What is not mentioned. This movie was delayed when the Communist Chinese complained that the “enemy” in the movie was them. So the producers painstakingly modified the images and text to make the North Koreans the bad guys. I wouldn’t pay five cents to watch this movie and reward one of the most repressive dictatorial regimes in the world, and their stooges in Hollywood. I’ll stick to Jimmy Stewart and Ronald Reagan movies, both who made major contributions to the Army Air Corps in WWII, not fake military stunts from a narcissistic phony actor.
1 reply
That’s completely inaccurate. Tom Cruise’s jacket, compared to the 1986 movie, was changed in pre-production to remove the Japanese and Taiwanese flags. This WAS due to Chinese influence because they were financing the movie. Still a horrible influence but not the cause of the delay. Be accurate in your accusations!!
The delay was 1. due to coronavirus, and then 2. After initial screenings, of just the first 15 minutes of the movie, the feedback was so bad they went back and re-edited the movie to fix the issues. It sounds like it had all the makings of a total bomb based on those who saw it.
And finally, maybe Tom Cruise hasn’t served, and I’m sure he’s narcissistic just like all actors, and many online commenters, but the stunts are amazingly real and he’s done more to promote aviation than you are giving him credit for. So, go ahead, go watch 12 O’clock High for the 100th time, I’ll be giving away way to much of my money this weekend to be entertained by this movie.
I think the aviation world is busy with the business of aviation.
Watching actors play aviators on a screen is fine but honestly I’d rather actually be out flying.
I can’t believe you guys! Something fun, has real airplanes, entertaining, a departure from all the mess surrounding us these days, and all you can do is be a Debby Downer. And Tom not being in the military, only 7% of the total population today have ever served in the military and based on the direction military needs are taking, only 1% will ever do so in the future. Has everybody on here done so? So Tom not having done so, what, he can’t as an actor, play the role of a military pilot? And, he is a real pilot, skilled, with lots of experience. Sit back and enjoy the movie. It’s for fun! Like as in “get a life”. Oh yea…I was USAF…which actually didn’t affect my Aeronca flying skills that much though.
2 replies
Tom Cruise is Hollywood-weird. He is also a good entertainer. He is a good actor and has the smarts to produce and/or direct.
Also, he is a steadfast proponent of general aviation.
I was an enlisted airman in the Air Force, 1954-57. I learned out to fly Airknockers during my last year in the Air Force. My Air Force experience had no bearing on my slowly acquired Airknocker skills.
But, when it came time to get my instrument rating in 1959, my USAF experience did pay off. That’s because I spent my last year assigned to the flight simulation section. F-100C simulator and Link C-11 instrument trainers (similar to a T-33.) I “flew” the F-100C almost every day and logged about 80 hours in the C-11s, which was signed off by a captain who also was a civilian CFI.
1 reply
Yea. My USAF time was '64 - '68. I had my PPL when I enlisted. But through the Vance aero club, got my commercial and CFI and then became a club instructor. We still had two T-34s in the club. LOVED THEM! My Walter Mitty Top Gun time. And my first self taught loop. Had I not had my harness tight, I would have fallen out the canopy at the top of the loop.
1 reply
Come on, admit it; this Hollywood stuff is fun to watch: https://youtu.be/v1iZtBM23bY
The Air Force didn’t have an aero club at my base until after I got out.
I don’t care about his military service or lack thereof nearly as much as the fact that a certain portion of what I pay for tickets or DVDs will go to Cruise’s religious cult.
Good video that could have been better without the cheesy laugh track.
… and your refusal to watch a movie will “reward” the Chinese government how, Kent?
Aside from giving you yet another excuse to inject irrelevant political issues into an aviation forum.
All the incredible low-level flying in the movie was done by Naval Aviators. No green-screen, no animation, no punches pulled. Yes, Jimmy and Ronnie served (well, Reagan made movies stateside) but these guys are actually SERVING.
If you have not seen the movie, and have no intention of seeing the movie, what exactly, gives you any authority to comment on the movie, Kent?
