Should I switch Examiners?

[poadeleted20]

Well, let's first dismember the highlighted misinformation above: Totally incorrect. Totally.

Let me quote the FAA guidance on visual approaches from the official FAA AIM web site:

a. A visual approach is conducted on an IFR flight plan and authorizes a pilot to proceed visually and clear of clouds to the airport. The pilot must have either the airport or the preceding identified aircraft in sight. This approach must be authorized and controlled by the appropriate air traffic control facility. Reported weather at the airport must have a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater. ATC may authorize this type approach when it will be operationally beneficial. Visual approaches are an IFR procedure conducted under IFR in visual meteorological conditions. Cloud clearance requirements of 14 CFR Section 91.155 are not applicable, unless required by operation specifications.​

b. Operating to an Airport Without Weather Reporting Service. ATC will advise the pilot when weather is not available at the destination airport. ATC may initiate a visual approach provided there is a reasonable assurance that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater (e.g., area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.). [emphasis added]​

​

There has to be some sort of weather information on the destination airport that says the weather is better than 1000-3 before ATC can give you a visual, and the question as posed by the examiner does not include any "reasonable assurance that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater." I apologize for neglecting the second paragraph in my original post, but I stand by my statement that in the DPE's question as given (no SIAP and observed IMC conditions), a visual approach approach is not an option.​

But all that aside, the DPE's actual question was "What type of approach clearance do you ask ATC for?" It was not "Is a visual approach to Airport A legal in these conditions?" Therefore, the answer given ("I'd ask for a SIAP to Airport B") is simply not wrong. A pilot may choose at any time for any reason to divert, and weather concerns are a valid reason for doing that. That the pilot's personal weather minimums are higher than the FAA's is not a reason to bust the person on the checkride as long as the person knows the rules (which weren't asked) and flies the approach to published mins on the flight portion. In fact, under the conditions given, it can easily be argued that the applicant's answer (SIAP to a divert airport rather than attempted visual to the destination in marginal conditions) shows good judgement.​

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'm quite surprised to hear no radios are required for IFR flight. Any plane I have ever flown has always listed radios as a required piece of equipment in the POH for IFR flight. Are there actually manufatured, civil aircraft POHes that do not?

Best,

Dave

 

[Dave Siciliano]

I'm certainly not in Ron and Ed's league when it comes to understanding the letter and intent of all the regs, but when I took my IR ride, I was not punished for making a conservative choice as opposed to something technically legal with which I was not comfortable. The DE should also be getting a feel for the pilot's decision making and judegment--not just technical reg. compliance. In the above case, going to Airport 2 was a perfectly legal, conservative decision for which one should not be downgraded in any manner.

Best,

Dave

 

[Henning]

I'm certainly not in Ron and Ed's league when it comes to understanding the letter and intent of all the regs, but when I took my IR ride, I was not punished for making a conservative choice as opposed to something technically legal with which I was not comfortable. The DE should also be getting a feel for the pilot's decision making and judegment--not just technical reg. compliance. In the above case, going to Airport 2 was a perfectly legal, conservative decision for which one should not be downgraded in any manner.

Best,

Dave

Correct you are, I though the old man might be losing it. As to the radios and IFR. You don't need them to FLY. It's one of the old test taking idioms, don't add more to the question than was asked. I think the question was stupid in the way it was presented making it a "trick" question at best, but think about it. You don't need the radios to fly, think 7600 from an electrical failure. You ded reckon your way to VMC (hopefully). It creates a huge pilot workload and a large potential for tragic error, but it can work out. It's part of what we (should) train for.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

I'm certainly not in Ron and Ed's league when it comes to understanding the letter and intent of all the regs, but when I took my IR ride, I was not punished for making a conservative choice as opposed to something technically legal with which I was not comfortable. The DE should also be getting a feel for the pilot's decision making and judegment--not just technical reg. compliance. In the above case, going to Airport 2 was a perfectly legal, conservative decision for which one should not be downgraded in any manner.

Best,

Dave

Some guys in Alaska would fly IFR with watch and compass, so of course even with constant airspeed with which to calculate, it boiled down to a rather serious "wager with the wind".

 

[TMetzinger]

Correct you are, I though the old man might be losing it. As to the radios and IFR. You don't need them to FLY. It's one of the old test taking idioms, don't add more to the question than was asked. I think the question was stupid in the way it was presented making it a "trick" question at best, but think about it. You don't need the radios to fly, think 7600 from an electrical failure. You ded reckon your way to VMC (hopefully). It creates a huge pilot workload and a large potential for tragic error, but it can work out. It's part of what we (should) train for.

On my IR checkride, the examiner asked (probably trying to get to the same answer) "You depart Frederick for Baltimore on a day where it's solid overcast for pretty much a two hundred mile radius. After about 10 minutes, you lose your electrical system. What do you do?" My answer was "Head west away from populated areas, try to find a break in the clouds, and if I am about to run out of fuel, fly the airplane at minimum speed all the way to the crash site". She said that was a good answer, and that I should always know where VFR conditions are, and if there aren't VFR conditions within my flight range, than perhaps flying in a single engine/single electrical airplane wasn't a good idea.

In my opinion that's a much better way to make sure the candidate knows that radios don't make an airplane fly (VFR or IFR).

 

[Henning]

On my IR checkride, the examiner asked (probably trying to get to the same answer) "You depart Frederick for Baltimore on a day where it's solid overcast for pretty much a two hundred mile radius. After about 10 minutes, you lose your electrical system. What do you do?" My answer was "Head west away from populated areas, try to find a break in the clouds, and if I am about to run out of fuel, fly the airplane at minimum speed all the way to the crash site". She said that was a good answer, and that I should always know where VFR conditions are, and if there aren't VFR conditions within my flight range, than perhaps flying in a single engine/single electrical airplane wasn't a good idea.

