Check Ride oral failures items

AlphaPilotFlyer

AlphaPilotFlyer

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Dec 15, 2020
Messages
509
Display Name
AlphaPilotFlyer
I am not sure how many fellow PoA'ers are actually training and read this section for pointers, but want to point out a few trouble areas for all cert level checkrides lately, at least locally in my area... there seems to be common trouble spots regardless if a private or cfi. So if getting ready for a ride, brush up on the following and have a solid understanding and how to express you have that understanding.

DENSITY altitude continues to be a hot spot. This is especially in my area with its higher elevations and common accident probable cause. Have a solid understanding of what it is and its impact and how to calculate it as well as mitigate risks. If a CFI ride, be able to explain it in practical terms to a student pilot; if a instrument or II or ME ride also explain it in terms of IFR climb mins. I wrote more on this topic a few months back after 2 locals failed orals.

AlphaPilotFlyer

Thread 'Some pre check ride advice for newer pilots'

As I mentioned in prior posts in the POA training forum, I occasionally work with pilots at all ratings, some struggling, some failed rides, and some that are amazing. I spoke about some short comings and common challenges I see, from both part 61 and 141 schools, and just wish to pass along some advice from a gold seal CFI-mei with thousands of dual given hours from single engines to jet liners.

I continue to see a common thread with weaker pilots….. almost all have trained with few different CFIs and all of which were relatively new CFIs with little real world experience and many...
  • Like

Second hot spot seems to be flying with broken/INOP equipment. For a private pilot, most are saying they will simply contact A&P when given a scenario of finding something inop on preflight to determine if legal to fly. For commercial and ATP rides it can get a bit more complicated. This continues to be a confusing topic for even CFI's i fly with. Regardless, for PP at least understand basic steps to determine if you can fly. There's different ways to teach this, but here's what I came up with years ago and so for no complaints.... I call it the 3 P's

Part 91.... specifically 91.205 which list what must be installed and working. If your busted item is not listed here, continue to 2nd P

POH.... each pilot operating handbook (POH) will list required equipment. Know where this is and how to read it. its typically a Column in the equipment list. If the item is marked with a R for required, than you cant fly until fixed... if it's not, than go to next/last P

PIC.... you always have the right to refuse to fly with anything not properly working. Example being your c172 electric flap motor is not working on preflight and stuck retracted... flaps are not required by part 91 or POH so good to go fly; but, if your runway is a soft field or your destination has a short runway, you would not take the plane because both softfield and short runway POH procedures require flaps extended.

In short, know the basic steps in decision making if you can fly a broken airplane... just don't assume you need to call a A&P right away.

For more advance ratings like commercial and CFI.... the 3 Ps still work but also add/know about deferring inop items for repair and still flying; such as ferry permits, additional STC requirements, or how field approval basics work as options. Don't get tied up with MEL other than know that a MEL or MMEL is not part of the POH or maintence manual...it has to be specifically approved for a specific aircraft, which is rare for most piston part 91 operators, so there is no generic MEL you can use (this seems to be a common misconception around here).

Finally, review what is required when you log something as inop or missing (entry made before flight, inop equipment removed or depowered, ect). Understand that even though you log it and its legal to fly, its not a blanket entry for eternity.... BASICALLY, inop equipment, thus, is considered as repairs are deferred to a later time, but there is no specific time limit for most part 91ops, although most op specs, if applicable, like a 141 school may require deferred items be repaired at next 100 hour or annual, or be up to the A&P performing the inspection (thus the term DEFERRED is used).

In a nut shell... before the ride, have another pilot or cfi give you some scenarios with inop equipment requiring you to work thru the entire process, from 3P's to log book defer enter or finding a way to fly out of a remote airport for repairs if not deferable. Most candidates have not done this and working through it for first time on the checkride. Hope this is helpful to those prepping for a ride.
 
Those are good points I will bring up with my students. Thanks for sharing!
 
