Private Checkride Fail

[EdFred]

If you're on a diversion, you only need data on one airport, and the name of the airport is right there on the chart. Unless you're saying you don't know what state you're in?

Except the A/FD lists the information for them alphabetically by the city name, not the airport name - and sometimes the city/town name isn't even listed on the sectional chart. Take 5N7 and 33C for example. They are listed in the A/FD under Nunica, MI - but Nunica doesn't show up on the sectional. So where are you going to look in the A/FD?

So now you're turning pages back and forth looking for it, when it says see Nunica.

 

[MarkZ]

So where's the reg that says you need to stay 500' below the shelf? I'm not finding it.

There is no such requirement.

 

[tehmightypirate]

I guess I just don't see any difference between the two. Whether it's a checkride or real life, if you're making a diversion to an unplanned airport and there's no distress condition requiring landing ASAP, I think that checking the pubs for the correct TPA is a requirement for a safe arrival.

How can you say it was "unfair"? Were the standards not available for her to review? Was she judged other than by those standards? Did the DPE somehow pressure her into skipping this part of the arrival process? I'm just not seeing any unfairness here.

The unfairness was (I assume) the pressure of the test and the closeness of the diversion combined with (I assume) no description given to wither it was an emergency, expedited, or routine diversion.

But, yes, in the end it shouldn't matter. We should all strive for perfection, I just feel that given the right circumstances it would be something I would have liked a 2nd try at if I could make up PTS standards on the spot. But, as it's not a usual circumstance I don't feel that the rules or testing methods should be changed. Besides, if you don't know the TPA of the airports around your practical test airport then you're probably not prepared enough anyway, right?

 

[poadeleted20]

The unfairness was (I assume) the pressure of the test and the closeness of the diversion combined with (I assume) no description given to wither it was an emergency, expedited, or routine diversion.

I saw no indication that it was an emergency, and unlike the engine-failure descent and approach Tasks in the Emergency Operations Area, there's nothing in the PTS automatically making this Task in the Navigation Area an emergency action. As I said, I think this was all a matter of self-imposed stress by the applicant without any help from the DPE, and that's not a good sign for good aeronautical decision making in the future -- too much like get-there-itis.

But, yes, in the end it shouldn't matter. We should all strive for perfection,

We're not talking about perfection, we're talking about meeting the minimum standards -- which she failed to do.

I just feel that given the right circumstances it would be something I would have liked a 2nd try at if I could make up PTS standards on the spot. But, as it's not a usual circumstance I don't feel that the rules or testing methods should be changed. Besides, if you don't know the TPA of the airports around your practical test airport then you're probably not prepared enough anyway, right?

You can do that if you want, but I see no need for it -- I never deliberately memorize anything I can look up when the need arises. I don't think anyone needs to memorize the TPA of every airport along their planned route of flight -- just have the A/FD with them, and consult it if they do have to divert somewhere they did not plan to land. And that's the standard she failed to meet.

As for second chances on practical tests, it's a nice idea, but it isn't going to happen. The FAA's real concern is what's going to happen the day after the ride, and if she cut this corner today with the examiner watching, what's she going to do tomorrow with nobody looking over her shoulder? And the FAA doesn't like

 

[azure]

Except the A/FD lists the information for them alphabetically by the city name, not the airport name - and sometimes the city/town name isn't even listed on the sectional chart. Take 5N7 and 33C for example. They are listed in the A/FD under Nunica, MI - but Nunica doesn't show up on the sectional. So where are you going to look in the A/FD?

So now you're turning pages back and forth looking for it, when it says see Nunica.

Yes, lots of airports like that. My CFII spent about 5 minutes thumbing through the A/FD last weekend looking for 1D2, a.k.a. Canton Plymouth Mettetal. He eventually found it, but I don't even remember what city it was under.

 

[Skyscraper]

If you're on a diversion, you only need data on one airport, and the name of the airport is right there on the chart. Unless you're saying you don't know what state you're in?

