the Sheffield practicals. As I understand it the students are given a final exam of 200-250 questions, (written exam) in the morning. I am not sure if this is administered by the school as a final exam to pass the course or if the DADE is giving this and crediting the practical exam. This may be difficult to determine since the DADE owns the school. In the afternoon they have a “group” practical that takes about 90 minutes.

I just completed some practicals in DTW for the FSDO and they took 5 to 7 hours each. No written exam but a manual flight plan based on the guidance in the 8400.10 and the PTS. Maybe we can get some headway with them when the PTS is updated.

has no concerns with how they are certificated, however, they have nothing to gauge this against.

It should be noted that this is second hand information and this was not observed by my

source.

Gordy RotherSheffield School of Aeronautics

Appendix R-3 Sheffield reply: “The NWA DADES” is now a “second-hand” source who observed nothing.

Regarding the “exam” - wrong again – our “final exam”, which by the way is closer to 400 questions, is not an FAA practical exam – it is a final exam for the COURSE. Once completed, the instructor determines who can receive the signoff for the FAA AD practical exam. The practical exams which follow, are on separate days.

RE: “In the afternoon they have a “group” practical that takes about 90 minutes.”

We have NEVER had a “group” practical. “Group” implies that everyone is sitting around performing the same task together, perhaps even assisting one another – absolutely absurd. Mr. Rother fails to distinguish which portion he or his ignorant “source” is referring to. As previously mentioned the flight plan at that time was 2 hours on average, and oral the same. 2+ 2 = 4 hours, for the quicker applicant. The slower applicant requires longer. Perhaps contacting multiple airlines with multiple Sheffield graduates would have yielded a more accurate description of our testing procedures.

We now see where the 8900.1 time rules originated. The FAA actually believed that we examined applicants for 90 minutes for BOTH exam portions cumulatively! A bit of investigation and clarification, without relying on the rumor mill, would have been smarter, and less costly.

Also, it would have been nice if Mr. Rother pointed out that this was all “unobserved, second hand information” a month and 4 days earlier when he began this relay of exaggerated and false nonsense.

“This may be difficult to determine since the DADE owns the school.” This line shows a possible link to the origin of DADE/owner restrictions in the 8900.1 policy changes instigated years later – all or most based on someone in the MSP area who either had a vendetta against Sheffield School, or who listened to another person with the vendetta.

The original source was never named. Convenient.

------------------

04/22/2003 10:29 pm To: Perry, Clark Schadle, Thomas Penland, Fred Walker RE: Sheffield School of Aeronautics

Ted, I spoke with the Assist. Manager of FLL FSDO today and they are trying to arrange for Inspector Bonatti, Orlando FSDO, to conduct an investigation. We should have closure soon.

Dawn Veatch ASO-201

----------------Sheffield School of Aeronautics

Appendix R-4 06/13/2003 09:30 am To: Leonard Beers/ASO, Joseph R. Hunt/ASO, Dawn Veatch/ASO RE: Sheffield Aircraft Dispatcher school in Ft. Lauderdale.

Ted, As per correspondence with Dawn Veatch and our discussions, I gave Sheffield a call and played the applicant/student role. They have a course running now that will be ending on the 9 th of July. Practical Tests are scheduled for the 10 th , 11 th of July. The next available as per their schedule would be September 3 rd thru 5 th . I would be able to go down and conduct an unannounced inspection and observation on the 9 th thru 11 th , but I will need two things.

1. I will need something in writing from the powers above authorizing this. (I will be working outside of my district unannounced!!!!!) 2. Funding!!!

Please let me know as soon as you can.

William L. Bonatti FAA-Orlando Flight Standards District Office

Sheffield reply: So apparently Veatch ordered Mr. Bonatti to deceive Sheffield School and “play the applicant/student role.” A smarter move would have been to contact the district office for exam dates and times or look them up on the school’s web site.

These types of FAA tactics, initiated from unverified 2 nd -hand information, are truly disgusting.

-----------------
06/15/2003 08:14 pm To: Dunbar, Hunt, Beers, Perry, Bonatti RE: Sheffield Aircraft Dispatcher school in Ft. Lauderdale.

John, I don’t have a problem funding this or with Bonatti working “unannounced out of his district”. But I do have a concern about it having the appearance of a Sting Operation . Have you been in the loop on this coordination? Please advise.

Thanks Dawn ASO-201

Sheffield response A surprise “out of district” visit by an inspector trying to verify absurd claims is something I can deal with – we’ve always conducted ourselves professionally and ethically. But when coupled with deceiving phone calls, then the term “Sting Operation” that Veatch used was indeed, appropriate.