Ok, guys, this movie is meant to unite those of us who are passionate about our love of flying, no matter what skill level or career. All those involved in making this level of motion picture - aviation action adventure- took it to the next level of cinematography, and showing aviation in a positive light. We most likely won’t see another for a long time. Regarding the storyline, this movie is targeting a general audience, not only aviation buffs. Don’t think for a minute that they could not have achieved a stellar documentary, if that’s what they wanted. They wanted to bring it to everyone who came to the theater, daring to dream, and “feel the need for speed”. And yes, some will take that first step through a flight school door, whether for a discovery flight, first lesson, or coming back after a long absence.
Don’t forget, the actors had 3 months of flight training from Cessnas up to aerobatics in jets…at least 2 got their private pilot ticket…and their stories will be told to friends and family a long time.
Isn’t this what our grass roots flying is all about? Don’t we want to inspire others what we’ve known a long time? Get your flight clubs and flight schools ready. The first step is coming.
5 replies
Yes. To all you said.
Brava!
Best comment in a looong time.
'Don’t we want to inspire others what we’ve known a long time? ’
And, I would be in that camp. But a group so varied and large as aviation has, like any other sizable entity, many different factions among its ranks. Respectfully, pilots are not a homogeneous group any more than motorcyclists or boaters are.
Most, yes most pilots I run into at my sizeable hangar-rich field frankly don’t give a whit about promoting flying and would probably be unable to do so, for intuitive and personality reasons alone.
Look at any similar group and you will find the marketing dept., the maintainance dept., R&D, etc. down the line. This division is found on these threads, too, and always seems to include snarling gummit haters, know-it-alls and unnecessary political absurdity in the mix.
Very few in my experience are cut out to be advocates for much of anything - but for those that are fit for the job to champion our love for flying, you always have my support.
1 reply
Susan, grass roots?
I’ve flown young eagles, neighbors, friends and countless co-workers in my plane over the last 30 years and exactly zero have completed a private rating. We are a small community and are already all brought together as a family by overcoming the insanely high hurdles of aviation (medical, regulations, certifications, endorcements, flight reviews, currency, annuals, AD’s, weather, airspace). We’re all nuts because we stick to it even beyond reason; and that’s what makes us supportive of all of us who do.
Campy movies? Not so much. I just hopes it gives use a few new lines to quote. The “because I was inverted” is way long in the tooth. 
There are numerous adjectives to describe what flying is like in our blood, and yet most not quite enough. That feeling is what unites us, who are really bit by the flying bug, in spite of all the hoops to jump through, and even if we have to stop flying for financial reasons, family obligation, or health…that feeling often lingers, as we look up hearing a plane passing overhead, or see anything aviation related.
Once I was at an event where the late Gene Cernan (last man on the moon) spoke after receiving an award. He said something that really resonated with us in attendance: “Let’s face it, we’re hear because we love flying. I just got lucky….the real heroes are those guys in the back (pointing to USAF Airmen who were there being recognized for above and beyond heroism).”
We stay because of the love affair with flight, in spite of it all.
And yes, with all the incentives from aviation scholarships of all kinds to intro flights, to Young Eagles, CAP, and many other programs, getting a ticket is not for everyone, not for most, but a seed was sown…a sample of the freedom of a bird in flight, a story they may share many times over…not always instant gratification or action…but I think we’ll keep trying.
Well said.
Saw it today, 5/27, in a theater filled about 50%. The movie is not bad, keeping in mind strict “realism” is not necessarily required in an action/adventure movie. Make no mistake, that’s what this is. The good guys get into some tough scrapes, deal with thick-headed superiors, yada yada, pretty much the same plotline as any interchangeable Elvis movie with flying scenes instead of songs. I had not read the previous comment about editing & the first 15 minutes until after I saw the movie and that could explain why the first 15 minutes seemed a little slow and forced. It’s easy to poke holes in Hollywood depictions of aviation and it will be even easier if the next blockbuster (Do those even happen anymore?) happens to be about ballooning. All in all I enjoyed it, and you might too. The original “Top Gun” turned out to be an effective recruiting film for the USN, mostly due to the live-action footage of real Naval aviation ops. Maybe it will happen again, for the same reasons.
