Private Checkride Fail

Nevertheless, it is a necessary part of satisfactory performance as defined by the PTS.

Not arguing with that. Just saying that IMO, as a still low time pilot and even lower time CFI, I find that distracting to whip out my AFD* and hunt through pages looking for TPA.


*I don't use a paper AFD so I wouldn't actually do that. BUT, I realize some people do.
 
So, this thread brings up a question. Are private pilot applicants allowed to use ForeFlight or any other electronic device to gather this information? I could see a conflict if you have a GPS derived position available to you while you are being checked for your ability to do ded reckoning or pilotage.

What are the rules pertaining to this? Coming from a pilot who used to rub sticks (paper charts) together to make fire and now has a lighter (an iPad) to do the job.
 
Regarding the PTS, was the student able to maintain the presumed TPA +/- 100 feet? If so, the skill was demonstrated. The DPE didn't have to discontinue the examination over such a minor infraction. I'd never use him again.
 
So, this thread brings up a question. Are private pilot applicants allowed to use ForeFlight or any other electronic device to gather this information?

This is something the CFI should clarify with the DPE prior to the test. Anytime I use an examiner I'm not familiar with, I fully interview him before sending a candidate. Each examiner has his/her pet peeves and hot buttons. I have no problem asking what those are in advance.
 
Not arguing with that. Just saying that IMO, as a still low time pilot and even lower time CFI, I find that distracting to whip out my AFD* and hunt through pages looking for TPA.
Then I might respond that you need more practice until you can do that safely when necessary (and it is indeed necessary in a diversion situation unless you're on fire or the like, and typically the diversion scenario for a PP practical test is unforecast bad weather ahead, which isn't a "barn-burning" emergency) without it being so "distracting". I've taught students that if necessary, they should circle overhead the airport while they work out traffic pattern altitude/direction once they've got the airport in sight in a non-distress diversion.
 
So, this thread brings up a question. Are private pilot applicants allowed to use ForeFlight or any other electronic device to gather this information?
You can use whatever flight information source you have in your cockpit, including iPad/ForeFlight or the like if that's what you're using. Consider this greater ease of use to be another reason to move into the 21st century in your cockpit. :wink2:

I could see a conflict if you have a GPS derived position available to you while you are being checked for your ability to do ded reckoning or pilotage.
Easy enough to turn off the GPS or just not go to the MAPS page if the examiner is that concerned.

What are the rules pertaining to this?
There is no rule prohibiting the use of EFB's on practical tests, nor any authorization for DPE's to require paper charts as long as you have an appropriate backup plan in case your EFB fails (e.g., ForeFlight on your iPhone, or the charts/data in your G1000 system).
 
...or at least check the A/FD entry before they get there. BTW, this is one situation where ForeFlight gives you a great advantage -- once you find the airport on the chart, a few taps get you all the airport information including TPA.

Check out KCGI (Cape Girardeau, MO) on ForeFlight and tell me what TPA is.

Then go to M70 (Pocahontas, AR) and tell me what TPA is.

Edit: in 2005 Ron Levy said:

Ron Levy
September 9th, 2005, 08:54 AM
My inclination is to use the AF/D as the final word and say that "if it isn't published in the AF/D, then it isn't a published TPA and I'll continue to use 1000' regardless of what the AOPA airport guides show".Your inclination is proper -- if it isn't in the A/FD, it isn't FAA-official. That said, if you discover a non-standard TPA in the AOPA guide that is not in the A/FD, do everyone a favor and bring this to the airport manager's attention so they can either get the change posted in the A/FD or fix the error in the AOPA directory.
 
Last edited:
All the sympathy because it is a girl pilot? Change the sex and repost the story to some other forum and see what the response is. Doesn't seem too harsh, I could see letting it go or not. Does seems odd to run the deviation all the way to the alternate I thought SOP was to give up once it looked like you were successfully on your way.
 
All the sympathy because it is a girl pilot? Change the sex and repost the story to some other forum and see what the response is. Doesn't seem too harsh, I could see letting it go or not. Does seems odd to run the deviation all the way to the alternate I thought SOP was to give up once it looked like you were successfully on your way.