-------------

Summary:

The “sting” backfired. The FAA went on a witch hunt at the wrong school based on false, unsubstantiated, 2 nd -hand rumors which morphed into tales of complete and utter nonsense. The final report was 180 degrees in the opposite direction of what was initially alleged. It resulted in a glowing report of what most informed people within Aircraft dispatcher training circles already knew. It also wasted tax payers’ dollars.Sheffield School of Aeronautics

Appendix R-5 Result?

Certain FAA personnel were disappointed, yet held on to their notion that owners cannot objectively be DADEs, some form of collaborative group of insecure exams must somehow be given, and the complete exams last 1.5 hours. These misguided notions along with further false rumors over the years, which were still overheard at a 2009 FAA meeting ( reported to me by FAA inspectors themselves on Hollywood Beach, FL ), helped foster the current Order 8900.1 DADE restrictions. This appears to be policy aimed squarely at my school, and its’ DADEs – the ones who the FAA failed to successfully “sting” in 2003.

Hopefully, the Administrator will understand my position as a DADE, and the impact of all this on a very successful and reputable small business, which has helped this profession more than any other dispatcher school in history. Leveraging up to 45,000 hours of workload over 4 decades for the FAA for free should be rewarded with something more than FAA misconduct and bullying of a small business resulting in 100s, if not 1000s of hours of lost productivity.

Thank you.

Eric Morris President Sheffield School of Aeronautics (est. 1948)

# APPENDIX S

(Highlighted excerpts & Ethics and Conduct violations from Order 8900.1, Volume 1, Chapter 3, Section 2)

[See other Appendices and report body for details.]

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

1 VOLUME 1

A.

B.

A.

B. GENERAL INSPECTO R GUIDANCE AND INFORMATION

CHAPTER 3 INSPECTOR RESPONSIBI LITIES, ADMINISTRATION, ETHICS AND CONDUCT

Section 2 Personal Ethics and Conduct

1-176 PURPOSE. This section contains direction and g uidance for aviation safety inspectors (ASI) pertaining to principles of ethics and cond uct as they affect the performance of duties. (In this section, ASI also refers to aviation safety technici ans, cabin safety insp ectors, and aircraft dispatcher inspectors.) Although some basic outlin es are listed, this section could not possibly cover all circumstances an ASI may encounter. As ASIs are always in the public eye, the Federal Aviation Adm inistration (FAA) expects them to exercise good judgment and professional behavior at all times while on and off duty.

Unique Responsibilities of ASIs. ASIs are exposed to a num ber of circumstances that are critical to their positions and that ar e not pertinent to other FAA job functions. The ASI has the critical position of frequently interpreti ng and evaluating the quality of training programs, operations and maintenance manuals, pilot and mechanic performance, and overall safety activities. It is imperative that all ASIs be sensitive to the res ponsibilities and demands of their positions and be objective and impartial while performing their duties. ASIs must also be sensitive to actua l as well as perceived appearances of any c onflict that coul d disrupt the effectiveness or credibility of the Flight Standards mission.

Department of Transportation (DOT) Requirements. ASIs are required to comply fully with the letter and spirit of the standards of conduct as set forth by th is section; with those set forth in United States O ffice of Governm ent Ethics pub lication, “Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch ”; and FAA Order 3750.3C, Orientation to Government-Wide Standards of Conduct (both include Title 5, Part 2635, of the Code of Federal Regulations (5 CFR)); and with those set fo rth in FAA Order 3750.4A, Conduct and Discipline. The agency’s policy on employee conduct is desi gned to encourage employees to maintain a level of prof essionalism that will promote the e fficiency of the FAA and conform to accepted principles of conduct.

1-177 GENERAL. Standards of Professionalism for Flight Standards (AFS). The definition and standards below apply to all Flight Standards employees.

Professionalism Definition. Professionalism is a set of behavioral traits that enhances mission effectiveness both internally and externally by:

• Fostering collaboration with others;

• Focusing on customer service; and

• Making a positive impact on organizational success.

Standards of Professionalism.

