failed checkride

[uncreative]

Had my IR checkride yesterday and pink slipped it. Got through the oral fine, approx 2 hours. Nothing out of the ordinary, very focused on weather decision making. went over the flight plan that I had made ahead of time and walked through the trip covering the various phases of flight. Played stump the chump with chart symbols on the enroute, and then described how to fly a couple of approaches by finger flying the plate.

Gave me the flight plan for the day which were all approaches I had flown except one. Filed for the first airport. Preflighted the plane, demonstrated that all appropriate docs were onboard, did a safety brief, discussed positive exchange of controls, instrument check on the taxi.Picked up clearance by phone in the runup area.

Departed for the first airport, put the hood on right away, picked up approach who gave vectors to the first approach, a VOR/DME. DPE 'failed' the gps at this point which is the source of DME in this plane. Also failed the georef on my tablet. Asked approach to call my final and missed, since this approach didn't have any intermediate stepdowns. tuned and Id'd the vor, tune and id'd the vor needed for the missed in VOR 2.

Approach vectors me to final. The needle centers, I turn on course and the controller says i'm several miles off, gives me a new vector to the left. Needle goes right. double triple quadruple check everything. Cannot understand what is happening, feel compelled to trust my instruments vs the controller, who is giving me another more aggressive vector, then asked for vectors to the missed in order to hold and sort things out.

At this point I am in real bad shape mentally, I am internally freaking out about what is happening and the consequences of failing the check, I ask the DPE if we could try a different approach with different guidance, or if I could do a radar surveillance approach, no dice. I screw up timing on the 5th or 6th hold legs, and I am nonsat. I still can't reconcile the discrepancy between what my instruments were telling me and what the controller was saying. DPE couldn't either.

bad way to spend a friday and $600.

 

[frfly172]

Sorry you lost the ride. If you're not good on the first approach ,it can only get worse you have to be ready for a fIailed instrument on the approach. The controller is trying to help you so you don't have to go missed.can get confusing ,but so can flying IMC.

 

[stratobee]

Sorry about the ride. Failed my first time, too. You'll get back into it and get through it next time, don't sweat it.

In the meantime - do you have an HSI? If not, it sounds like you had reverse sensing on the VOR's or you were in FROM mode. It's easily done. Could that be it?

 

[poadeleted20]

Sounds like you had the OBS backwards, or maybe had the wrong navaid tuned, but without a lot more details (maybe even being there and seeing what was happening), I couldn't say more. However, if the examiner couldn't tell you what you had done wrong, I'd say the examiner was coming up short. There has to be an explanation for what happened, and the examiner most certainly should know what it was, especially if he continued to insist on flying that particular approach without knowing what the problem was.

That said, none of that excuses blowing the holding pattern, which I gather was the real reason for the failure. One thing examiners look for is how you handle adversity. Having a problem with the approach should not spill over into failing to fly a holding pattern properly after abandoning the approach.

 

[cirrusmx]

theres no such thing as having the obs backwards. a way to think about it is the following;the to/from flag and the cdi alwas tell you which heading to fly to the station via the selected radial. this way theres no reverse sensing concerns the instrument is screaming which heading to fly . i rather fly with an hsi its easier to use and fool proof.

 

[azure]

theres no such thing as having the obs backwards. a way to think about it is the following;the to/from flag and the cdi alwas tell you which heading to fly to the station via the selected radial. this way theres no reverse sensing concerns the instrument is screaming which heading to fly . i rather fly with an hsi its easier to use and fool proof.

Fool here, and I'm here to say my HSI wasn't proof against me.

My situation: I was going direct to PTK, coming from the east, and I had punched in the ILS 9R and exec'd the modified flight plan. I fly with a 480 that is set up to auto-slew my Sandel eHSI's course pointer when transitioning between flight plan legs (including approach legs). I had already tuned in and ID'd the locallizer. Along the way they started vectoring me to final, so I hit VTF on my 480, switched the CDI output to the internal VOR receiver and tried to intercept the localizer. I found it was "reverse sensing" and had a heck of a time figuring out what was wrong, even got some flack from the controller about it. The HSI had a dim bulb which made it hard to see, but the problem was that the course pointer was still pointed toward the west. Now that the CDI output was from the VOR receiver, auto-slew was disabled so I had only to manually twist the OBS. I later learned that the reason for the problem was that the 480 was still on the direct-to-airport leg; on direct-to-airport flight plans, the approach is inserted after the destination: a subtlety that was nowhere documented at the time (later added to Keith Thomassen's excellent book on the 480).

