Commercial Oral Prep - Recommendations?

[MauleSkinner]

Like @denverpilot , I've given the whole "king for a day" thing some thought. What I came up with is that any changes I made would reflect things that I had done, but quite frankly, very few people have use for. They would primarily revolve around flight experience requirements rather than the check ride. And like most people's ideas on the subject, they would demonstrate that I think my background and experience is more valuable than everybody else's.

 

[denverpilot]

Many people get the singular goal in mind and forget that training is FAR from over with at the Commercial, too.

LOTS of people flunk out of 121 training programs who can easily pass a Commercial ride.

 

[Ben Diss]

[snip]

Anyway, what maneuvers would you want them to test, remembering that once the candidate passes they’re doing the few non-135 and non-121 commercial flying jobs out there. Something specific you’d like to see FAA test for?

That's a fair question. I don't think it'd be too hard to come up with some applicable written test questions and I don't have a problem with the current experience requirements. For the check ride, what skills does a passenger or operator expect the pilot to have? Perhaps more emphasis on real cross county planning and flying. Perhaps demonstrating skills at a busy airport. They could focus more on emergency procedure handling. Maybe demonstrate handling both the equipment failure and manage the passengers at the same time. Is the check ride really relevant? Maybe it's not even needed.

As for those that fail it, sure some will. I recognized that it was a very real possibility for me. I could have choked at any of the maneuvers and failed. It happens. My DE told me he failed a commercial check ride when the pilot lined up for the wrong runway on a simulated diversion to a non-towered, sleepy airport. It can happen. The guy did everything else right.

I'm doing my multi add-on in a couple of weeks. I expect that to be a better experience. I've never flown a twin, so I only have book knowledge. I'll get to learn a bunch and then take a test to prove that I did learn it. That's what was missing for me in the Commercial single experience. I didn't walk away feeling like I was a better pilot.

 

[MauleSkinner]

That's a fair question. I don't think it'd be too hard to come up with some applicable written test questions and I don't have a problem with the current experience requirements. For the check ride, what skills does a passenger or operator expect the pilot to have? Perhaps more emphasis on real cross county planning and flying. Perhaps demonstrating skills at a busy airport. They could focus more on emergency procedure handling. Maybe demonstrate handling both the equipment failure and manage the passengers at the same time. Is the check ride really relevant? Maybe it's not even needed.

Define "real cross country planning and flying".

Which emergency procedures? Those specific to a particular airplane?

Pretty much anything to do with passenger ops ties into 135/121 training, so it would be redundant for the commercial. And it belongs in the 135/121 training world, because each operator has their own preferences, policies, and culture for dealing with passengers.

 

[BrianNC]

Look above in the thread where people here almost got to the point of complaining that SINGLE instrument approach is needed engine-out in the multi-Commerical ride. Shouldn’t a single engine approach be a near no-brainer by the time someone is applying to carry passengers who they don’t know, around in IMC? That shouldn’t be difficult at all. But people whine about how hard it is.

Just to clarify since I was involved in a discussion about an approach on a person's SINGLE engine commercial, that's what I was disagreeing with. Single commercial you should not have to do any kind of instrument approach. It is a VFR rating. But I totally agree with having to do a single engine approach in a twin. That totally makes sense.

As I've prepped for my commercial the two maneuvers I've really liked are the steep spiral and the engine fire/emergency landing. Knowing I can get that descent performance out of the plane and how to do it two different ways. You mentioned jumper dumping, those two are perfectly applicable for that after they jump out of the plane. Most pilots dive for the airport after they jump to get the next load. Slow flight for banner towing. Maximum performance maneuvers that get you used to operating close to stall speed (including the lazy eights for stall speed). I actually think the maneuvers have made me at least a somewhat better pilot if not a much better one. It's really built my confidence especially after being out of flying for 11 years until last July.

 

[denverpilot]

Just to clarify since I was involved in a discussion about an approach on a person's SINGLE engine commercial, that's what I was disagreeing with. Single commercial you should not have to do any kind of instrument approach. It is a VFR rating. But I totally agree with having to do a single engine approach in a twin. That totally makes sense.

I (respectfully) disagree. If someone has an Instrument rating, asking them to demonstrate an approach while behaving like they’re operating at a different level for their desired new Certificate level and flying to tighter standards for it, really should be a no-brainer.

They might (emphasis on might, since the regs make it a very limited thing) be flying a Commercial flight (sans pax) tomorrow in the soup with their shiny new ticket, if they have some sort of job lined up that would allow that under Part 91.

Having them fly one single engine approach shouldn’t be any big deal to them. And if you do multi and single backward, at least you only have to do it once.

FAA is pretty darn lenient on that, really, considering the possible consequences of perhaps turning a new Commericial ticket holder who’s barely kept up their Instrument currency, let alone proficiency up, in maybe many many years.

Lots of the regs keep that from happening with pax, however... Part 135 and 121 systems being what they are... thankfully.

Most 135 and 121 operators who have their own trainers say that basic Instrument skills are quite often where job applicants fall apart in the initial sim or aircraft training.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I (respectfully) disagree. If someone has an Instrument rating, asking them to demonstrate an approach while behaving like they’re operating at a different level for their desired new Certificate level and flying to tighter standards for it, really should be a no-brainer.