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

2 1)

2)

that requirements are incorpor ated into final work products and designs

• ecommendations and decisions in a manner appropriate for the audience

• Listens to, accepts, and acts on customer feedback

• try to achieve and maintain regulatory compliance and improve safety

• ale and actions needed for resolution when required to take regulatory action Collaboration. When interacti ng with others, the em ployee:

• Seeks support from and objectively list ens to the suggestions and comments of others

• De monstrates attention to and unde rstands the concerns of others

• Identifies and resolves prof essional differences of opinion

• Communicates in an underst andable and timely manner

• Offers assistance and shares informa tion that will be useful in producing acceptable and com plete solutions

• Remains calm and diplomatic in tense situations in which there may be a significant disagreement among parties

• Discusses problems openly and manages c onflicts constructivel y so that work is not adversely impacted

Customer Service. When interact ing with customers, the employee:

• Employs Aviation Safety (AVS) “Customer Service Principles”

NOTE: AVS’s customer service information may be found at: http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/hea dquarters_offices/avs /cust_service.

• Understands customer requirements at the outset of assignm ents

• Asks questions to assure understa nding of custom er expectations

• Informs customers of guidance material and FAA directives

• Ensures

Explains r

Works with the public and indus

Explains the ration

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

3 lic perception of unfair or disparate treatment

3) Impact on Organizational Success. The employee:

ectations with work of acceptable quality and quantity

•

ram objectives in a timely fashion

ission of the organizati on through actions and communications

ents that inspectors.

nces (Curre • Avoids action or inaction that contribu tes to pub

• Satisfies req uirements and meets exp

• Uses assign ed resources effectively

Adheres to published policy, proc edu res, and work instructions

• Elevates cases of nonstandard FAA a pplication of published national policy and procedural guidance to the im mediate supervisor for resolution

• Reviews workload and adjusts priorities continually to account for changing circumstances while meeting prog

• Conforms to FAA regulations, Model Work Environment (MWE) principles, and safety and security standards

• Supports the m

1-178 OTHER INSPECTOR GUIDANCE. Table 1–4 references other docum contain guidance for

Table 1 – 4, Refere nt Editions)

FAA Order 1400.8 Equal Opportunity in FAA Employment FAA Order 1600.2 cedures for Classified National rmation Safeguarding Controls and Pro Security Information and Sensitive Unclassified Info FAA Order 1600.24 Listening-In to or R ecording Conversation s on Telephone or

s Telecommunications System FAA Order 3750.7 Ethical Conduct and Financial Disclosure Program FAA Order 3900.19 Occupation al Sa fety and Health Program Federal Aviation Personnel Manual (FAPM) Letter 2635 Conduct and Discipline

Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) part 1604

Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulation s (49 CFR) part 99 esponsibilities and Conduct Employee R

Title 18 of the United States section 208 Code (18 U .S.C.)

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

4 nd with the public bear great responsibility in the determination of public pe rception of the FAA. Inspectors must guard nce their behavior or actions in providing assistan ce to operators, or in filing enforcement actions. While an inspe

s must observe the following rules of conduct:

1)

2) to fully occupy employees at any given time, they should notify their supervisor so that additional work may be assigned.

3) Maintain a clean and neat personal appearance to the maximum practicable extent during working

4) Respond promptly to directions and inst ructions received from their supervisor.

e

6)

sciplinary action may be taken if the circumstances warrant.

7) y

owledge of and observe all applicable legal requ irements and restrictions. In a ddition, employees are expected to be prudent and f the

e

ion. ASIs shall not disclose or discuss any classified information or “offici al use only” information unless specifically authorized to do so osed to anyone who does not have the 1-179 ON-THE-JOB ETHICS AND CONDUCT.

A. On-Duty Behavior. The conduct of an ASI has a direct bearing on the proper and effective accomplishment of offi cial job functions and responsib ilities. ASIs are required to approach their duties in a professional manner and to mainta in that attitude throughout their activities. Through their conduct, ASIs working in direct contact with operators a

against allowing person al emotions or conflicts with industry personnel to influe

ctor need not tolerate ha rassment, they must not respond in kind.

B. Rules of Conduct. All employee

Report for work on time and in a condition that will permit performance of assigned duties, i.e., in appropr iate clothing, with appropriate tools or equipment, and in a mentally alert and physically fit condition.

Render full and industrious service in th e performance of thei r duties. If such duties are not sufficient

hours.

5) Exercise courtesy and tact in dealing with f ellow workers, supervisors, and th public.

Employees must obtain approval of a ll absences from duty (including leave without pay). An absence that is not approved will be charged as absence without leave. In addition, di

Conserve and protect FAA funds, prope rty, equipment, and materials (ASIs ma not use or permit others to use FAA equipment, property, or personnel fo r other than official business).

8) When duties concern the expenditure of public funds, have kn

exercise sound j udgment in the expenditure of such funds. Summaries o penalty provisions of some of th e more important laws relating to the misuse of Federal funds ar contained in Title 49 of the Code of Federal Regulations (49 CFR) part 99.