Right, I understand this is for a diversion. What I mean is that I write down all the pertinent info for several airports in the areas that I'll be flying through, not just my destination. If I get a diversion, as soon as I'm assigned a new destination, I'll most likely already have all the info I need to enter the pattern and make a safe landing at any airport in the area.

 

[MAKG1]

Yes, lots of airports like that. My CFII spent about 5 minutes thumbing through the A/FD last weekend looking for 1D2, a.k.a. Canton Plymouth Mettetal. He eventually found it, but I don't even remember what city it was under.

The worst collation I've seen in the A/FD is KWJF, General William J. Fox Airport, Lancaster, CA. Whoever filed that under G should be forced to live there.

 

[Perezhr]

If the 200 feet along with the early roll out was the only reason he failed her then I think its harsh. If everything else was good I think these two issues are minor in nature and probably something he would/should have discussed with her but not a reason to fail her unless you're a hard ass.

 

[Skyscraper]

Except the A/FD lists the information for them alphabetically by the city name, not the airport name - and sometimes the city/town name isn't even listed on the sectional chart. Take 5N7 and 33C for example. They are listed in the A/FD under Nunica, MI - but Nunica doesn't show up on the sectional. So where are you going to look in the A/FD?

So now you're turning pages back and forth looking for it, when it says see Nunica.

Yep, this is exactly my point. When time is of the essence and getting info fast is required (such as a diversion ) I don't want to be thumbing through the A/FD and hoping I'm looking in the right place.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yep, this is exactly my point. When time is of the essence and getting info fast is required (such as a diversion ) I don't want to be thumbing through the A/FD and hoping I'm looking in the right place.

You have fallen into the same trap as the OP's applicant -- time is not of the essence on this non-emergency diversion.

 

[EdFred]

You have fallen into the same trap as the OP's applicant -- time is not of the essence on this non-emergency diversion.

Depends how the DPE presents it. - or it gets interpreted. Mine used the example that everything was weathered in and we should get down rather expeditiously. Not an emergency, but not to dilly dally either.

 

[MAKG1]

Yep, this is exactly my point. When time is of the essence and getting info fast is required (such as a diversion ) I don't want to be thumbing through the A/FD and hoping I'm looking in the right place.

Time is USUALLY not of the essence for a diversion. You can divert because your passengers change their minds about where they want to go. If you divert because of weather, it's only of the essence if it's deteriorating or you're low on fuel.

 

[Skyscraper]

You have fallen into the same trap as the OP's applicant -- time is not of the essence on this non-emergency diversion.

I never said it was an emergency, just that I prefer to get my relevant information concerning the safety of the flight sooner rather than later (already written down on my kneeboard vs. searching through a 200+ page book). If I'm coming up on an airport that's just five or so miles away, time IS of the essence even though it's not an emergency. I don't see how that's falling into a trap.

 

[Z06_Mir]

Except the A/FD lists the information for them alphabetically by the city name, not the airport name - and sometimes the city/town name isn't even listed on the sectional chart. Take 5N7 and 33C for example. They are listed in the A/FD under Nunica, MI - but Nunica doesn't show up on the sectional. So where are you going to look in the A/FD?

So now you're turning pages back and forth looking for it, when it says see Nunica.

Which leads to even more unnecessary heads-down time in the cockpit which IMO is unacceptable. Maybe if you're flying in backwoods Michigan or Kansas it's OK to be heads down for minutes at a time. In Phoenix it's not.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Time is USUALLY not of the essence for a diversion. You can divert because your passengers change their minds about where they want to go. If you divert because of weather, it's only of the essence if it's deteriorating or you're low on fuel.

If your passengers change their mind you no longer have common purpose.

 

[MAKG1]

Which leads to even more unnecessary heads-down time in the cockpit which IMO is unacceptable. Maybe if you're flying in backwoods Michigan or Kansas it's OK to be heads down for minutes at a time. In Phoenix it's not.