To the OP: if you're flying with modern avionics, I'd almost bet that something like this is what happened to you. Don't let it discourage you; get together with an instructor who knows your panel, if possible, learn from the experience, go back and nail the checkride next time.

 

[uncreative]

I've narrowed it down to 2 things.

1- I had something wrong on the OBS.
2- The VOR approach has a final approach fix DME 20 from the VOR. Assuming the following:
-VOR is near or at the limit of +-4 degrees accuracy
-I don't have the OBS set exactly, maybe off a degree or two
-I am 30 miles from the VOR

This could easily put me 2.5 miles off course even though my CDI is centered. ATC did say 'several miles'. What would be the best thing to do in this situation?

Falling apart in the hold was the thing that eventually sealed my fate, but I technically busted for not following ATC clearance when I deviated while following what I thought was the final approach course. It was fair decision, no arguments there. It was also a good lesson that trying to hand fly a hold defined by a VOR intersection with needles only is actually pretty high workload and isn't the place to try to gather one's thoughts. Delay vectors would have been more appropriate.

For whatever reason this examiner doesn't seem to trust GPS, and with the exception of the GPS approach, insists that the GPS be disabled during the ride. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I don't make the rules of the game. It does annoy me that he was unable to tell me why I thought I was on final and ATC didn't, but I'm not paying him to instruct.

 

[AustinPilot]

How can they fail your DME and then make you fly an approach requiring DME? In the real world you couldn't accept that approach, if I'm not mistaken.

 

[John Collins]

How can they fail your DME and then make you fly an approach requiring DME? In the real world you couldn't accept that approach, if I'm not mistaken.

Good question. With the title of the approach being VOR/DME, you require a DME to fly the approach. You may substitute the GPS for the DME if you don't have a DME, but if the DPE fails the GPS, there is no way you can fly the procedure. Failing the GPS and continuing to fly the approach would be sufficient reason IMHO for a DPE to fail you on the checkride.

To the OP, what was the specific approach?

 

[Marauder]

I'm also curious when you said he failed the GPS. If he shut it off or pulled the breaker, then your #2 VOR becomes your primary navigation radio. If that is what happened, were you trying to follow VOR 1 and missed the flags? You indicated you had set the #2 to the missed. Was the VOR on the GPS radio being used?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[jordane93]

Sorry about the ride. You'll get it next time. Learn and move on.

 

[uncreative]

He 'failed' it by turning it to the gps satellite info page. COM and NAV1 radios were still operational.

The approach was KMHR 22L VOR/DME. I pointed out I cannot fly this approach due to required DME, was told to figure out a way to fly it, thats when I asked approach to call my final and missed.

Once I was in the hold I said I would choose to fly a different approach at this time, DPE said nope, we're doing this one.

I agree, the only thing to do is learn and move on. I hope my posts don't come off as whiny or trying to lay blame. I didn't measure up that day and I have to prepare myself better for the next shot at it.

 

[azure]

The approach was KMHR 22L VOR/DME. I pointed out I cannot fly this approach due to required DME, was told to figure out a way to fly it, thats when I asked approach to call my final and missed.

There isn't any way for you to legally fly it, except in an emergency, since you cannot identify either the FAF or the MAP without DME or a DME substitute. Was this supposed to be your partial panel approach? Otherwise I think the DPE was out of line asking you to do that, and even if so, it doesn't sound like a very good test of partial panel skills. Fail the GPS but leave everything else working, all the vacuum instruments just fine?

Once I was in the hold I said I would choose to fly a different approach at this time, DPE said nope, we're doing this one.

IMO the best thing you could have done at that point would have been to stop the checkride and sort out what he was legally entitled to ask you to do on the ground. Get a discontinuance instead of a bust. (Admittedly, that's 20/20 hindsight, and not something I'd blame you for not thinking of during the ride.)

I agree, the only thing to do is learn and move on. I hope my posts don't come off as whiny or trying to lay blame. I didn't measure up that day and I have to prepare myself better for the next shot at it.

In this case I think the DPE was partly to blame, but you're right that it could as well have been Mother Nature in the soup, and in that situation you would need to deal with it and find a way down safely. (The only difference is, Mother Nature wouldn't have forced you to continue with that particular approach, unless you had already made some bad decisions or were in a multi-point failure situation, i.e. just not your day.)