A friend of mine was a DPE until fairly recently, and he used to tell me horror stories about students coming to him for checkrides and not knowing the rules — and practicalities and safety issues — surrounding broken and INOP gear. And it wasn't so much the students not knowing this that shocked him, it was the CFIs sending these students to him that didn't seem to know the rules either, or who'd just neglected to teach their students how to deal with these issues. Really basic things like a student not knowing how to check whether a 172's stall warning was working — and whether the student was required to test that before flight or not. And what to do if it wasn't working (the DPE saw a bunch of these). Or the DPE being presented with a plane the student had just flown in to the checkride with poorly-rigged ailerons where one stood up noticeably when the other was neutral. "Oh it always does that…" is not a good response to the DPE's "Is that safe? Is that legal? Is that sensible?". Or a student who couldn't find (and obviously had never used) the (admittedly baroque) fuel level … thing … you're supposed to use on the DA40 pre-flight. And the legion of students who couldn't articulate in any usable form how to determine whether some missing or broken bit of airplane was essential — legally, safety-wise, or just practically. He said a significant fraction of checkrides never even got off the ground because of basic things like this; he almost always blamed the CFI rather than the student. The thought that these students had got all the way to a checkride — and been signed off by a CFI — was kind of shocking.
 
Good Discussion, thanks for posting...

AlphaPilotFlyer said:
POH.... each pilot operating handbook (POH) will list required equipment. Know where this is and how to read it. its typically a Column in the equipment list. If the item is marked with a R for required, than you cant fly until fixed... if it's not, than go to next/last P
Click to expand...
I would say "operating handbook MAY list required equipment" a lot of planes I train in never had a required equipment list. Others may have an equipment list but it might not state if the equipment listed is required or not. Some I have reviewed have obviously optional equipment listed and is more just a list of what was included on the weight and balance.
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
PIC.... you always have the right to refuse to fly with anything not properly working. Example being your c172 electric flap motor is not working on preflight and stuck retracted... flaps are not required by part 91 or POH so good to go fly; but, if your runway is a soft field or your destination has a short runway, you would not take the plane because both softfield and short runway POH procedures require flaps extended.
Click to expand...
I and pretty sure at least some of our local examiners would disgree about legally flying with an in operative flap motor. The argument being that the airplane was originally certified with a flap motor and if it is not operative then the airplane no longer conforms to it's original type certificate. This is why removing a seat or a door usually requires specific authorization to do so. This might be in the manual or other documentation (I have seen such documentation, but can't say specifically how to get it)

Our examiners like to use the following examples as well..
inoperative Trim indicator, Not Airworthy, as it is part of the original type certificate.
Inoperative Navigation Light (day time), Maybe, for a 172 is not airworthy as it is part of the original type certificate (i.e. every 172 that left the factory had it), C-120 not required as the Navigation lights were optional equipment.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL
 
Failures for pressure / density altitude, performance and WB are recommending instructor failures. A comprehensive NavLog form with performance fields should be used in the XC phase of training and the student required to complete those fields preflight or the flight doesn’t go.
 
brcase said:
I and pretty sure at least some of our local examiners would disgree about legally flying with an in operative flap motor
Click to expand...
I think they would be incorrect, at least for normal ops, maybe could argue flaps needed in case of off field landing to slow speed. many planes don't even have flaps...nor do any c172 normal procedures require them, or even have non norm procedures if inop/failed. this is where the PIC component comes in.

if the trim pointer missing... it's a flight safety component and checklist required item, so pic would refuse to fly. you can really go down a rabbits hole on this topic arguing if anything is missing or busted, even an ash tray, aircraft would be unairworthy because it doesn't confirm to type design...that's why there's exemptions. if SO, I have yet to see an airworthy c172 in my life.