Thanks for noticing. “Chomping” in that metaphor is one of my niggly little language peeves, like “flack” for “flak.”
The short answer is no. And I don’t think video-recording the checkride would help, and it could potentially be used against you instead of for you. Let’s say a maneuver was performed borderline to the standards but the examiner passes you, perhaps because they felt everything else was one to standards, or perhaps they were just feeling generous that day. Now both you and the examiner are potentially in hot water.
As unfortunate this is for the affected pilots, I don’t think there’s really much that can be done to prevent this. And I’m not aware of there being many instances like this, so I don’t think it’s a rampant issue.
2 replies
Recently retired DPE…totally feel for the pilots involved.
The FSDO conducts an annual observation for each DPE but that accomplishes nothing since DPE behavior is calibrated to match the inspector’s expectations. Surprise observations would help, but you run into W&B issues that can derail the checkride - you can’t defuel a 172. Video, with an audio feed? That would be very helpful, but that would require inspector time watching the video, which any ASI can tell you they don’t have. Also, it’s very difficult to evaluate “proper attitude” (see PP ACS for landings), as well as other subtle go/no go task elements by video.
DPE behavior being bad enough to warrant this kind of intervention is rare enough that nothing’s going to change unless the problem gets worse.
Go away! I come here to talk about aviation, not politics
A class action against the DPE, regardless of the outcome, would put the fear of God in DPEs, and act as a deterrent. Probably more effective than the FAA merely yanking the DPE authorization…
4 replies
I have a friend who had to take his A&P exams twice because of a similar event on the maintenance side. Then what happens to any aircraft owner who had an inspection performed by the individuals who are required to retest?
“The FSDO conducts an annual observation for each DPE but that accomplishes nothing since DPE behavior is calibrated to match the inspector’s expectations.”
Which at least in the case of one FSDO I know of, it pretty much means an automatic unsatisfactory. That hardly has the intended effect of ensuring that DPEs are testing properly.
Perhaps what is needed is an independent review board. Either for reviewing DPEs on a regular, unscheduled basis, and/or for reviewing cases where the FAA claims a DPE or pilot is not qualified.
2 replies
Middle of winter, 25 days to get a check ride. Poor weather and a DPE shortage will end up unfairly grounding many. I guess the question to ask is is there a real identifiable safety issue or is this just a some i’s not dotted and t’s not crossed kind of thing. I think a fairer approach would be to have the affected pilots take a ride with an instructor, BFR or something similar to make sure they are okay and then give them 6 months or more to take another checkride if they deem it necessary. Seems to be the FAA is migrating back to being an overbearing, heavy handed organization again instead of one there to help pilots, committed to safety and promoting aviation.
3 replies
We don’t know the circumstances of why this DPE had his privileges revoked. The talk of lawsuits is premature and I am sure there is very little in the way of flesh to take. The only people who would make out in that circumstance would be the lawyers. It could be a simple paperwork issue and an overzealous FAA, something we have seen time and time again.
Agreed, 25 days is nuts. I don’t know the DPE situation in Alaska, but in Colorado I regularly hear about students scheduling their checkrides months in advance.
The FAA has NEVER been known to be fair or compassionate! Whoever had the oversight of this DPE at the FAA should be fired instead! In my 40 years experience with the FAA the majority of the pilot administrators have some sort of chip on their shoulder. Most because they didn’t land a good pilot job with an airline. It’s not a joke that the biggest lie in commercial aviation is when the FAA inspector shows up and says “I’m just here to help”. I got to the point in my airline career when I had an air carrier inspector in the cockpit, that my briefing was “You don’t make small talk at any time, and you don’t speak unless you see a safety of flight issue.” They weren’t there to help, they were there to get cudos from the other guys back at the office for busting an airline pilot. Oh, and the chip on my shoulder isn’t from getting busted by a fed. I had a 30 year career with no violations. But I saw them hand out plenty of BS violations to others.