Minutes? Not really.

Once when I popped over the mountains to KHAF, I turned the AWOS on as soon as I cleared the pass and got …. nothing. It turns out the problem was terrain shadowing, but the first thought was that I got the frequency wrong. So I looked it up in the A/FD. In light mountain turbulence, hands off, keeping the blue side up with the rudder and simultaneously scanning for traffic coming the other way. It took less than a minute.

And this was shortly after my checkride, as I quickly learned about the dead spot there.

A few minutes later when I had line of sight, AWOS came in. Not anywhere near the 50 mile range it's supposed to have.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Never ceases to amaze me all of the bitching that goes on over a check ride bust. It's not the end of the world.

As I've suggested before, we should do away with check rides and have the applicant just go down to the post office and fill out a one sided card and mail it in for their certificate. Check rides are just so unfair!

 

[Fearless Tower]

I'm just not sure what aspect of safety is ever enhanced by a lower TPA.

I can think of 1; Flabob, CA. Because of the surrounding terrain, if you fly a typical pattern at 1000', you'll be too wide and the mountain will be in your way.

 

[LDJones]

I can think of 1; Flabob, CA. Because of the surrounding terrain, if you fly a typical pattern at 1000', you'll be too wide and the mountain will be in your way.

200' requires a dramatically larger pattern?

 

[eetrojan]

I can think of 1; Flabob, CA. Because of the surrounding terrain, if you fly a typical pattern at 1000', you'll be too wide and the mountain will be in your way.

I've never been there, but I've noted Flabob's 700 AGL TPA because I've done a few landings at nearby Chino (KCNO), Riverside (KRAL), and Corona (KAJO) airports.

I just looked at the AFD for Flabob, though, and noticed for the first time that it has two different TPAs:

TPA -1467(700); and
Night TPA - 1767(1000) around the mountain

Sounds a little intimidating.

 

[Fearless Tower]

200' requires a dramatically larger pattern?

My math says 1000 minus 700 is 300'. At any rate, between the mountains and surrounding airspace, it is pretty tight in there

 

[Sam D]

If the 200 feet along with the early roll out was the only reason he failed her then I think its harsh. If everything else was good I think these two issues are minor in nature and probably something he would/should have discussed with her but not a reason to fail her unless you're a hard ass.

You may be right, but its hard if the DPE is doing the ride by the book. In other words, the DPE is supposed to tell the applicant of a failure immediately.

Personally, I'm not sure I agree with folks who get exercised when someone tells of a failed checkride and wasn't told about the offending tasks right at the time. I think I'd rather the DPE evaluated the ride in its totality.

 

[comanchepilot]

Wait - he busted her for the TPA and the early roll out of a steep turn? That's it?

The steep turn is a measure of aircraft control - the airplane does what you want it to do and you can see when it is not about to and catch before it starts - so you roll out early - the response should be - 'ah, did you intend to roll out 90 early? Lets try it AGAIN. . . . " Not - ooops. You fail. Thats total BS

The TPA thing is a safety issue - you level off at the wrong altitude and you might not see other traffic or be up in the level where the jets and other turbine powered ops are - which are usually faster and thus cannot see you tail on aspect angle. Again - that was INTENDED to be a gotcha. You are doing a diversion to a non-towered airport for what reason? Cause you have to do a diversion. What were the instructions? "We are diverting to X airport?" The purpose of this test is to make sure you have the SA to know where you are, and how to get someplace else other than your intended point of arrival and to use the tools in your cockpit to get you there.

I have never had an examiner ever actually take me to the diversion airport - whats the point? To fail me for coming in at a TPA 200' too high? In my private check ride, once the guy knew I knew where I was and was heading in the right direction and had it under control we were over this big azz farm and all of sudden, my engine failed. . . . you know how it goes.

