Question for the DPEs...

[darrell]

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

What if, as in my case, the crosswinds were within the capability of the airplane, but exceeded the flying club's wind policy? (In the case of my club, regardless of experience, crosswinds in excess of 12 knots are prohibited.) I guess the real question is what happens if an FAA examiner required me to perform a maneuver that was within the limits of the aircraft, but prohibited by the club's policy?

 

[darrell]

the student chose not to attempt the cross wind landing because he'd never been properly taught to.

Then that is grounds for failing the ride right there. If he has not been taught how to properly land in a crosswind, then how can he exhibit knowledge of successfully performing one? The examiner should see that and stop the ride.

 

[Matthew]

... 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...

You'll need another example - I'd say the majority of our rws are N/S, he'd have to try really hard to find 3 alternates that only have E/W rwys.

--

But, I understand your point.

carry on...

 

[darrell]

I see the point as well, but I think it's invalid.

If I train and receive my PP in Florida, and then I go crash in the mountains somewhere, it's not the DPE's fault, it's my fault.

If I'm not comfortable in a crosswind, and my check ride occurs on a calm day, then I go crash in a crosswind, is that the DPE's fault?

 

[Matthew]

Not a CFI or DPE: If you don't feel comfortable in a x-wind, you shouldn't be taking your checkride. No telling what conditions will be at the moment your DPE says "let's go" or "show me a soft-field landing". Your CFI, by signing you off for that checkride says you are ready. If you don't think you are, then get some extra training. If you are going into an area where local conditions are outside your skill set, get some extra training.

Crashing after a checkride shouldn't be the DPE's fault.

 

[TMetzinger]

I don't think we're going to find a "final" answer. The PTS says that the applicant must demonstrate knowledge of how to land in a crosswind. Normally this would show up in the airplane during the checkride and the applicant would apply the necessary control inputs to maintain centerline and touch down and roll out with no drift. If there's no crosswind, then oral quizzing can also be used to determine the applicant's knowledge.

What's wanted is a pilot who knows how to land in a crosswind, and who also knows when it's a better choice to divert to another runway with less crosswind. How we test for that and what the pass/fail criteria are is up to the judgement of the DPE, and there's probably a range of acceptable performance rather than a hard pass/fail line.

 

[darrell]

Tim, totally agree.

 

[dtuuri]

I guess the real question is what happens if an FAA examiner required me to perform a maneuver that was within the limits of the aircraft, but prohibited by the club's policy?

You better do it if you want a license that day. If you break it, I guess you buy it.

dtuuri

 

[pilot117]

Then that is grounds for failing the ride right there. If he has not been taught how to properly land in a crosswind, then how can he exhibit knowledge of successfully performing one? The examiner should see that and stop the ride.

That's hilarious! You don't think a CFI could teach a student the theory of how to perform a cross wind landing with some ground instruction well enough for them to regurgitate it back during the oral without ever actually performing a cross wind landing in the plane?

Here's an example for you.... I was asked to identify the components of the fuel system on the Cessna 152 I was using to complete my check ride and explain how the system worked . I'm guessing I'm not the only student pilot that's ever been asked to do so during their oral exam. However, I'll wager that most students are able to verbally tell the examiner what they've been taught well enough to pass, yet the vast majority of those same students has never seen the cowl off an airplane nor could they point to the carburetor or fuel pump on the plane they are flying.

 

[poadeleted20]

I've been over that PTS quite a bit, and I see nothing in it which appears to label an examinee's decision not to attempt a landing in conditions the examinee considers beyond the examinee's ability as meeting any of the criteria for "Unsatisfactory Performance" in that PTS. If any of you think otherwise, please cite the specific "Unsatisfactory Performance" criterion in the PTS along with the specific standard for the Area/Task/Item which the examinee failed to meet. I'm just not seeing anything setting a minimum amount of crosswind in which a landing must be demonstrated, either objective, subjective, or relative to the aircraft's POH, and if anyone here does see that, please cite it.

Personally, given the number of landing accidents we have, especially in crosswinds, I'd rather see a PP certificate awarded to a person who refuses to attempt a landing due to the strength of the crosswind than to some of the yo-yo's out there who will try to land in a really nasty crosswind just because the book or another pilot says it's possible.

