Any last minute tips for an IFR checkride?

PaulS said:
Practical for whom? Why? I was taught to ask for what you want. Why not make it easier on myself? Unless there is conflicting traffic or terrain the controller won't care, I'm a blip on his/her screen. Impractical? Is it going to take me an extra minute or two to get on the ground? It's conceivable that if I fly by the arc and do a standard rate turn in IMC my passenger yaks all over me. I wouldn't do a 120 degree turn back with an arc there, I would ask for the arc. The controller can say yes or no.
Click to expand...
One last time—it wasn't about the ARC. It was needing ATC's help to turn outbound on the PT course.
 
dtuuri said:
One last time—it wasn't about the ARC. It was needing ATC's help to turn outbound on the PT course.
Click to expand...

And once again, if I wanted a vector or two to lessen that 120 degree turn, I'll ask for it. You wouldn't, that's fine, I guess you are worried about inconveniencing a controller. I'm not, controllers have no problem saying no when they need to, but generally give whatever you need, my experience anyway.
 
Sorry @Collin Kaufman. As an instructor in the past (not CFI) I put most of the blame on the training. I went through at least 6 instructors for my instrument ticket because I had that luxury (not everyone does) and I wanted to get different perspectives. Any CFI's familiar with the law of primacy? Remember that its easy to say "know your stuff", but if the student is relying on you to be the expert and you are training them wrong, it's harder to then retrain against those habits. Especially not during a checkride, sheesh. I would probably not actually trust the instructor in the future to be completely honest.

Yes there is responsibility on the student's end to be fluent in the FAR's for safe IFR flight, but what if you knew you were right and someone in a position of authority was telling you that you were not? Would make you second guess yourself, no? Perhaps that instructor was even training you a little haphazardly because either they didn't understand the rules or didn't care enough to teach them properly, how would you know if you constantly got the "atta-boy"?. You learn to accept that is "OK". @Collin Kaufman even said he flew that 20 times the wrong way because the instructor said that was the way to do it.

Bad training is bad training. Sounds like this was just the perfect storm of training and timing gone wrong. You'll get it though, just remember not to put your instructors up on some pedestal because they have some fancy credentials. They are there for you and without you, they don't really mean much. And..always question when you think something is wrong. The really bad instructors (the ones you should run from) will have a problem with this, get angry, or defensive. The really good ones will be able to explain and reference exactly why you are doing what you are doing in a way that makes sense to you.

Good luck on your next ride!
 
PaulS said:
And once again, if I wanted a vector or two to lessen that 120 degree turn, I'll ask for it. You wouldn't, that's fine, I guess you are worried about inconveniencing a controller. I'm not, controllers have no problem saying no when they need to, but generally give whatever you need, my experience anyway.
Click to expand...

I guess the phrase "should not...nor should you ever" doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to you. And to you it means different things at different times.
 
dmspilot said:
I guess the phrase "should not...nor should you ever" doesn't mean the same thing to me as it does to you. And to you it means different things at different times.
Click to expand...
Yeah whatever, have a good one.
 
Collin Kaufman said:
We went to the VOR and turned outbound and then turned home. Thats it.
Click to expand...
I find that odd that you weren’t given the opportunity to check some of the other boxes off. So all you’d have left to do is redo that approach at some point on a later date.
 
Collin Kaufman said:
It was a G1000 C172. The GPS did show it as an early turn before the VOR, but I wasn't blindly just following the magenta line. I've flown this approach probably 20 times (maybe more) and this was how my instructor taught my to do it. My examiner didn't try to explain why I was wrong at all so I was left a little confused about it.
Click to expand...
Collin Kaufman said:
Is this only for routes and Victor airways, or does this also apply to IAPs?
Click to expand...

