Grrrrrrr (Student Checkride)

[KennyFlys]

That's a bit far with regard to prepping for an instrument rating. I was suggesting students delay turnouts until 400 feet as a step toward IR but that was it. Now, it's maintain runway heading at least until they clear the control tower.

 

[poadeleted20]

He also needs to re-do ground ref manuevers. He gained 400' during the turns about a point. I asked the student and he said he was a bit leery about flying around the 1200' tower at 800' AGL (we've only done cell towers and silos -- we don't have ny massive towers nearby).

Student failed that one when he selected that tower. See that line in the PTS which says "Selects a suitable ground reference point" right before the part about doing it at 600-1000AGL? The regs prohibit flight that low around that tower, so either he busts for being too high or he busts for violating 91.119.

I asked about "turn to heaidng 500' AGL..."

DPE: "Well, you can't be flying a cross country pattern -- gotta get set up on your outbound heading..."

Me: "Hmmm.. I've used the AIM recommendation to climb to pattern altitude before beginning outbound turn..."

DPE: "Well, that takes too long, and you need to prep them for IFR, where most DPs..."

(I stopped listening at this point).

I would have been taking notes to share with his supervising POI.

 

[dmccormack]

Student failed that one when he selected that tower. See that line in the PTS which says "Selects a suitable ground reference point" right before the part about doing it at 600-1000AGL? The regs prohibit flight that low around that tower, so either he busts for being too high or he busts for violating 91.119.
I would have been taking notes to share with his supervising POI.

The DPE told him to use that particular tower.

The student said he was uncomfortable with the tower because he knew tall towers have guy wires.

I'm holding off on attack mode until this test is complete.

 

[poadeleted20]

The DPE told him to use that particular tower.

The student said he was uncomfortable with the tower because he knew tall towers have guy wires.

I'm holding off on attack mode until this test is complete.

Then let 'im have it.

 

[Ted]

Yeah, I'm seeing lots of issues with the requirements set forth by this DPE. When he specifically doesn't follow the regs and then fails a student for it, that's a problem.

Sorry that this has been such an annoying experience for both you and your student.

 

[jmaynard]

Yeah, I'm seeing lots of issues with the requirements set forth by this DPE. When he specifically doesn't follow the regs and then fails a student for it, that's a problem.

Amen. DPEs are not supposed to even suggest their candidates break the FARs.

 

[EppyGA]

The DPE told him to use that particular tower.

The student said he was uncomfortable with the tower because he knew tall towers have guy wires.

I'm holding off on attack mode until this test is complete.

The student is PIC and should have refused to use that tower

 

[RotorAndWing]

The best defense against rogue DPE's is themselves. Eventually word get's out and fewer people show up and request their services.

The FAA's practice of selecting DPE's has always been political and on occasion the better man (or woman) for the job doesn't get selected.

 

[gismo]

Apparently the bust was for poor crosswind landing technique. There was a gust, student didn't aggressively correct and let the plane weathervane (easy to do in a 205).

Fair enough, provided the student didn't properly abort the landing and handle it properly on the next pass. Even then, I'd say that one's a DPE judgment call and not really protest material.

He also needs to re-do ground ref manuevers. He gained 400' during the turns about a point. I asked the student and he said he was a bit leery about flying around the 1200' tower at 800' AGL (we've only done cell towers and silos -- we don't have ny massive towers nearby).

Saturday I had him down at 600' AGL over a tower on a ridge. We did turns until it got boring. He's G2G on those.

Were all these turns about points (on the PT as well as your recent practice) in clearly uncongested areas. These days it appears that two cows or two houses within a half mile constitutes a congested area subject to the 1000 above any structures within 2000 ft. Is there any guidance in the PTS for altitudes to use on this maneuver?

I asked about "turn to heaidng 500' AGL..."

DPE: "Well, you can't be flying a cross country pattern -- gotta get set up on your outbound heading..."

Me: "Hmmm.. I've used the AIM recommendation to climb to pattern altitude before beginning outbound turn..."

DPE: "Well, that takes too long, and you need to prep them for IFR, where most DPs..."

(I stopped listening at this point).

I don't blame you for that. Sounds like this guy's got his own agenda, something I think is very inappropriate for a DPE.

Sorry, but I don't get it. If you're gonna ignore the AIM guidance and come up with your own SOP, fine -- just don't expect me or anyone else to know it beforehand.