 

[denverpilot]

There's a reason the phrase "license to learn" is bandied about. There is absolutely no way to test every single thing an applicant might know or not know about flying in a couple hour checkride. DPEs are experienced enough to catch big hints when an area is weak and can then focus on it a bit and see.

Instrument is even worse... Think of all the stuff you put into your head... The DPE/CFII relationship is pretty important. The DPE is counting on a lot from that CFII sign-off in the logbook in many ways.

 

[poadeleted20]

There's a reason the phrase "license to learn" is bandied about. There is absolutely no way to test every single thing an applicant might know or not know about flying in a couple hour checkride. DPEs are experienced enough to catch big hints when an area is weak and can then focus on it a bit and see.

Instrument is even worse... Think of all the stuff you put into your head... The DPE/CFII relationship is pretty important. The DPE is counting on a lot from that CFII sign-off in the logbook in many ways.

Much the same as long-time examiner (both FAA and designated) Frank Phillips says. He'll tell you he's just a "gatekeeper" to make sure the instructor didn't miss anything big/critical -- other than that, there's no way he can in a couple of hours check everything it took the instructor weeks/months to teach you.

 

[dtuuri]

If any of you think otherwise, please cite the specific "Unsatisfactory Performance" criterion in the PTS along with the specific standard for the Area/Task/Item which the examinee failed to meet.

Judgment is only one item required for satisfactory performance. Here's some others:

§ 61.43 Practical tests: General procedures.

(a) Completion of the practical test for a certificate or rating consists of—

(1) Performing the tasks specified in the areas of operation for the airman certificate or rating sought within the approved practical test standards;

(2) Demonstrating mastery of the aircraft by performing each task successfully;

From the current PTS too:

Satisfactory Performance
Satisfactory performance to meet the requirements for certification is
based on the applicant’s ability to safely:

1. perform the Tasks specified in the Areas of Operation for
the certificate or rating sought within the approved
standards;
2. demonstrate mastery of the aircraft by performing each
Task successfully;
3. demonstrate satisfactory proficiency and competency within
the approved standards;
4. demonstrate sound judgment and exercises aeronautical
decision-making/risk management; and
5. demonstrate single-pilot competence if the aircraft is type
certificated for single-pilot operations.

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mastery

The airplane is the subject the pilot needs to be the master of. Let's say the airplane was so well designed, it can safely handle anything if operated within its limits. Should we certify pilots who render it unsafe?

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Judgment is only one item required for satisfactory performance. Here's some others:

§ 61.43 Practical tests: General procedures.

(a) Completion of the practical test for a certificate or rating consists of—

(1) Performing the tasks specified in the areas of operation for the airman certificate or rating sought within the approved practical test standards;

(2) Demonstrating mastery of the aircraft by performing each task successfully;

From the current PTS too:

Satisfactory Performance
Satisfactory performance to meet the requirements for certification is
based on the applicant’s ability to safely:

1. perform the Tasks specified in the Areas of Operation for
the certificate or rating sought within the approved
standards;
2. demonstrate mastery of the aircraft by performing each
Task successfully;
3. demonstrate satisfactory proficiency and competency within
the approved standards;
4. demonstrate sound judgment and exercises aeronautical
decision-making/risk management; and
5. demonstrate single-pilot competence if the aircraft is type
certificated for single-pilot operations.

See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mastery

The airplane is the subject the pilot needs to be the master of. Let's say the airplane was so well designed, it can safely handle anything if operated within its limits. Should we certify pilots who render it unsafe?

Sounds like you're saying that choosing not to attempt a landing in winds the pilot considers beyond his/her ability renders the plane "unsafe," and that is clearly nonsense. Rather, it is the choice to go ahead with such a landing which compromises safety. In any event, you have not identified anything establishing a quantifiable minimum crosswind in which a landing must be performed successfully. Area IV Task A sets no such value, and absent such a value, disapproval on that basis alone is not authorized by the regulations, FAA Order 8900.2, or the PP PTS. Arbitrary standards established by the examiner are simply not allowed.

 

[TMetzinger]

As I understand it, to "fail" a crosswind landing one would have to use inappropriate inputs and not maintain the centerline, minimal drift, etc, or not describe it properly in the oral exam.

But I think it's just as much "nonsense" for a DPE to ask a student to land in 5 knots of crosswind and have the student say "no, I'm going to divert to a different field", and have the DPE be expected to pass the student. I imagine the DPE could make a case that the student didn't show some sort of required mental attitude or come up with another reason for a bust.