2 replies
I’m going to be very intrigued to see what comes out about this. Simply put, the FAA has lost complete control of the DMS (Designee Management Systems) specialists. In New England, we lost three DPEs in one week after a rogue DMS Specialist came to town to “teach” the new local guy. Even though it’s clear that the DMS Specialist was not acting correctly, the FSDO manager just saluted and signed the terminations. This is less than a year after another DPE was terminated because the FAA issued him an authorization he wasn’t supposed to have AND multiple other inspectors failed to catch the error (same FSDO).
As you can imagine, there are long wait times for check rides in our little area, and prices have gone up a lot.
1 reply
Perhaps a 3rd party contractor operating ‘under cover’ with ID and fake logbook to match. Oh, that might be entrapment! Seems like the FSDO has some flesh in the game because the FAA oversight was obviously inadequate. Maybe a trip into past practices and the FSDO does rechecks FOR FREE.
This has happened regularly over the years. The FAA doesn’t like DPE’s who have the reputation of being “easy”. They’ll pull tickets on a whim, without evidence or justification, causing a rippling mess. Welcome to Administrative Law. You have no rights.
Aviation becomes less appealing every day.
Good grief.
Honestly, why blame the FAA? Its the DPE that was not following the rules and got caught. I would not be surprised if the affected pilots band together and try to recoup their check ride fees as well as the additional costs incurred for the re-ride against the DPE. It only sounds fair. He provided a service that was not up to standards and it caused this mess to begin with. Its ALL on the DPE. The FAA is just making sure that everyone is held to the same standard.
2 replies
That sounds similar what has happened in my local area. We might even be referring to the same FSDO. It’s basically at the point where if the DPE is being examined and they don’t fail the applicant for any reason, the DPE is deemed to be unqualified.
And DPEs need not bother appealing to the FAA if their examiner privileges are yanked, because they just rubber stamp whatever the rogue “specialist” says why they weren’t qualified.
That’s why I suggested an independent review board, because the FAA can’t be trusted to police itself. All it takes is a single rogue agent with a chip on their shoulder to ruin the aviation lives of many. That can still happen with a board, but at least it’s a little more difficult to pull off than a single person acting on their own.
Maybe, maybe not. We don’t know why that DPE’s status was revoked. And I personally know a DPE who had their status revoked for an insignificant reason. DPEs fear the FAA as much as pilots fear the FAA for making arbitrary decisions.
It could be that this examiner was indeed failing to meet their obligation as a fair and impartial judge of an applicant’s skills and that this action is justified. But it could also just as easily be a rogue FAA specialist who had it in for this particular examiner. Either way, it’s the pilots affected who got the short end of the stick.
1 reply
That’s a very unfair assessment. First, FAA CMO inspectors are a product of the environment that raised them, i.e. the airline industry. So your experience with them is reflected in your own egotistical and gucci boy mirror. Second, DPEs are managed by FSDO inspectors, not CMO inspectors. That duty is just one of the hundreds that involve parts 61, 65, 145, 121/135, 141…and the list goes on and on. An impossible workload for the GA inspector. And lastly, before you judge the dreaded “FAA Inspector”, you may want to take a walk in their shoes. Put on your boots and hat and volunteer to help with some fatal accident investigations. It’s a great way to get out of the protection of your airline cockpit and get some fresh air. (or not so fresh)
Which is already an issue, and will be worse for those pilots dinged in this action; they could essentially have less than a month to actually find a “legit” DPE to re-test. At least in the lower 48, that pretty much ain’t happening.
I agree with You, Mr. Charles B…
This sort of thing comes up periodically in every part of the industry where designees make decisions. Typically, absent something concrete like bribery, we as outsiders don’t get much to go on in choosing sides, so most just go with the side they identify with.
As is the case here, I can’t recall any such action where the performance of the accused was identified as leading to any actual safety-related incident or incidents, therefore how do you adjudge? It would be nice to see something such as supporting statistics comparing his examinees’ records to those of others of similar experience engaged in the same type of flying. “His style just annoys me” would be a poor explanation to be left with.