I referenced 5-3-5 in answer to @brcase 's last sentence in his post #23, "I am trying to remember where or if a VOR is designated as a Fly-over waypoint. As I recall The garmin GPS will show a leading turn when approaching one. Would be grateful if someone pointed me the right direction." I just mentioned 5-3-5 to him as some general info on the subject. But we are talking specifically about an IAF here. I think a very strong case could be made and proven, but I can't find explicit proof, that beginning a segement of an Approach would not constitute 'course' in 5-3-5. it certainly isn't 'Airway.' The AIM does address the subject of RNAV systems that have 'fly-by' guidance and that guidance sometimes should be ignored and you should 'fly-over' the fix. It's about using RNAV for Holding Pattern Entry. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. (a) (2). Anyway, what you do have proof of is that the DPE expects you to fly to the VOR before commencing the Procedure Turn.
 
benyflyguy said:
I find that odd that you weren’t given the opportunity to check some of the other boxes off. So all you’d have left to do is redo that approach at some point on a later date.
Click to expand...

It's the DPE's call whether or not to give the applicant an option to continue or not; if the bust is on the first task (and DPE reportedly didn't like the applicant's use of checklists or radio calls either), I could see why a DPE would not want to give the option.
 
luvflyin said:
I referenced 5-3-5 in answer to @brcase 's last sentence in his post #23, "I am trying to remember where or if a VOR is designated as a Fly-over waypoint. As I recall The garmin GPS will show a leading turn when approaching one. Would be grateful if someone pointed me the right direction." I just mentioned 5-3-5 to him as some general info on the subject. But we are talking specifically about an IAF here. I think a very strong case could be made and proven, but I can't find explicit proof, that beginning a segement of an Approach would not constitute 'course' in 5-3-5. it certainly isn't 'Airway.' The AIM does address the subject of RNAV systems that have 'fly-by' guidance and that guidance sometimes should be ignored and you should 'fly-over' the fix. It's about using RNAV for Holding Pattern Entry. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. (a) (2). Anyway, what you do have proof of is that the DPE expects you to fly to the VOR before commencing the Procedure Turn.
Click to expand...

We aren't really sure if the bust was because of using the VOR as a flyby or because the procedure turn was not performed with the recommended technique. We also don't know if he used a legit GPS turn anticipation annunciation or just made a shortcut off the moving map. I'd be interested in what exactly the DPE said during the 15 minute debrief.
 
dmspilot said:
We aren't really sure if the bust was because of using the VOR as a flyby or because the procedure turn was not performed with the recommended technique. We also don't know if he used a legit GPS turn anticipation annunciation or just made a shortcut off the moving map. I'd be interested in what exactly the DPE said during the 15 minute debrief.
Click to expand...

Yeah. He did say this, "Afterwards he told me he didn't like that I wasn't announcing when I was starting and finishing my checklists and he didn't like how I was making my radio calls."
 
It would be nice to know exactly why he busted, I suggested before that Collin call, but actually it might be better if his instructor called, it would be better going into the retest knowing that you've fixed the issues rather than wondering if he got it right.
 
Collin Kaufman said:
Yea, it is a bit awkward, but it's taught by our CFIIs because that's what our Chief tests us on (same guy that tested me today). It's a bit corrupt in a sense. Everything revolves around what he wants to hear. There's regs that are taught to us that are wrong because that's what chief believes and wants to hear.
Click to expand...
Not that this course of action isn't fraught with some danger, but couldn't you contact the FSDO if that's the case? If pilots are specifically being taught the wrong thing because that's what one guy wants to hear, that shouldn't be allowed to continue. I know my instructor reported a DPE to the FSDO once and they pulled his designation; he was asking for a spin demo and recovery on PPL rides.
 
mryan75 said:
Not that this course of action isn't fraught with some danger, but couldn't you contact the FSDO if that's the case? If pilots are specifically being taught the wrong thing because that's what one guy wants to hear, that shouldn't be allowed to continue. I know my instructor reported a DPE to the FSDO once and they pulled his designation; he was asking for a spin demo and recovery on PPL rides.
Click to expand...

Wasn't there a post a while back by a guy who essentially did that and was blackballed by the rest of the dpe's in his area?
 
