mattaxelrod
Pre-takeoff checklist
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....
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....
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.
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.
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.
Lance is correct on all points, except that they usually won't go IFR even in VMC.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.
mattaxelrod said:I thought stalls were not part of the instrument PTS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.)
lancefisher said:I'd wish you luck on the ride but you won't need it so I'll wish you good weather instead.