Quick Checkride Question

mattaxelrod

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Mar 11, 2005
Messages
312
Location
Fanwood, NJ
Display Name

Display name:
Matt
Are IR checkrides always done VFR under the hood? Or does the examiner want you to file and then maybe get into some actual? Just wondering....
 
mattaxelrod said:
Are IR checkrides always done VFR under the hood? Or does the examiner want you to file and then maybe get into some actual? Just wondering....


Mine was in VMC under the hood. I believe that's standard.
 
mattaxelrod said:
Are IR checkrides always done VFR under the hood? Or does the examiner want you to file and then maybe get into some actual? Just wondering....

The rules for the checkride say Day VFR. That said on my checkride, my last approach, Partial Panel VOR, was done in actual. I was given the choice by the DE, "We can call it quits right now and I'll take the airplane, all we'll have to do is come back up and do this one approach, or you can go ahead and shoot it and if we break out right side up with the runway somewhere in front of us you've got your ticket. I shot it.
 
My IR practical tests (I passed on #2) started under the hood in night VMC and ended in day VMC. In the Las Vegas area, practice approaches at MacCarran (LAS) are not allowed after 0700. That means in the winter months, some or all of the test must be conducted under night VMC.

B J Harris
N7895W
 
IIRC this is up to the DE, but most are very reluctant to go with any actual IMC. For one thing they must become the PIC and put their ticket on the line. Another issue is that they must draw a very fine line between busting the applicant and busting FAR's.
 
Henning said:
The rules for the checkride say Day VFR. That said on my checkride, my last approach, Partial Panel VOR, was done in actual. I was given the choice by the DE, "We can call it quits right now and I'll take the airplane, all we'll have to do is come back up and do this one approach, or you can go ahead and shoot it and if we break out right side up with the runway somewhere in front of us you've got your ticket. I shot it.

That is great! :)

I blew through the final on my partial panel approach during my checkride. I thought I was toast, but called up approach immediately and asked for another vector. She (the DE) never said a thing.

I don't know of any examiners in the bay area that will do a checkride in IMC. I'm not sure I'd get into an unknown plane with an unknown pilot and charge off into the soup. Let alone any FARs regarding the issue.
 
Last edited:
lancefisher said:
IIRC this is up to the DE, but most are very reluctant to go with any actual IMC. For one thing they must become the PIC and put their ticket on the line. Another issue is that they must draw a very fine line between busting the applicant and busting FAR's.

...another issue is would the average DE feel comfortable in an unknown airplane in actual? I'm not sure I'd take the "average" training A/C in anything but day VFR.

Greg
182RG
 
I did mine in both. Upon returning to home field we had to shoot a NDB to get back in.
 
AirBaker said:
That is great! :)

I blew through the final on my partial panel approach during my checkride. I thought I was toast, but called up approach immediately and asked for another vector. She (the DE) never said a thing.

I don't know of any examiners in the bay area that will do a checkride in IMC. I'm not sure I'd get into an unknown plane with an unknown pilot and charge off into the soup. Let alone any FARs regarding the issue.

Unless you're just dealing with a marine layer (which we were, from 600'-1600' solid overcast) it seems that it would be pretty hard to do a IR check ride in actual, especially the airwork stuff. All the proceedure stuff would be fine, it's the freeform unusual attitude type stuff that would cause the real problem. Heck, I did my Private Multi in SVFR. I guess they could assign you a box....
 
I did mine in VFR for at that time it was the old two pound Hood (no foggles). Worked the unusal attitudes, partial panel, flew the flight plan and then yes on the last approach the radios quit as I lined up inbound except for the LF and we flew that in to land. The examiner who was FAA said I never skiped a beat finishing the approach. Landed, got my ticket and then spent 3 hours gettting one comm radio to work so I could fly home. I really will never forget my IR ride. What a great education for an 18 year old.

John J
 
lancefisher said:
IIRC this is up to the DE, but most are very reluctant to go with any actual IMC. For one thing they must become the PIC and put their ticket on the line. Another issue is that they must draw a very fine line between busting the applicant and busting FAR's.
Lance is correct on all points, except that they usually won't go IFR even in VMC.

The biggest problem, as he notes, is that if the examiner intervenes before the applicant exceeds IFR parameters, the applicant hasn't exceeded the PTS criteria and has valid grounds to appeal a failure. If the examiner allows the applicant to exceed those parameters and so fail, then the examiner as PIC eats a violation.

In addition, it's very hard in many places to get a block of airspace large enough for all the basic instrument maneuvers (stalls, etc.), not to mention examiner anxiety over doing things like partial panel stalls in IMC. I know some examiners who will do part of the check under IFR if they know the instructor who trained the student and the instructor says not to worry, but even that is usually only for the en route and approaches portions, not for the basic instrument maneuvering, which will almost certainly be done in VMC (although possibly in the clear on top, having used an IFR clearance to get there).
 
mattaxelrod said:
I thought stalls were not part of the instrument PTS.

They are, as are steep turns and perhaps a few other items. However, some folks are having such trouble releasing the past that they use rather creative logic to insist that one or both is still required. Luckily in my neighborhood such folks are not either at the FSDO or DEs, so atleast for my little world the new instrument PTS is followed as written. That said, recovery from a stall could conceivably find itself with unusual attitude recovery, but deliberately flying through a stall is indeed gone.
 
lancefisher said:
IIRC this is up to the DE, but most are very reluctant to go with any actual IMC. For one thing they must become the PIC and put their ticket on the line. Another issue is that they must draw a very fine line between busting the applicant and busting FAR's.