BS.....DPE had a boat payment due and needed another $100.
 
according to garmin pilot:
KCGI 1100 MSL
M70 1000 MSL



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4

Exactly!

But where do they get this info? I asked AOPA once and they couldn't (wouldn't?) answer my question.

The A/FD is mum on both so that means they're both 1000' AGL. That puts KCGI at 1,341' and M70 at 1,273'. In both cases enough for a jerk DPE to bust your a$$ on a checkride.

In talking with the CFIs based at KCGI...they teach and use 1,341' because that's what the A/FD implies.

It's pretty F'ed up if you ask me.
 
Last edited:
Check out KCGI (Cape Girardeau, MO) on ForeFlight and tell me what TPA is.
1341 MSL -- that's field elevation plus 1000, with no exception noted in the A/FD. And I intend to bring to FF's attention the incorrect 1100 MSL displayed in the main airport frame and ask them how they got that number.

Then go to M70 (Pocahontas, AR) and tell me what TPA is.
1273 MSL -- that's field elevation plus 1000, with no exception noted in the A/FD. And I intend to bring to FF's attention the incorrect 1100 MSL displayed in the main airport frame and ask them how they got that number.

In each case, it only took (as I said) a few taps to get to the A/FD entry to check those TPA's.

Edit: in 2005 Ron Levy said:

Ron Levy
September 9th, 2005, 08:54 AM
My inclination is to use the AF/D as the final word and say that "if it isn't published in the AF/D, then it isn't a published TPA and I'll continue to use 1000' regardless of what the AOPA airport guides show".Your inclination is proper -- if it isn't in the A/FD, it isn't FAA-official. That said, if you discover a non-standard TPA in the AOPA guide that is not in the A/FD, do everyone a favor and bring this to the airport manager's attention so they can either get the change posted in the A/FD or fix the error in the AOPA directory.
And I stand by that post these 8+ years later.

Or were you thinking I was suggesting going with the TPA shown on the main airport page rather than checking the A/FD entry? If so, I apologize for my lack of clarity. It's just quicker and easier to get there with iPad/ForeFlight than pulling out the book and thumbing through the pages.
 
Ron, you better notify AOPA and many other sources...and on many other airports...there are many others in our area, I just picked these two as an example. I've found that TPA is the most screwed up item in all of aviation.
 
In each case, it only took (as I said) a few taps to get to the A/FD entry to check those TPA's.

Or were you thinking I was suggesting going with the TPA shown on the main airport page rather than checking the A/FD entry?

Well yeah, since you said:

BTW, this is one situation where ForeFlight gives you a great advantage -- once you find the airport on the chart, a few taps get you all the airport information including TPA.

Glad I could help you drill down deeper and find the errors contained therein.
 
Last edited:
DPE sounds rough. Are you planning on using him/her in future?

I'll be facing him for my ATP this Spring! I really do like the guy. We've lost two examiners in the last year so options are dwindling.
 
But where do they get this info? I asked AOPA once and they couldn't (wouldn't?) answer my question.
AOPA periodically sends a questionnaire to the airport's mailing address and prints whatever's returned by whoever sends it back -- or leaves whatever they had if it's not returned. This has resulted in incorrect information in the AOPA Directory.

The A/FD is mum on both so that means they're both 1000' AGL. That puts KCGI at 1,341' and M70 at 1,273'. In both cases enough for a jerk DPE to bust your a$$ on a checkride.
How could that happen if you check the A/FD entry in ForeFlight? Or do you think a DPE would use unofficial data that conflicts with the official data to bust a pilot on a practical test? That would definitely be grounds for an appeal.

In talking with the CFIs based at KCGI...they teach and use 1,341' because that's what the A/FD implies.
Good -- they're doing it right. However, it would be nice if they went the extra mile to let the airport manager and/or AOPA and/or ForeFlight know there's incorrect data in the AOPA Directory and ForeFlight airport page for their airport.
 