RE where required equipment is listed in POH or other manual... most of legacy designs were certified under old 1940-1950 era CAR regs that had a lot less documentation requirements, others may of been under other regs such as JAR or foreign. but most common trainers have it in the poh, or related docs or maybe TCDS.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
Example being your c172 electric flap motor is not working on preflight and stuck retracted... flaps are not required by part 91 or POH so good to go fly; but, if your runway is a soft field or your destination has a short runway, you would not take the plane because both softfield and short runway POH procedures require flaps extended.
Click to expand...
Wings aren't required either. I guess we can fly without them.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
I am not sure how many fellow PoA'ers are actually training and read this section for pointers, but want to point out a few trouble areas for all cert level checkrides lately, at least locally in my area... there seems to be common trouble spots regardless if a private or cfi. So if getting ready for a ride, brush up on the following and have a solid understanding and how to express you have that understanding.

DENSITY altitude continues to be a hot spot. This is especially in my area with its higher elevations and common accident probable cause. Have a solid understanding of what it is and its impact and how to calculate it as well as mitigate risks. If a CFI ride, be able to explain it in practical terms to a student pilot; if a instrument or II or ME ride also explain it in terms of IFR climb mins. I wrote more on this topic a few months back after 2 locals failed orals.

AlphaPilotFlyer

Thread 'Some pre check ride advice for newer pilots'

As I mentioned in prior posts in the POA training forum, I occasionally work with pilots at all ratings, some struggling, some failed rides, and some that are amazing. I spoke about some short comings and common challenges I see, from both part 61 and 141 schools, and just wish to pass along some advice from a gold seal CFI-mei with thousands of dual given hours from single engines to jet liners.

I continue to see a common thread with weaker pilots….. almost all have trained with few different CFIs and all of which were relatively new CFIs with little real world experience and many...
  • Like

Second hot spot seems to be flying with broken/INOP equipment. For a private pilot, most are saying they will simply contact A&P when given a scenario of finding something inop on preflight to determine if legal to fly. For commercial and ATP rides it can get a bit more complicated. This continues to be a confusing topic for even CFI's i fly with. Regardless, for PP at least understand basic steps to determine if you can fly. There's different ways to teach this, but here's what I came up with years ago and so for no complaints.... I call it the 3 P's

Part 91.... specifically 91.205 which list what must be installed and working. If your busted item is not listed here, continue to 2nd P

POH.... each pilot operating handbook (POH) will list required equipment. Know where this is and how to read it. its typically a Column in the equipment list. If the item is marked with a R for required, than you cant fly until fixed... if it's not, than go to next/last P

PIC.... you always have the right to refuse to fly with anything not properly working. Example being your c172 electric flap motor is not working on preflight and stuck retracted... flaps are not required by part 91 or POH so good to go fly; but, if your runway is a soft field or your destination has a short runway, you would not take the plane because both softfield and short runway POH procedures require flaps extended.

In short, know the basic steps in decision making if you can fly a broken airplane... just don't assume you need to call a A&P right away.

For more advance ratings like commercial and CFI.... the 3 Ps still work but also add/know about deferring inop items for repair and still flying; such as ferry permits, additional STC requirements, or how field approval basics work as options. Don't get tied up with MEL other than know that a MEL or MMEL is not part of the POH or maintence manual...it has to be specifically approved for a specific aircraft, which is rare for most piston part 91 operators, so there is no generic MEL you can use (this seems to be a common misconception around here).

Finally, review what is required when you log something as inop or missing (entry made before flight, inop equipment removed or depowered, ect). Understand that even though you log it and its legal to fly, its not a blanket entry for eternity.... BASICALLY, inop equipment, thus, is considered as repairs are deferred to a later time, but there is no specific time limit for most part 91ops, although most op specs, if applicable, like a 141 school may require deferred items be repaired at next 100 hour or annual, or be up to the A&P performing the inspection (thus the term DEFERRED is used).

In a nut shell... before the ride, have another pilot or cfi give you some scenarios with inop equipment requiring you to work thru the entire process, from 3P's to log book defer enter or finding a way to fly out of a remote airport for repairs if not deferable. Most candidates have not done this and working through it for first time on the checkride. Hope this is helpful to those prepping for a ride.
Click to expand...