PaulS said:
Wasn't there a post a while back by a guy who essentially did that and was blackballed by the rest of the dpe's in his area?
Click to expand...
Maybe dude was wrong. But if I got nailed on a ride because I was taught something incorrectly because the "chief" believed something that wasn't correct, I would at least seek advice. Probably here. He has to write on his future employment applications that he busted his IR ride. If the reason was because he was taught improperly because the instructors had to teach to what one guy incorrectly believed, the OP is getting hosed. He did it the way he was taught.
 
mryan75 said:
Maybe dude was wrong. But if I got nailed on a ride because I was taught something incorrectly because the "chief" believed something that wasn't correct, I would at least seek advice. Probably here. He has to write on his future employment applications that he busted his IR ride. If the reason was because he was taught improperly because the instructors had to teach to what one guy incorrectly believed, the OP is getting hosed. He did it the way he was taught.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
mryan75 said:
He has to write on his future employment applications that he busted his IR ride.
Click to expand...
The day a busted check ride becomes an employment dis-qualifier is the day everybody starts passing check rides.
 
Life is full of temporary setbacks. This is one of them. Regardless of what you think of the DPE, it is important to demonstrate that you can fly by the (and their) appropriate standards. No more, no less. This is for your own safety, as well as the safety of others. It is perhaps unfortunate that your instructor has different "standards" than the DPE, but regardless of how it happened (short-cutting a waypoint and making a poor decision on a course reversal entry) it will need to be fixed before the next attempt. Get some refresher training and try again. There is little value in dwelling in the past, other than to make a note to self not to repeat it.
 
Collin Kaufman said:
Only one off the top of my head is during lost coms. So if clearance is 3000 expect 6000 in 10 minutes, he wants to hear immediately upon losing coms to climb to 6000 instead of waiting 10 minutes then climbing. I was showed the regs and you're supposed to wait, just can't remember where it was
Click to expand...
I've been debating whether to post this or just hope you take the time to find it on your own. Posting it won. See the notes under c.3.(b) Altitude. It's in Chapter 6 of the AIM, not a regulation: https://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/aim_html/chap6_section_4.html
 
benyflyguy said:
I don’t get why this moment you failed. The only rules regarding the PT was turn left going outbound... to turn back inbound you can turn left or right. It really doesn’t matter. It is wise to turn right and give yourself time. But you can turn back left to head back to intercept the inbound course if you wanted to. Say for winds Pushing you way out there.
My guess is by turning off the VOR early you probably didn’t have the PT set up right and got ahead of yourself. For
My checkride I had a tight VOR-A with PT that I had to do. You rush those and the PT turns into a sloppy mess. I flew mine probably 6 times until I learned to slow down and time my legs to be longer and not rush it.
Click to expand...

Take it a little further. There is no requirement to even fly the 'barb.' There is no requirement to have ever been established on the TGE 018 radial outbound. It could have been done with no left turns at all. Two Right turns is all it needed. Cross TGE, turn right to Heading 018, maybe a bit more, maybe a bit less depending on winds. Fly for a ways, at least long enough to give yourself room to get established inbound without getting rushed or creating a really steep approach, and no longer than what would cause you to bust the 10 NM limit. Then turn right and intercept the 018 radial inbound. It's the easiest and perfectly legal way to do it.
 
dmspilot said:
Your premise (green) does not justify your conclusion (red). The AIM states that fly-by waypoints and turn anticipation are used with RNAV/GPS procedures. Also, just because the GPS gives you a certain course, doesn't mean it's the correct one. The AIM lists a bunch of ways the GPS can calculate a holding procedure incorrectly, for example.
Click to expand...

dmspilot, your post got truncated. Could you provide the examples that you were going to cite (and the relevant FAR/AIM citations). It looks like my training and my IR DPE were incorrect. I had a VOR approach (no GPS in the name) that I flew several times in training and on the checkride. Each time I flew a direct entry to the HILPT and flew the IAF (the VOR) as a fly-by waypoint. Didn't get any criticism for it, so I believed that it was a proper practice for the reasons I cited in my post. Would like to be able to explain to my instructor why that was wrong.
 
bkspero said:
dmspilot, your post got truncated. Could you provide the examples that you were going to cite (and the relevant FAR/AIM citations). It looks like my training and my IR DPE were incorrect. I had a VOR approach (no GPS in the name) that I flew several times in training and on the checkride. Each time I flew a direct entry to the HILPT and flew the IAF (the VOR) as a fly-by waypoint. Didn't get any criticism for it, so I believed that it was a proper practice for the reasons I cited in my post. Would like to be able to explain to my instructor why that was wrong.
Click to expand...