No, actually it's up to the person being examined, since the rules say check ride in VFR, you can refuse to do it in actual.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
They are, as are steep turns and perhaps a few other items. However, some folks are having such trouble releasing the past that they use rather creative logic to insist that one or both is still required. Luckily in my neighborhood such folks are not either at the FSDO or DEs, so atleast for my little world the new instrument PTS is followed as written. That said, recovery from a stall could conceivably find itself with unusual attitude recovery, but deliberately flying through a stall is indeed gone.

Sorry--can't figure out what you're trying to say--are stalls in the PTS or out of the PTS? Or are you saying that stalls just for their own sake are not done, but rather are included in unusual attitude recovery?

Thanks for clarifying.
 
mattaxelrod said:
Sorry--can't figure out what you're trying to say--are stalls in the PTS or out of the PTS? Or are you saying that stalls just for their own sake are not done, but rather are included in unusual attitude recovery?

Thanks for clarifying.

I am saying that the requirement for a candidate to demonstrate a stall as a specific TASK is out. I am saying that the candidate may be required to recover from a stall within the unusual attitude recovery TASK should a stall be the unusual attitude the DE presents. However, as a side note I've never personally seen a DE do such a thing even under the old PTS that IIRC did contain a specific stall TASK. Furthermore, I am saying that I know some CFIs are (were?) unclear on this concept when the new PTS issued last October. I am saying that there may be DEs and/or FSDOs who are also unclear on this concept although I have not personally experienced either of these two situations.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I am saying that the requirement for a candidate to demonstrate a stall as a specific TASK is out. I am saying that the candidate may be required to recover from a stall within the unusual attitude recovery TASK should a stall be the unusual attitude the DE presents. However, as a side note I've never personally seen a DE do such a thing even under the old PTS that IIRC did contain a specific stall TASK. Furthermore, I am saying that I know some CFIs are (were?) unclear on this concept when the new PTS issued last October. I am saying that there may be DEs and/or FSDOs who are also unclear on this concept although I have not personally experienced either of these two situations.
Ed's right on all counts as regards the PTS. In addition, a steep turn might be included as a response to a call for an immediate/emergency turn for collision avoidance commanded by ATC (got one of those for real one time when a jump plane called "jumpers away" without having made the 1-minute-prior call -- and I was in IMC!). Of course, that wouldn't need to be a 360, but as with the stall/unusual attitude example stated by Ed, there are ways to bring such things into the practical test if the DPE really wants to.
 
Ed Guthrie said:
I am saying that the requirement for a candidate to demonstrate a stall as a specific TASK is out. I am saying that the candidate may be required to recover from a stall within the unusual attitude recovery TASK should a stall be the unusual attitude the DE presents. However, as a side note I've never personally seen a DE do such a thing even under the old PTS that IIRC did contain a specific stall TASK. Furthermore, I am saying that I know some CFIs are (were?) unclear on this concept when the new PTS issued last October. I am saying that there may be DEs and/or FSDOs who are also unclear on this concept although I have not personally experienced either of these two situations.

So what are you saying here?

:D

Thanks for the clarification--I get it now:yes:
 
Ron Levy said:
In addition, a steep turn might be included as a response to a call for an immediate/emergency turn for collision avoidance commanded by ATC...there are ways to bring such things into the practical test if the DPE really wants to.

We'll agree to disagree on this one.

There is no FAA mandate/criteria for any IFR turn beyond standard rate, including "immediate", "expedite", or any other, and there is certainly no bank angle specification beyond standard rate. No reference in AIM, ATC Handbook, pilot/controller glossary, nor any other FAA reference item. IOW, no, a steep turn will not legitimately appear in the instrument practical under any legitimate circumstances. The steep turn was merely a training performance assessment maneuver found in the old PTS. It is now gone.

The above specifically asked of Flight Standards by my favorite local DE during one of his most recent recurrent training event.
 
My checkride included an ILS in actual at the end through a thin marine layer. The airport was VFR, but there was a minute or so of actual just inside the FAF.

Jeff
 
Jeff Oslick said:
My checkride included an ILS in actual at the end through a thin marine layer. The airport was VFR, but there was a minute or so of actual just inside the FAF.

Jeff

With an IFR clearance, right?
 
lancefisher said:
IIRC this is up to the DE, but most are very reluctant to go with any actual IMC. For one thing they must become the PIC and put their ticket on the line. Another issue is that they must draw a very fine line between busting the applicant and busting FAR's.

I asked my DE if he'd do the ride in actual. He replied in the affirmative, along with this tidbit: "When the ride is VMC, you must fly to PTS standards. When the ride is IMC, you must fly to my standards."

Unfortunately, I'll be using a different DE for the IR ride, as scheduling issues have forced me to take it on Sunday, July 3rd (at 7:30 AM... Ugh.)

Kent Shook
PP-ASEL, KMSN
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Unfortunately, I'll be using a different DE for the IR ride, as scheduling issues have forced me to take it on Sunday, July 3rd (at 7:30 AM... Ugh.)


I'd wish you luck on the ride but you won't need it so I'll wish you good weather instead.
 
lancefisher said:
I'd wish you luck on the ride but you won't need it so I'll wish you good weather instead.

He definitely doesn't need luck. I've flown with Kent--that guy's good!
 
Back
Top