IMO you shouldn't have to know beforehand about any significant deviations from the PTS, AIM, etc. Sure some if not most DPEs have their favorite issue(s) deJour that it's nice to know about but if this one's gonna go around insisting that students have to fly contrary to the FAA's recommendations in order to pass he needs to have his attitude adjusted by the FSDO.

Granted, your first priority at this point is to get your student passed but once that's accomplished I think you ought to consider having a word with the FAA about this rogue. Might want to see if you can compare notes with a couple other CFIs who've sent students to him first though. If you do go to the FSDO, don't make any noises about getting this guy disenfranchised, just explain the facts as you've presented them here and leave it to them to draw their own conclusions. That way you won't seem like your just disgruntled about having a student fail their first attempt.

 

[ScottM]

The DPE told him to use that particular tower.

The student said he was uncomfortable with the tower because he knew tall towers have guy wires.

I'm holding off on attack mode until this test is complete.

Not on my private ride but on my commercial the DPE tried to get me to use an antenna tower. I refused and cited the issues with guy wires as a safety concern and instead picked a better target. The DPE told me he did that as a judgment test and had I tried to do my maneuvers around it he would have pink slipped me after stopping the ride. In his mind he wanted to make sure I could not be talked into questionable actions by the people I was flying around.

The student is PIC and should have refused to use that tower

I agree but if that is what the DPE indented there are better ways to do that on a private check ride.

 

[poadeleted20]

Is there any guidance in the PTS for altitudes to use on this maneuver?

Yes, there is -- 600-1000 AGL.

 

[Matthew]

I know it depends on the topography and what's available, but popular 'points' around here are silos and farm ponds. My DPE asked me to use a road intersection.

 

[dmccormack]

Yes, there is -- 600-1000 AGL.

Yes -- but that guidance must be tempered by altitude over "congested area."

We know how vague that definition is.

The local topography is undulating, from 1000' MSL to 1400' MSL, with numerous towers. The majority of our practice turns about a point were at 2300-2500' MSL, so in the future I will find better spots and spend more time at 2000'

When the student has the time/desire, I spend some time doing "Low altitude flying" at 500' AGL along one of the local rivers (there are some desolate stretches along state forest land) to give them a sense of how quickly stuff comes up and how much more pucker factor there is flying low and fast, and then how much more manageable it is the fly slow and low.

It hasn't take long before they ask to "Climb back up a bit."

My student re-tests Thursday. We spent an hour dual and then I observed 5 circuits early this morning in a reasonable crosswind.

 

[Henning]

Were all these turns about points (on the PT as well as your recent practice) in clearly uncongested areas. These days it appears that two cows or two houses within a half mile constitutes a congested area subject to the 1000 above any structures within 2000 ft. Is there any guidance in the PTS for altitudes to use on this maneuver?

The altitude itself is immaterial to this particular situation, the student didn't perform the maneuver WRT maintaining altitude. If the student was uncomfortable doing the turns around that tower, he should have stated such and found a different point to use. The DE would not have been able to detract for that since it's a PIC safety call against performing a maneuver whose setup and safety is questionable at best. That the student proceeded with a maneuver they were uncomfortable with, then failed to perform it adequately is a double bust in my book. If you aren't ready to tell the DE "No, I'm not going to do circles around an antenna that I'm below the top of", you aren't ready to be PIC.

 

[dmccormack]

The altitude itself is immaterial to this particular situation, the student didn't perform the maneuver WRT maintaining altitude. If the student was uncomfortable doing the turns around that tower, he should have stated such and found a different point to use. The DE would not have been able to detract for that since it's a PIC safety call against performing a maneuver whose setup and safety is questionable at best. That the student proceeded with a maneuver they were uncomfortable with, then failed to perform it adequately is a double bust in my book. If you aren't ready to tell the DE "No, I'm not going to do circles around an antenna that I'm below the base of", you aren't ready to be PIC.

I agree -- we had that post-exam discussion.

 

[AuntPeggy]

The student is PIC and should have refused to use that tower

I agree. On my checkride, there was a small forest fire in the neighborhood where I was about to don the foggles. I told the DPE that I did NOT want to fly through the smoke and after he started to disagree, he just said, OK.

 

[dmccormack]

I agree. On my checkride, there was a small forest fire in the neighborhood where I was about to don the foggles. I told the DPE that I did NOT want to fly through the smoke and after he started to disagree, he just said, OK.

Well, there's a fine line between "testing" a PP candidate and setting him/her up.

 

[poadeleted20]

Yes -- but that guidance must be tempered by altitude over "congested area."

