Grrrrrrr (Student Checkride)

[dmccormack]

My student just called -- he failed. Nearly ran off the runway on crosswind landing.



Great.....

He said he went around and landed it fine the second time.

He said he's all confused because "This guy's telling me to do stuff completely different from what you've told me..."

Sheese..why can't DPE's just test, and not introduce technique as a testable material???

I'll get more details later this evening.

 

[tonycondon]

Sheese..why can't DPE's just test, and not introduce technique as a testable material???

one nice thing about DPE's is you can let your (or your students) wallets do the talking.

 

[dmccormack]

one nice thing about DPE's is you can let your (or your students) wallets do the talking.

Yeah... this my first with this guy. My student has scheduling issues and had to have somebody right away.

Maybe he (student) will learn the aviator's primary virtue after this --> Patience.

 

[jmaynard]

Sheese..why can't DPE's just test, and not introduce technique as a testable material???

Is this DPE one who will call the instructor after a bust and discuss things with him? I've heard that lots of them do...

 

[dmccormack]

Is this DPE one who will call the instructor after a bust and discuss things with him? I've heard that lots of them do...

I plan on calling him after I do a debrief with my student.

 

[KennyFlys]

Is this DPE one who will call the instructor after a bust and discuss things with him? I've heard that lots of them do...

A decent DPE will do this. The few we use will contact the CFI if they feel there is something remarkable to discuss. One who handled two of my sign-offs had only very specific comments but nothing common between the students. The DPE who handled my CFI-A ride didn't hesitate to do a bit of chewing on a CFI whom he felt shorted the student.

If the student failed then the DPE offered an idea of they they saw could change, I'd not have a problem with that. If the DPE placed expectations that were beyond PTS, that's a different story.

Dan, I'll be interested to find out what happen with your student.

 

[Henning]

My student just called -- he failed. Nearly ran off the runway on crosswind landing.



Great.....

He said he went around and landed it fine the second time.

He said he's all confused because "This guy's telling me to do stuff completely different from what you've told me..."

IME, unless you're f-ing it up pretty good a DPE won't say anything. Maybe this guy is a kook. If your student screwed up the landing and almost went off the runway and had to bolter, well, that's a fail even if it was caused by the DE providing a realistic distraction which is contained within the PTS and gives the DE a lot of leeway.

 

[PHXAvi8tor]

Wouldn't worry about it. It was probably something very clear in the PTS, ie, "applies crosswind correction .." which the student failed to do, prompting a mandatory bust that the DPE had no choice over.

 

[poadeleted20]

I know a lot of DPE's who make it a point not to fail an applicant if the applicant aborts the maneuver for safety (as opposed to when the examiner has to take control to prevent disaster -- that's a no-foolin' bust) and then does it right the second time. They feel that failing the student in that situation sends the wrong message about the urge to press the issue when things start to go wrong (judgement being a pass/fail item on all practical tests). Of course, if it takes four tries to get the plane on the ground, that's another story entirely.

All in all, if I were in Dan's shoes, I'd be asking the examiner for more information about this one -- if nothing else, his trainee may not have given him the full story. But if it was as told, I think this would be the last person I sent to this examiner.

 

[Henning]

I know a lot of DPE's who make it a point not to fail an applicant if the applicant aborts the maneuver for safety (as opposed to when the examiner has to take control to prevent disaster -- that's a no-foolin' bust) and then does it right the second time. They feel that failing the student in that situation sends the wrong message about the urge to press the issue when things start to go wrong (judgement being a pass/fail item on all practical tests). Of course, if it takes four tries to get the plane on the ground, that's another story entirely.

All in all, if I were in Dan's shoes, I'd be asking the examiner for more information about this one -- if nothing else, his trainee may not have given him the full story. But if it was as told, I think this would be the last person I sent to this examiner.

Yeah, the other side of the story is required here.

 

[dmccormack]

Yeah, the other side of the story is required here.

I'll get the student's story today (I let him decompress last night) and we'll practice whatever shortcomings (it's a gorgeous day here).