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Had my IR checkride yesterday and pink slipped it. Got through the oral fine, approx 2 hours. Nothing out of the ordinary, very focused on weather decision making. went over the flight plan that I had made ahead of time and walked through the trip covering the various phases of flight. Played stump the chump with chart symbols on the enroute, and then described how to fly a couple of approaches by finger flying the plate.

Gave me the flight plan for the day which were all approaches I had flown except one. Filed for the first airport. Preflighted the plane, demonstrated that all appropriate docs were onboard, did a safety brief, discussed positive exchange of controls, instrument check on the taxi.Picked up clearance by phone in the runup area.

Departed for the first airport, put the hood on right away, picked up approach who gave vectors to the first approach, a VOR/DME. DPE 'failed' the gps at this point which is the source of DME in this plane. Also failed the georef on my tablet. Asked approach to call my final and missed, since this approach didn't have any intermediate stepdowns. tuned and Id'd the vor, tune and id'd the vor needed for the missed in VOR 2.

Approach vectors me to final. The needle centers, I turn on course and the controller says i'm several miles off, gives me a new vector to the left. Needle goes right. double triple quadruple check everything. Cannot understand what is happening, feel compelled to trust my instruments vs the controller, who is giving me another more aggressive vector, then asked for vectors to the missed in order to hold and sort things out.

At this point I am in real bad shape mentally, I am internally freaking out about what is happening and the consequences of failing the check, I ask the DPE if we could try a different approach with different guidance, or if I could do a radar surveillance approach, no dice. I screw up timing on the 5th or 6th hold legs, and I am nonsat. I still can't reconcile the discrepancy between what my instruments were telling me and what the controller was saying. DPE couldn't either.

bad way to spend a friday and $600.

But better than killing yourself and or others in the future! It may prove a lucky break down the road sometime.

 

[marcoseddi]

sorry to hear that also bothersome to hear that he wouldn't help you figure out what was wrong exactly and teach you a little bit. What a prick, at least you can do is learn something.

 

[poadeleted20]

theres no such thing as having the obs backwards.

I've lost track of the number of times one of my trainees has gotten confused and twisted the reciprocal of the course they need to fly. Usually, it involved being told to track a particular radial inbound, and the twist the radial to the top rather than the course (which, when tracking inbound, is the reciprocal of the radial).

i rather fly with an hsi its easier to use and fool proof.

No, it's still not fool-proof, especially when tracking a localizer backwards, when to obtain easy interpretation you must twist the course pointer to the forward direction, not the course you're actually trying to fly. Again, I see folks get confused and do this reasonably often.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've narrowed it down to 2 things.

1- I had something wrong on the OBS.
2- The VOR approach has a final approach fix DME 20 from the VOR. Assuming the following:
-VOR is near or at the limit of +-4 degrees accuracy
-I don't have the OBS set exactly, maybe off a degree or two
-I am 30 miles from the VOR

This could easily put me 2.5 miles off course even though my CDI is centered. ATC did say 'several miles'. What would be the best thing to do in this situation?

Tell the examiner you've lost confidence in the accuracy of the VOR and you're abandoning the approach and discontinuing the ride for safety until the VOR can be checked.

For whatever reason this examiner doesn't seem to trust GPS, and with the exception of the GPS approach, insists that the GPS be disabled during the ride.

I can see doing that for one approach, to make sure you're not reliant on it, but not for the whole ride. In fact, that's contrary to the guidance in the PTS, which says one should use all available equipment to the max extent practical.

I don't agree with that philosophy, but I don't make the rules of the game.

Those who make the rules for IR practical tests don't agree with that philosophy, either. Someone needs to get that DPE together with his POI for a bit of guidance.

It does annoy me that he was unable to tell me why I thought I was on final and ATC didn't, but I'm not paying him to instruct.

It would bother me, too. While you're not paying him to instruct, you are paying him to evaluate, and if he can't tell why a discrepancy like this exists, then he's not capable of properly evaluating your performance.

 

[poadeleted20]

He 'failed' it by turning it to the gps satellite info page. COM and NAV1 radios were still operational.

The approach was KMHR 22L VOR/DME. I pointed out I cannot fly this approach due to required DME, was told to figure out a way to fly it, thats when I asked approach to call my final and missed.

