Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Pilot Training' started by Greebo, Aug 8, 2007.
I thought it was about dang time this got stickied.
Go get 'em Ed!!
Technically its a certificate, not a license.
You get the certificate from the FAA, but you get a LICENSE to LEARN. I'm sure that's what Ron meant!
[Chuck, you might consider doing Jason Hegel's Leaseback article as a sticky, too.]
Got a link to it handy?
Now there's a name I haven't heard in a long, long time. I had forgotten about that post...
I always had this impression, that if you do a maneuver that's "questionable", but the checkride continues, then you necessarily haven't busted on that maneuver.
Then I took my instrument checkride, which was a peculiar experience overall, but ultimately it ended with a slip of paper of the wrong color, based on something that happened in the middle of the checkride. He didn't like the way I did something (something that isn't specific enough to be in the PTS, isn't described as "the wrong way" in any FAA document, wasn't the way I was trained, but where I agree that his way makes very good sense, and is how I've done it since then), he made me do it over, this time doing it "his way", we did a couple other things, and then on the ground he failed me for the thing he didn't like.
I went back and looked through the PTS, but I couldn't find any language _requiring_ the DPE to notify the applicant immediately after a maneuver he considers to be unsatisfactory.
It's not in the PTS -- it's in the examiner's handbook (FAA Order 8710.3). See Chapter 5, paragraph 11E.(2). The applicant must ask the examiner to continue after failing a maneuver, and only with that request and the examiner's consent may the test continue. Further, the repetition of the maneuver was in violation of 8710.3 paragraph 13. If it was within PTS standards the first time, it should not have been repeated; if it was not within PTS standards the first time, it should have been repeated only if it was discontinued for safety reasons, collision avoidance, a misunderstood request, or if the examiner was distracted and unable to evaluate the performance.
...and you're not supposed to go below DH without the runway environment in sight...
True for the most part, but you are permitted to sink below DH during the power-up and rotation after initiating the missed approach at (but not below) DH. It's only MDA that has a firm "never below without runway environment in sight and able to land" rule.
In any event, the examiner in question should not have repeated the maneuver merely to teach his own way of doing it. As the story is told, you probably have grounds to appeal the failure unless your first time through the maneuver did not meet PTS standards, which your telling suggests was not the case.
If I only had remembered that on my checkride....
I considered that, but then it just seemed far simpler to just go back to the same DPE and redo the thing he failed me on. Anybody ever appealed a checkride fail? I'd be interested in what the circumstances would be where that would appear to be the path of least resistance.
In my case, my DPE did a few "peculiar" things, including having me do a steep turn under the hood, when that had long since disappeared from the PTS. Again, it was easier to just do the maneuver than to argue about it. It might have been interesting, though, if I had "failed" that one, because I would have had no choice but to ask him to point out the standards I didn't meet. A "better man" might make some effort to see that a DPE who's a little out of whack is brought back into conformance, but it seems to run counter to one's self-interest to do so, when your goal is to get the ticket and move on with your life.
All true, but at the same time, we need to weed out the maverick examiners who don't play by the book -- they inordinately complicate live for applicants and their instructors.
Isn't it the case that instructors have to have a certain pass/fail ratio? If so, then it seems the instructor would have more of a vested interest than the applicant in challenging examiners who make up their own checkride rules.
What's the process an instructor would use? Does the FAA have a documented procedure?
Filing an appeal with the DPE's supervising inspector at the FSDO. The applicant will probably get a new practical test "without prejudice" from a FSDO inspector, and if he passes, will see the DPE's Notice of Disapproval disappear from his record.
Documenting their improper activities and reporting it to the DPE's supervising inspector at the FSDO. The FAA has more times than most people realize pulled DPE's designations over improper practical testing.
In order to be renewed on the basis of activity, instructors must (among other things) have at least an 80% pass rate.
That's kind of a subjective question, but as an instructor, it makes my life a lot harder if examiners don't play by the book. OTOH, I know I'm a good instructor, and one bust (especially a bogus one) won't get me down, but the applicant gets a real ego-smash if he busts.
No. It's a matter of documenting what happened and reporting it to the DPE's supervising inspector at the FSDO. You'd probably want to get several instructors together to document multiple cases of improper DPE activity rather than a single event.
i feel the same way ron. i dont really care too much about my pass rate. i dont use the pass rate to renew my CFI. I do my best to make sure everyone i send is prepared and ready. If the examiner busts them and its not for something in the PTS, I want to know and I make sure my students know that I will go to bat for them if the DPE is out of line.
I haven't actually sent a student for a checkride yet, although I have one coming up pretty soon (depending on the weather).
In my own experience with chekrides, I have had a least two examiners who did things differently than the PTS/objected to a maneuver performed in accordance with the FAA "flying guides".
I make my students get the ACs which are the Airplane flying handbook. I figure that if there is ever a disagreement about the "right" way to perform a maneuver, that the FAA handbook is the "right" way.
P.S. the handbook is now FAA-H-8083. It is no longer an AC,
I've seen that more than once, and it's bad for everyone. I consider it to be the recommending instructor's responsibility to see that the overseeing FSDO hears about such mavericks and straightens them out. Just be sure you're right before you complain -- it's sometimes better to phrase it as a question rather than an accusation ("Y'know, one of my students did a checkride with Mr. X yesterday, and Mr. X said we were supposed to do [whatever], but that's the first I've ever heard of doing it that way. Is there something I've been missing?").
Thanks for this post Ron. My check ride is still pretty far in the future and I am confident that I'll be ready for it when it comes around. However, I can almost guarantee that I will have some nerves pumping when it finally arrives. I'll make sure to read your post again when it does.
Could someone explain what a PTS is??
Airmen Practical Test Standards
I hope you have them in your stockroom.
LOL! God help us when the people selling us stuff don't know what they're selling...
It is SO much better to admit your ignorance and ask than to perpetuate it by not asking.
Which is good check ride advice. Don't do what I did and not ask when you didn't understand what was wanted. Didn't want to look stupid by asking, so I proved myself stupid by not performing the manuver correctly.
Item #18 in my advice.
I just wanted to say that I took my checkride last weekend and I remembered this post when I got nervous and Relaxed.
I am now a private pilot, working on my IFR rating! =D
You can support me by visiting my pilot shop
"Shouldn't this title be changed to "poadeleted20's Checkride Advice"?
the way the old geezer who signed me off who actually flew with the Wright Brothers told me . . .
"Son, you already passed the test or I wouldn't let the government verify it."
Thats pretty confidence building.
and its true = a good flight instructor knows you got it nailed. All you're doing is putting on a show, not performing on a test.