There’s going to be a lot of ASA flights down to Arizona in the next month if they can find a DPE.
AT 70 Years of age, still flying GA but having dropped my commercial activities (EU CFI, IR, ME with several airliner type ratings and on) I am still very connected with the new rules. And these are no joke in the EU. Just about everything is regulated, there is so much stuff out there, that describes and requires any pilot, CFI and/or examiner to comply with. The Young kids accept that more(they have no choice), I would have trouble to be a teacher these days if I would have to study and teach according this harness.
Possibly the gentleman involved was like many older and experienced (in practical ways) flyers that followed his own “book”. Alas that has been, a bygone era. I accepted that and try to make my flights as much as according to the new rules and regulations.
Anyways not a bad idea as my flight hours are approaching 25k and the time to stop is already at the horizon. By flying GA better prepared, less risky, I hope to reach the day I hang my “stripes” myself, better than being told to do so by someone else. Or worse, ending as yet another terrible age related case on Kathryn’s reports.
Gary, sir.
This happens ALL THE TIME. I know of at three circimstances, just in recent memory (past 10 years) in which people I know were effected by the FAA invalidating many checkrides conducted by either a DPE, or in the case of my students (in 2010), an FAA Inspector/Examiner who was unqualified to perform the checkride himself!!! True story. Sadly, this is an all too common occurrence in flight training.
While I agree with most of your comments, the sad fact is that it does happen more often than we hear about. The FAA does not advertise it since it does not reflect well on the FAA when a DPE goes rogue. The reason for going rogue? It’s all about the MONEY until they get caught. DPEs are selected based on specific criteria they have to meet. They are then trained/indoctrinated on how to conduct checkrides and how to conduct themselves when performing tasks on behalf of the FAA. They also receive recurrent training as a DPE.
When they go off the reservation, it’s purely intentional and it’s always for the MONEY. I don’t feel sorry for the applicants either. The Airman Certification Standards are very clear about what’s required so if the applicant see’s things are not unfolding as they should during a check, the applicant should terminate the test. A simple, “I feel like I’m about to throw up,” will end the check immediately without tipping off the rogue DPE. Typically, the applicant never reports the DPE, it’s usually a third party who finds out what is going on and reports it. In fact, most applicants spread the word to other potential applicants to use the rogue DPE because he/she gives an “easy checkride.” Both rogue DPE and applicants who partake are equally guilty and cannot plead ignorance as a valid reason for their actions. Those 140 applicants being recalled thought they got away with something. Now they’re whining because they got caught. There are consequences for bad behavior. Not all of the 140 will retake a check because some of them know they cannot pass a check. Many others will fail a subsequent check as well. A few may pass a real check too. They are not innocent victims.
DPE’s are selected based on their reputation for integrity. It’s part of the criteria for DPE selection. However, some people lose it or were phonies who never had integrity. I’ve seen both. The same is true for those that oversee DPEs. When the system breaks down with DPEs, it usually was going on for a while and should have been discovered but like all things in life, you have to be looking for it 24/7. That is not how the system works. There needs to be a level of trust that DPEs will do what they are expected to do and act with integrity. When they demonstrate they cannot behave the way they should, they need to be removed. That is the way the system works no matter how imperfect it may be.
A class action by who? The 140 applicants who should have known better but were looking for an easy check? They are equal participants with the DPE. They should all crawl under a rock and hope they are never discovered by the industry and barred from ever getting a flying job.
2 replies
While getting to schedule a check ride is woefully inadequate, it doesn’t justify being a rogue DPE. If 140 applicants were administered checks that did not meet ACS Standards, there is doubt as to whether these airmen are qualified to hold the privileges of their certificate. That requires a reexamination under US 49 Code 41709. It’s the law, not an arbitrary or capricious decision on the part of the FAA, a FSDO, or an inspector. Flight reviews and CFIs do not have the authority to apply reexamination to determine if an airman should retain their certificate or have it revoked. The FAA is being fair. Violating the law would be unfair to you, to me, and the Public.