He sent me an email last night that now has me confused -- "I guess Dead Reckoning uses VORs because when I said I was going to pick a heading and fly to I-79 and then use pilotage, he asked me why I wasn't using the VOR..."

(The DPE had instructed the student the night before planning a flight using "Dead Reckoning and Pilotage." Of course Radio Nav is part of the deal, but don't ask for one and then call it something else -- If that's the case here...)

I'm sure it's a combination of student exam fluster, but I gotta get this straightened out.

I knew going in that this particular pilot would need to be flying at 80% or better on test day -- his margin is above standard is not as high as I prefer, but he's shown me PP competence consistently for several flights in various conditions.

I'll get his side this afternoon, and then call the DPE afterwards.

Between the two I should get a more complete picture -- and will post (no names, of course).

Thanks for the comments, all. It's frustrating to put so much time into someone, see them go from frustration to success, and then this...

 

[Henning]

I'll get the student's story today (I let him decompress last night) and we'll practice whatever shortcomings (it's a gorgeous day here).

He sent me an email last night that now has me confused -- "I guess Dead Reckoning uses VORs because when I said I was going to pick a heading and fly to I-79 and then use pilotage, he asked me why I wasn't using the VOR..."

(The DPE had instructed the student the night before planning a flight using "Dead Reckoning and Pilotage." Of course Radio Nav is part of the deal, but don't ask for one and then call it something else -- If that's the case here...)

I'm sure it's a combination of student exam fluster, but I gotta get this straightened out.

I knew going in that this particular pilot would need to be flying at 80% or better on test day -- his margin is above standard is not as high as I prefer, but he's shown me PP competence consistently for several flights in various conditions.

I'll get his side this afternoon, and then call the DPE afterwards.

Between the two I should get a more complete picture -- and will post (no names, of course).

Thanks for the comments, all. It's frustrating to put so much time into someone, see them go from frustration to success, and then this...

Yep, still to early for a conclusion. The above for example, think about it from an examiner perspective. I think it's a fair question to which I would expect an answer of "Because you asked for DR & pilotage and that typically means no radio nav." Good. I remember my checkrides and the "Knowledge" portion of the test continued in the airplane. IOW, he may not have been faulting him, rather he was quizzing him.

 

[Matthew]

I remember that I had a two or three panic moments - then I realized the DPE was asking me to do something I very well knew how to do, he was just using terminology that was a bit different that what my CFI used. As nervous as I was, I just took a moment to catch my breath, then ask for clarification. I can see situations where a DPE that a CFI is unfamiliar with might prevent the CFI from giving the student a heads up on something like that.

It might have been something as simple as being nervous. Good luck to you and your student.

 

[SCCutler]

I have flown only two checkrides, both with the same DPE, and he was an "instructing DPE"- he liked to give "...here's how I like to do that" advice after successful completion of a maneuver. It was never in the nature of harsh or offensive criticism, just informational and advisory.

Now, I do recall him giving me advice during my crosswind landing which was somewhat at odds with that which my instructor had provided, but the landing came off fine doing it my way, no consequence ensued, and my x-wind landings since then (seven years and 750-ish hours) have all ended successfully, including some pretty frisky crosswinds, so my instructor (who now flies as an FO for Delta) must have told me *something* right.

The DPE also complimented my instructor, saying "he always sends me well-prepared pilot candidates," and I recall thinkning that the DPE's expectation of competence probably did not hurt me in the checkride.

---

Edit: I'd add that, if the DPE is not willing to discuss the specifics, I'd not use him again- but I doubt that'll happen. I don't know of any DPE's who are doing it for the unending glory, or for the kingly salary.

 

[Henning]

Edit: I'd add that, if the DPE is not willing to discuss the specifics, I'd not use him again- but I doubt that'll happen. I don't know of any DPE's who are doing it for the unending glory, or for the kingly salary.

I've never known a DE who would shut up.