That's bogus. Examiners are not permitted to take away a system and then demand that you fly an approach which requires that system. Again, someone needs to bring this examiner's POI into the loop.

 

[LuisO]

For whatever reason this examiner doesn't seem to trust GPS, and with the exception of the GPS approach, insists that the GPS be disabled during the ride. I don't agree with that philosophy, but I don't make the rules of the game. It does annoy me that he was unable to tell me why I thought I was on final and ATC didn't, but I'm not paying him to instruct.

This was your main problem. This examiner is an ****ole on top of being expensive. Gather yourself and find a different examiner for your next one. My examiner told me "fly like you would in the real world". IPad and all. The rest, you will get in real life little by little.

 

[John Collins]

If the examiner is idiosyncratic and been around for a while, all the instructors will be aware and either brief you on his issues or avoid sending you to the DPE.

I suspect something else at play than just a deviant DPE. However, the DPE should explain why you failed and what you need to correct, at least at the point of failure.

I am not a DPE, but if I saw that you had set your CDI backwards for the approach, I might want to see if you were able to discover your error or not.

 

[Dr. O]

What I am seeing in this thread is an issue I have been vocal about in the past.
Today's trainees (just as smart and just as capable as the old guys were back when) are hooked on glass (almost as bad as heroin)
When the glass is not working to it's usual level they start to sweat - and then the brain freezes up. Without the glass to look into they cannot picture their position in space relative to the desired vor radial and track.

The cure?
Lots more time chasing the VOR / needle and ball / whiskey compass / clock before the checkride. My suspicion is that the student spends innumerable hours on glass / flipping screens / following the magenta line, and all the frequency/weather wonders, etc. of glass - and only gives a lick and a promise to the basics and maybe 1% of the time spent on the glass.
This is the fault of (who else) the CFI's.
I don't think the DPE is the issue. Had you been IMC without him there and you had those glass failures, likely you would have died given your demonstrated weakness.

Get your CFI to take you out in a clapped out Skyhawk with just a VOR/6-pak and navigate from an unknown position (use the VOR crossing radials to figure out where he dumped you off) to the IAP, etc. And keep doing it until you can chew gum and make conversation while finding your position and then fly the approach under the hood.

I'm rooting for you. I know you can do it if your CFI can teach it.

edit: This can be started on the simulator to reduce cost (see, I'm not a total curmudgeon and luddite)

 

[RotorDude]

What I am seeing in this thread is an issue I have been vocal about in the past.
Today's trainees (just as smart and just as capable as the old guys were back when) are hooked on glass (almost as bad as heroin)
When the glass is not working to it's usual level they start to sweat - and then the brain freezes up. Without the glass to look into they cannot picture their position in space relative to the desired vor radial and track.

The cure?
Lots more time chasing the VOR / needle and ball / whiskey compass / clock before the checkride. My suspicion is that the student spends innumerable hours on glass / flipping screens / following the magenta line, and all the frequency/weather wonders, etc. of glass - and only gives a lick and a promise to the basics and maybe 1% of the time spent on the glass.
This is the fault of (who else) the CFI's.
I don't think the DPE is the issue. Had you been IMC without him there and you had those glass failures, likely you would have died given your demonstrated weakness.

Get your CFI to take you out in a clapped out Skyhawk with just a VOR/6-pak and navigate from an unknown position (use the VOR crossing radials to figure out where he dumped you off) to the IAP, etc. And keep doing it until you can chew gum and make conversation while finding your position and then fly the approach under the hood.

I'm rooting for you. I know you can do it if your CFI can teach it.

edit: This can be started on the simulator to reduce cost (see, I'm not a total curmudgeon and luddite)

I disagree with this analysis, specifically as it pertains to the OP.
In the OP's case, the issue was not the loss of the magenta line. It was, as I understand it, the DPE forcing him to complete a "DME required" approach without a DME, which makes it illegal. The OP requested a hold to sort things out, but that, along with a request for another type approach, was refused by the DPE. I don't think in real life someone in the cockpit would have refused the pilot to enter a hold, or to execute the best approach available to him when important equipment failed. Also, in real life the controller could have provided an ASR or PAR, if all else failed, even with a backup handheld radio if the Comms failed. So this IMO, esp. considering that the DPE never mentioned to the OP what his mistake was, points the finger at the DPE.
Now, was the OP perfect? Certainly not. It's quite possible he had a misdialed frequency or OBS setting, and proper use and cross-checking of all available equipment would have eliminated that problem. But the number one thing we need when flustered like that is a hold (or delay vector) to catch our breath and sort things out, and this was reportedly refused here.
So bottom line: this does not properly reflect on real life, and the DPE needs some talking to. The OP should move on, realizing that this adverse experience will toughen him and might come handy some IMC day when the going gets tough.