On the IFR ride - that was the same way - need to divert here - is it legal? Can we get there? Fuel etc. We got started in the correct general direction and then something else happened.

Same on the commercial and every other ride I've ever done. The point is to make sure you know what you are doing - and how to access aerial resources - not find little gotchas to fail you.

As CFI this fail reflects on you - and you should have a discussion with the guy to find out why he did not let the examinee re-do the turn if it was in PTS standards to that point - and wtf was his idea was over the fail for the TPA 'bust. . . ' since published TPA's are not regulatory. ..

 

[poadeleted20]

Depends how the DPE presents it. - or it gets interpreted. Mine used the example that everything was weathered in and we should get down rather expeditiously. Not an emergency, but not to dilly dally either.

Not an emergency? You mean with "everything ... weathered in" you were not "concerned about safety"?

In any event, the Diversion Task as published is not an emergency operation (that's another Area in the PTS). Of course, a DPE could present it as an emergency, with a weather issue or falling oil pressure or the like, in which case delaying landing to check TPA might be something you would choose not to do, but that's not what the OP said about the situation.

 

[poadeleted20]

I never said it was an emergency,

Then time is not of the essence. Again -- misplaced sense of urgency.

just that I prefer to get my relevant information concerning the safety of the flight sooner rather than later (already written down on my kneeboard vs. searching through a 200+ page book).

Sure, great, wonderful -- do that whenever you can on the ground ahead of time. But you don't always have that luxury, and you may have to look it up in flight -- and that's what this Task is designed to test.

If I'm coming up on an airport that's just five or so miles away, time IS of the essence even though it's not an emergency. I don't see how that's falling into a trap.

I know you don't, and that's the point I'm trying to get across. You have to command the airplane, not he other way around. How about doing a 360, or setting up some other sort of delaying maneuver while you look up the data?

 

[poadeleted20]

Which leads to even more unnecessary heads-down time in the cockpit which IMO is unacceptable.

In this situation, it's not unnecessary.

Maybe if you're flying in backwoods Michigan or Kansas it's OK to be heads down for minutes at a time. In Phoenix it's not.

If it takes you "minutes" to look up an airport in the A/FD and determine the TPA, you're not safe for solo. And you should have been taught how to check pubs in flight without being "heads down" for an extended period.

 

[poadeleted20]

You may be right, but its hard if the DPE is doing the ride by the book. In other words, the DPE is supposed to tell the applicant of a failure immediately.

Correct. The only exceptions are if the DPE has reason to fear for his/her safety if s/he tells the applicant of hat failure in flight, or if the DPE and applicant arrange otherwise before the flight.

Personally, I'm not sure I agree with folks who get exercised when someone tells of a failed checkride and wasn't told about the offending tasks right at the time. I think I'd rather the DPE evaluated the ride in its totality.

Well, you're entitled to that opinion, but that's not how the FAA Order on point says it's to be done. Each task/maneuver is graded pass/fail, and failure of any maneuver is a failure of the practical test no matter how well you did everything else. Probably the main reason for this is to keep the test as objective as possible, thus reducing the opportunity for examiner malfeasance in either direction, and making it harder for anyone to argue about whether or not the evaluation was fair.

 

[EdFred]

Not an emergency? You mean with "everything ... weathered in" you were not concerned about safety?

In any event, the Diversion Task as published is not an emergency operation (that's another Area in the PTS). Of course, a DPE could present it as an emergency, in which case delaying landing to check TPA might be something you would choose not to do, but that's not what the OP said about the situation.

No, the "engine fire" was the emergency. My diversion was "the weather closed in behind us and our desintaion just got socked in we need to divert to [airport] quickly because we can't go back."

 

[poadeleted20]

No, the "engine fire" was the emergency. My diversion was "the weather closed in behind us and our desintaion just got socked in we need to divert to [airport] quickly because we can't go back."

