My failed checkride

If you're going to fly in those winds, shouldn't you be able to do it to check-ride standards?

Meanee said:
Kind of agree and disagree with you.

For where I am, these winds are high. We do not usually get these. However, unless the wind is completely T-boning me at landing, I believe I should be able to fly in wind like this.

The only thing is that it would be better idea to do a checkride at more calm condition. I do not need to show that I can manage to do a task (poorly) at strong wind. I need to show that I can do the task properly. And if wind was in the way, I need to plan for a date/time where wind won't be that much of a factor anymore.
Click to expand...
 
Henning said:
You made it as a blanket statement.
Click to expand...
True, albeit wasn't my intention...(see below)

Meanee said:
Kind of agree and disagree with you.

For where I am, these winds are high. We do not usually get these. However, unless the wind is completely T-boning me at landing, I believe I should be able to fly in wind like this.

The only thing is that it would be better idea to do a checkride at more calm condition. I do not need to show that I can manage to do a task (poorly) at strong wind. I need to show that I can do the task properly. And if wind was in the way, I need to plan for a date/time where wind won't be that much of a factor anymore.
Click to expand...

What aircraft were you flying? Some are better at X-winds than others.
 
wabower said:
If you're going to fly in those winds, shouldn't you be able to do it to check-ride standards?
Click to expand...

I should. But these winds are fairly uncommon here. And maybe at low time, it's not a good idea to get a strong winds practice while doing your checkride.
 
I'd probably take the opposite position. "Uncommon" winds can and do occur quite often, and not always at a time when you can just turn around and drive back home if you don't like them. If it's a day that you can fly, it should be a day that you can fly well, and probably even more important that you are able to do so.

Meanee said:
I should. But these winds are fairly uncommon here. And maybe at low time, it's not a good idea to get a strong winds practice while doing your checkride.
Click to expand...
 
Meanee said:
I should. But these winds are fairly uncommon here. And maybe at low time, it's not a good idea to get a strong winds practice while doing your checkride.
Click to expand...


Live and learn, personally I don't fault you for giving it a go. The first time I flew SVFR it was on my ME check ride and I was low time with no IR. The DE was fine with it since we were figuring the fog layer would burn off during the airwork. It didn't so we couldn't do the landings and ended up with a discontinuance till the next day. The upside to that was I got 2 hrs in the plane with Betty Faux instead of one, and that bit of education made that discontinuation very valuable, that old lady had a lot to teach.

I think you did well myself, you didn't let a new situation stop you from trying. From that try you learned what you didn't know so you can improve. That to me is a good thing. It cost you a bit because you did it on a check ride, but what you learned is more valuable than what you lost so you're still good.
 
Meanee said:
The "Consider me briefed" comment surprised me too.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, section 91.107 does not say you must brief; it says you must ensure each person on board has been briefed or notified. The "consider me briefed" should satisfy the "ensured" part. My DPE also made a similar statement during my check ride. My CFI had already prepped me that might happen so I was not surprised when the DPE looked slightly annoyed when I tried to brief him anyway.

The other thing about 91.107(a)(1) and (a)(2) is that it appears that as CFI you are only responsible for ensuring they have been briefed; section 91.107(a)(3) seems to dump the actual requirement to buckle up on each individual. As far as I can tell, a strict reading of Part 91 regs indicates you could taxi and take off under Part 91 with your passengers unbuckled and you as CFI would not technically be in violation of 91.107 if they were properly briefed.

I look forward to contrary evidence or arguments.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Strictly speaking, section 91.107 does not say you must brief; it says you must ensure each person on board has been briefed or notified. The "consider me briefed" should satisfy the "ensured" part. My DPE also made a similar statement during my check ride. My CFI had already prepped me that might happen so I was not surprised when the DPE looked slightly annoyed when I tried to brief him anyway.