 

[N53KL]

What I am seeing in this thread is an issue I have been vocal about in the past.
Today's trainees (just as smart and just as capable as the old guys were back when) are hooked on glass (almost as bad as heroin)
When the glass is not working to it's usual level they start to sweat - and then the brain freezes up. Without the glass to look into they cannot picture their position in space relative to the desired vor radial and track.

The cure?
Lots more time chasing the VOR / needle and ball / whiskey compass / clock before the checkride. My suspicion is that the student spends innumerable hours on glass / flipping screens / following the magenta line, and all the frequency/weather wonders, etc. of glass - and only gives a lick and a promise to the basics and maybe 1% of the time spent on the glass.
This is the fault of (who else) the CFI's.
I don't think the DPE is the issue. Had you been IMC without him there and you had those glass failures, likely you would have died given your demonstrated weakness.

Get your CFI to take you out in a clapped out Skyhawk with just a VOR/6-pak and navigate from an unknown position (use the VOR crossing radials to figure out where he dumped you off) to the IAP, etc. And keep doing it until you can chew gum and make conversation while finding your position and then fly the approach under the hood.

I'm rooting for you. I know you can do it if your CFI can teach it.

edit: This can be started on the simulator to reduce cost (see, I'm not a total curmudgeon and luddite)

Interesting....actually not. What I am seeing is a guy who had a bad day, learned lessons and will be, when he passes the re-check, a better pilot.

That is all

Kevin

 

[uncreative]

That's bogus. Examiners are not permitted to take away a system and then demand that you fly an approach which requires that system. Again, someone needs to bring this examiner's POI into the loop.

Maybe once it is all said and done I will chat with the FSDO.

 

[poadeleted20]

I disagree with this analysis, specifically as it pertains to the OP.
In the OP's case, the issue was not the loss of the magenta line. It was, as I understand it, the DPE forcing him to complete a "DME required" approach without a DME, which makes it illegal. The OP requested a hold to sort things out, but that, along with a request for another type approach, was refused by the DPE. I don't think in real life someone in the cockpit would have refused the pilot to enter a hold, or to execute the best approach available to him when important equipment failed. Also, in real life the controller could have provided an ASR or PAR, if all else failed, even with a backup handheld radio if the Comms failed. So this IMO, esp. considering that the DPE never mentioned to the OP what his mistake was, points the finger at the DPE.
Now, was the OP perfect? Certainly not. It's quite possible he had a misdialed frequency or OBS setting, and proper use and cross-checking of all available equipment would have eliminated that problem. But the number one thing we need when flustered like that is a hold (or delay vector) to catch our breath and sort things out, and this was reportedly refused here.
So bottom line: this does not properly reflect on real life, and the DPE needs some talking to. The OP should move on, realizing that this adverse experience will toughen him and might come handy some IMC day when the going gets tough.

RotorDude has it right, other than the issue of the hold. The OP asked for and got a hold, but blew the hold, which is cause for failure. What the DPE wrongly refused was to fly a different approach which was legal without the GPS, or to give the OP the GPS as required to fly this approach. In any event, I agree that the DPE needs to be re-educated on the rules for an IR practical test as well as basic DPE responsibilities.

 

[poadeleted20]

Maybe once it is all said and done I will chat with the FSDO.

Get your instructor involved in that. Your instructor can probably also find out from other instructors if this is a trend with this examiner.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Get your instructor involved in that. Your instructor can probably also find out from other instructors if this is a trend with this examiner.

If his Instructor wasn't present and didn't witness the event, that's kinda pointless.

 

[poadeleted20]

If his Instructor wasn't present and didn't witness the event, that's kinda pointless.

You think it's pointless to present evidence to the FSDO that this DPE is consistently ignoring the rules governing DPE's and practical tests? My experience is otherwise -- the FSDO wants to know if it's a regular feature of the DPE involved rather than just one unsubstantiated complaint, and the OP's instructor is probably better able than the OP to gather such information by contacting other instructors to find out if applicants trained by those other instructors were also mistreated.