Doing ground reference maneuvers over a "congested area" is not only unwise, but also unneighborly.

 

[dmccormack]

Doing ground reference maneuvers over a "congested area" is not only unwise, but also unneighborly.

...and probably subject to sanction, according to a recent AOPA legal column.....

 

[jmaynard]

Doing ground reference maneuvers over a "congested area" is not only unwise, but also unneighborly.

...and probably subject to sanction, according to a recent AOPA legal column.....

Okkay, but that assumes that you can tell what's a congested area - and that definition has already been noted as slippery in this discussion. Further, just how far do you have to go on a checkride if you need to go find a non-congested area somewhere? Farm fields abound around Fairmont; they don't around, say, KHOU.

 

[dmccormack]

Okkay, but that assumes that you can tell what's a congested area - and that definition has already been noted as slippery in this discussion. Further, just how far do you have to go on a checkride if you need to go find a non-congested area somewhere? Farm fields abound around Fairmont; they don't around, say, KHOU.

This was north of Beaver, PA -- lots of fields.

But -- I would be careful doing 600' AGL turns about a silo. They are usually near barns which are near houses.

 

[tonycondon]

This was north of Beaver, PA -- lots of fields.

But -- I would be careful doing 600' AGL turns about a silo. They are usually near barns which are near houses.

when i do turns around a point im usually 3/8 to 1/2 mile away from the point. that should satisfy the 2000' horizontal separation, even if the barn and house are considered a "congested area"

[do some math]

ok ok 3/8 of a statue mile is 1980 feet. ill swing a little wide...

 

[dmccormack]

when i do turns around a point im usually 3/8 to 1/2 mile away from the point. that should satisfy the 2000' horizontal separation, even if the barn and house are considered a "congested area"

[do some math]

ok ok 3/8 of a statue mile is 1980 feet. ill swing a little wide...

That would work.

 

[poadeleted20]

when i do turns around a point im usually 3/8 to 1/2 mile away from the point. that should satisfy the 2000' horizontal separation, even if the barn and house are considered a "congested area"

Perhaps, but doing turns around a guyed tower that's 400 feet taller than your height AGL is just not good headwork, even out in the wheatfields of Kansas.

 

[ScottM]

when i do turns around a point im usually 3/8 to 1/2 mile away from the point. that should satisfy the 2000' horizontal separation, even if the barn and house are considered a "congested area"

[do some math]

ok ok 3/8 of a statue mile is 1980 feet. ill swing a little wide...

Perhaps, but doing turns around a guyed tower that's 400 feet taller than your height AGL is just not good headwork, even out in the wheatfields of Kansas.

FYI Tony is not talking about the guyed tower. I think we are all in agreement that it was not a good idea. The student should have also known that too.

 

[gismo]

when i do turns around a point im usually 3/8 to 1/2 mile away from the point. that should satisfy the 2000' horizontal separation, even if the barn and house are considered a "congested area"

[do some math]

ok ok 3/8 of a statue mile is 1980 feet. ill swing a little wide...

When I did the C-ASEL training/checkride in the Porterfield I had a difficult time finding suitable turn points for pylon 8s because the pivotal altitude in that plane is around 400 ft at full power. I finally settled on using the tops of tall silos so I would generally be 500+ AGL and therefore close to legally clear of the nearby farmhouses. I tried to find other landmarks that would allow me to complete the maneuver without coming closer than 500 ft to any structure but found this to be pretty much impossible.

 

[poadeleted20]

When I did the C-ASEL training/checkride in the Porterfield I had a difficult time finding suitable turn points for pylon 8s because the pivotal altitude in that plane is around 400 ft at full power. I finally settled on using the tops of tall silos so I would generally be 500+ AGL and therefore close to legally clear of the nearby farmhouses. I tried to find other landmarks that would allow me to complete the maneuver without coming closer than 500 ft to any structure but found this to be pretty much impossible.

Given the need today to provide a complex airplane for the CP test, this isn't as much a problem as it used to be, unless you're going the 2-aircraft route on the test, and even then, most folks are using something like a 172 for the simple plane stuff.

 

[gismo]

Given the need today to provide a complex airplane for the CP test, this isn't as much a problem as it used to be, unless you're going the 2-aircraft route on the test, and even then, most folks are using something like a 172 for the simple plane stuff.

Yeah, I think my problem was somewhat unique. I already had C-AMEL so a complex airplane wasn't required and the Porterfield was available and pretty much flies for no money. I thought it was also kinda "cool" to take a checkride in the exact same airplane that my mother used for her private pilot checkride in 1941. My DPE thought it was pretty neat too, and cut me a little slack on some of the requirements that didn't fit well with a 65 horse ragwing taildragger.