I can jump in with the references. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. (a) (2) for the flyby on entry thing. All of j. 7 and 8 for all kinds of things where RNAV can do you wrong.
 
I suspect that your CFII brought you to that VOR from a position that made the turn onto course less than 90 degrees.
Click to expand...
I'm going to take issue on this. The initial approach segment is very much as an important part of the approach as anything else. I guess you're saying that just turning on an approximate outbound heading is "good enough" for saying you're on the IAS, but I'd rather have some positive navigational guidance.
 
dmspilot said:
It's the DPE's call whether or not to give the applicant an option to continue or not; if the bust is on the first task (and DPE reportedly didn't like the applicant's use of checklists or radio calls either), I could see why a DPE would not want to give the option.
Click to expand...
My DPE told me before the checkride that he would tell me when I failed the checkride and it would be up to me to continue (and get credit for things I do right) or discontinue the checkride. So I find such abrupt termination rather strange.
 
What did the checkride cost? I am wondering if this guy is bitter 'cause he works for the school and is not pulling in the $600/day minimum that DPE's earn here in S. Florida :D
 
luvflyin said:
I can jump in with the references. AIM 5-3-8 j. 7. (a) (2) for the flyby on entry thing. All of j. 7 and 8 for all kinds of things where RNAV can do you wrong.
Click to expand...

Thank-you. Mostly focused on enroute holds which are not in at least my 530w's database, so I would not be able to fly such holds with lateral guidance (except for the inbound leg via OBS mode). But helpful nonetheless. Interestingly, 5-3-8 j. 7. (a) (2) points out the potential hazard of entering a hold from the unprotected side via fly-by of the waypoint when flown at high speed, but it never says that the practice is prohibited. And later in 5-3-8 j. 8. it provides Pilot Action guidance when flying holds with either conventional Navaid guidance or RNAV guidance. And section (e) addresses the issue of RNAV entry at the holding waypoint by saying:

(e) RNAV lateral guidance may execute a fly−by turn beginning at an excessively large distance from the holding fix. Reducing speed to the maximum holding speed at least 3 minutes prior to reaching the holding fix and using the recommended 25 degree bank angle will reduce potential excursions beyond protected airspace.

It does not say such entries are prohibited, or even to avoid executing a fly-by entry. It only gives guidance on best practices when a fly-by entry is flown. I don't see that the FAA would give such guidance if fly-by entrances were prohibited.

Thanks again for the point out. Was a part of the AIM I hadn't read and it was interesting to read.
 
Caramon13 said:
Sorry @Collin Kaufman. As an instructor in the past (not CFI) I put most of the blame on the training. I went through at least 6 instructors for my instrument ticket because I had that luxury (not everyone does) and I wanted to get different perspectives. Any CFI's familiar with the law of primacy? Remember that its easy to say "know your stuff", but if the student is relying on you to be the expert and you are training them wrong, it's harder to then retrain against those habits. Especially not during a checkride, sheesh. I would probably not actually trust the instructor in the future to be completely honest.

Yes there is responsibility on the student's end to be fluent in the FAR's for safe IFR flight, but what if you knew you were right and someone in a position of authority was telling you that you were not? Would make you second guess yourself, no? Perhaps that instructor was even training you a little haphazardly because either they didn't understand the rules or didn't care enough to teach them properly, how would you know if you constantly got the "atta-boy"?. You learn to accept that is "OK". @Collin Kaufman even said he flew that 20 times the wrong way because the instructor said that was the way to do it.

Bad training is bad training. Sounds like this was just the perfect storm of training and timing gone wrong. You'll get it though, just remember not to put your instructors up on some pedestal because they have some fancy credentials. They are there for you and without you, they don't really mean much. And..always question when you think something is wrong. The really bad instructors (the ones you should run from) will have a problem with this, get angry, or defensive. The really good ones will be able to explain and reference exactly why you are doing what you are doing in a way that makes sense to you.