 

[dtuuri]

Sounds like you're saying that choosing not to attempt a landing in winds the pilot considers beyond his/her ability renders the plane "unsafe," and that is clearly nonsense. Rather, it is the choice to go ahead with such a landing which compromises safety. In any event, you have not identified anything establishing a quantifiable minimum crosswind in which a landing must be performed successfully. Area IV Task A sets no such value, and absent such a value, disapproval on that basis alone is not authorized by the regulations, FAA Order 8900.2, or the PP PTS. Arbitrary standards established by the examiner are simply not allowed.

Area IV Task A is for Takeoffs. Landings are Task B. What goes up must come down. If you brought an airplane that can handle it, you better be able to also. Nothing 'arbitrary' about that.

If the pilot can't handle coming down in an airplane that's designed to handle the wind the pilot elected to fly into, the pilot flunks the test--not a master of the aircraft. The aircraft won.

dtuuri

 

[dtuuri]

Btw, even if it were a crosswind takeoff, the applicant would get a pink slip instead of a letter of discontinuance, since not completing the task is not a circumstance beyond the applicant's control.

dtuuri

 

[denverpilot]

I never liked that "mastery of the aircraft" wording.

There's no way I was a Master of aircraft the day I passed my PPL, and no way I'm a Master of Instrument flying after adding that rating.

I really am "checked by some higher Masters to know my limitations and they believe I won't kill myself or passengers on a good day, and perhaps on my worst".

Only if I continue to be motivated to try harder every flight will I ever be a Master. And economics and other significant external circumstances might dictate that I never get enough flights in to truly be a Master.

I will realistically, be better than some and worse than others.

FAA of course realizes this, or there wouldn't be Flight Reviews and checkrides for professionals, nor currency requirements. Even "Masters" forget stuff or can be taught more stuff.

Not something you'll see in a government document or regulation about an initial rating, though. It doesn't give the public much of a warm fuzzy.

So we're all "Masters" from day one with that Temporary Airman Certificate. Riiiiiight.

 

[poadeleted20]

Area IV Task A is for Takeoffs. Landings are Task B. What goes up must come down. If you brought an airplane that can handle it, you better be able to also. Nothing 'arbitrary' about that.

That is quite arbitrary, as there is nothing in the regulations, PTS, or FAA Order 8900.2 which says that. All you have to support that idea is your personal interpretation of the word "mastery," which ignores the entirety of the sentence "demonstrate mastery of the aircraft by performing each Task successfully." There are clear standards in the PTS for acceptable performance of a crosswind landing, and there is no quantitative criterion for crosswend component among them. If the applicant meets all the stated standards, including choosing not too land on that particular runway in those existing conditions, then the Task is, per the regulations, the PTS, and FAA Order 8900.2, successfully completed.

If the pilot can't handle coming down in an airplane that's designed to handle the wind the pilot elected to fly into, the pilot flunks the test--not a master of the aircraft. The aircraft won.

The pilot only flunks on that basis if the pilot chooses to attempt to land in that wind and then cannot do so. There is nothing in the PTS, the regulations, or FAA Order 8900.2 which says otherwise.

 

[poadeleted20]

Btw, even if it were a crosswind takeoff, the applicant would get a pink slip instead of a letter of discontinuance, since not completing the task is not a circumstance beyond the applicant's control.

FAA Order 8900.2 and the PTS clearly state that adverse weather conditions including wind are grounds for the applicant choosing to discontinue the practical test rather than attempt anything which the applicant feels would compromise safety.

Folks, this ain't the military. The overriding objective is safety. Any examiner who pushes an applicant into attempting something which the applicant feels isn't safe for that applicant on that day in that airplane by threatening disapproval rather than discontinuation is going to lose his/her designation. And rightly so, I think.

 

[denverpilot]

Btw, even if it were a crosswind takeoff, the applicant would get a pink slip instead of a letter of discontinuance, since not completing the task is not a circumstance beyond the applicant's control.

dtuuri

I believe an Applicant must ASK for the Discontinuance. The DPE is not allowed to trigger one, as far as I know.

Is that your concern about the wording change?

(Ron and others, is that correct?)