This is a great discussion topic.

Density altitude - I honestly don't know why this is a 'hot spot'. This is basic aeronautical knowledge. It doesn't matter if the applicant trained in Florida. If they fly at altitude, then they should know density altitude. If the applicant doesn't know this, then I would question everything else about the applicant's knowledge of aerodynamics.

Inop equipment - this is a legitimately confusing topic because the requirements are scattered across different certifications and the FAR. In my flight manual, it lists the following:
-R = required items of equipment for FAA certification
-S = standard equipment items
-O= optional equipment items replacing required or standard items
-A = optional equipment items which are in addition to required or standard items

In my club we recently had a discussion about the analog clock. This is an original panel installation. The clock stopped working. Some argued it is required all the time because it was installed during certification. Some argued it is required for IFR only. Some argued that the GPS, which is a certified unit, has a clock display. But the flight manual specifically lists the analog clock as -S (for standard). The confusion still remains, however, if "standard" implies "required" or if it means "not required, but we normally sell our aircraft with this".

Then there is the whiskey compass. Ours got fogged up so badly that it became hard to read. The manual lists it as -R. The regs also require it for all flights. But I can't remember looking at the whiskey compass in the last decade. We have a G5 with a magentometer, which is more accurate. Does it count? The answer is no, it doesn't count. But our whiskey compass was still there, even if it is was not reasy to read. So does that count for being legal? So you can see why this topic can get very confusing and subjective.

In my humble opinion, it is more important for the student to know what questions to ask, and how to dig deeper, rather than know some memorized facts.
 
woywoyboy said:
"Is that safe? Is that legal? Is that sensible?"
Click to expand...

I really like that you put safe before legal. That is really good. I’d even go a step further,

Is that safe? Is that sensible? Is that legal?
Click to expand...


https://medium.com/@jamesmcclaranallen/the-contrarian-aviator-sometimes-turns-right-89da7d61d132

While driving to the post office recently, I swerved over the double yellow line into the oncoming lane of traffic (I also slowed). There were no cars approaching while a man was trimming his lawn along the roadside up to my right. I say this to ask, Legal? Courteous? Safe?
The same FAA webinar that began this entire train of thought ended with a slide asking “Is it Legal? Is it Safe? Is it Courteous?” As order sets priority, I’d rotate this a bit to be “Is it Safe? Is it Courteous? Is it Legal?” recognizing Safe and Legal can sometimes disagree. We say “Safety First” so put Safety first. Make Courteous next as being Courteous will amplify Safety. Courteous makes for better interactions while the whole point of legal is to force satisfactory interactions. Safe, courteous, legal, in that order.
Click to expand...

I have moved away from ‘courteous’ in favor of ‘considerate’ since that piece came out. Such is due to this story: https://medium.com/@jamesmcclaranallen/to-blow-you-have-to-suck-502bdd1ebd0c

This incident has made me change my verb of choice to be ‘considerate’ not being ‘courteous.’ I’m thinking courteous could enable being insufficiently assertive and that may have been at play with the Cessna. Helicopter was most definitely inconsiderate but Cessna may have been too courteous regarding others so as to be a touch inconsiderate regarding the situation hence not asserting. Interesting my thesaurus does show considerate as alternate when viewing courteous but does not show the reverse courteous while viewing considerate. Note ‘circumspect’ as synonym for ‘considerate’ yet not to ‘courteous’ whereas ‘debonair’ and ‘cultivated’ go with ‘courteous.’ The dictionary on considerate gives something more fitting to flying as compared to courteous. I say this as I’ve seen FAA safety teams presenting a stupid mantra of “is it legal, is it safe, is it courteous” which I previously would shuffle but now will also substitute to be ‘is it safe, is it considerate, is it legal.’ Perhaps better when facing horns of dilemmas would be ‘is it survivable, is it considerate.’
Click to expand...
 
sarangan said:
The manual lists it as -R. The regs also require it for all flights. But I can't remember looking at the whiskey compass in the last decade. We have a G5 with a magentometer, which is more accurate. Does it count? The answer is no, it doesn't count.
Click to expand...