 

[RotorAndWing]

You think it's pointless to present evidence to the FSDO that this DPE is consistently ignoring the rules governing DPE's and practical tests? My experience is otherwise -- the FSDO wants to know if it's a regular feature of the DPE involved rather than just one unsubstantiated complaint, and the OP's instructor is probably better able than the OP to gather such information by contacting other instructors to find out if applicants trained by those other instructors were also mistreated.

Evidence?

You have a student that reports an incident during a check ride. You haven't heard the DPE's side. The Instructor wasn't there, and didn't witness anything.

So you are gonna take the word of an individual who is relying on hearsay information as a "witness" to supposed misbehavior of the DPE???

There are only 2 people to this party, the OP and the DPE. So far you have only heard one side, an applicant that failed the check ride. You have yet (if ever) going to hear the DPE's side which may (usually) is an entirely different story.

 

[Witmo]

Evidence?

You have a student that reports an incident during a check ride. You haven't heard the DPE's side. The Instructor wasn't there, and didn't witness anything.

So you are gonna take the word of an individual who is relying on hearsay information as a "witness" to supposed misbehavior of the DPE???

There are only 2 people to this party, the OP and the DPE. So far you have only heard one side, an applicant that failed the check ride. You have yet (if ever) going to hear the DPE's side which may (usually) is an entirely different story.

It seems that no discussion is possible without the DPE involved participating, in your opinion. BS. This isn't a court of law. Anyone can make a complaint to the FSDO. It's up to the FSDO to determine what happened by talking to all the parties involved. Even if they take the DPE's explanation as justification, you've gone on record and if enough applicants report discrepancies, maybe something will change.

It seems pretty clear to me that requiring an applicant to shoot an approach without the required systems to legally execute the procedure is a pretty clear mistake on the part of the DPE. What possible excuse would he be able to offer that would make it an acceptable task to be tested? Partial panel is one thing, purposely failing a required system is another.

My advice to applicants for the IA is to discontinue the checkride if the DPE demands that you violate a rule or regulation. Their job is to ensure you know and follow the rules, not make up new ones on the flight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Evidence?

You have a student that reports an incident during a check ride. You haven't heard the DPE's side. The Instructor wasn't there, and didn't witness anything.

So you are gonna take the word of an individual who is relying on hearsay information as a "witness" to supposed misbehavior of the DPE???

There are only 2 people to this party, the OP and the DPE. So far you have only heard one side, an applicant that failed the check ride. You have yet (if ever) going to hear the DPE's side which may (usually) is an entirely different story.

You may be right. But for the reasons Tim stated, that doesn't change any of the advice I've given. Further, by first checking with other instructors who've used that DPE, one gets a better idea if this is a one-off or an ongoing issue with that DPE.

And it is only your assumption that the OP's instructor wasn't there -- I see nothing either way about that in the OP's post.

 

[Ravioli]

Not meaning to threadjack... but....

The DPE that signed off my PPL was really easy to work with and when I wasn't on track to answering a question he asked he interrupted and I got got it back on line and it went well for the Oral. The OP said the oral went well so I assume there was a similar rapport going.

I later saw my DPE and he had just gotten back from pink slipping someone for being to GPS reliant. This was 5yrs ago so I don't know how that factors in.

My two questions are:
1. Getting the pink means you'll do some more training and finish it off next time. Is that "Bad"? I realize it's disappointing but more training is IMHO better.

2. Is there any longterm issue to having failed a checkride? I know this flirts with the thread about the correct score on the written (answer being PASS) but other than feeling like crap for a month or two, what is the downside of not passing the checkride and coming back more ready and cruising it?

 

[RotorAndWing]

It seems that no discussion is possible without the DPE involved participating, in your opinion. BS. This isn't a court of law. Anyone can make a complaint to the FSDO. It's up to the FSDO to determine what happened by talking to all the parties involved. Even if they take the DPE's explanation as justification, you've gone on record and if enough applicants report discrepancies, maybe something will change.

It seems pretty clear to me that requiring an applicant to shoot an approach without the required systems to legally execute the procedure is a pretty clear mistake on the part of the DPE. What possible excuse would he be able to offer that would make it an acceptable task to be tested? Partial panel is one thing, purposely failing a required system is another.

My advice to applicants for the IA is to discontinue the checkride if the DPE demands that you violate a rule or regulation. Their job is to ensure you know and follow the rules, not make up new ones on the flight.

