News - Survey Results About Expected Wait Time for Practical Tests


Last month FSANA surveyed members and others within the training industry to get a better understanding of what the expectations of a wait period for an FAA practical test should be. The results of this are important for us to share with the readers of this newsletter.

While some areas of the country are experiencing very long waits for some practical tests, in some cases nearly two months, we wanted to get a better understanding of what the industry thought was a "reasonable" period of time to wait when scheduling tests.

Certainly, when a survey such as this is conducted, the risk is there that all the respondents will indicate that the absolute shortest period of time is all that is acceptable. Fortunately, the respondents to the survey took the direction of not responding to what an idealistic expectation would be, but a realistic approach to the survey.

The results of this showed that for most tests, the majority of respondents expected that a test would be scheduled in less than 14 days. This expectation climbed for CFI initial and specialty tests such as Glider or Sea-Plane ratings. Less responded on average that a scheduling time period of less than 7 days was required, but naturally even fewer thought it reasonable that scheduling should take any longer than 21 days.

This is valuable information for the industry and the FAA as we all work to build testing system response capacity to serve the needs of the training industry that doesn't hinder the ability of students to make progress in their training.

FSANA thanks all of those that responded to this survey and will be using the data to continue conversations with the FAA to help alleviate backups of practical testing in some affected areas.

Below you will find the results of this survey in more detail and on each question that was answered:


FSANA also captured individual comments on many of these questions and, while those comments were committed to be kept anonymous and not publicly reported, we are reviewing them carefully and addressing some of the concerns raised further those comments in future discussions additionally.