But in a different airplane where you do not to have specifically compass-R in the book, then two G5s each with their own magnetometers, noting each has its own internal redundant battery, means no compass is ok.
 
Fffflats said:
I really like that you put safe before legal. That is really good. I’d even go a step further,




https://medium.com/@jamesmcclaranallen/the-contrarian-aviator-sometimes-turns-right-89da7d61d132



I have moved away from ‘courteous’ in favor of ‘considerate’ since that piece came out. Such is due to this story: https://medium.com/@jamesmcclaranallen/to-blow-you-have-to-suck-502bdd1ebd0c
Click to expand...

Interesting how your references are articles you wrote....... o_O
 
Doc Holliday said:
Interesting how your references are articles you wrote....... o_O
Click to expand...

Doc Holliday said:
Interesting how your references are articles you wrote....... o_O
Click to expand...
I remember my college professors used to have us buy their own written , over- priced book in the overpriced book store....each year or two they'd change a few paragraphs and make it required to buy the 3rd, 4th. 5th edition etc so you had to buy new..for ridiculous prices! we were basically quoting him to him! to make matters worse, your book was worthless after the class as there was a new addition for each year, so you tried to get the class in first semester so at least you could sell it back to shop for second semester.

no relation to the topic , just triggered me and needed to vent. seems I'm still bitter
 
dmspilot said:
Wings aren't required either. I guess we can fly without them.
Click to expand...
correct, wings not required but you risk violation upon landing at destination if unable to articulate your interpretation of regulation
 
sarangan said:
This is a great discussion topic.

Density altitude - I honestly don't know why this is a 'hot spot'. This is basic aeronautical knowledge. It doesn't matter if the applicant trained in Florida. If they fly at altitude, then they should know density altitude. If the applicant doesn't know this, then I would question everything else about the applicant's knowledge of aerodynamics.

Inop equipment - this is a legitimately confusing topic because the requirements are scattered across different certifications and the FAR. In my flight manual, it lists the following:
-R = required items of equipment for FAA certification
-S = standard equipment items
-O= optional equipment items replacing required or standard items
-A = optional equipment items which are in addition to required or standard items

In my club we recently had a discussion about the analog clock. This is an original panel installation. The clock stopped working. Some argued it is required all the time because it was installed during certification. Some argued it is required for IFR only. Some argued that the GPS, which is a certified unit, has a clock display. But the flight manual specifically lists the analog clock as -S (for standard). The confusion still remains, however, if "standard" implies "required" or if it means "not required, but we normally sell our aircraft with this".

Then there is the whiskey compass. Ours got fogged up so badly that it became hard to read. The manual lists it as -R. The regs also require it for all flights. But I can't remember looking at the whiskey compass in the last decade. We have a G5 with a magentometer, which is more accurate. Does it count? The answer is no, it doesn't count. But our whiskey compass was still there, even if it is was not reasy to read. So does that count for being legal? So you can see why this topic can get very confusing and subjective.

In my humble opinion, it is more important for the student to know what questions to ask, and how to dig deeper, rather than know some memorized facts.
Click to expand...
wet compass is the requirement, other such devices not substitute...reason why b787 still have it regardless of several technical compasses on board. if you want to dig into it, one could argue there's no requirement to have it accurate or for a compass deviation card.. but, it was manufactured under a TSO or other approval likely with a compass card, so could it could be considered required? how many compass cards do you see that are blank or faded on old rental aircraft?
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
wet compass is the requirement, other such devices not substitute...
Click to expand...
If a wet compass is in your airplane's required equipment list then a wet compass is required equipment. Otherwise, per 91.205, a "magnetic direction indicator" is required. This is one of those unfortunate areas where there may be disagreement among examiners and inspectors and it's a tough case to argue when you're looking for approval.