 

[wabower]

My philosophy as well for 135 check rides. If something isn't working out, I'd rather see the decision to go somewhere and get it all sorted out and try again. We all know some discombobulation can happen. Those who have experienced it first hand and tried to salvage one (and didn't crash in spite of their stupidity) perhaps understand it better than others.

I know a lot of DPE's who make it a point not to fail an applicant if the applicant aborts the maneuver for safety (as opposed to when the examiner has to take control to prevent disaster -- that's a no-foolin' bust) and then does it right the second time. They feel that failing the student in that situation sends the wrong message about the urge to press the issue when things start to go wrong (judgement being a pass/fail item on all practical tests). Of course, if it takes four tries to get the plane on the ground, that's another story entirely.

All in all, if I were in Dan's shoes, I'd be asking the examiner for more information about this one -- if nothing else, his trainee may not have given him the full story. But if it was as told, I think this would be the last person I sent to this examiner.

 

[dmccormack]

I've never known a DE who would shut up.

Then you need to meet a certain DPE in West Virginia...

I used him for Comm and Instrument -- and throughout most of the exam the silence was deafening.

 

[dmccormack]

Yep, still to early for a conclusion. The above for example, think about it from an examiner perspective. I think it's a fair question to which I would expect an answer of "Because you asked for DR & pilotage and that typically means no radio nav." Good. I remember my checkrides and the "Knowledge" portion of the test continued in the airplane. IOW, he may not have been faulting him, rather he was quizzing him.

Very true.

This particular student is a Professor -- they often analyze a bit too much instead of simply responding.

 

[Henning]

Very true.

This particular studnet is a Professor -- they often analyze a bit too much instead of simply responding.

Oyyy....

 

[wabower]

Evidently his analysis of which wing to lower and which pedal to push did not match up to the DPE's expectations. That would cause me some heartburn, assuming the winds during the checkride weren't bigger and hairier than he had encountered during training. Could your 80% estimate be off a tad?

Very true.

This particular studnet is a Professor -- they often analyze a bit too much instead of simply responding.

 

[dmccormack]

Evidently his analysis of which wing to lower and which pedal to push did not match up to the DPE's expectations. That would cause me some heartburn, assuming the winds during the checkride weren't bigger and hairier than he had encountered during training. Could your 80% estimate be off a tad?

Maybe....

63.23%, then.

 

[wabower]

Tell him you analyzed his results and quote a bunch of statistics and formulae to back it up. Then tell him your conclusion after all the research is that his sorry ass needs to get better if he ever want's to pass the ****ing checkride. Maybe nobody ever 'splained it to him like that before

Maybe....

63.23%, then.

 

[Clark1961]

Very true.

This particular student is a Professor -- they often analyze a bit too much instead of simply responding.

That's 'cause the questions are much too vague...:smile:

 

[ScottM]

I've never known a DE who would shut up.

My commercial DPE took a nap on the way back to the airport from where we had done most all of the maneuvers.

 

[wabower]

My commercial DPE took a nap on the way back to the airport from where we had done most all of the maneuvers.

Some people are known to involutarily snooze after being badly frightenend.

 

[TMetzinger]

My philosophy as well for 135 check rides. If something isn't working out, I'd rather see the decision to go somewhere and get it all sorted out and try again. We all know some discombobulation can happen. Those who have experienced it first hand and tried to salvage one (and didn't crash in spite of their stupidity) perhaps understand it better than others.

+1!

On my checkride adding the ME to my comm/inst, I was doing the ILS (both turning) and just inside the FAF my HSI started turning - the heading gyro portion had failed. I caught the discrepancy and maintained level flight but lost the localizer, so I started a climb to MSA while telling "ATC" of my problem - I had a vor on number 2 so I was able to figure out just where I was pretty quickly. "ATC" gave me a heading and a new altitude, and we went around and did it again on the number 2 nav/gs with no problems. I was worried about the bust since I certainly had lost the localizer, but the examiner said I handled what would have been a serious situation in IMC the right way.

I know that when I see someone catch themselves making a mistake and fixing it (no matter whether it's flying or something else) I'm always happy for them - that kind of learning really sticks and it shows that they are paying attention to detail.