You need to go back to the Pilot/Controller Glossary and review the meaning of the word "emergency." Weather closing in such that you have to land at once without even checking the book on the airport you choose certainly fits the definition of "urgency," and that's an emergency. Engine fire would be a distress condition, and also an emergency, but the term "emergency" is not limited to conditions where there is immediate danger to life. I know it's been a problem as long as I've been flying getting pilots to understand that, but it is what the words mean, and it opens the 91.3(b) door to a lot of options you do not otherwise have.

 

[EdFred]

As I said, once I gave him heading and time to the airport, the diversion was over, so it wasn't *that* imminent. He just didn't bother to have me look up all the runway and facilty information. Basically jus give him enough info to let him know I knew we could land there without problem - and all that info is on the sectional.

 

[Z06_Mir]

In this situation, it's not unnecessary.

If it takes you "minutes" to look up an airport in the A/FD and determine the TPA, you're not safe for solo. And you should have been taught how to check pubs in flight without being "heads down" for an extended period.

A few posts up there were discussions about how AFDs are laid out, and how airports are not necessarily filed under what you would think.

Example, Ak Chin Regional, formerly (like less than a year ago this changed) Phoenix Regional is filed under Maricopa. How many non-locals would know this? Heck, I had to look it up just to make this point to make sure it wasn't in some other obscure city. So now you're hunting for a new airport name, in a city that you didn't know existed within the Phoenix are and pretty soon you've been buzzing around who how many minutes heads down?

 

[MAKG1]

"Phoenix Center Bugsmasher 123AB diverting to Ak Chin. Do you have the TPA?"

If all else fails, ask. If you're not on flight following, you can ask FSS on 122.2.

 

[Pilot Nick]

I don't remember for sure but I don't think there are any Regs stating you have to fly the pattern at TPA...

"The AIM is not regulatory..."

I think we are a little too safety conscious in Aviation. If we had to drive cars like we fly planes we wouldn't get anywhere.

 

[Skyscraper]

Then time is not of the essence. Again -- misplaced sense of urgency.

Sure, great, wonderful -- do that whenever you can on the ground ahead of time. But you don't always have that luxury, and you may have to look it up in flight -- and that's what this Task is designed to test.

I know you don't, and that's the point I'm trying to get across. You have to command the airplane, not he other way around. How about doing a 360, or setting up some other sort of delaying maneuver while you look up the data?

All I'm saying is that I take notes on the pertinent data for SEVERAL airports that I might need to divert to so that I can look up what's necessary as quickly as possible on my kneeboard, not because I'm sweating bullets or have a misplaced sense of urgency, and I'm not saying that having to look something up in a book during flight is always bad. I'll submit to your experience, but I seems less likely that this task is designed to test your ability to look up data quickly in the A/FD, as it is designed to be able to test your ability to figure out where you are at any point during the flight, find your new heading and estimate time en route and fuel burn.

As others have pointed out, it can be difficult to find the info for the airport your looking for in a timely manner. Some people may be perfectly happy doing 360's while they flip through pages in a book, but I'd rather know that information sooner IF POSSIBLE so that I can focus the majority of my attention on commanding the aircraft, as you said.

 

[MAKG1]

I don't remember for sure but I don't think there are any Regs stating you have to fly the pattern at TPA...

"The AIM is not regulatory..."

I think we are a little too safety conscious in Aviation. If we had to drive cars like we fly planes we wouldn't get anywhere.

It's not regulatory, but it's in the PTS. Task III.B.7.

 

[MAKG1]

All I'm saying is that I take notes on the pertinent data for SEVERAL airports that I might need to divert to so that I can look up what's necessary as quickly as possible on my kneeboard, not because I'm sweating bullets or have a misplaced sense of urgency, and I'm not saying that having to look something up in a book during flight is always bad. I'll submit to your experience, but I seems less likely that this task is designed to test your ability to look up data quickly in the A/FD, as it is designed to be able to test your ability to figure out where you are at any point during the flight, find your new heading and estimate time en route and fuel burn.