DPE can only assess until they either say "congratulations" or "would you like to discontinue this checkride?".

(And of course, most do some teaching along the way during the ride, but that's secondary and not technically required.)

 

[redtail]

I never liked that "mastery of the aircraft" wording.

There's no way I was a Master of aircraft the day I passed my PPL, and no way I'm a Master of Instrument flying after adding that rating.

I really am "checked by some higher Masters to know my limitations and they believe I won't kill myself or passengers on a good day, and perhaps on my worst".

Only if I continue to be motivated to try harder every flight will I ever be a Master. And economics and other significant external circumstances might dictate that I never get enough flights in to truly be a Master.

I will realistically, be better than some and worse than others.

FAA of course realizes this, or there wouldn't be Flight Reviews and checkrides for professionals, nor currency requirements. Even "Masters" forget stuff or can be taught more stuff.

Not something you'll see in a government document or regulation about an initial rating, though. It doesn't give the public much of a warm fuzzy.

So we're all "Masters" from day one with that Temporary Airman Certificate. Riiiiiight.

Then according to a certain MASTER on this board, you are incompetent and shouldn't fly, especially if you have kids

 

[denverpilot]

FAA Order 8900.2 and the PTS clearly state that adverse weather conditions including wind are grounds for the applicant choosing to discontinue the practical test rather than attempt anything which the applicant feels would compromise safety.

Ahh sorry, I see Ron was responding while I was typing my questions.

This is exactly what happened on my Instrument ride. I asked to Discontinue due to winds at a sustained 30 knots. DPE only *then* said he liked the judgement call.

Up until that point he could only hint, and mildly. And it was phrased as a question evaluating my response?

"I will be upstairs for a few minutes since I know you'll be checking the current weather before pre-flight."

Note the hint was phrased in such a way as if we were still decided to go flying. He didn't make the decision.

 

[denverpilot]

Then according to a certain MASTER on this board, you are incompetent and shouldn't fly, especially if you have kids

Now now, personal attacks and all...

But I know what you mean... We're all Masters on the InterWebzzz!!!

Haha.

 

[poadeleted20]

I believe an Applicant must ASK for the Discontinuance. The DPE is not allowed to trigger one, as far as I know.

Other than after a Task is failed (in which case either party may decide to discontinue), that is not stated in FAA Order 8900.2:

17. Practical Test Discontinuance.

Environmental, mechanical, or personal situations can occur which could cause the test to be discontinued. In such cases, the examiner should assure the applicant that he/she has not failed the practical test and should attempt to reschedule the test as soon as possible. Some of the reasons for discontinuance of a practical test are weather, mechanical problems, or incapacitation of the applicant or examiner after the test has begun.
​

I have on occasion heard an examiner suggest discontinuation due to adverse condition when it appeared the applicant was too boresighted on completion to call "knock it off."

(And of course, most do some teaching along the way during the ride, but that's secondary and not technically required.)

Not only not required, but expressly prohibited, even though examiners often do a little bully-pulpit preaching during the test.
​

 

[redtail]

Now now, personal attacks and all...

But I know what you mean... We're all Masters on the InterWebzzz!!!

Haha.

I only joked about what was said to me in another thread because I think it was a stupid and idiotic statement to make!

I agree with you totally here.

 

[dtuuri]

I believe an Applicant must ASK for the Discontinuance. The DPE is not allowed to trigger one, as far as I know.

Here's the relevant guidance. There's only three outcomes once you start the test. Unforecasted adverse weather is one justification for a letter of discontinuance, of course, but 15 kts sounds like any other day to me. Besides, did the OP say the wind was unforecasted?

5-371 PROGRAM TRACKING AND REPORTING SUBSYSTEM (PTRS) ACTIVITY CODES.
A. Original Private Pilot Certification. 1503.
B. Additional Private Pilot Category, Class, or Instrument Rating. 1505.
5-372 OBJECTIVE. The objective of this task is to determine if an applicant meets the requirements for certification as a private pilot under Title 14 of the Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 61, subpart E. Completion of this task results in the issuance of Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 8060-4, Temporary Airman Certificate, private pilot certificate; FAA Form 8060-5, Notice of Disapproval of Application; or a letter of discontinuance. A letter of discontinuance is issued only when the practical test is discontinued due to unforeseen circumstances, such as mechanical failure, unforecast adverse weather, or any other safety concern.
​

dtuuri

 

[darrell]

That's hilarious! You don't think a CFI could teach a student the theory of how to perform a cross wind landing with some ground instruction well enough for them to regurgitate it back during the oral without ever actually performing a cross wind landing in the plane?