 

[dmccormack]

OK, talked to the student. He failed the Ground Reference Manuever because he started it at 3500' MSL (terrain around here is ~1200' MSL).

The DPE said to "maintain a 45 degree bank through the manuever" and had him fly it at 2000' MSL.

I replied, "45 is a limit -- not a requirement."

There is also no altitude requirement (it's not the commercial manuever where pivotal altitude matters).

He said he screwed up the crosswind landing and so failed that as well. OK, that's fine.

So we practiced crosswinds this afternoon. He's at PP proficiency.

Some other tidbits:

The DPE wanted him to turn on course at 500' AGL after takeoff. I took the student to the AIM and pointed out the AIM-recommended procedure (while making it clear the AIM is not regulatory -- but neither is "make your turn on course at 500' AGL.")

The DPE wanted him to "Approach flatter." The student didnt understand. I explained that with 40 degrees of flaps and 80 MPH the airplane sinks like a rock and approaches steeply -- but if you treat every landing as a short field landing youre good to go, and the DPE cannot deduct/fail/ whatever if you make every landing full flaps (unless he asks to see a no flap landing).

On a Go Around the student did not immediately dump flaps. He explained he was taught to obsevre a positive rate of climb with 20 degrees of less flaps, and then up flaps.

DPE: "No, you take them out right away -- the airplane will fly better."

This airplane will climb all day to 14000 feet with 20 degrees of flaps and four fat people and their luggage. I told him I'd stick to my guns on this -- Verify positive rate before reducing past 20.

On Stall recovery, the student reduced pitch, THEN added power.

DPE:" NO! You pitch and power at the same time!"

I read from the AFH where Pitch precedes power, but explained that if the DPE wanted both, then do both. But reducing pitch should always be instinctive -- as you're reaching for the go knob.

Th DPE asked which part of the prop blade provide "the most thrust." The student replied he wasn't sure.

DPE: "The tips."

I said I wasn't sure, but would assume there's a correlation between RPM and optimal angle of attack of the blade given airspeed, but thought it was a bogus question for a PP anyway.

Theres more, but I'm tired.

DPE will receive a call tomorrow. Of course I'll be very interested in "learning."

At first.

 

[wabower]

Go back to your other guy. I think he's right about the tips. Too much other stuff is off the wall.

OK, talked to the student. He failed the Ground Reference Manuever because he started it at 3500' MSL (terrain around here is ~1200' MSL).

The DPE said to "maintain a 45 degree bank through the manuever" and had him fly it at 2000' MSL.

I replied, "45 is a limit -- not a requirement."

There is also no altitude requirement (it's not the commercial manuever where pivotal altitude matters).

He said he screwed up the crosswind landing and so failed that as well. OK, that's fine.

So we practiced crosswinds this afternoon. He's at PP proficiency.

Some other tidbits:

The DPE wanted him to turn on course at 500' AGL after takeoff. I took the student to the AIM and pointed out the AIM-recommended procedure (while making it clear the AIM is not regulatory -- but neither is "make your turn on course at 500' AGL.")

The DPE wanted him to "Approach flatter." The student didnt understand. I explained that with 40 degrees of flaps and 80 MPH the airplane sinks like a rock and approaches steeply -- but if you treat every landing as a short field landing youre good to go, and the DPE cannot deduct/fail/ whatever if you make every landing full flaps (unless he asks to see a no flap landing).

On a Go Around the student did not immediately dump flaps. He explained he was taught to obsevre a positive rate of climb with 20 degrees of less flaps, and then up flaps.

DPE: "No, you take them out right away -- the airplane will fly better."

This airplane will climb all day to 14000 feet with 20 degrees of flaps and four fat people and their luggage. I told him I'd stick to my guns on this -- Verify positive rate before reducing past 20.

On Stall recovery, the student reduced pitch, THEN added power.

DPE:" NO! You pitch and power at the same time!"