As others have pointed out, it can be difficult to find the info for the airport your looking for in a timely manner. Some people may be perfectly happy doing 360's while they flip through pages in a book, but I'd rather know that information sooner IF POSSIBLE so that I can focus the majority of my attention on commanding the aircraft, as you said.

You're not going to go very far on your checkride. Most likely, you will land at the closest airport -- either Petaluma or Healdsburg, presuming you launch from Santa Rosa.

At this stage, you've landed at every airport in the North Bay, even Angwin, right? So, you know all possible TPAs you will be exposed to. Trust me, your examiner isn't going to want to fly all the way to Sacramento with you.

Your cross country will be much further, but you'll only fly the first checkpoint or two. You can design this to pick your airport...a southbound initial leg will likely put you at Petaluma. But, you'll have to explain your route, so don't overdo that.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

I think the examiner was correct. She will never forget her in attention. Good lesson. There should be more like him.

 

[Skyscraper]

You're not going to go very far on your checkride. Most likely, you will land at the closest airport -- either Petaluma or Healdsburg, presuming you launch from Santa Rosa.

At this stage, you've landed at every airport in the North Bay, even Angwin, right? So, you know all possible TPAs you will be exposed to. Trust me, your examiner isn't going to want to fly all the way to Sacramento with you.

Your cross country will be much further, but you'll only fly the first checkpoint or two. You can design this to pick your airport...a southbound initial leg will likely put you at Petaluma. But, you'll have to explain your route, so don't overdo that.

Thanks for the advice Mak!

I will be departing from Santa Rosa. The DPE I plan to use actually has had some students land at the diversion airport and used that as a chance to test short and soft field landings and takeoffs. And yeah, I've been just about everywhere in the NorthBay that we're likely to go, Angwin just once, so I'm sure I'll hit that again before checkride time.

 

[MAKG1]

I doubt Angwin will be used for a private pilot check ride. It's a bit hairy. It's "U" shaped, so you always land downhill. It's on a ridge top, so the winds are weird. There is another ridge under short final for 34 so all approaches to 34 are power off. And no AWOS.

I was just there Saturday. Calm winds at the surface all over the Bay (but there was a 20 knot north wind at 3500, which made for some interesting turbulence, especially leaving Oakland C). But some 10 knots of wind shear at Angwin. Wind was calm most of the time, but every few minutes, a significant gust came up the ridge. On the return, I tried a higher altitude and it was smoother. Did a B transition at 4500, got approved but vectored all over the place for traffic.

My landing wasn't pretty. I wouldn't want an examiner in the right seat for that.

 

[Skyscraper]

I doubt Angwin will be used for a private pilot check ride. It's a bit hairy. It's "U" shaped, so you always land downhill. It's on a ridge top, so the winds are weird. There is another ridge under short final for 34 so all approaches to 34 are power off. And no AWOS.

I was just there Saturday. Calm winds at the surface all over the Bay (but there was a 20 knot north wind at 3500, which made for some interesting turbulence, especially leaving Oakland C). But some 10 knots of wind shear at Angwin. Wind was calm most of the time, but every few minutes, a significant gust came up the ridge. On the return, I tried a higher altitude and it was smoother. Did a B transition at 4500, got approved but vectored all over the place for traffic.

My landing wasn't pretty. I wouldn't want an examiner in the right seat for that.

Yeah, I wasn't stoked to hear from my CFI that this particular DPE has taken students all the way to Angwin during examining them. During my lesson in which we went to Angwin for some landings, my confidence was not very high after experiencing all the terrain and gusty winds and pretty ugly approach paths trying to deal with those. Healdsburg and Petaluma, both being down on a valley floor, feel like a cakewalk compared to Angwin, all the more reason to practice there I suppose.