The other thing about 91.107(a)(1) and (a)(2) is that it appears that as CFI you are only responsible for ensuring they have been briefed; section 91.107(a)(3) seems to dump the actual requirement to buckle up on each individual. As far as I can tell, a strict reading of Part 91 regs indicates you could taxi and take off under Part 91 with your passengers unbuckled and you as CFI would not technically be in violation of 91.107 if they were properly briefed.

I look forward to contrary evidence or arguments.
Click to expand...

Only on my commercial rides did the DE want a brief.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Strictly speaking, section 91.107 does not say you must brief; it says you must ensure each person on board has been briefed or notified. The "consider me briefed" should satisfy the "ensured" part. My DPE also made a similar statement during my check ride. My CFI had already prepped me that might happen so I was not surprised when the DPE looked slightly annoyed when I tried to brief him anyway.

The other thing about 91.107(a)(1) and (a)(2) is that it appears that as CFI you are only responsible for ensuring they have been briefed; section 91.107(a)(3) seems to dump the actual requirement to buckle up on each individual. As far as I can tell, a strict reading of Part 91 regs indicates you could taxi and take off under Part 91 with your passengers unbuckled and you as CFI would not technically be in violation of 91.107 if they were properly briefed.

I look forward to contrary evidence or arguments.
Click to expand...

I'd like to challenge this assertion. I'll do some research and get back to you.
 
Henning said:
Not often does one see a 180* windshear, I'm not totally sure it's even possible.
Click to expand...

Sometimes get that type of behavior on the edge of the Front Range with a low level flow in from the prairie and westerly flow over the hills. As you note, it doesn't happen often but it will get your attention.
 
If it makes you feel good, i busted the multi engine instruments check ride for failing to vocalize "Feather" on an simulated engine out (zero thrust) landing at the very end of the flight just seconds after the DPE told me how great I was doing. Retake was only one lap on the pattern plus 250 dollars and the .4 hobbs on the seminole. FML

On the positive side, I am pretty sure I will never do that mistake again in my whole life.
 
cirrusmx said:
If it makes you feel good, i busted the multi engine instruments check ride for failing to vocalize "Feather" on an simulated engine out (zero thrust) landing at the very end of the flight just seconds after the DPE told me how great I was doing. Retake was only one lap on the pattern plus 250 dollars and the .4 hobbs on the seminole. FML

On the positive side, I am pretty sure I will never do that mistake again in my whole life.
Click to expand...

Thank you. No need to make me feel good, I know what needs to be done. And DPE told me he busted his own IR ride. Said that he had a problem with a wind while in holding pattern.

My retake should be fairly small too. Going to the airport on Saturday to practice all areas that I need. And maybe a retake the following week.
 
Clark1961 said:
Sometimes get that type of behavior on the edge of the Front Range with a low level flow in from the prairie and westerly flow over the hills. As you note, it doesn't happen often but it will get your attention.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that's about the only way I see happening, some large body to react against. Out in the open though it's typically between 15* & 45* difference between the ground and 1000'.
 
Jim Logajan said:
Strictly speaking, section 91.107 does not say you must brief; it says you must ensure each person on board has been briefed or notified. The "consider me briefed" should satisfy the "ensured" part. My DPE also made a similar statement during my check ride. My CFI had already prepped me that might happen so I was not surprised when the DPE looked slightly annoyed when I tried to brief him anyway.

The other thing about 91.107(a)(1) and (a)(2) is that it appears that as CFI you are only responsible for ensuring they have been briefed; section 91.107(a)(3) seems to dump the actual requirement to buckle up on each individual. As far as I can tell, a strict reading of Part 91 regs indicates you could taxi and take off under Part 91 with your passengers unbuckled and you as CFI would not technically be in violation of 91.107 if they were properly briefed.

I look forward to contrary evidence or arguments.
Click to expand...

91.107 (3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
 
Jaybird180 said:
91.107 (3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola or an airship type certificated before November 2, 1987) must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing. For seaplane and float equipped rotorcraft operations during movement on the surface, the person pushing off the seaplane or rotorcraft from the dock and the person mooring the seaplane or rotorcraft at the dock are excepted from the preceding seating and safety belt requirements. Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may:
Click to expand...