Ron, you better notify AOPA and many other sources...and on many other airports...there are many others in our area, I just picked these two as an example. I've found that TPA is the most screwed up item in all of aviation.
Why should I notify AOPA and those "other sources" (whoever they are)? It's unofficial data which should not be relied upon. What I have done is open a dialog with ForeFlight to see where they are getting the data they use, and to try to get them to take what they show on the main airport page only from the A/FD, not unofficial sources. In the meantime, you can be sure I'll be emphasizing the importance of checking the A/FD entry rather than relying on the main airport page when using ForeFlight, just as I tell paper-based pilots to use the A/FD book, and not to rely on the AOPA Airport Directory.
 
Last edited:
...or at least check the A/FD entry before they get there. BTW, this is one situation where ForeFlight gives you a great advantage -- once you find the airport on the chart, a few taps get you all the airport information including TPA.

In any event, I can't fault the examiner for this one -- the standards are clear (see Area III, Task B ), and the applicant should know to check TPA as well as pattern direction even on a diversion.

I never said he wasn't within his discretion to bust her. She had the AF/D info for destination. She also had FF on her phone, but it was a fairly short diversion so she didn't use it. Personally, if TPA is so critical I've never understood why it isn't charted in some way. Right-hand patterns are denoted on sectionals. They could have a -08 or -10 after the field elevation indicating TBA.

That raises a bigger question: why the need for differing TPAs? Seems in the interest of safety a standardized TPA would help in flying more consistent patterns. The AIM seems to recognize this by standardizing on 1000' unless otherwise indicated. I'm just not sure what aspect of safety is ever enhanced by a lower TPA.
 
Last edited:
I never said he wasn't within his discretion to bust her. She had the AF/D info for destination. She also had FF on her phone, but it was a short fairly short diversion so she didn't use it.
Then I'd say that was the root cause of the failure -- not checking something important due to a misplaced sense of urgency. She should have realized that that there was no pressing need to land, so she could take the time to check TPA and other significant airport data in the A/FD even if that meant circling clear of the airport traffic pattern (vertically or horizontally) while she did.

And I'll say that if the examiner had (in what would be a rather unusual move) made this a "your oil pressure just went to zero" or other distress condition rather than the more typical "weather ahead -- what will you do now?" non-distress situation, then I'd find fault with the examiner for this bust since checking for TPA in that situation would not, to my thinking, be worth delaying that emergency approach and landing -- and I'd expect my trainee to tell the examiner that, too.

Personally, if TPA is so critical I've never understood why it isn't charted in some way. Right-hand patterns are denoted on sectionals. They could have a -08 or -10 after the field elevation indicating TBA.
How about runway obstruction data? Or actual landing distance available for all runways? Or any of a bunch of other equally important information? That's why they put all that in the A/FD, and why they expect pilots to refer to that document (in either paper or electronic form) before landing somewhere unfamiliar.

That raises a bigger question: why the need for differing TPAs?
In most cases, nonstandard TPA's are driven by airspace (e.g., the low patterns at Freeway W00 to stay under the B-space) or other procedural issues. There are just too many possible issues to have one regulatory TPA height with no exceptions. However, I realize that there are some airports where the local TPA was "standardized" at 800 AGL back when that was the AIM recommendation (as it was when I started flying in 1969), and they stuck with it for no particular reason when the FAA changed that recommendation back in the 70's. In other cases, they just wanted round numbers in MSL, and so did something like 1000 MSL at an airport with a 42 MSL elevation, eating the 958 AGL TPA height as a cost of convenience.

All that's fine as long as they get it properly published in the A/FD, and pilots don't use unofficial sources for deciding what TPA to fly. But airplanes descending on one another due to someone flying an 800 AGL pattern underneath someone else flying a 1000 AGL pattern is a known cause of midair collisions. We instructors need to do what we can to prevent that from happening by teaching everyone to use the official A/FD rather than other unofficial sources so we're all singing out of the same hymnal. And it appears from this discussion that many pilots here don't understand that the "Pattern altitude" on the main airport page of ForeFlight is not coming from official FAA data.
 