Your post is irresponsible. How did you ever fit on the flight deck with such a massive ego? For the readers: this guy is not a typical example of an airline pilot. The vast majority are professional, exercise good judgement, and don’t disparage people with a broad brush like this guy. Thank God you’re retired Billy.
You don’t lose your DPE for an “insignificant reason.” I doubt if you know as much about the event that cause the DPE to lose the privilege as you posted. Suffice it to say, if the DPE lost his designation, the world is a safer place. I’m sure if you learned all the details you might have a different opinion.
“ They are not innocent victims.”
140 check rides. Not 10. Not 30. One-hundred and forty.
The FAA placed a stamp of approval on the DPE. Either that stamp is worth something, or it’s not.
Turns out, if that stamp is worthless then yes, there are victims. That stamp is meaningless and you might as well have taken a check ride from your local FDA approved butcher.
The responsibility here, lies directly with the FAA. The FAA holds a monopoly on who can give check rides. If you can’t receive a proper check ride with an FAA approved DPE, where else can you get one?
I am one of the pilots affected by this action in Alaska. 20 years and 2100 hours of real world flying all over Alaska. Instrument and Commercial SEL/SES. Retired senior engineering and construction manager for a major international oil company. I got my Instrument and Commercial ratings as a way to improve my flying in the way that an accomplished musician still takes lessons to be even better. I was actually honored to fly with Don Lee. He is a living Alaska aviation legend and has forgotten more about flying than most pilots ever knew. In my experience, his checkrides were real and thorough. (And I know a LOT of pilots in Alaska that would say the same!) If anyone that has posted here actually read the Notice (N 8900.647) then you will see that the FAA conveniently left out mention of any actual noted deficiencies in the checkrides. The pilots affected are left with a “just because” which wouldn’t work in any other world other than the FAA’s. Nor do they reference a single accident, incident, or violation that has resulted from a deficient checkride with Don. The scope of this action is 140 pilots over 4 years. That’s a lot of cumulative flight hours. And nothing has happened. I don’t know the actual reason for this but in my opinion it is a gross over-reaction.
And to the individual that made a blanket statement above about the Airmen being complicit in this and just looking to get away with something…that’s insulting. You’re a jerk.
Not necessarily true. I personally know a guy who was very conscientious, who got caught up in a DPE loss of qualification.
Honestly “.” your comments are ignorant. Your comments appear to claim you know some background of the situation, but by your complete disrespect to the DPE and the pilots involved, it’s clear you know nothing other than how to spout off disrespect. If you look at the aviation community in Alaska they are coming together to support these pilots. University of Alaska has donated an enormous amount of simulator time, internet ground schools have donated complete ground schools for re-training, CFI’s offered training and checkrides, Alaska Airmen’s Association has provided a staff member to help coordinate and give support, and the FSDO is doing everything they can to lessen the burden on pilots and accommodate schedules within the law. If you knew the DPE (which it’s pretty clear you don’t) you’d understand that this is a pretty understandable situation that he believed what he did to invalidate the check ride was actually approved since 2018 (Change 1) (there are details I won’t embellish on). He was wrong, and because of LACK of FAA oversight, 140 students continued to trust the system until the FAA provided enough oversight to find the problem. The FAA is responsible for the majority of this burden. It could have been a much smaller number (1 or 2 years, not 5 worth of check rides). If you knew you’d learn from pilots that they aren’t really upset at the situation or the DPE, only the burden of having to retest. It’s a sour situation, but your attitude and accusations are more sour than anyone ACTUALLY involved. And to say you believe the pilots were trying to cheat through their check ride and are at fault and should barred is absolutely inconsiderate, totally inaccurate, and entirely rude. They should not be immune to the findings, and should have to test in the area found to be deficient, but the rest of your comments are ignorant. Quit making assumptions in your comments. YOU are the one hiding under a rock with “.” as your username, so I matched it 