I read from the AFH where Pitch precedes power, but explained that if the DPE wanted both, then do both. But reducing pitch should always be instinctive -- as you're reaching for the go knob.

Th DPE asked which part of the prop blade provide "the most thrust." The student replied he wasn't sure.

DPE: "The tips."

I said I wasn't sure, but would assume there's a correlation between RPM and optimal angle of attack of the blade given airspeed, but thought it was a bogus question for a PP anyway.

Theres more, but I'm tired.

DPE will receive a call tomorrow. Of course I'll be very interested in "learning."

At first.

 

[gismo]

My commercial DPE took a nap on the way back to the airport from where we had done most all of the maneuvers.

I took my commercial ASEL in my Porterfield. When we finished up I offered to let the DPE fly the plane. He said "I was hoping you'd offer" and flew all the way back home. I suspect that if I had suggested he fly half the PTS for me he would have considered it since he loved flying old taildraggers and usually was doing practical tests in 152/172/Arrows.

 

[poadeleted20]

Go back to your other guy. I think he's right about the tips. Too much other stuff is off the wall.

Concur.

 

[KennyFlys]

I think he's right about the tips.

Please explain.

That appears contrary to the PHAK.

I do explain this concept to students only because such a question could come up; usually during observance of preflight when the DPE finds ideal moments to quiz the candidate.

And, ditto on not using this DPE again.

 

[wabower]

The stuff I've read indicates the tips do the work. Something like 80+ percent of thrust generated by the last foot of length. The validity of the theory seems most apparent when looking at a Malibu. Nothing but tips stick out farther than that big fuselage.

Please explain.

That appears contrary to the PHAK.

I do explain this concept to students only because such a question could come up; usually during observance of preflight when the DPE finds ideal moments to quiz the candidate.

And, ditto on not using this DPE again.

 

[KennyFlys]

The stuff I've read indicates the tips do the work. Something like 80+ percent of thrust generated by the last foot of length. The validity of the theory seems most apparent when looking at a Malibu. Nothing but tips stick out farther than that big fuselage.

That would be like comparing such a prop to a turbofan.

As for the tip producing the most thrust, I can see it happening but unintentionally. Everything I've seen shows the objective in engineering is to have a uniform level of thrust along the length of the blade lest it starts bowing like helo rotor blades.

 

[dmccormack]

Please explain.

That appears contrary to the PHAK.

I do explain this concept to students only because such a question could come up; usually during observance of preflight when the DPE finds ideal moments to quiz the candidate.

And, ditto on not using this DPE again.

I just reviewed the PEAK, and on page 3-23 we read this tidbit: ""...propeller blades are twisted to change the blade angle in proportion to the differences in the speed of rotation along the length of the propeller and thereby keep thrust more nearly equalized along this length."

Whether the tips provide the majority of thrust or not, is a debateable question.

(Reminds me of my CFI ride when the FAA dude was telling me what the air pressure should be in the nose strut of an A36 Bonanza -- and airplane he had admittedly had never flown -- and one which I knew in great detail).

I would have answered "it depends on the angle of the blade and the airspeed...."

If he would have "corrected" me, I would have quoted this section of the PEAK.

Other things....

Then the DPE was doing unusual attitudes, he set the airplane at "about 50 degree bank" and the airspeed at 180 MPH (redline in this bird is 200 and 150+ is yellow arc. Va with 2 aboard is 130 MPH).

The Dead Reckoning, Pilotage isue: The student flew a heading then intercepted an interstate. When the DPE asked "Where are you?" the student quickly pointed out towns, towers, and roads. He ended up exactly where he planned to go.

Then the DPE said "Diversion: Take me to Youngstown."

So the student dutifully looked at the sectional, eyeballed a heading, and turned to that heading.

"Why aren't you using VOR?"

"You said you wanted me to use dead reckoning and pilotage."

"Use the VOR."

The student set up the Youngstown VOR in Nav 2, but pressed Nav 1 on the audio. Duh.

They flew to Youngstown VOR. The airport is a stone's throw. Student planned on flying to VOR, then calling up Youngstown tower.