AlphaPilotFlyer said:
one could argue there's no requirement to have it accurate or for a compass deviation card..
Click to expand...
One could, but there are magnetic direction indicator accuracy requirements in part 23.1327 that one could argue may be met with a card.

Nauga,
feet dry
 
Last edited:
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
wet compass is the requirement, other such devices not substitute...reason why b787 still have it regardless of several technical compasses on board. if you want to dig into it, one could argue there's no requirement to have it accurate or for a compass deviation card.. but, it was manufactured under a TSO or other approval likely with a compass card, so could it could be considered required? how many compass cards do you see that are blank or faded on old rental aircraft?
Click to expand...

The G6 and G7 Cirrus have no wet compass. Explain.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
I remember my college professors used to have us buy their own written , over- priced book in the overpriced book store....
Click to expand...

Those Medium articles are not monetized and should be free with no paywall. If Medium hits you with one then they’re dirty corporate extractionist sobs.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
In short, know the basic steps in decision making if you can fly a broken airplane... just don't assume you need to call a A&P right away.
Click to expand...
91.205 > 91.213 > MEL > KOEL > W&B Equipment List > AD? > Placard etc.

Is an airplane with an inop flap motor airworthy? Well you won’t find that in any of those references, but it’s designed to have a functional flap motor. By default it’s not legally airworthy, unless some mechanic can establish a reason that it should be.
 
Fffflats said:
The G6 and G7 Cirrus have no wet compass. Explain.
Click to expand...
From a regulatory standpoint, a wet compass isn’t required. It simply says “magnetic direction indicator”. A properly certified electronic magnetic heading system can satisfy this requirement. I know you’re referencing another statement, but it’s an easily confused area of the regulation.
 
RyanB said:
From a regulatory standpoint, a wet compass isn’t required. It simply says “magnetic direction indicator”. A properly certified electronic magnetic heading system can satisfy this requirement. I know you’re referencing another statement, but it’s an easily confused area of the regulation.
Click to expand...

The GIV didn’t have a wet compass installed either.

I’m sure there are others.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
correct, wings not required but you risk violation upon landing at destination if unable to articulate your interpretation of regulation
Click to expand...
They are part of the aircraft's type design. The aircraft does not conform to its type certificate without wings, therefore they are required.

While not as aerodynamically fundamental as wings, the Cessna's flaps are a pretty integral to the design of the aircraft. Landing distance data is only available with flaps extended (and takeoff distance too, depending on the model year). Neither the flaps nor the motor appear in the equipment list at all, implying they're fundamental parts of the aircraft, not "equipment". Could the FAA have issued a type certificate for the Cessna 150/152/172 without flaps? Maybe. But they didn't.
 
Last edited:
Lost a good friend to Density Altitude, someone we folks who live on the flatland don't think about that much. I sure as heck do now.
 
The FAA seems to be interested in enforcing compass cards lately, for God-knows-what reason - as if this has been the cause of many accidents lately. Maybe they want to make sure pilots trained in the GPS era still know the old-school stuff. I would make sure you understand what they are and what's written on them and that the plane you are using for your check ride actually has a clearly visible and legible card. We used to get quizzed about things like RMI's and NDB's even as those were also becoming less important and less common for navigation in my earlier flying days (the VOR/DME era).
 
Doc Holliday said:
The GIV didn’t have a wet compass installed either.

