Partial Panel in TAA aircraft

[MauleSkinner]

You might want to explain the brightness feature to this CFI.

Brightness is a trait, not a feature, and some CFIs simply don’t possess it.

 

[Matthew]

A Post It still works on a G5.

 

[RussR]

On my check ride, the DPE turned off the Aspen and covered the backup vacuum-driven AI, despite me saying the plane had a backup vacuum pump...
I had to fly the RNAV on AS, TC, altimeter, VSI and compass.
His argument was: " not all planes you fly will be this nice, be prepared"

I would say, "I'm not going to fly planes that crappy under IFR."

“I’m not going to issue an instrument rating that would allow you to.”

I'm of multiple minds on this issue. First, for training, I absolutely will fail a lot of stuff in potentially unrealistic ways once the student is proficient with the "normal" failures. Just as a training test of "what will you do"? To see if they can handle it. It shows an ability to problem solve and "triage" what you can and can't do. Most find it fun. Granted, I teach only in owner's airplanes, so they're not generally concerned about costs as much, or doing things in minimum time.

But on a checkride, the ACS wording is about as clear as they can make it, the failure is supposed to be reasonable. Failing a bunch of unconnected, unrelated backup instruments to force a scenario that the examiner likes isn't following the ACS, in my opinion. And therefore isn't valid on a checkride.

But again, yes an instrument pilot should have the skills to fly a more minimally-equipped aircraft.

But but, how far do you take this? You show up in your G100Nxi-equipped airplane and the examiner "fails" everything but one VOR receiver, so you can prove you can do that? That doesn't seem realistic. Sure, you "might" hop in a Cessna 150 with one VOR and fly it IFR someday. But the opposite could also be true - if you trained in a minimally-equipped airplane, you "might" hop in the newest Cirrus (etc.) some day. Should the examiner then somehow determine your ability to fly with GPS and glass (in a plane that doesn't have either)?

It's a problem, and I don't know the solution.

 

[FancyG]

I'm of multiple minds on this issue. First, for training, I absolutely will fail a lot of stuff in potentially unrealistic ways once the student is proficient with the "normal" failures. Just as a training test of "what will you do"? To see if they can handle it. It shows an ability to problem solve and "triage" what you can and can't do. Most find it fun. Granted, I teach only in owner's airplanes, so they're not generally concerned about costs as much, or doing things in minimum time.

But on a checkride, the ACS wording is about as clear as they can make it, the failure is supposed to be reasonable. Failing a bunch of unconnected, unrelated backup instruments to force a scenario that the examiner likes isn't following the ACS, in my opinion. And therefore isn't valid on a checkride.

But again, yes an instrument pilot should have the skills to fly a more minimally-equipped aircraft.

But but, how far do you take this? You show up in your G100Nxi-equipped airplane and the examiner "fails" everything but one VOR receiver, so you can prove you can do that? That doesn't seem realistic. Sure, you "might" hop in a Cessna 150 with one VOR and fly it IFR someday. But the opposite could also be true - if you trained in a minimally-equipped airplane, you "might" hop in the newest Cirrus (etc.) some day. Should the examiner then somehow determine your ability to fly with GPS and glass (in a plane that doesn't have either)?

It's a problem, and I don't know the solution.

Personal minimums?

 

[MauleSkinner]

I'm of multiple minds on this issue. First, for training, I absolutely will fail a lot of stuff in potentially unrealistic ways once the student is proficient with the "normal" failures. Just as a training test of "what will you do"? To see if they can handle it. It shows an ability to problem solve and "triage" what you can and can't do. Most find it fun. Granted, I teach only in owner's airplanes, so they're not generally concerned about costs as much, or doing things in minimum time.

But on a checkride, the ACS wording is about as clear as they can make it, the failure is supposed to be reasonable. Failing a bunch of unconnected, unrelated backup instruments to force a scenario that the examiner likes isn't following the ACS, in my opinion. And therefore isn't valid on a checkride.

But again, yes an instrument pilot should have the skills to fly a more minimally-equipped aircraft.

But but, how far do you take this? You show up in your G100Nxi-equipped airplane and the examiner "fails" everything but one VOR receiver, so you can prove you can do that? That doesn't seem realistic. Sure, you "might" hop in a Cessna 150 with one VOR and fly it IFR someday. But the opposite could also be true - if you trained in a minimally-equipped airplane, you "might" hop in the newest Cirrus (etc.) some day. Should the examiner then somehow determine your ability to fly with GPS and glass (in a plane that doesn't have either)?

It's a problem, and I don't know the solution.

The ACS is there for a reason…so that examiners don’t go off into the weeds and test nonstandard things because it’s important to them.

Training TO the ACS is important. Training ONLY the ACS is bad, but common.

unfortunately it works both ways…At the ATP level, we’ve got to do fail-down approaches when the best answer (all else being equal) is to transfer controls to the other pilot. We’ve also got to do exactly the same maneuvers/events that I’ve done on the last 95 checkrides I’ve taken. We know a no-flap approach is required, so when the flaps fail, we don’t troubleshoot, we just do the no flap landing checklist. We do four instrument approaches in rapid succession (if you did that in the real world, you should probably have your certificate evaluated.)

In a lot of ways, a checkride is a game. If you play by the rules, everybody wins. When you get into the real world, you have to determine a lot of your own rules.