Question for the DPEs...

Henning

Henning

Taxi to Parking
Gone West
Joined
Feb 26, 2005
Messages
39,463
Location
Ft Lauderdale FL
Display Name
Display name:
iHenning
Given a Private Pilot checkride C-172: you ask ask the candidate to land at KXYZ. He gets the ATIS and hears that there is a 15 kt crosswind. On hearing that he looks at his chart and finds KABC with a perpendicular runway and states, "I will not attempt landing at KXYZ as 15 knots crosswind is beyond my comfort factor. I have found KABC only 40 miles away with a runway aligned into the wind, I will take you there for landing."

Pass or fail?
 
Henning said:
Given a Private Pilot checkride C-172: you ask ask the candidate to land at KXYZ. He gets the ATIS and hears that there is a 15 kt crosswind. On hearing that he looks at his chart and finds KABC with a perpendicular runway and states, "I will not attempt landing at KXYZ as 15 knots crosswind is beyond my comfort factor. I have found KABC only 40 miles away with a runway aligned into the wind, I will take you there for landing."

Pass or fail?
Click to expand...

The answer is in the PP PTS.
 
What's the demonstrated crosswind component for the airplane? i'd expect a landing if the crosswind was less than the demonstrated xwind.

Not a DPE or instructor and not familiar with the PTS in this area, though I believe it does call for a crosswind landing if one can be performed.

As we know it is very doable to land a Cessna above the max demonstrated crosswind listed (the 152 is only 12 kts!) but I would not expect a 40-60hour pilot to make a decent landing in anything above that. I would be glad they had the ADM to search for a runway better aligned with the wind if the xwind was approaching or exceeding the plane's listed crosswind component.
 
Last edited:
Think of it this way...imagine the DPE says "Land there or fail," and the applicant tries and rolls the plane up in a ball. And with the situation as stated in the post at the top and nothing more said, it might just be a test of the applicant's judgement, not his/her skill.

In any event, I cannot find anything in the PP PTS setting a minimum crosswind component in which a landing must be demonstrated. Quite the contrary, you might want to read what it says in Area IV, Task A, item 4 to which R&W was no doubt alluding, and with which any CFI is no doubt familiar.
 
Last edited:
At the flying club where I am a member, and which was also my part 141 school, there are wind limitations...presumably for insurance purposes, but I'm not certain:

Student during solo: Max wind 12kts, max xwind component 6kts, no gusts
Cert. pilot with less than 200 hours total time: Max 20kts, max xwind 9kts, up to 5kt gusts
Cert. pilot with 200+ hours: Max wind 30kts, max xwind 12kts, up to 10kt gusts

I think this is an example where one might justifiably choose not to land in a crosswind that may be less than the demonstrated capability of the aircraft.

Although, for my check ride, I had roughly 15 knots crosswinds.
 
Ron Levy said:
Think of it this way...imagine the DPE says "Land there or fail," and the applicant tries and rolls the plane up in a ball. And with the situation as stated in the post at the top and nothing more said, it might just be a test of the applicant's judgement, not his/her skill.

In any event, I cannot find anything in the PP PTS setting a minimum crosswind component in which a landing must be demonstrated. Quite the contrary, you might want to read what it says in Area IV, Task A, item 4 to which R&W was no doubt alluding, and with which any CFI is no doubt familiar.
Click to expand...

There is an important difference on this subject between the 2002 and 2012 issues of the PTS; and that latter has only been operative for all of 25 days.

If there is an equivalent clause to "Calculates/determines if crosswind component is above his or her ability or that of the aircraft’s capability" in the PTS that was operative for the previous ten years, I'm not seeing it.
 
I realize that Ron and R&W are busting Hennings chops. But I am a noob/wannabe. When I see posts like this, I go look it up myself and try to figure it out. So, I looked at the reference ron made and it seemed to apply to ASES. Here is what "I" think. Area 1/ Task C #2, Area 1 being prefight preperation and Task C being weather information. #2 says
"Makes a competent “go/no-go” decision based on available weather​
information." So, my take away is, if the DPE believes that that is a "competent" decision then off they go. If he believes otherwise, then it is a fail. And I would believe that each situation to be different so, no way to answer Hennings question. How did I do?
 
Henning said:
Given a Private Pilot checkride C-172: you ask ask the candidate to land at KXYZ. He gets the ATIS and hears that there is a 15 kt crosswind. On hearing that he looks at his chart and finds KABC with a perpendicular runway and states, "I will not attempt landing at KXYZ as 15 knots crosswind is beyond my comfort factor. I have found KABC only 40 miles away with a runway aligned into the wind, I will take you there for landing."