In the scenario given, it was pretty clear that the student was not taught how to properly land in a crosswind. I do think a CFI could teach it, but in the scenario, that didn't happen.

 

[denverpilot]

Not only not required, but expressly prohibited, even though examiners often do a little bully-pulpit preaching during the test.

Heh. Probably the most broken rule out there. Haven't had a checkride yet where I didn't learn something.

Granted, I've only had two...

Plus it's pretty easy for them to say, "Congratulations, checkride over" and then offer advice or new ideas afterward if they want to be within the letter of the law on it.

"I couldn't say this to you during the checkride, but it's over now so..."

DPEs I've met were all longtime teachers. Instructors to their core. They understand the reasoning behind the rule, but you can't change a Tiger's stripes. They're going to teach. Most of 'em, anyway.

If anything, they're closer to being the aforementioned Masters than anyone most recreational pilots run into in their flying careers. A culture that said our Masters can't teach our Young Grasshoppers would suck.

So I suspect, rule or no rule, they'll continue to find a way to show us their tricks.

 

[dtuuri]

FAA Order 8900.2 and the PTS clearly state that adverse weather conditions including wind are grounds for the applicant choosing to discontinue the practical test rather than attempt anything which the applicant feels would compromise safety.

Folks, this ain't the military. The overriding objective is safety. Any examiner who pushes an applicant into attempting something which the applicant feels isn't safe for that applicant on that day in that airplane by threatening disapproval rather than discontinuation is going to lose his/her designation. And rightly so, I think.

Here's why you're wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U&feature=player_embedded
The maximum demonstrated crosswind component is 29 kts for this A/C. This pilot couldn't handle it, the airplane can. Lucky the plane didn't break in two.

On a flight test in today's scenario-driven world, all the DPE needs to say is, "Smoke appears to be boiling out from somewhere underneath the floor. Do you still want to fly 40 miles to an easier airport?"

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

Here's why you're wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U&feature=player_embedded
The maximum demonstrated crosswind component is 29 kts for this A/C. This pilot couldn't handle it, the airplane can. Lucky the plane didn't break in two.

On a flight test in today's scenario-driven world, all the DPE needs to say is, "Smoke appears to be boiling out from somewhere underneath the floor. Do you still want to fly 40 miles to an easier airport?"

dtuuri

I'm glad you're no longer a DPE. And you won't be one again if that's your idea of how to conduct a PP practical test.

 

[dtuuri]

I'm glad you're no longer a DPE. And you won't be one again if that's your idea of how to conduct a PP practical test.

If a picture of the future results of your logic can't convince you, 1000 words of rebuttal won't either. I'll leave it to others to try.

Got any popcorn left, Henning?

dtuuri

 

[RotorAndWing]

Here's why you're wrong: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jw-aUVa3a0U&feature=player_embedded
The maximum demonstrated crosswind component is 29 kts for this A/C. This pilot couldn't handle it, the airplane can. Lucky the plane didn't break in two.

On a flight test in today's scenario-driven world, all the DPE needs to say is, "Smoke appears to be boiling out from somewhere underneath the floor. Do you still want to fly 40 miles to an easier airport?"

dtuuri

I'm glad you're no longer a DPE. And you won't be one again if that's your idea of how to conduct a PP practical test.

Actually dtuuri is correct. Under scenario driven PTS it would be acceptable to do just that. Of course there could be a couple of acceptable outcomes to such a scenario.

 

[MAKG1]

Btw, even if it were a crosswind takeoff, the applicant would get a pink slip instead of a letter of discontinuance, since not completing the task is not a circumstance beyond the applicant's control.

dtuuri

Hmm, I asked for a discontinuance during my checkride, due to an AIRMET TANGO for moderate turbulence. Moderate turbulence is well within the capabilities of a Cessna 172, and there are a whole bunch of tasks I "refused" to complete as a result of that.

It just didn't seem like a good idea to try steep turns in moderate turbulence. I've learned since that AIRMET TANGO doesn't mean there is turbulence at all altitudes, and a decent altitude probably could have been found.