Last edited:
Then I'd say that was the root cause of the failure -- not checking something due to a misplaced sense of urgency. She should have realized that that there was no pressing need to land, so she could take the time to check TPA and other significant airport data in the A/FD even if that meant circling clear of the airport traffic pattern (vertically or horizontally) while she did.

How about runway obstruction data? Or actual landing distance available for all runways? Or any of a bunch of other equally important information? That's why they put all that in the A/FD, and why they expect pilots to refer to that document (in either paper or electronic form) before landing somewhere unfamiliar.

In most cases, nonstandard TPA's are driven by airspace (e.g., the low patterns at Freeway W00 to stay under the B-space) or other procedural issues. There are just too many possible issues to have one regulatory TPA height with no exceptions. However, I realize that there are some airports where the local TPA was "standardized" at 800 AGL back when that was the AIM recommendation (as it was when I started flying in 1969), and they stuck with it for no particular reason when the FAA changed that recommendation back in the 70's. In other cases, they just wanted round numbers in MSL, and so did something like 1000 MSL at an airport with a 42 MSL elevation, eating the 958 AGL TPA height as a cost of convenience.

All that's fine as long as they get it properly published in the A/FD, and pilots don't use unofficial sources for deciding what TPA to fly. But airplanes descending on one another due to someone flying an 800 AGL pattern underneath someone else flying a 1000 AGL pattern is a known cause of midair collisions. We instructors need to do what we can to prevent that from happening by teaching everyone to use the official A/FD rather than other unofficial sources so we're all singing out of the same hymnal.

Are you aware of someone getting busted on a check ride over obstruction or landing distance data? Not that there hasn't been, I've just never seen it in 33 years of instructing....and this is the first bust I've seen for being at 1000' AGL entering a traffic pattern that happens to be the only 800' TPA in the area.
 
Sure, he was justified to bust her for failure to look up the TPA, but if that was her only transgression, I think it would have been best handled as a "teaching moment" in the debrief. Go ahead and argue the examiner isn't allowed to instruct during a check ride, but who here hasn't learned a few things from their examiner?

Could this have been a topic that was discussed during the oral portion, and that's why he made such a big deal of it during the flight?
 
Sure, he was justified to bust her for failure to look up the TPA, but if that was her only transgression, I think it would have been best handled as a "teaching moment" in the debrief. Go ahead and argue the examiner isn't allowed to instruct during a check ride, but who here hasn't learned a few things from their examiner?

Could this have been a topic that was discussed during the oral portion, and that's why he made such a big deal of it during the flight?

She messed up the heading in her steep turn. Wither or not you agree with it she did make two strikes against the PTS. Still, seems like a douche move to me but as long as she passed she's probably better off for it.

Remind me to update my quick-reference card for local airport traffic pattern altitudes...
 
But she was already informed that she busted from the TPA issue prior to the steep turns. There's no telling what the steep turns would have been like had she felt like the check ride was still successful.
 
So everyone agrees here that being heads down, VFR in an unfamiliar area looking at fairly trivial information to avoid being 200 feet high is safer than a fairly standard 1000 agl? I'm not disagreeing with the bust necessarily, I can read the pts and can see that. But I'd rather risk being a dangerous 200 ft high than colliding with someone because I was fumbling through an afd for 5 minutes.
 
according to garmin pilot:
KCGI 1100 MSL
M70 1000 MSL

Same for WingXPro7.

Frankly, I guess I had become complacent and just always used 1,000' AGL at non-towered airports.

So, I might have failed that checkride.

Now, the correct TPA is so easy to find on WingX7Pro that I only recently started checking that.

My bad, but I guess even seasoned pilots can become lax. One of the major benefits of a site like this is being kept on one's toes!
 
Last edited:
Same for WingXPro7.

Frankly, I guess I had become complacent and just always used 1,000' AGL at non-towered airports.

So, I might have failed that checkride.

Now, the correct TPA is so easy to find on WingX7Pro that I only recently started checking that.

My bad, but I guess even seasoned pilots can become lax. One of the major benefits of a site like this is being kept on one's toes!