Pass or fail?
Click to expand...


Pass. It's a trick question. Everyone knows KABC is a much better landing site. Besides having a world class FBO right next to a 5 star restaurant with 75% off for pilots, there is an airshow today with Blue Angels and a marching band too.

Rookie mistake to try KXYZ.
 
Last edited:
Did he take off from XYZ airport? If he isn't able to to come back and land at the airport he took off from because of crosswind and has to fly 40 miles to the nearest runway he can land on...he shouldn't of taken off in the first place. From the way the example was given...Fail.
 
lr60plt said:
Did he take off from XYZ airport? If he isn't able to to come back and land at the airport he took off from because of crosswind and has to fly 40 miles to the nearest runway he can land on...he shouldn't of taken off in the first place. From the way the example was given...Fail.
Click to expand...

I guess you've never heard of conditions getting worse than forecast! It happened to me when I was a student on one of my early solo X/Cs.

After being signed off by my CFI to make the trip, the winds picked up considerably AFTER I departed. Got to my destination, entered the pattern and could not handle the crosswind on final. (single runway)

Went around and tried again. Same thing...too much for me. Departed the pattern, flew back home, got the ATIS and it too was beyond the normal flight school limit for student solo! However, we had an intersecting runway that reduced the X/W component, so I landed.

Taxied back to the FBO and my CFI was very relieved that I made it back ok. So what if I got back home and couldn't land? I would have diverted...plain & simple.

So who failed in this case? The forecast, not me nor my CFI.

did you see the bold sentence Henning?:lol:
 
Last edited:
mikeinbama said:
I realize that Ron and R&W are busting Hennings chops. But I am a noob/wannabe. When I see posts like this, I go look it up myself and try to figure it out. So, I looked at the reference ron made and it seemed to apply to ASES.
Click to expand...
If that's what you think, you are probably reading the outdated PP PTS which was replaced effective June 1. Check the FAA web site via the link above for the current version. FWIW, I suspect that the new wording is the result of discussions over events such as the situation Henning postulated, and the decision was to make clear that nobody is to be penalized for making a conservative safety decision.

However, even under the previous edition, I think the scenario I presented would have deterred any examiner from pushing an applicant to do something the applicant felt was unsafe as long as that did not involve skipping a task the PTS said was required (and there was no requirement for any sort of minimum level of crosswind component in which a landing was to be demonstrated).
 
Ron Levy said:
If that's what you think, you are probably reading the outdated PP PTS which was replaced effective June 1. Check the FAA web site via the link above for the current version. FWIW, I suspect that the new wording is the result of discussions over events such as the situation Henning postulated, and the decision was to make clear that nobody is to be penalized for making a conservative safety decision.

However, even under the previous edition, I think the scenario I presented would have deterred any examiner from pushing an applicant to do something the applicant felt was unsafe as long as that did not involve skipping a task the PTS said was required (and there was no requirement for any sort of minimum level of crosswind component in which a landing was to be demonstrated).
Click to expand...


Yep, I got caught....I was looking at the link in the above post, which is indeed the old PTS. I looked up the new one. And that is about as clear as it gets.

Thanks!
 
darrell said:
At the flying club where I am a member, and which was also my part 141 school, there are wind limitations...presumably for insurance purposes, but I'm not certain:

Student during solo: Max wind 12kts, max xwind component 6kts, no gusts
Cert. pilot with less than 200 hours total time: Max 20kts, max xwind 9kts, up to 5kt gusts
Cert. pilot with 200+ hours: Max wind 30kts, max xwind 12kts, up to 10kt gusts

I think this is an example where one might justifiably choose not to land in a crosswind that may be less than the demonstrated capability of the aircraft.

Although, for my check ride, I had roughly 15 knots crosswinds.
Click to expand...
With limitations like that, you'd hardly have any flyable days around here...
 
How would it look, A DPE is testing to give some pilot the gift of PIC, The title that the FARS say is the final decision maker, is given a scenario and in his judgement felt uncomfortable and chose an alternative and a put himself and a passenger in a more comfortable situation, was failed for making a wise decision.

It is not like he is applying for a job with an airline where he has to land at a certain airport, he is a Private Pilot who has limited skills and comfort. The number one rule I teach, don't force yourself out of your comfort level.
 
TommyG said:
It is not like he is applying for a job with an airline where he has to land at a certain airport, he is a Private Pilot who has limited skills and comfort.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the captain of an airliner is expected to divert to another airport if he/she judges landing conditions at the scheduled destination to be unsafe.
 
mikeinbama said:
Yep, I got caught....I was looking at the link in the above post, which is indeed the old PTS.
Click to expand...
And I referred to that link without checking -- guess that's what I get for not checking to make sure it had been posted by R&W as I thought rather than Henning.