9) Safeguard classified informati on as provided in FAA Order 1600.2 and unclassified information that shou ld not be given general circulat

or except as required on a “need-to-know” basis in the proper discharge of official duties. Classified information shall no t be discl

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

5 appropriate securit

a) Divulge any official information obtained through or in c onnection with their government emplo

b) Release any official information in advance of the time prescribed for its authorized issuanc

se, any official information for private purposes that is not available to the general public.

Order 3900.19.) In addition to avoi ials and cooperate fu lly with the safety officer to en sure that the safety of persons or property is not endangered. Willful nonobservan ce of the governing safety regulations, such as the acts describe

a) Failure to report an acci dent involving injury to pe rsons or damage to property or equipment;

b) Failure to use protective clothing or equipment (e.g., failure to use a safety device when one i

c) Endangering the safety of or causing injury to personnel or damaging property or equi

icle for official

NOTE: As government employees, insp ectors have immunity from personal liability No immunity, assistance, protection, or indemnification will apply unless the conduc loyment.

11)

. 12) Report known or suspected violations of law, regulations, or policy through appropriate cha

e activities fo r personal gain or any other unauthorized purpose while on government property. y clearance. In addition, employees shall not:

yment to any unauthorized person.

e.
c) Use, or permit others to u

d) Remove official documents or records from the files for personal reasons. The willful and unlawful falsification, concealment, mutilation, or unauthorized removal of official documents or records is prohibited by law.

10) Observe the various laws, rules, regula tions, and other author itative instructions. This includes all rules, signs, and instructions relating to pe rsonal safety. (FAA ding accidents, employees must report potential accidents and fire hazards to the proper offic

d below, constitutes grounds for disciplinary actions:

s provided);

pment through negligence; and

d) Failure to wear an available safety/s eat belt while using a motor veh government business.

for common law torts committed w ithin the scope of their employment.

t that is the basis of the tort wa s within the course and scope of the inspector’s emp

Uphold with integrity the public trust involved in the position to which assigned

nnels.

13) Do not engage in privat

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use

### 8900.1 CHG 0 9/13/2007

6 all d of, arising under the law, rules, and regulations administered by the FAA.

15) Do not make irresponsible, false, or de famatory statements that attack, without foundation, the int

enev er any other person is placed on the line for any purpose whatsoever. An advance verbal warning must be given when an automatic recording device o
t s, near-collision reporting, Co mmand Communications Network, and the Washington Tactical Switch (FAA Order 1600.24).

onduct of thei r official duties, may not use secret recording or monitoring equipment of any kind or aid in or ignore the improper use of such equipment

c safety. Wh en there is creditable evidence that any employee is involved in the growing, processing, manuf acturing, selling, disposition, tr ansportation, or importation of narcotic dr ant drugs or substances, that employee shall be separated from the Federal service. Use, possess ion, purchase, or being under the influence of drugs on duty

1) The FAA is committed to providing a wor kplace that is free of sexual harassment. All employees

2) Acts of sexual harassment are prohibited conduct and a single incident will result 14) Give any supervisor or official conducting an official investigation or inquiry information and testimony about all matters i nquire

egrity of othe r individuals or organizations (ASIs are accountable for the statements they make and the views they express).

16) Telephone eavesdropping is prohibited.

a) Advance notice must be given wh

r a speaker telephone is used. The use of recording devices (portable or otherwise) on telephones shall be lim ited to area s involving air safety. Th is includes acciden investigation

b) FAA employees, in the c

. c) The prohibitions do not preclude the use of normal or standard types of recording equipment used openly in areas.

C. Substance Abuse. As an employer, the FAA is concerned with the private decision of any employee to use illicit drugs or abuse al cohol or other substances in a way that could affect the employee’s work performance. As an employer with responsibil ity for aviation safety, the FAA is especially concerned when this priv ate decision can affect the safety of the flying public. Employees directly involved in aviation safety that use illicit drugs or abuse alcohol or other substances place their jobs in jeopardy. Anyone known to do so will not be permitted to perform any duties related to aviation safety until the FAA is satisfied that any such person is no longer a risk to publi

ugs, marijuana, or depressant or stim ul

by employees whose duties could affect the safety of people or property will also result in separation.

D. Policy Against Sexual Harassment.

have a right to work in an enviro nment in which they are treated with dignity and respect. Acts of sexual harassment will be treat ed as misconduct in violation of the agency’s policy against sexual harassment and, when appr opriate, as unlawful sex discrimination in violation of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations (29 CFR) part 1604.

UNCONTROLLED COPY WHEN DOWNLOADED Check FSIMS to verify this version is current prior to use