Did I deserve to fail, rather than come back the next day and do it in better conditions? The go/no-go task refers to the planned cross-country (which was a really obvious no-go due to IMC at the destination).

 

[poadeleted20]

Actually dtuuri is correct. Under scenario driven PTS it would be acceptable to do just that. Of course there could be a couple of acceptable outcomes to such a scenario.

...including, "If we were really on fire I'd have a go at it, but I ain't doing this just for training/testing purposes because I don't think I can do it safely." I think that's the part dtuuri doesn't get.

 

[dtuuri]

Hmm, I asked for a discontinuance during my checkride, due to an AIRMET TANGO for moderate turbulence. Moderate turbulence is well within the capabilities of a Cessna 172, and there are a whole bunch of tasks I "refused" to complete as a result of that.

It just didn't seem like a good idea to try steep turns in moderate turbulence. I've learned since that AIRMET TANGO doesn't mean there is turbulence at all altitudes, and a decent altitude probably could have been found.

Did I deserve to fail, rather than come back the next day and do it in better conditions? The go/no-go task refers to the planned cross-country (which was a really obvious no-go due to IMC at the destination).

I based my comment on what I believe the 'official' answer would have been had a nervous applicant tried to shanghai a DPE 40 miles from home to avoid testing in a challenging crosswind after the test began. EDIT: Same for the takeoff if the conditions were known before agreeing to start the test.

That said, there are times DPEs don't always go by the book and I admit to it myself. I once gave a private pilot applicant a second chance at a soft field takeoff that was obviously disqualifying (we drifted off-center and almost wiped out runway lights) while I was being observed by an FAA ASI sitting in the back seat! We had a 'talk' afterward, at my request, and I offered to resign my designation, but felt strongly the applicant deserved the verbotten 'second chance' because I personally knew he had never flown the plane in such hot weather before with three people on board. The rest of the test was sterling. He agreed to ignore it.

So, I don't know what your exact circumstances were, but if the examiner felt the conditions were do-able, it most likely would have been explained that PTS standards are based on 'good' conditions and allowances are made for less favorable ones, but you still need to be competent. The time to iron this all out would be before you fork over the fee at the start of the test.

dtuuri

 

[danhagan]

This is exactly what happened on my Instrument ride. I asked to Discontinue due to winds at a sustained 30 knots. DPE only *then* said he liked the judgement call.

Note the hint was phrased in such a way as if we were still decided to go flying. He didn't make the decision.

I received no "hints" on my checkride before flight. 90* direct Xwind after engine start at 14 knots in a 152. Had I flown and practiced in it? Well, of course this is West Texas. Was I worried the DPE was suddenly going to fail me for exceeding max demonstrated for a 152? Yes.

We sat after engine start and I told him I have flown in similar crosswinds before (didn't tell him even higher), but that the winds exceed max demonstrated for the 152 ... that they're higher than forecast. His response was that he was sure it'd be at 12 knots by run-up and to continue. At run-up and before takeoff they were exactly 12 kts.

For the landings after the maneuvers, 12-17 kts but no problems whatsoever. My instructor had me landing some huge ones the week before checkride (he was on board). Was glad that he did. His technique: approach and just do a go-around if you don't like it, see how the rudder works, hold it over the runway power in if you want to get a feel then land (9000 ft runway).

 

[dtuuri]

...including, "If we were really on fire I'd have a go at it, but I ain't doing this just for training/testing purposes because I don't think I can do it safely." I think that's the part dtuuri doesn't get.

​

You would want an examiner to certify as a private pilot somebody that can't meet the safety threshold using only average technique--somebody 'below average'? YGBSM.

dtuuri

 

[poadeleted20]

View attachment 26597
​

You would want an examiner to certify as a private pilot somebody that can't meet the safety threshold using only average technique--somebody 'below average'? YGBSM.

dtuuri

By your standard, where anyone below average busts, you'd have a failure rate of 50%. And that will definitely get the FSDO's attention -- in a negative way.

Like I said, you just don't get it.

 

[Alexb2000]

As a non-CFI/DPE I don't care how tough the ride is if that's what it takes to be safe. What really torques me is training for a certain set of skills (PTS) and being tested on something different by using catch all PTS language. If I need to land at the demonstrated crosswind value, so be it, just let me know plainly up front.