rottydaddy
En-Route
Passed my Commercial Glider written today, by a respectable margin (89).
I was a little disappointed; thought I'd done better... but I passed... and my instructor told me of a heavy-duty DPE he knew, WWII bomber pilot, etc, etc, who once told him that 88-92 is a "gentleman's score", and that I should be proud.
As an examiner for many years, this fellow had found that applicants who'd scored less than 82 might not be book-smart enough to be worthy of the rating,even if they were good sticks, and those who scored over 92 were often too book-smart to fly well.
Maybe that's why my PPASEL examiner was so hard on me years ago... I got a 99 on that one.
That's only one guy's impression, but my CFI says I should be happy, and I am.
What a test, though! The one W&B problem could not be solved to match the three choices given for the CG. I was not allowed to take notes away from the test, so I can't reproduce it, but I took a stab at the number nearest my solution, and got it wrong. Looking at a similar sample problem found in my test prep book, I suspect that the FAA forgot to mention the ballast in the problem. Either that or I am so dumb I can screw up a W&B calc after 10 attempts, all yielding the same solution!
Another gem was the tow rope question where they list tow rope breaking strengh and glider weight, then forget to ask the question.There's two possible questions (min or max strength of weak links installed when the rope itself is rated for more than 200% of glider weight), so from the choices I was able to deduce the right question, and thus the right answer. Made me think, I'll give them that much.
There's also a lot of engine, IFR, radio nav, and night questions in there... too many, IMHO. I was waived for the PP-Glider written because I already have a PPASEL, but I'll bet that test is similar. I knew that would happen, but I will admit I had not brushed enough dust off things like interpreting an HSI when tracking a VORTAC.
Anyway, I'm glad it's done, and inspired to make a habit of studying habitually, rather than only when a test is imminent. Of course, I do have to put my nose back to the grindstone now, because there's a good chance I will be taking the "real" test this fall. If all goes well, I will be doing a lot of flying on the customers' dime next season.
I was a little disappointed; thought I'd done better... but I passed... and my instructor told me of a heavy-duty DPE he knew, WWII bomber pilot, etc, etc, who once told him that 88-92 is a "gentleman's score", and that I should be proud.
As an examiner for many years, this fellow had found that applicants who'd scored less than 82 might not be book-smart enough to be worthy of the rating,even if they were good sticks, and those who scored over 92 were often too book-smart to fly well.
Maybe that's why my PPASEL examiner was so hard on me years ago... I got a 99 on that one.
That's only one guy's impression, but my CFI says I should be happy, and I am.
What a test, though! The one W&B problem could not be solved to match the three choices given for the CG. I was not allowed to take notes away from the test, so I can't reproduce it, but I took a stab at the number nearest my solution, and got it wrong. Looking at a similar sample problem found in my test prep book, I suspect that the FAA forgot to mention the ballast in the problem. Either that or I am so dumb I can screw up a W&B calc after 10 attempts, all yielding the same solution!
Another gem was the tow rope question where they list tow rope breaking strengh and glider weight, then forget to ask the question.There's two possible questions (min or max strength of weak links installed when the rope itself is rated for more than 200% of glider weight), so from the choices I was able to deduce the right question, and thus the right answer. Made me think, I'll give them that much.
There's also a lot of engine, IFR, radio nav, and night questions in there... too many, IMHO. I was waived for the PP-Glider written because I already have a PPASEL, but I'll bet that test is similar. I knew that would happen, but I will admit I had not brushed enough dust off things like interpreting an HSI when tracking a VORTAC.
Anyway, I'm glad it's done, and inspired to make a habit of studying habitually, rather than only when a test is imminent. Of course, I do have to put my nose back to the grindstone now, because there's a good chance I will be taking the "real" test this fall. If all goes well, I will be doing a lot of flying on the customers' dime next season.