Here's the link to the current version "B" PP PTS:
http://www.faa.gov/training_testing/testing/airmen/test_standards/pilot/media/FAA-S-8081-14B.pdf

But even the old version "A" PP PTS doesn't set any minimum crosswind requirement.
 
Last edited:
The June 1 2012 PTS says about cross winds: "If a crosswind condition does not exist, the applicant’s knowledge of crosswind elements shall be evaluated through oral testing."

It sure seems to me that if a crosswind component within POH limits can be found then the examiner is required to evaluate crosswind take offs and landings.

If the student isn't willing to demostrate a crosswind landing that is otherwise within POH and common sense limits, then perhaps a "letter of discontinuance" would be appropriate, since the candidate didn't actually demonstrate a cross wind landing at all.

Then again, to me the way this reads the examiner might be justified in just issuing a notice of disapproval on the basis that the refusal itself shows that more training is needed before the candidate reaches PTS standards.

I hope that nobody, or at least no pilot, thinks that the FAA needs to list 900 stupid things that might be barely legal but unsafe under any 'reasonable pilot' examination.
 
Last edited:
JimNtexas said:
The June 1 2012 PTS says about cross winds: "If a crosswind condition does not exist, the applicant’s knowledge of crosswind elements shall be evaluated through oral testing."

It sure seems to me that if a crosswind component within POH limits can be found then the examiner is required to evaluate crosswind take offs and landings.
Click to expand...
It may on first blush seem that way to you, but if you read Area IV, Task A, item 4 again, I think you'll see it really doesn't say that. Further, I can't think of any light SE trainer which actually has a POH crosswind limit, just a "demonstrated maximum crosswind" which was flown in training. That is neither a regulatory limit nor a recommendation that it be attempted, and the current PTS clearly says that for testing purposes, neither the applicant's comfort level nor the aircraft's capability (which is not necessarily the same as the maximum demonstrated crosswind component in the POH) may be exceeded.
 
It would seem to me that an applicant who calculates the crosswind component and determines that is beyond their current personal limit or ability and elects to land elsewhere is showing good judgment and therefore has demonstrated PIC action. If it were low as compared to other applicants then I imagine the DPE would pass the student assuming all other areas were correct and simply make a suggestion to the new PP that they go out with a CFI and gain more expeience with wind in order to continue learning and to be prepared for the circumstance of winds being greater than predicted on return from future XC flights.
Just my opinion

We get lotsa practice out here with wind so it's not so much a likelihood
 
I agree with Jeanie, but...

Somewhere between 1 knot of X-wind and the limit of the airplane is a number that a DPE would consider reasonable.

If I were giving a flight review, and a pilot refused to attempt a fifteen knot crosswind, he'd get points for good judgement in my book. Refusing to attempt a four or five knot crosswind would likely result in my not giving him the FR endorsement.

It's a question of judgement until the FAA puts a number in the PTS. I'm not complaining, I think it's reasonable to expect DPEs and CFIs to use judgement/discretion in these things.
 
TMetzinger said:
I agree with Jeanie, but...

Somewhere between 1 knot of X-wind and the limit of the airplane is a number that a DPE would consider reasonable.

If I were giving a flight review, and a pilot refused to attempt a fifteen knot crosswind, he'd get points for good judgement in my book. Refusing to attempt a four or five knot crosswind would likely result in my not giving him the FR endorsement.

It's a question of judgement until the FAA puts a number in the PTS. I'm not complaining, I think it's reasonable to expect DPEs and CFIs to use judgement/discretion in these things.
Click to expand...

Thank you, because when I made that point in the other thread, I was called incompetent and told that I shouldn't fly without a "comfortable, competent pilot" because I have kids:confused:

"Not being able to do something that should be able to be done is the definition of 'incompetent', so yes, that is what I call that."
 
One edit... if the pilot refused to attempt the fifteen knot X-wind during a FR, and that was "normal" for that area? Say it's a windy part of the country and it would be "reasonable" to expect a pilot operating from that airport to be able to handle that sort of wind, because it happens often? Maybe then the pilot doesn't earn the endorsement. And he might not pass the checkride with a DPE if he refused to attempt a crosswind landing in winds the DPE finds "reasonable".

Regardless, I'd offer to demonstrate the approach and landing to the pilot, and assist him in increasing his proficiency.