Except it's not correct on WingXPro! That's the point. ForeFlight, WingXPro, Garmin Pilot, AOPA. They're all wrong. Where they're getting their info from...no one knows...yet...Ron may find out.
 
That raises a bigger question: why the need for differing TPAs? Seems in the interest of safety a standardized TPA would help in flying more consistent patterns. The AIM seems to recognize this by standardizing on 1000' unless otherwise indicated. I'm just not sure what aspect of safety is ever enhanced by a lower TPA.


Can be for airspace, traffic, all sorts of stuff. I remember all the local instructors teaching the eastmost parallel n/s runway pattern altitude at VNY being 200' lower than the western one because of airliners crossing west to east descending into BUR overhead.

I didn't go look up the AF/D but here's an interesting one to add to the Foreflight portion of the thread... Their data source must be shaky on VNY or something. They've added "(est.)" to the pattern altitude there. First time I've seen that one in FF.

da7y4e6y.jpg
 
Do you really think it was the 200' TPA difference that failed her? That seems like such a small mistake. Glad she pulled through and passed on day 2. Congratulations to you both!

I can see 200ft being an issue on an instrument checkride but for TPA?? Come on... Congrats BTW!
 
I just cruise though a couple dozen airport in my area. SE MO, SW IL, NE AR.

All but two that I looked at are listed as having an 800' TPA in ForeFlight. Exactly none have a non-standard TPA listed in the A/FD.

This seems to be a widespread problem...at least in this area.

Edit: I just cruised around Loren's area too. ForeFlight and the A/FD disagree on well over half of the airfields.
 
Last edited:
So everyone agrees here that being heads down, VFR in an unfamiliar area looking at fairly trivial information to avoid being 200 feet high is safer than a fairly standard 1000 agl? I'm not disagreeing with the bust necessarily, I can read the pts and can see that. But I'd rather risk being a dangerous 200 ft high than colliding with someone because I was fumbling through an afd for 5 minutes.
Your question assumes facts not in evidence, specifically, that TPA is "trivial". The history of midair collisions involving one plane descending on another suggests otherwise. And if you have to "fumble through the A/FD" to find a TPA, or can't keep control of the plane and keep a good visual lookout while you do, then you really aren't ready for the PP practical test, and if you do that on the test you deserve the bust.
 
Your question assumes facts not in evidence, specifically, that TPA is "trivial". The history of midair collisions involving one plane descending on another suggests otherwise. And if you have to "fumble through the A/FD" to find a TPA, or can't keep control of the plane and keep a good visual lookout while you do, then you really aren't ready for the PP practical test, and if you do that on the test you deserve the bust.

Then wouldn't you agree that standardizing on a single TPA for the majority of the GA fleet might be a smarter option than relying on everyone having a current AF/D and being able to sift through its fine print while flying through the airspace?

I have yet to see an 800' TPA that couldn't be just safely flown at 1000'....what's the old saying about the value of "altitude above you"?
 
Then wouldn't you agree that standardizing on a single TPA for the majority of the GA fleet might be a smarter option than relying on everyone having a current AF/D and being able to sift through its fine print while flying through the airspace?
As I said above, no, I don't. For example, they can't raise the floor of the B-space over Freeway to allow a higher TPA. And as I said, if you can't look up this information while safely flying the plane, you need more training and practice so you can meet the FAA's minimum standards for pilots.

I have yet to see an 800' TPA that couldn't be just safely flown at 1000'....
I have.

I suppose we could drop all TPA's to the lowest level above an airport that will work at every airport in the country, but the noise complaints would make this an untenable option. I guess you don't remember that the recommended altitude was raised from 800 AGL to 1000 AGL in part to reduce the noise footprint around airports. Lowering them down to the 600 AGL that some airports require would destroy the good relations on this matter which we've developed by that change.
 
I'm not an examiner, or a CFI, but it seems to me that if she had another landing (she must have) where she demonstrated that she could maintain TPA, then she met that requirement. And prioritizing is quite important, so I'd give her points for that.