In my opinion that's a much better way to make sure the candidate knows that radios don't make an airplane fly (VFR or IFR).

I agree, that's a much better and more productive way to handle the issue/question. Just to prove there's more than 1 right answer to that, mine would have been to turn east and get over the water and let down to below the overcast before returning to land, then landing at nearest.

 

[poadeleted20]

I'm quite surprised to hear no radios are required for IFR flight.

That's not what the FAA Counsel said. What she said was that it was not necessarily a violation of 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2) to launch IFR with no nav radios. Comm radios were not discussed directly, although it was implied that a comm radio was necessary due to the need for radar vectors from ATC in that instance. She went on to say that this would be true only in very limited circumstances and only if ATC agreed to accept responsibility for navigation (radar vectors all the way). Further, as quoted above, she made very clear that it would not be very hard at all to violate other regulations in the process, and that if anything went wrong, the pilot would probably be charged at least with being careless/reckless (14 CFR 91.13). I'm attaching the full letter.

Any plane I have ever flown has always listed radios as a required piece of equipment in the POH for IFR flight.

If nav radios are listed in the AFM/POH as required equipment for IFR flight, then there's no further discussion, because flying IFR without them would violate 14 CFR 91.9(a) even if it didn't violate 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2). As the FAA Counsel who signed that letter I got said, the letter was limited to the question about 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2), and that other regs might be violated even if that one wasn't.

Are there actually manufatured, civil aircraft POHes that do not?

Many planes built before the AFM's were first required in the late 70's may have skimpy "Owner's Handbooks" or "Pilot's Handbooks" which don't list required equipment for IFR flight.

 

[Ed Guthrie]

There has to be some sort of weather information on the destination airport that says the weather is better than 1000-3 before ATC can give you a visual

You stated in your previous post that weather reporting must be available, which is quite incorrect. Even as stated above it isn't clear that you truly understand the requirements for a visual approach. "some sort of weather information on the destination airport" can be the pilot requesting the visual's observation of the airport. Given your previous erroneous statements I'm a bit hesitant to assume you understand this point.

the question as posed by the examiner does not include any "reasonable assurance that weather at the airport is a ceiling at or above 1,000 feet and visibility 3 miles or greater."

The question by the examiner does not preclude the pilot from taking a look, nor does it preclude the usual vagaries of weather (bad in one local spot, significantly better in another). Again, it isn't clear from your answer whether or not you understand the fundamental requirements for a visual approach. Even if the general area is reported IMC, if the pilot observes the local weather, determines it meets the requirements for a visual (remain clear of clouds -- see the ATC handbook excerpt I provided in the previous reply) then a visual is perfectly legal, available, and certainly is a viable option.

I apologize for neglecting the second paragraph in my original post,

It wasn't the missing paragraph in your previous post, it was your missing understanding of what is required for a visual approach. In your previous post you quite clearly stated that weather reporting is required for a visual report. That is simply not true. You continue to insinuate that the pilot's observation isn't sufficient--again, simply not true. Frankly, I'm becoming more convinced that you do not understand the requirements for a visual approach.

but I stand by my statement that in the DPE's question as given (no SIAP and observed IMC conditions), a visual approach approach is not an option.

The DPE's question, as related by the OP:

"...you find yourself at a VOR 20 miles east of airport A and you find that the weather has deteriorated to IMC. 20 miles to the east of the VOR sits airport B. Airport B has several approved instrument approaches and your plane is properly equipped to use all of them. What type of approach clearance do you ask ATC for?"


In the situation exactly as described (20 miles from the airport) taking a look is indeed a viable option. The requested conversation would go:

Pilot: ATC, Bugsmasher requesting vectors for a visual at Podunk.
ATC: Bugsmasher, turn XXX, descend maintain Y thousand, report the airport in sight.

This is a perfectly legal IFR request and it is a perfectly acceptable answer to the question as posed. What approach do you request? A visual. Will you necessarily receive, accept, or execute a visual? Depends on what you see in the next 20 nm.

But all that aside, the DPE's actual question was "What type of approach clearance do you ask ATC for?" It was not "Is a visual approach to Airport A legal in these conditions?" Therefore, the answer given ("I'd ask for a SIAP to Airport B") is simply not wrong.

I never claimed that particular answer was incorrect (wrong). For the record, I have noted three things:

1. The examiners answer (cruise clearance) is not correct--it doesn't give you the best odds of getting into Airport A as in most cases it maintains a higher minimum altitude than vectors for a visual.

2. If you really want to get into Airport A a request for vectors for a visual gives you the best shot.

3. Your answer that weather reporting is required for a visual report is incorrect.

I'll stand by all three of those.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm certainly not in Ron and Ed's league when it comes to understanding the letter and intent of all the regs, but when I took my IR ride, I was not punished for making a conservative choice as opposed to something technically legal with which I was not comfortable. The DE should also be getting a feel for the pilot's decision making and judegment--not just technical reg. compliance.

Bingo. This DE had a pink slip in mind before the ride even happened, I'm sure. Judgement is very important, because there are soooo many situations in instrument flying which require thinking on the go and making up your own solution. There's no way to teach even a fraction of the possible things that could happen, and there aren't a whole lot of absolutes either.

So, I was rather happy on my IR oral when the DE said "I really like the way you think. Let's go fly."

 

[ScottM]

If you want to quibble, Scott, fine.

Nobody quibbled with you I AGREED with you GEEESH!!