No where in that paragraph does it say that if a person is not so secured that the operator or PIC is prohibited from taxing or taking off. The magic words "no pilot may take off" or "no pilot cause to be moved" do not appear in 91.107(a)(3). Those magic phrases appear only in 91.107(a)(1) and 91.107(a)(2).

91.105 requires crew members to be secured prior to taxi and takeoff, but passengers are redundant supercargo; tell 'em how to buckle up and let them fend for themselves! :wink2:
 
Jim Logajan said:
No where in that paragraph does it say that if a person is not so secured that the operator or PIC is prohibited from taxing or taking off. The magic words "no pilot may take off" or "no pilot cause to be moved" do not appear in 91.107(a)(3). Those magic phrases appear only in 91.107(a)(1) and 91.107(a)(2).

91.105 requires crew members to be secured prior to taxi and takeoff, but passengers are redundant supercargo; tell 'em how to buckle up and let them fend for themselves! :wink2:
Click to expand...

I'll pass on testing that theory, thank you very much. But I encourage you to try.:rofl:

No, I'm not being a smarta$$, but I'm a little less willing to buck this one when there's no gain for me.
 
Clark1961 said:
Sometimes get that type of behavior on the edge of the Front Range with a low level flow in from the prairie and westerly flow over the hills. As you note, it doesn't happen often but it will get your attention.
Click to expand...

We get a trough on the lee side, it'll do it.

Surface winds out of the East, upper level stuff screaming out of the West.

The critical part is how high AGL it's all going on. That's what was causing all the LLWS on Saturday last when Doug and I were up. 15 knot loss of airspeed at 300' AGL.
 
When this subject comes up locally, I refer pilots to 135.117 for some perspective on the issue. Even though it doesn't apply to part 91, it does provide some specifics re. topics that must be addressed, including notifying pax that they are obliged to obey the crew's instructions. Again, the regs aren't mandatory for 91 pilots.
 
Jim Logajan said:
No where in that paragraph does it say that if a person is not so secured that the operator or PIC is prohibited from taxing or taking off. The magic words "no pilot may take off" or "no pilot cause to be moved" do not appear in 91.107(a)(3). Those magic phrases appear only in 91.107(a)(1) and 91.107(a)(2).

91.105 requires crew members to be secured prior to taxi and takeoff, but passengers are redundant supercargo; tell 'em how to buckle up and let them fend for themselves! :wink2:
Click to expand...

Interestingly enough a flight attendent said as much to a pax on my last flight on Spirit a couple weeks ago. The captain had not yet turned off the seatbelt light and someone got up. I did not catch or don't remember the first bit but she says "Sir, I can only tell you that the captain has the fasten seatbelt light on, what you do with that information is up to you."

This was not take-off or landing, however. Rod Machado tells a story of a fellow pilot that stood up as the airplane was taxiing out after his repeated questions to the FA about ice on the wing were not addressed. "Sir, we cannot takeoff unless you take your seat." "I know." :yesnod: Turned out they were going to deice at the end of the taxi but it took that for the FA to get that info from the cockpit.
 
I was on one of the inaugural Virgin Australia flights and about mid Pacific we were in some pretty good turbulence and I got up to go to the head and all the stews were standing around in their area talking, seat belt sign was lit. Not one of the stews was over 20. I told them "Ya know, standing around in turbulence isn't such a great idea, we loose stews to broken necks like that; if you're gonna stand around unsecured, you may want to put a hand on the overhead or across your head." and I went into the head. When I came out 3 were buckled up in their jump seats and the other 2 were leaning against the tube with a hand up. I guess CASA doesn't brief them that the seat belt warning isn't just for the PAX? :dunno:
 
Meanee said:
I would expect 160. But at that point, I did not know exact wind, because ATIS came after TAP.
Click to expand...