On my glider check ride, I was required to make a pattern and landing without reference to the altimeter. I'm sure I was relatively close, but not right on, so deviating from TPA can't be all that scary dangerous. :dunno:

A friend failed his first PP checkride because of landing off the centerline of a wide runway. DPE said landings were perfect, other than being on the left of the centerline. But he got three chances. :mad2: So why no second chance on the steep turn?
 
As I said above, no, I don't. For example, they can't raise the floor of the B-space over Freeway to allow a higher TPA. And as I said, if you can't look up this information while safely flying the plane, you need more training and practice so you can meet the FAA's minimum standards for pilots.

I have.

I suppose we could drop all TPA's to the lowest level above an airport that will work at every airport in the country, but the noise complaints would make this an untenable option. I guess you don't remember that the recommended altitude was raised from 800 AGL to 1000 AGL in part to reduce the noise footprint around airports. Lowering them down to the 600 AGL that some airports require would destroy the good relations on this matter which we've developed by that change.

So, to accommodate the odd Freeway situation we avoid standardization that could avoid a major hazard? That sounds like a typical bureaucratic response.

This isn't about one checkride....the checkride just highlighted a hazardous situation in our airspace procedures.

I can count on one hand the number of current AF/Ds I've seen in cockpits over the last 35 years. The digital revolution is helping this situation, but as has been pointed out there's conflicting info being presented there.
 
Forget rules for just one second and show me an example of an 800' AGL pattern that cannot be flown safely at 1000' AGL.

They got some bridge or obstruction hovering in the air out there somewhere I don't know about?
 
I'm not an examiner, or a CFI, but it seems to me that if she had another landing (she must have) where she demonstrated that she could maintain TPA, then she met that requirement.
DPE's are specifically prohibited from giving applicants a second bite at any given apple.

And prioritizing is quite important, so I'd give her points for that.
She didn't prioritize. If she had, she would have circled while she looked up the necessary information. Instead, she just went ahead and entered the pattern minus some important information.

A friend failed his first PP checkride because of landing off the centerline of a wide runway. DPE said landings were perfect, other than being on the left of the centerline. But he got three chances.
That's contrary to the Examiner's Handbook, and if an FAA Inspector had been observing, I suspect that suspension of his/her designation (or at least some retraining) might have ensued, with the Inspector informing the applicant s/he failed even if the DPE said otherwise.

So why no second chance on the steep turn?
Because that's the FAA's rule on the matter of second chances on practical tests. Only exceptions are if the maneuver had to be terminated for safety (e.g., someone else flies through the middle of your turn around a point forcing you to break off) or if there was a misunderstanding about what the examiner wanted you to do (e.g., you heard "soft-field" when s/he said "short field"). Second chances just because you didn't do it up to standards are strictly prohibited.
 
Forget rules for just one second and show me an example of an 800' AGL pattern that cannot be flown safely at 1000' AGL.

They got some bridge or obstruction hovering in the air out there somewhere I don't know about?

Ron uses Freeway (W00 I presume) as an example, but even there a 1000' would work, being 300' below the overlaying Bravo. If they wanted more headroom they could notch out a bit more there without impacting approaches into Andews.

If 1000' makes us good neighbors, gives more gliding options and eliminates inflight distraction trying to locate required information, it seems like a win-win all the way around.
 
So, to accommodate the odd Freeway situation we avoid standardization that could avoid a major hazard? That sounds like a typical bureaucratic response.
Give me a better solution. Perhaps closing all airports where a 1000 TPA doesn't work?

This isn't about one checkride....the checkride just highlighted a hazardous situation in our airspace procedures.
Sorry, LD -- this cigar is just a cigar. It's about failing to understand and meet the standards I the PTS, and from what you've written here, I am beginning to believe the failure to understand is entirely your fault since you don't seem to understand them yourself..

I can count on one hand the number of current AF/Ds I've seen in cockpits over the last 35 years.
Your experience doesn't match mine -- not even close.

The digital revolution is helping this situation, but as has been pointed out there's conflicting info being presented there.
Not if you look in the right place.
 
Back
Top