 

[Henning]

Perhaps, but doing turns around a guyed tower that's 400 feet taller than your height AGL is just not good headwork, even out in the wheatfields of Kansas.

Agreed, as I said earlier, the candidates primary failure there was accepting what he considered an unsafe instruction. That alone fails him on PIC decission making ability and indicates that his natural tendencies may allow for him to be a victim of "get there itis" in the future. I've often flown with newer pilots and talked them into something hazardous, then stopped them after they began the process, "Do you really think that that is a good idea to do?" "No, not really, makes me nervous", "Then why did you let me talk you into it? Part of the "Command" in Pilot In Command is know when to tell whomever it is regardless the consequences, "No, that isn't going to happen".
Never let someone talk you into something you don't like. His busting altitude was actually a secondary failure at best.

 

[dmccormack]

Agreed, as I said earlier, the candidates primary failure there was accepting what he considered an unsafe instruction. That alone fails him on PIC decission making ability and indicates that his natural tendencies may allow for him to be a victim of "get there itis" in the future. I've often flown with newer pilots and talked them into something hazardous, then stopped them after they began the process, "Do you really think that that is a good idea to do?" "No, not really, makes me nervous", "Then why did you let me talk you into it? Part of the "Command" in Pilot In Command is know when to tell whomever it is regardless the consequences, "No, that isn't going to happen".
Never let someone talk you into something you don't like. His busting altitude was actually a secondary failure at best.

If the DPE made that point, I'd respect the motivation and intent.

He didn't. He came across as a "do it this way because I said so..."

This became evident to me during the discussion about departing the pattern.

 

[Henning]

If the DPE made that point, I'd respect the motivation and intent.

He didn't. He came across as a "do it this way because I said so..."

This became evident to me during the discussion about departing the pattern.

I'm not saying this particular DE is "with the program", I'm just giving my personal reasoning/observations from what has been told here.

 

[Richard]

During ground reference maneuvers on my checkride for the private we entered low visibility--maybe 2 nm--in HZ. I iterated my discomfort to which the DE responded it would be, "Okay".

I knew there were two guyed towers in the vicinity but I continued albeit with severely divided attention. When the approach controller we were monitoring vectored several transient aircraft through our practice area I recovered from a maneuver as I firmly told the DE I was uncomfortable. He still insisted it would be, "Okay". I said no it wouldn't be as I announced my intention to return to the airport. He said he would discontinue as he grabbed the controls and showed me turns around a pig farm.

Back on the ground I had a talk with the school owner/chief pilot. We finished my ride that afternoon and the DE no longer gets any students from that school.

At the time I felt I was being a jerk in acting contrary to the DE. I think most student pilots are not yet clear on what PIC really means.

 

[Henning]

During ground reference manuvers on my checkride for the private we entered low visibility--maybe 2 nm--in HZ. I iterated my discomfort to which the DE respondedit would be, "Okay".

I knew there were two guyed towers in the vicinity but I continued albeit with severally divided attention. When the approach controller we were monitoring vectored several transient aircraft through our practice area I recovered from a manuver as I firmly told the DE I was uncomfortable. He still insisted it would be, "Okay". I said no it wouldn't be as I announced my intention to return to the airport. He said he would discontinue as he grabbed the controls and showed me turns around a pig farm.

Back on the ground I had a talk with the school owner/chief pilot. We finished my ride that afternoon and the DE no longer gets any students from that school.

At the time I felt I was being a jerk in acting contrary to the DE. I think most student pilots are not yet clear on what PIC really means.

There are many rated pilots not clear on the concept either..... There are also truck drivers on the Corona pass wondering about it as well...

 

[gismo]

I think most student pilots are not yet clear on what PIC really means.

Good point. How many CFIs out there make it a point to stress to their students that on the checkride and assuming it's passed on any future flight as PIC the (now) student needs to recognize that they will leave the training environment with a "learned" tendency to defer to anyone else perceived as an authority that must be unlearned. I'm not talking about explaining the simple (yet somewhat incomprehensible) notion that the student will be PIC on the checkride nor am I referring directly to the "hazardous attitudes" discussion, but rather a specific discussion about discarding this particular learned behavior.

 

[Richard]

There are many rated pilots not clear on the concept either..... There are also truck drivers on the Corona pass wondering about it as well...

