Then I might respond that you need more practice until you can do that safely when necessary (and it is indeed necessary in a diversion situation unless you're on fire or the like, and typically the diversion scenario for a PP practical test is unforecast bad weather ahead, which isn't a "barn-burning" emergency) without it being so "distracting". I've taught students that if necessary, they should circle overhead the airport while they work out traffic pattern altitude/direction once they've got the airport in sight in a non-distress diversion.
You can use whatever flight information source you have in your cockpit, including iPad/ForeFlight or the like if that's what you're using. Consider this greater ease of use to be another reason to move into the 21st century in your cockpit. :wink2:
Easy enough to turn off the GPS or just not go to the MAPS page if the examiner is that concerned.
There is no rule prohibiting the use of EFB's on practical tests, nor any authorization for DPE's to require paper charts as long as you have an appropriate backup plan in case your EFB fails (e.g., ForeFlight on your iPhone, or the charts/data in your G1000 system).
I didn't see the word "presumed" in the PTS. Determining the proper TPA is part of the Task.
1341 MSL -- that's field elevation plus 1000, with no exception noted in the A/FD. And I intend to bring to FF's attention the incorrect 1100 MSL displayed in the main airport frame and ask them how they got that number.
1273 MSL -- that's field elevation plus 1000, with no exception noted in the A/FD. And I intend to bring to FF's attention the incorrect 1100 MSL displayed in the main airport frame and ask them how they got that number.
And I stand by that post these 8+ years later.
AOPA periodically sends a questionnaire to the airport's mailing address and prints whatever's returned by whoever sends it back -- or leaves whatever they had if it's not returned. This has resulted in incorrect information in the AOPA Directory.
How could that happen if you check the A/FD entry in ForeFlight? Or do you think a DPE would use unofficial data that conflicts with the official data to bust a pilot on a practical test? That would definitely be grounds for an appeal.
Good -- they're doing it right. However, it would be nice if they went the extra mile to let the airport manager and/or AOPA and/or ForeFlight know there's incorrect data in the AOPA Directory and ForeFlight airport page for their airport.
Why should I notify AOPA and those "other sources" (whoever they are)? It's unofficial data which should not be relied upon. What I have done is open a dialog with ForeFlight to see where they are getting the data they use, and to try to get them to take what they show on the main airport page only from the A/FD, not unofficial sources. In the meantime, you can be sure I'll be emphasizing the importance of checking the A/FD entry rather than relying on the main airport page when using ForeFlight, just as I tell paper-based pilots to use the A/FD book, and not to rely on the AOPA Airport Directory.
Then I'd say that was the root cause of the failure -- not checking something important due to a misplaced sense of urgency. She should have realized that that there was no pressing need to land, so she could take the time to check TPA and other significant airport data in the A/FD even if that meant circling clear of the airport traffic pattern (vertically or horizontally) while she did.
How about runway obstruction data? Or actual landing distance available for all runways? Or any of a bunch of other equally important information? That's why they put all that in the A/FD, and why they expect pilots to refer to that document (in either paper or electronic form) before landing somewhere unfamiliar.
In most cases, nonstandard TPA's are driven by airspace (e.g., the low patterns at Freeway W00 to stay under the B-space) or other procedural issues. There are just too many possible issues to have one regulatory TPA height with no exceptions. However, I realize that there are some airports where the local TPA was "standardized" at 800 AGL back when that was the AIM recommendation (as it was when I started flying in 1969), and they stuck with it for no particular reason when the FAA changed that recommendation back in the 70's. In other cases, they just wanted round numbers in MSL, and so did something like 1000 MSL at an airport with a 42 MSL elevation, eating the 958 AGL TPA height as a cost of convenience.
Your question assumes facts not in evidence, specifically, that TPA is "trivial". The history of midair collisions involving one plane descending on another suggests otherwise. And if you have to "fumble through the A/FD" to find a TPA, or can't keep control of the plane and keep a good visual lookout while you do, then you really aren't ready for the PP practical test, and if you do that on the test you deserve the bust.
As I said above, no, I don't. For example, they can't raise the floor of the B-space over Freeway to allow a higher TPA. And as I said, if you can't look up this information while safely flying the plane, you need more training and practice so you can meet the FAA's minimum standards for pilots.
I have.
So why no second chance on the steep turn?
DPE's are specifically prohibited from giving applicants a second bite at any given apple.
She didn't prioritize. If she had, she would have circled while she looked up the necessary information. Instead, she just went ahead and entered the pattern minus some important information.
That's contrary to the Examiner's Handbook, and if an FAA Inspector had been observing, I suspect that suspension of his/her designation (or at least some retraining) might have ensued, with the Inspector informing the applicant s/he failed even if the DPE said otherwise.
Because that's the FAA's rule on the matter of second chances on practical tests. Only exceptions are if the maneuver had to be terminated for safety (e.g., someone else flies through the middle of your turn around a point forcing you to break off) or if there was a misunderstanding about what the examiner wanted you to do (e.g., you heard "soft-field" when s/he said "short field"). Second chances just because you didn't do it up to standards are strictly prohibited.
Give me a better solution. Perhaps closing all airports where a 1000 TPA doesn't work?
Sorry, LD -- this cigar is just a cigar. It's about failing to understand and meet the standards I the PTS, and from what you've written here, I am beginning to believe the failure to understand is entirely your fault since you don't seem to understand them yourself..
Your experience doesn't match mine -- not even close.
Not if you look in the right place.