"Why are we here? We're supposed to go to Youngstown Airport."

During the oral, "What's the best altitude and airspeed for this airplane?"

Student said, "8,500 feet."

"OK"

I explained to the student that it's not just the altitude we happen to fly at most of the time, but that "best" should have been qualified -- shortest time? Lowest fuel burn? What are the winds? And so on.

Plus, with normally aspirated airplanes, the "optimal" altitude is pretty low. We normally climb above 4,000 to get out of the bumps or avoid the towers on the ridges and maybe catch a tailwind.

Student said he nailed Steep turns, stalls (power off only, no turning stalls), emergency procedures, takeoff, some of the nav, and most of the oral.

The debate over altitude to fly turns about a point got him flustered, I think, so maybe after that concentration started going south.

 

[Ted]

Sounds like that DE won't be getting any repeat business from you or your students.

 

[Areeda]

I'd like to hear the DPE side of this one. Allow me a bit of "devils advocacy" here.

OK, talked to the student. He failed the Ground Reference Manuever because he started it at 3500' MSL (terrain around here is ~1200' MSL).

That sounds right to me. PTS says ground references are 600-1000 which is a pain around here when combined with minimum altitude in a congested area.

The DPE said to "maintain a 45 degree bank through the manuever" and had him fly it at 2000' MSL.

I replied, "45 is a limit -- not a requirement."

There is also no altitude requirement (it's not the commercial manuever where pivotal altitude matters).

I'm sorry which maneuver are we talking about? All ground reference maneuvers in the private PTS have the 600-1000' AGL specified. No ground reference maneuver can be done with a constant bank angle.

He said he screwed up the crosswind landing and so failed that as well. OK, that's fine.

So we practiced crosswinds this afternoon. He's at PP proficiency.

OK bust #2

Some other tidbits:

The DPE wanted him to turn on course at 500' AGL after takeoff. I took the student to the AIM and pointed out the AIM-recommended procedure (while making it clear the AIM is not regulatory -- but neither is "make your turn on course at 500' AGL.")

I assume you're talking about the "turn crosswind when reaching 300' below pattern altitude".

The DPE wanted him to "Approach flatter." The student didnt understand. I explained that with 40 degrees of flaps and 80 MPH the airplane sinks like a rock and approaches steeply -- but if you treat every landing as a short field landing youre good to go, and the DPE cannot deduct/fail/ whatever if you make every landing full flaps (unless he asks to see a no flap landing).

Sounds more like a comment than a deduct/fail.

On a Go Around the student did not immediately dump flaps. He explained he was taught to obsevre a positive rate of climb with 20 degrees of less flaps, and then up flaps.

DPE: "No, you take them out right away -- the airplane will fly better."

This airplane will climb all day to 14000 feet with 20 degrees of flaps and four fat people and their luggage. I told him I'd stick to my guns on this -- Verify positive rate before reducing past 20.

OK this one is real weird. If the DPE really wants to see pilots reduce flaps to zero after power is added before positive rate and speeds near Vx or Vy that's wrong. On almost every plane I've seen full flaps to zero flaps at landing speeds will cause a loss of alitutde.

On the other hand if the DPE was saying don't climb to 14000 with half flaps, that's a bit different.

On Stall recovery, the student reduced pitch, THEN added power.

DPE:" NO! You pitch and power at the same time!"

I read from the AFH where Pitch precedes power, but explained that if the DPE wanted both, then do both. But reducing pitch should always be instinctive -- as you're reaching for the go knob.

I'll agree that pitch is more important than power in a stall situation but doing them simultaneously meets the "minimum loss of altitude" specified in the PTS.

Th DPE asked which part of the prop blade provide "the most thrust." The student replied he wasn't sure.

DPE: "The tips."

I said I wasn't sure, but would assume there's a correlation between RPM and optimal angle of attack of the blade given airspeed, but thought it was a bogus question for a PP anyway.