A similar situation. A pilot who routinely operates from a short field had better show me really good short-field technique while doing a flight review. He HAS to have that proficiency for his normal flying, and I won't sign him off unless he has it.

We all have to take the individual pilot circumstances into account, including the geographic area and it's prevailing weather. "Normal" operations may take up different portions of the airplane's operating envelope in different regions.

But what do I know? I haven't even hit my first renewal for the CFI yet, and I'll defer to other instructors with more experience if they disagree with me.
 
So based on every CFI I've ever met and the ones that commented on this board....If I set my personal limit and it happens to be lower than "what the machine is capable of" or even what the test pilots demonstrated....

...I'm not incompetent for refusing to push myself beyond that while flying solo, without a CFI or more experienced pilot onboard. Good to know I share the company of like minds:rofl:
 
redtail said:
So based on every CFI I've ever met and the ones that commented on this board....If I set my personal limit and it happens to be lower than "what the machine is capable of" or even what the test pilots demonstrated....

...I'm not incompetent for refusing to push myself beyond that while flying solo, without a CFI or more experienced pilot onboard. Good to know I share the company of like minds:rofl:
Click to expand...

Yes, as long as you don't set it so low that you're like the student who wouldn't tolerate a simulated emergency during training. If you cannot operate safely on "normal" days for the type of flying you do in the region you do it, then I wouldn't consider you competent to act as PIC until you increased your proficiency. This is because I don't trust you not to launch except on "perfect" days. There's a certain minimum level of proficiency required.

Does that seem fair?
 
I agree Tim. All I'm saying is, if 15 knots X-Wind is "normal" then why aren't we being trained and made proficient at that BEFORE being signed off for the checkride?

I seriously doubt that many student pilots are able to handle 15kts X-Wind by the checkride! regardless of what part of the country they're in, which tells me, it's NOT normal.

I do agree we should grab a CFI and work our way up but I don't think people should be considered incompetent or unsafe if their limit is lower than that of a 3000 hr pilot or test pilot!
 
Last edited:
redtail said:
I agree Tim. All I'm saying is, if 15 knots X-Wind is "normal" then why aren't we being trained and made proficient at that BEFORE being signed off for the checkride?

I seriously doubt that many student pilots are able to handle 15kts X-Wind by the checkride! which tells me, it's NOT normal.

I do agree we should grab a CFI and work our way up but I don't think people should be considered incompetent or unsafe if their limit is lower than that of a 3000 hr pilot or test pilot!
Click to expand...

I bet there are parts of the country where a 15-knot crosswind would be considered "normal". And since the student accident rate is pretty low, I'd bet students in that area are being trained and made proficient for those conditions.

Conversely, you bring a pilot trained in the southwest up the the Mid-Atlantic, and he thinks he needs the instrument rating to go flying - he is NOT comfy in 5 miles visibility in haze, even though that's "reasonable" VFR here.
 
TMetzinger said:
I bet there are parts of the country where a 15-knot crosswind would be considered "normal". And since the student accident rate is pretty low, I'd bet students in that area are being trained and made proficient for those conditions.

Conversely, you bring a pilot trained in the southwest up the the Mid-Atlantic, and he thinks he needs the instrument rating to go flying - he is NOT comfy in 5 miles visibility in haze, even though that's "reasonable" VFR here.
Click to expand...

once again, I agree but I still don't believe the majority of students nationwide are able to deal with a 15kt x-wind by the time their CFI signs them off! So who's doing the disservice if that's "normal"?

Something is wrong with the system!
 
Last edited:
Agreed, 15 knot x-wind is probably not "normal" for a lot of places. Snowy runways wouldn't be "normal" for lots of places either. But I bet the pilots in the northern climes get training in dealing with contaminated runways that the southerners don't.

And the pilots in the Rockies get training in mountain flying that the flatlanders don't.
And...

So, don't worry if someone implies your not competent for a certain type of flying. We're ALL incompetent at some sort of flying. I can think of at least five types that only require a private certificate (or even a sport):
Taildraggers
Bush ops
Mountain flying
Flying something like a Corvallis
Aerobatics
 
TMetzinger said:
Agreed, 15 knot x-wind is probably not "normal" for a lot of places. Snowy runways wouldn't be "normal" for lots of places either. But I bet the pilots in the northern climes get training in dealing with contaminated runways that the southerners don't.

And the pilots in the Rockies get training in mountain flying that the flatlanders don't.
And...

So, don't worry if someone implies your not competent for a certain type of flying. We're ALL incompetent at some sort of flying. I can think of at least five types that only require a private certificate (or even a sport):
Taildraggers
Bush ops
Mountain flying
Flying something like a Corvallis
Aerobatics
Click to expand...