I’m sure there are others.
Click to expand...
difference is the G5 and other modern planes type design had the alternative directional indicator instead....as the wet compass was the standard used to meet the requirement the designer had to show that their indicator meet the same requirements.... my point was for small pistons planes used for primary training which would required the wet compass or equivalent device (usually one of those vertical mounted types which are "certified" as replacement)....

otherwise, I don't believe any Garmin (but not real familiar) meets the substitute for original wet compass...but not familiar. the b787 and even new A320s have the wet compass requirements likely it's cheaper than to have avionics manufacturer certify it as replacement, as well easier on MEL requirements. I remember an A320 had a complete failure of its FMC navigation somewhere over the water near Indonesia and compass became primarily nav.

as far as inop flap motor goes....and as mentioned there is room for argument for most everything, the poh has normal procedures for no flap takeoff and landings as normal procedures.... I think it would be difficult to argue it's not deferrable. you can go far down this rabbit hole with even DARs and DERs and get different answers....if the 1970 c172 ash tray is broken can you fly...some would say NO because the definition of air worthy is aircraft conforms to its type design and it's not specifically mentioned anywhere it can be deferred . the problem is common sense vs a technocrat government employee interpretation.

again, I was just referencing primary trainers in my suggestion for thinking about what's deferrable in most potential said level checks ride scenarios. this process has worked for my students for decades from PP to ATP and type rating rides without issue with many different DPEs and FAA inspectors....it's not a method to end all methods but a reliable and easy guide.
 
davela said:
The FAA seems to be interested in enforcing compass cards lately, for God-knows-what reason
Click to expand...
Its a certification conformity issue. And an easy target, same as a current weight and balance report in the aircraft.

AlphaPilotFlyer said:
I don't believe any Garmin (but not real familiar) meets the substitute for original wet compass.
Click to expand...
If the Garmin has an approval to replace the original compass it does. But the original requirement back to the CAR days was for a magnetic direction indicator, which an un-stabilized magnetic compass, ie, wet compass, would satisfy mainly because of its cost. But it wasn't the only option. However, as to what can be deferred it goes back to what you stated: conform to its type design. And yes an ashtray can be deferred legally if you ran across someone who would actually pursue that. Now whether an ASI won't except a pilot's or mechanic's deferral is a separate issue where the ASI has the burden. Regardless, for the aircraft AWC to be in effect, the aircraft must meet the requirements in Block 6 of the AWC, which is where it all starts whether the aircraft is airworthy. Knowing how the system works is the main issue vs the individual tasks, if that makes sense.
 
Fffflats said:
Really? How are those articles any different than posting here on POA?
Click to expand...

They’re not part of this forum, just word salad filled diatribes.

And it’s apparent you’re just using this forum to drive traffic to your medium post.
 
Doc Holliday said:
They’re not part of this forum, just word salad filled diatribes.

And it’s apparent you’re just using this forum to drive traffic to your medium post.
Click to expand...

Most this forum is diatribes. Including this OP.
 
Fffflats said:
Most this forum is diatribes. Including this OP.
Click to expand...
hey. wait a minute, I was OP. how was it diatribe? I stand behind it . it has gotten a lot of ga pilots to understand the concept over decades. again without it being questioned. I often regret posting anything as it seems to become a point of contention with some self-obligated to dive into hyper technicalities on such simple topics, even those I clearly state are for student pilots or the like. I think this thread reflects the uncertainty of said topic and op was effective way to guide to an answer and time proven.


.
 
AlphaPilotFlyer said:
hey. wait a minute, I was OP. how was it diatribe? I stand behind it . it has gotten a lot of ga pilots to understand the concept over decades. again without it being questioned. I often regret posting anything as it seems to become a point of contention with some self-obligated to dive into hyper technicalities on such simple topics, even those I clearly state are for student pilots or the like. I think this thread reflects the uncertainty of said topic and op was effective way to guide to an answer and time proven.


.
Click to expand...
I've found your contributions for years here as very insightful/helpful. You've done quite a bit of work on the certified to experimental question, which I've enjoyed reading. Some of your work you've shared on here has given me additional and useful context through the years, in parsing some of the broken and recurring dynamics at play in this regulatory captured morass of a space.

My vote is keep sharing, again I've found your contributions on here very useful/salient in the aggregate. Cheers!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top