They might (emphasis on might, since the regs make it a very limited thing) be flying a Commercial flight (sans pax) tomorrow in the soup with their shiny new ticket, if they have some sort of job lined up that would allow that under Part 91.

Having them fly one single engine approach shouldn’t be any big deal to them. And if you do multi and single backward, at least you only have to do it once.

FAA is pretty darn lenient on that, really, considering the possible consequences of perhaps turning a new Commericial ticket holder who’s barely kept up their Instrument currency, let alone proficiency up, in maybe many many years.

Lots of the regs keep that from happening with pax, however... Part 135 and 121 systems being what they are... thankfully.

Most 135 and 121 operators who have their own trainers say that basic Instrument skills are quite often where job applicants fall apart in the initial sim or aircraft training.

I don't see @BrianNC 's post as being "should it be required", but rather, "this is what the ACS currently says." If the FAA wants to require an approach or two for an instrument-rated commercial applicant, that's their prerogative. Currently, however, they don't...so an examiner requiring it is going rogue and requiring things beyond the ACS, when one of the purposes of an ACS is to standardize what an examiner CAN ask of an applicant.

 

[BrianNC]

I don't see @BrianNC 's post as being "should it be required", but rather, "this is what the ACS currently says." If the FAA wants to require an approach or two for an instrument-rated commercial applicant, that's their prerogative. Currently, however, they don't...so an examiner requiring it is going rogue and requiring things beyond the ACS, when one of the purposes of an ACS is to standardize what an examiner CAN ask of an applicant.

Exactly. If it was in the ACS, fine. But the point is it's not.

 

[denverpilot]

Exactly. If it was in the ACS, fine. But the point is it's not.

Ahh okay. I see where you’re going with that.

As an instructor I wouldn’t have too much of a hissy about it if an examiner did it to a student, but I could at least make noises about “that’s not in the ACS or the guidance”, but an appeal to the FSDO would probably not look so smart on that one.

And you’d end up with a possibly adversarial DPE afterward. Which never is helpful.

That’s a “pick your battles” one for sure.

I bet in the places where some DPEs are doing that, most of the instructors know it, or it was a one-time screwup where the DPE applied the multi rule to a single by accident. It could happen.

 

[Ben Diss]

Define "real cross country planning and flying".

Which emergency procedures? Those specific to a particular airplane?

Pretty much anything to do with passenger ops ties into 135/121 training, so it would be redundant for the commercial. And it belongs in the 135/121 training world, because each operator has their own preferences, policies, and culture for dealing with passengers.

So maybe no check ride for the Commercial?

 

[denverpilot]

So maybe no check ride for the Commercial?

What, just hit 250 hours and magically be qualified to fly passengers and cargo around?

Yeah the public would love that.

The same public that pushed Congress into a 1500 hour ATP rule because “safety” when not a single NTSB finding from the Colgan crash that prompted that knee jerk garbage said the pilot’s hours were the actual problem or part of the accident chain...

 

[MauleSkinner]

So maybe no check ride for the Commercial?

Don't let flight instructors with no practical experience teach it.

 

[mtuomi]

@MauleSkinner has a great point. The commercial checkride only tests things that are relevant to things you can legally do with a commercial ticket, with heavy emphasis on skills you need for (e)(4). Many skills people think are "relevant" for commercial flying are things that are covered by other regulations and their own checkrides.

 

[denverpilot]

Don't let flight instructors with no practical experience teach it.

Practical experience in what? This biz is upside down and has been my entire life.

Many of the teachers are the ones trying to get through an arbitrary hour number and past the teaching to go do the operational jobs. You don’t see people leave operational flying jobs to take a pay cut and go back to teaching.

(In other industries you do see that. Trainers are paid very well if they have operational experience. Not in aviation for the most part.)

They’re also usually trying to get to the base salary of my day job, in something less than five years. The pay scale is still terrible.

Sure you find a few who keep teaching while doing the 135 or 121 gigs, but not anywhere near the majority, and some return to it after they retire and can afford to not get paid well doing it, just to stay flying.

But the vast majority of the industry is the barely experienced teaching the non-experienced.

Someone called me today and asked if I wanted a student who was tired of being cancelled by the largest club in the area.

I haven’t heard the whole story, but they have more full time CFIs than my day job has IT people to run six small companies, so there’s a sign that everything is currently completely overloaded right now with the hiring uptake by the carriers and the “musical chairs” effect sucking people up the various ladders.

There’s no way the handful of CFIs around here with actual commercial experience could handle the flood of trainees right now. I sure as hell don’t have any real commercial experience, but have people texting me at my day job with offers of students constantly.

In context for me, “constantly” means if I had all of them as students I wouldn’t be able to do that many while working the day job. Not so many that I can do the math and decide to quit the day job because the pay gap between the two had closed in any significant way.

This person may have had other reasons to reach out through a friend and contact me that have nothing to do with scheduling too, but I won’t know until I talk to them.

And we have something like five to ten members here who all have stories of using two, three, sometimes more CFIs just to get through their Private rating.

The vacuum cleaner of upward hiring has been doing the usual thing during a hiring spree, sucking away all the instructors. This one is a big one and has been sucking them away for a number of years now.