I don't know about "bogus question". It kind of depends on what it takes to get the applicant to say I don't know. On our checkride prep I tell the student the examiner should be able to ask questions on any topic that you don't know. He should understand the topics covered better than a private pilot. It's not the first wrong answer or I don't know that gets you. It's the over all level of understanding of the material .

Theres more, but I'm tired.

DPE will receive a call tomorrow. Of course I'll be very interested in "learning."

At first.

Please let us know what he says.

I don't mean to imply that the DPE was correct or that I would use him. I just want to offer another point of view.

Joe

 

[dmccormack]

I'd like to hear the DPE side of this one. Allow me a bit of "devils advocacy" here.

That sounds right to me. PTS says ground references are 600-1000 which is a pain around here when combined with minimum altitude in a congested area.

I'm sorry which maneuver are we talking about? All ground reference maneuvers in the private PTS have the 600-1000' AGL specified. No ground reference maneuver can be done with a constant bank angle.

OK bust #2


I assume you're talking about the "turn crosswind when reaching 300' below pattern altitude".

Sounds more like a comment than a deduct/fail.

OK this one is real weird. If the DPE really wants to see pilots reduce flaps to zero after power is added before positive rate and speeds near Vx or Vy that's wrong. On almost every plane I've seen full flaps to zero flaps at landing speeds will cause a loss of alitutde.

On the other hand if the DPE was saying don't climb to 14000 with half flaps, that's a bit different.

I'll agree that pitch is more important than power in a stall situation but doing them simultaneously meets the "minimum loss of altitude" specified in the PTS.

I don't know about "bogus question". It kind of depends on what it takes to get the applicant to say I don't know. On our checkride prep I tell the student the examiner should be able to ask questions on any topic that you don't know. He should understand the topics covered better than a private pilot. It's not the first wrong answer or I don't know that gets you. It's the over all level of understanding of the material .
Please let us know what he says.

I don't mean to imply that the DPE was correct or that I would use him. I just want to offer another point of view.

Joe

Joe -- comments taken as intended. No problem. Again, I've only conveyed the student's side. But I know my student well -- he's pretty smart and doesn't make stuff up to cover himself.

The DPE's "turn at 500" AGL" comment was upon takeoff to leave the pattern. The AIM specifically states that turns outbound should happen "upon reaching pattern altitude."

When remaining in the pattern, turns to crosswind happen within 300' of pattern altitude. That's what I taught him and what he's done for endless cycles (unless we're practicing some unusual situation or the local conditions require otherwise).

Still, the story's not complete until I speak with the DPE this afternoon.

Stay tuned.

 

[kevin47881]

Anxiously awaiting the results of your conversation with the DE, Dan.

 

[skyflyer8]

Grrr is right. If everything you're saying is true, I would not send anyone to that examiner.

 

[dmccormack]

Update...

Talked to the DPE briefly on way home from work this afternoon. My studnet still has to return to complete checkride, so I took the gracious "Please tell me how messed up teaching him?" approach.

Apparently the bust was for poor crosswind landing technique. There was a gust, student didn't aggressively correct and let the plane weathervane (easy to do in a 205).

He also needs to re-do ground ref manuevers. He gained 400' during the turns about a point. I asked the student and he said he was a bit leery about flying around the 1200' tower at 800' AGL (we've only done cell towers and silos -- we don't have ny massive towers nearby).

Saturday I had him down at 600' AGL over a tower on a ridge. We did turns until it got boring. He's G2G on those.

I asked about "turn to heaidng 500' AGL..."

DPE: "Well, you can't be flying a cross country pattern -- gotta get set up on your outbound heading..."

Me: "Hmmm.. I've used the AIM recommendation to climb to pattern altitude before beginning outbound turn..."

DPE: "Well, that takes too long, and you need to prep them for IFR, where most DPs..."

(I stopped listening at this point).

I thanked him for his time and assured him student would be prepared to pass Thursday.

Sorry, but I don't get it. If you're gonna ignore the AIM guidance and come up with your own SOP, fine -- just don't expect me or anyone else to know it beforehand.