El Cajon Pass? Anyway, I didn't feel unsafe at that point, did you?

 

[dmccormack]

Good point. How many CFIs out there make it a point to stress to their students that on the checkride and assuming it's passed on any future flight as PIC the (now) student needs to recognize that they will leave the training environment with a "learned" tendency to defer to anyone else perceived as an authority that must be unlearned. I'm not talking about explaining the simple (yet somewhat incomprehensible) notion that the student will be PIC on the checkride nor am I referring directly to the "hazardous attitudes" discussion, but rather a specific discussion about discarding this particular learned behavior.

Excellent discussion on this point in several posts.

You can tell the student, but it's very hard for some to make the leap that the experienced pilot in the right seat's judgement on things doesn't matter.

 

[KennyFlys]

Early in training, as in the first ground session, I go through ADM along with physiology. We address 91.3 and 91.103 quite well.

 

[brcase]

Excellent discussion on this point in several posts.

You can tell the student, but it's very hard for some to make the leap that the experienced pilot in the right seat's judgement on things doesn't matter.

A friend of mine tells of his glider check ride over 30 years ago. I assume the standards for check rides were somewhat different then, and who knows how much the story may have changed since then.

He was taking his check ride the same day as 2 other applicants. The examiner split the exams up so he did all the orals 1st then followed by the flight portion. For the flight portion the examiner explained to them that they were the PIC and if he had to make any decisions for the safety of the flight or take control of the airplane they would fail. He then proceeded to tell them exactly what he wanted them to do for the flight. He may have even given them a written list of the maneuvers they were to perform. My friend was to do the last flight. The 1st applicant went up started through the maneuvers and before completing the last maneuver the examiner told him he had failed and to return to the airport. The examiner did not tell him why he failed but only said they would debrief after the other flights. The same thing happened with the 2nd applicant. My friend’s instructor pulled him aside and told him to tell the examiner he wanted to postpone his check ride, because the instructor didn’t know why they were failing either. My friend had driven almost 200 miles to take the check ride and decided either way he would have to drive back again, so he opted to fly. My friend started though the maneuvers. As he performed each maneuver he of course was losing altitude. With about 2 maneuvers left to complete he told the examiner, “Well I guess I am going to fail also, I can’t complete the maneuvers and have a safe amount of altitude left to return to the airport.” To which the examiner responded. “Congratulations, you pass”.

The examiners point being that the applicants were the Pilot in Command and the applicant was responsible for the safety of the flight, not the experienced pilot in the other seat or anyone else for that matter. The other pilots were so focused on the task at hand i.e. passing the test, that the let the glider get low enough that the examiner felt he had to terminate to task (instead of the applicant) to insure that they could safely land at the airport.

Some would say that he trapped the other applicants but I am sure that was a lesson none of those pilots forgot.


Brian

 

[N801BH]

Ok It's Thursday... What happened???

Update...

Talked to the DPE briefly on way home from work this afternoon. My studnet still has to return to complete checkride, so I took the gracious "Please tell me how messed up teaching him?" approach.

Apparently the bust was for poor crosswind landing technique. There was a gust, student didn't aggressively correct and let the plane weathervane (easy to do in a 205).

He also needs to re-do ground ref manuevers. He gained 400' during the turns about a point. I asked the student and he said he was a bit leery about flying around the 1200' tower at 800' AGL (we've only done cell towers and silos -- we don't have ny massive towers nearby).

Saturday I had him down at 600' AGL over a tower on a ridge. We did turns until it got boring. He's G2G on those.

I asked about "turn to heaidng 500' AGL..."

DPE: "Well, you can't be flying a cross country pattern -- gotta get set up on your outbound heading..."

Me: "Hmmm.. I've used the AIM recommendation to climb to pattern altitude before beginning outbound turn..."

DPE: "Well, that takes too long, and you need to prep them for IFR, where most DPs..."

(I stopped listening at this point).

I thanked him for his time and assured him student would be prepared to pass Thursday.

Sorry, but I don't get it. If you're gonna ignore the AIM guidance and come up with your own SOP, fine -- just don't expect me or anyone else to know it beforehand.

 

[dmccormack]

Ok It's Thursday... What happened???

Student passed checkride at 7 PM last night (Thursday).

Whew.

He said the DPE charged him $150 more for the continuance.

This is my first experience with a first-time failure with subsequent re-test, but a others I've known who've failed and then re-tested said they were not charged extra for the re-test.

There's no guidance on the FAA site, DPE exam guide, etc.... Is this another DPE anomaly?