Good luck on your next ride!
Click to expand...
You're right. I've had instructors who have gotten defensive and I've had to correct them. I always do ask questions. I'm a "why" type of person. And if I know somethings right I won't have a problem bringing it up with an instructor, but like you said when it's the DPE telling me something is wrong, I do second guess myself. For where I'm at in my training, I definitely feel like I have a pretty good knowledge of the FARs and I'm continually learning more, but I think I will take everything with a grain of salt and fact check everything I can.
 
mryan75 said:
Not that this course of action isn't fraught with some danger, but couldn't you contact the FSDO if that's the case? If pilots are specifically being taught the wrong thing because that's what one guy wants to hear, that shouldn't be allowed to continue. I know my instructor reported a DPE to the FSDO once and they pulled his designation; he was asking for a spin demo and recovery on PPL rides.
Click to expand...
I might have to look into that. I know a majority of the other students in the program have a problem with him as well.
 
alfadog said:
"not supposed to" implies, at least to me, "not allowed to". Is that what you meant? I do not know what the rules are but my IR DPE had a word of wisdom or two and I've heard the same about other DPE's.
Click to expand...

Not allowed to. DPEs and ASIs are expressly prohibited from teaching during a practical test.

It's a little tough on me, as I've been a flight instructor for a long time and a DPE for not very long at all. The desire to say "hey, you just need to... " is very strong, but a practical test is not considered flight training.
 
Ryan F. said:
Not allowed to. DPEs and ASIs are expressly prohibited from teaching during a practical test.

It's a little tough on me, as I've been a flight instructor for a long time and a DPE for not very long at all. The desire to say "hey, you just need to... " is very strong, but a practical test is not considered flight training.
Click to expand...

Once you've made the decision to pass them, is it considered bad to throw your 2 cents in about some things?
 
luvflyin said:
Once you've made the decision to pass them, is it considered bad to throw your 2 cents in about some things?
Click to expand...

A debrief is a good idea regardless of the outcome.
 
Alright Gentlemen. I'm pleased to announce that I passed my instrument checkride on the 19th. Everything went smoothly for the most part. I had the same examiner and he wasn't as much of a wang as he was last time but I think that's just due to the fact I didn't do a whole lot to set him off. I was told by my instructor that 6 other students were failed in the same week as me for the same exact thing I did that was discussed above. A little ridiculous if you ask me. This examiner is apparently known for his 'gotcha' clearances, but hey, we made it and now I can fly in clouds.. legally
 
Collin Kaufman said:
Alright Gentlemen. I'm pleased to announce that I passed my instrument checkride on the 19th. Everything went smoothly for the most part. I had the same examiner and he wasn't as much of a wang as he was last time but I think that's just due to the fact I didn't do a whole lot to set him off. I was told by my instructor that 6 other students were failed in the same week as me for the same exact thing I did that was discussed above. A little ridiculous if you ask me. This examiner is apparently known for his 'gotcha' clearances, but hey, we made it and now I can fly in clouds.. legally
Click to expand...
Congrats!!! Great job!! Now you have permission to go scare yourself!
 
Collin Kaufman said:
I was told by my instructor that 6 other students were failed in the same week as me for the same exact thing I did that was discussed above. ...but hey, we made it and now I can fly in clouds.. legally
Click to expand...
Good on you! :) I've got one for you. The examiner was incorrect, but how would you rephrase his question so the answer he wanted is the right one. I.e., when would you climb immediately and not wait for the "expected higher in ten minutes"?
 
Collin Kaufman said:
Alright Gentlemen. I'm pleased to announce that I passed my instrument checkride on the 19th.
Click to expand...

Congrats - flew my first actual last weekend since my ticket last month and somehow it seemed easier than with the instructor next to me!
 
Pugs said:
Congrats - flew my first actual last weekend since my ticket last month and somehow it seemed easier than with the instructor next to me!
Click to expand...
That's reassuring. I obviously know what I'm doing but part of me feels like I am absolutely not capable of that lol
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top