Nope, wind flows toward the low at the surface but perpendicular to the low higher up.
 
alfadog said:
Nope, wind flows toward the low at the surface but perpendicular to the low higher up.
Click to expand...

Nifty trick for finding where the low is in the N hemisphere using surface wind; face the wind and look out past your right shoulder, S hemisphere it's out your left. The typical surface effect is no where near 90* and varies with latitude.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Nifty trick for finding where the low is in the N hemisphere using surface wind; face the wind and look out past your right shoulder, S hemisphere it's out your left. The typical surface effect is no where near 90* and varies with latitude.
Click to expand...

Your trick would work at 1000' but surface friction negates the Coriolis effect to a large degree, that is the reason for the question posted earlier. Here is a reference for you:

"Air moving over the earth's surface creates friction, which affects the lowest one kilometer of the atmosphere. Friction can interact with other forces to change the wind direction. Above the so-called Atmospheric Boundary Layer where friction is negligible, the pressure gradient force and the Coriolis force are in balance and the wind blows parallel to the isobars. This is called the geostrophic wind. At lower elevations where friction can not be neglected, the wind has a component pointing toward the lower pressure (and away from the higher pressure).

Local winds result from thermal differences that generate a local pressure gradient."
 
alfadog said:
Your trick would work at 1000' but surface friction negates the Coriolis effect to a large degree, that is the reason for the question posted earlier. Here is a reference for you:

"Air moving over the earth's surface creates friction, which affects the lowest one kilometer of the atmosphere. Friction can interact with other forces to change the wind direction. Above the so-called Atmospheric Boundary Layer where friction is negligible, the pressure gradient force and the Coriolis force are in balance and the wind blows parallel to the isobars. This is called the geostrophic wind. At lower elevations where friction can not be neglected, the wind has a component pointing toward the lower pressure (and away from the higher pressure).

Local winds result from thermal differences that generate a local pressure gradient."
Click to expand...

It's poorly worded, the wind shifts towards, but it NEVER points at. It clocks right (in the N)a varying degree between the Equator (greatest) and pole (least)
 
Henning said:
It's poorly worded, the wind shifts towards, but it NEVER points at. It clocks right (in the N)a varying degree between the Equator (greatest) and pole (least)
Click to expand...

Worded fine. It says it has a component, i.e. component vector as in vector addition. So no, Coriolis is not entirely negated but the vector sum includes a component normal to the isobars.
 
alfadog said:
Nope, wind flows toward the low at the surface but perpendicular to the low higher up.
Click to expand...

alfadog said:
Worded fine. It says it has a component, i.e. component vector as in vector addition. So no, Coriolis is not entirely negated but the vector sum includes a component normal to the isobars.
Click to expand...

Saying the wind flows towards is insufficient, and at its simplest form, a straight path between two points, incorrect. The flat land (not mountainous terrain and watch out for big buildings and hangars near the runway on a windy day.) shift towards the low is a far cry from direct, it doesn't come close.
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
Saying the wind flows towards is insufficient, and at its simplest form, a straight path between two points, incorrect. The flat land (not mountainous terrain and watch out for big buildings and hangars near the runway on a windy day.) shift towards the low is a far cry from direct, it doesn't come close.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. That is how I heard it worded but I agree with you.
 
Legiox said:
man you guys are making me nervous about the final checkride. I have thrown so much money down for my PVT pilot. Don't wanna waste 400 then have to do it all over again.:idea:
Click to expand...

Don't be nervous!!! [easier said than done... I was a mess beforehand] But I just took [and passed!] my private last week and it really was just another flight. My DPE was intimidating at first, but then he made me pretty comfortable and it wasn't nearly as scary as I thought it would be. I was instantly relaxed when we started flying. You'll be great. Trust me it's not that bad... Just don't stress as much as I did!
 