You may be right. But for the reasons Tim stated, that doesn't change any of the advice I've given. Further, by first checking with other instructors who've used that DPE, one gets a better idea if this is a one-off or an ongoing issue with that DPE.

And it is only your assumption that the OP's instructor wasn't there -- I see nothing either way about that in the OP's post.

Having actually worked complaints on the other side of the fence, I would rather hear from all sides before making an opinion. More often than not, a failed applicant will embellish his side of the story (and for sake of this conversation, I am not implying this to the OP, just stating fact) or in the heat of battle misunderstand the situation.

We had a recent previous thread where the lynch mob was ready to take down a DPE over a perceived injustice, and it was even inferred the DPE had medical or psychological problems, to which there was zero evidence. That DPE in question actually has a good record and didn't deserve the bashing from the peanut gallery.

 

[Flymeariver]

.

We had a recent previous thread where the lynch mob was ready to take down a DPE over a perceived injustice, and it was even inferred the DPE had medical or psychological problems, to which there was zero evidence. That DPE in question actually has a good record and didn't deserve the bashing from the peanut gallery.

What is considered "a good record"? My understanding is that that particular DPE from that thread has had a reputation change over the last few years that is better than his previous reputation. He previously was highly recommended not to go to...at least based on comments from the Club and CFI I used for my IR.
To be fair though: The guy who is nice enough to let me use his plane just had a successful IR ride with the same DPE....he was more than fair with him. Results may vary by day and personality I would guess...

 

[jordane93]

Not meaning to threadjack... but....

The DPE that signed off my PPL was really easy to work with and when I wasn't on track to answering a question he asked he interrupted and I got got it back on line and it went well for the Oral. The OP said the oral went well so I assume there was a similar rapport going.

I later saw my DPE and he had just gotten back from pink slipping someone for being to GPS reliant. This was 5yrs ago so I don't know how that factors in.

My two questions are:
1. Getting the pink means you'll do some more training and finish it off next time. Is that "Bad"? I realize it's disappointing but more training is IMHO better.

2. Is there any longterm issue to having failed a checkride? I know this flirts with the thread about the correct score on the written (answer being PASS) but other than feeling like crap for a month or two, what is the downside of not passing the checkride and coming back more ready and cruising it?

The answer for number 2 might be if you are applying for the airlines or any other professional flying job a failed checkride might not look to good on the application. I'm sure the airline guys/pro pilots can clarify this.

 

[poadeleted20]

Having actually worked complaints on the other side of the fence, I would rather hear from all sides before making an opinion.

If they don't contact the FSDO, those on that side of the fence will never hear from anyone at all and what may be a bad situation will continue to exist. Hence, back to my original advice -- bring this to the FSDO's attention so they can research it, and if you can identify other applicants who've had the same problems, that will help the FSDO investigate the matter more fully.

 

[murphey]

Not meaning to threadjack... but....

The DPE that signed off my PPL was really easy to work with and when I wasn't on track to answering a question he asked he interrupted and I got got it back on line and it went well for the Oral. The OP said the oral went well so I assume there was a similar rapport going.

I later saw my DPE and he had just gotten back from pink slipping someone for being to GPS reliant. This was 5yrs ago so I don't know how that factors in.

My two questions are:
1. Getting the pink means you'll do some more training and finish it off next time. Is that "Bad"? I realize it's disappointing but more training is IMHO better.

2. Is there any longterm issue to having failed a checkride? I know this flirts with the thread about the correct score on the written (answer being PASS) but other than feeling like crap for a month or two, what is the downside of not passing the checkride and coming back more ready and cruising it?

You'll pay for the checkride a second time.

 

[poadeleted20]

You'll pay for the checkride a second time.

Not if the FAA voids the first ride for examiner malfeasance. However, that "free" ride will be with FAA Inspector, not a DPE, and some folks would rather pay again than ride with the FAA for free, and so choose not to complain to the FAA about the first DPE.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Not if the FAA voids the first ride for examiner malfeasance. .

That's not going to happen (in this threads scenario)

 

[PPC1052]

However, that "free" ride will be with FAA Inspector, not a DPE, and some folks would rather pay again than ride with the FAA for free, and so choose not to complain to the FAA about the first DPE.

No doubt this is true. But an FAA inspector is not necessarily the big boogie-man that many assume. I did my private check ride with an FAA inspector, and had no complaints.