No that doesn't really bother me because I feel comfortable in what I know and the fact that I have much to learn and experience to gain.

I just think it sends the wrong signal to newer student pilots and they might bite off more than they can chew, based on what they read on some of these boards!
 
I agree with Tim about where you fly makes a difference.
I am a flat lander. Can almost always find a runway aligned with the wind if I must.
Went out west, flew in AZ, a "normal" day was a 15 knot x wind at my buddies airport. At home, at the time, I probably would have thought about trying it. To my friend, didn't even cross his mind, if you didn't fly/land with it, he didn't fly at all.

Point being, where you fly, DOES make a difference to your comfort level and what you are "used to" doing.
As Tim stated, a pilot that fly's out of a 2000 foot strip every day, will probably have a better at short field take offs than the pilot that has flown out of a 6K strip and the shortest thing he has ever landed or taken off on was 4K.

Just have to evaluate every situation and the pilot to make the proper determination.
My .02
 
The factors discussed here may contribute to the reason that sim instructors teaching turboprops and jets are required to set X/W component at 10 knots or less for check rides and type rides.
 
Well, I used to be a DPE and the way I read the new PTS Task A applies only to takeoffs. Once airborne, 15 kts is fair game. Frankly, the applicant should be able to handle the plane throughout it's entire performance envelope competently. That said, if gusts during the flare cause an unsafe/uncomfortable attitude, a go-around is certainly ok.

For those who say "pass" I have a question: Where is the line for failure? Is it 14 kts? How about ten? Or five? I once had an applicant fail the oral, but beg me to pass him anyway because he promised to always be really, really careful and never take any chances. I didn't.

dtuuri
 
What if there is no wind at all? If the student exhibits all the proper knowledge of crosswind landings, but is unable to actually perform one for the examiner, do they pass? Discontinue and try again on a day with wind?

There is no line for failure for crosswinds. If the PTS says that you can be passed without ever actually *performing* a crosswind landing, then you are not required to have any crosswind at all, as long as you exhibit all the necessary knowledge.
 
darrell said:
What if there is no wind at all? If the student exhibits all the proper knowledge of crosswind landings, but is unable to actually perform one for the examiner, do they pass? Discontinue and try again on a day with wind?

There is no line for failure for crosswinds. If the PTS says that you can be passed without ever actually *performing* a crosswind landing, then you are not required to have any crosswind at all, as long as you exhibit all the necessary knowledge.
Click to expand...
The FAA can require you to handle a crosswind in the plane you've selected to fly if it's within the capability of the airplane, but even the FAA can't require God to provide one.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
It's true that your region for learning contributes to what you get used to. I have flown with a student who said once, oh good it's only 20 ... And I have had an initial student manage in a 50* 10G15kt wind... Before you flame me on allowing him to fly you need to know that it was only 4 and right down the runway when I got out of the plane, it kicked up on his second landing... On his next flight it was 17G22 maybe 20* off the nose, so we went to a nice long rwy. And practiced over and over with low approaches.
I have flown east of the Mississippi and wondered at the visibility being so low.
 
I have another twist to put on this without debating what's stated in the PTS. Let's say exactly what Henning has laid out occurred and the student chose not to attempt the cross wind landing because he'd never been properly taught to. He diverts to the alternate 40 miles away and arranges for someone to pick he and the DPE up and drive back to the airport of origin to complete the check ride. He successfully passes and is now the owner of a shiny new PP cert. He's been taught to fly to the level of the PTS and successfully designated that to the examiner...yippee! Now as a private pilot he plans a trip with the family to visit relatives in rural Kansas. What better use of his new PP cert? He plans everything to his limitations, knows his limitations, but when he arrives at his destination the winds are greater than forecast. It is Kansas you know. He has planned with enough fuel to get to 3 alternate airports but they all have 9-27 runways and the winds are 180 15kts gusting to 25kts. The nearest airport with anything close to a 18 runway is beyond his remaining fuel range. He crashes trying to land in the cross wind and there are casualties. If you're the DPE, how do you feel knowing you gave the guy the license he needed to kill himself without having the skills he needed to safely act as a private pilot?

I'm not a DPE, but if I were the DPE in Henning's OP I would tell the student to demonstrate the cross wind landing or else. I would also explain that it's a very real possibility that he'd face a situation, as a private pilot, where he'd have no other choice 40 miles away. The student could dispute it with the FSDO if he chose and the FSDO could revoke my DPE qualifications, but I'd feel better about losing the DPE job than I would knowing I gave a guy a PP cert that wasn't really ready for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top