Meliss said:
Don't be nervous!!! [easier said than done... I was a mess beforehand] But I just took [and passed!] my private last week and it really was just another flight. My DPE was intimidating at first, but then he made me pretty comfortable and it wasn't nearly as scary as I thought it would be. I was instantly relaxed when we started flying. You'll be great. Trust me it's not that bad... Just don't stress as much as I did!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the encouragement!!! I do worry alot (thanks mom). I'm just ready to have my license before the summer kicks up into gear. Want to go flying to the outerbanks in NC and other coastal areas so bad!!!.

Just written and final checkride left.
 
Went to practice TAP yesterday. Grabbed a random instructor from rental place to have him validate the maneuver. First one, not so great. Then he told me "do a shallow turn on crosswind" and it hit me. I thought to myself I should treat it as a pattern, that has all pattern legs. Did 2 after that, all perfect. Dropped off CFI, went up again, did 3, all good.

Today, seeing my CFI to demonstrate it to him and getting another signoff.
 
If you explain it to your examiner, tell him the cross-wind segments should be "shallower" than the downwind and "steeper" than the upwind.


Meanee said:
Went to practice TAP yesterday. Grabbed a random instructor from rental place to have him validate the maneuver. First one, not so great. Then he told me "do a shallow turn on crosswind" and it hit me. I thought to myself I should treat it as a pattern, that has all pattern legs. Did 2 after that, all perfect. Dropped off CFI, went up again, did 3, all good.

Today, seeing my CFI to demonstrate it to him and getting another signoff.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Levy said:
You might want to do a more thorough comparison of the description in the OP's post with the PP-ASEL PTS -- there were other discrepancies. Bonus points to anyone identifying them.
Click to expand...

Real world is that there are still a lot of cranky old DPEs out there that predate PTS and FSDOs. In the field, "their" field, they do what they want to test an applicant (and make a bunch of cold, hard, non taxable cash doing it). Some CFIs search out these types. I don't know if the OPs DPE was of this genre, but they're out there.

Someday the FAA may be able to weed all these guys out, or they'll just fade away, but in the meantime there will be a lot of "discrepancies".
 
Lance F said:
Real world is that there are still a lot of cranky old DPEs out there that predate PTS and FSDOs. In the field, "their" field, they do what they want to test an applicant (and make a bunch of cold, hard, non taxable cash doing it). Some CFIs search out these types. I don't know if the OPs DPE was of this genre, but they're out there.

Someday the FAA may be able to weed all these guys out, or they'll just fade away, but in the meantime there will be a lot of "discrepancies".
Click to expand...

I see that as well, it's in our culture to want to cheat.
 
Henning said:
Live and learn, personally I don't fault you for giving it a go. The first time I flew SVFR it was on my ME check ride and I was low time with no IR. The DE was fine with it since we were figuring the fog layer would burn off during the airwork. It didn't so we couldn't do the landings and ended up with a discontinuance till the next day. The upside to that was I got 2 hrs in the plane with Betty Faux instead of one, and that bit of education made that discontinuation very valuable, that old lady had a lot to teach.

I think you did well myself, you didn't let a new situation stop you from trying. From that try you learned what you didn't know so you can improve. That to me is a good thing. It cost you a bit because you did it on a check ride, but what you learned is more valuable than what you lost so you're still good.
Click to expand...
My first SVFR was also on a checkride-my Commercial ASEL. I picked up SVFR to do one turn in the pattern to demonstrate complex proficiency in the C177RG (WX wasn't good enough to do the maneuvers in the 150, so we had to do that part 2 weeks later).
 
GCA319 said:
My first SVFR was also on a checkride-my Commercial ASEL. I picked up SVFR to do one turn in the pattern to demonstrate complex proficiency in the C177RG (WX wasn't good enough to do the maneuvers in the 150, so we had to do that part 2 weeks later).
Click to expand...

See, that's the way it should be; I've always considered it appropriate even. If you're going for a check ride you should not necessarily be afraid of complex conditions. You buy a lot of latitude with the DE if you execute the option well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top