Private Checkride Fail

[jspilot]

All I'm saying is that I take notes on the pertinent data for SEVERAL airports that I might need to divert to so that I can look up what's necessary as quickly as possible on my kneeboard, not because I'm sweating bullets or have a misplaced sense of urgency, and I'm not saying that having to look something up in a book during flight is always bad. I'll submit to your experience, but I seems less likely that this task is designed to test your ability to look up data quickly in the A/FD, as it is designed to be able to test your ability to figure out where you are at any point during the flight, find your new heading and estimate time en route and fuel burn.

As others have pointed out, it can be difficult to find the info for the airport your looking for in a timely manner. Some people may be perfectly happy doing 360's while they flip through pages in a book, but I'd rather know that information sooner IF POSSIBLE so that I can focus the majority of my attention on commanding the aircraft, as you said.

It is completely impractical to have enough information written down before each cross country flight for several different airports. I you fly the same route over and over again to the same few airports then maybe your solution is practical but beyond that it is absurd to assume pilots should be prepared with evey relevant detail about every airport along the route.

Plus, if the person has Foreflight, it literally takes 10 seconds to look up this information and it has the AFD built in. I'm Not sure what the problem is with looking up the TPA that way.

I'm sure others have learned this too buti was taught that a general rule of thumb to determine TPA is to take field elevation and add 1,000 ft. Unless their is complex airspace in the area this seems like a totally safe practice and is infact true for like 95% of the airports near me.

 

[Matthew]

I'm sure others have learned this too buti was taught that a general rule of thumb to determine TPA is to take field elevation and add 1,000 ft. Unless their is complex airspace in the area this seems like a totally safe practice and is infact true for like 95% of the airports near me.

I think that's what failed the student on the check ride.

 

[ferrari-tech]

On my check ride the DPE only wanted to see I knew how to get to an alternate, ie program the G1000 to take me there and then turn in that direction.

The on the way to another airport while I was pulling up the information on the MFD, the DPE told me, " you pay taxes, just ask the tower what pattern alt is"....

He had me do my emergency landing prep over/into a field so no worries about pattern alt for me on that on

 

[Skyscraper]

It is completely impractical to have enough information written down before each cross country flight for several different airports. I you fly the same route over and over again to the same few airports then maybe your solution is practical but beyond that it is absurd to assume pilots should be prepared with evey relevant detail about every airport along the route.

Plus, if the person has Foreflight, it literally takes 10 seconds to look up this information and it has the AFD built in. I'm Not sure what the problem is with looking up the TPA that way.

I'm sure others have learned this too buti was taught that a general rule of thumb to determine TPA is to take field elevation and add 1,000 ft. Unless their is complex airspace in the area this seems like a totally safe practice and is infact true for like 95% of the airports near me.

I'm not saying write down info for ever possible airport near your route, but I do make note of the most relevant ones along my route, maybe four or five total. For a flight covering more than maybe 100 miles, you're right, it's not very practical.

There's absolutely no problem with using foreflight to get TPA's or any of that info, it's one of if not the best mobile aviation application out there.

The safest practice you can use when there's no way at all to determine TPA is that method of field elevation plus 1000'. However, I think given the amount of publications and technology available, there's really no excuse for not knowing one and it's exactly how the student in the OP failed her checkride.

 

[MAKG1]

The safest practice you can use when there's no way at all to determine TPA is that method of field elevation plus 1000'. However, I think given the amount of publications and technology available, there's really no excuse for not knowing one and it's exactly how the student in the OP failed her checkride.

There's never "no way at all" in an aircraft with a working radio.

Ask FSS on 122.2, or Oakland Center. If the airport is towered, you can ask Tower. I wouldn't depend on advisories from a non towered airport as it could be any old schmo, and many non towered airports share the same CTAF (e.g. Angwin and Yolo).

But the DPE will be ****ed off if you don't have a current A/FD in the aircraft. You might possibly need the radio option if it's turbulent as hell and fumbling with an iPad or A/FD risks overturning the aircraft.

ATC really is much more helpful than many students assume. As an example, coming to Palo Alto from Sacramento once, I cruised at 2500 for some sightseeing, unusually low and just high enough to clear the big TV towers in the Delta. Over Altamont, NorCal handed me off to Livermore Tower for transition. At this point, I'd been trying to get Palo Alto's weather, but ATIS was terrain shadowed at that altitude. As there looked to be some haze coming over the mountains, I was a bit concerned about MVFR or IFR. So, I asked Livermore Tower for Palo Alto's weather. They gave it to me, no problem. Turns out vis was 6 miles. Not great, but acceptable.

 

[FastEddieB]

I'm sure others have learned this too but I was taught that a general rule of thumb to determine TPA is to take field elevation and add 1,000 ft.

First, let me thank the folks that run this site and the pilots who contribute.

This is a great example of making some of us (me) rethink how we do things.

I may have flunked that checkride. As history, when I first learned to fly in the 1970's, TPA was typically 800'. We practiced ground reference maneuvers at that height to get used to traffic pattern height. To make things worse, I learned in S FL, so not much math was needed for field elevations of 7 to 12 feet.

At some point, default TPA seems to have changed to 1,000', and that's what I've been using.

Let me outline how I approach a non-towered airport. It is not the only way, nor even the right way, but how I was taught and how I've done it for more than 35 years.

First, I virtually always overfly a non-towered airport. My reasons are:

1) I like to visually check the runway from above, confirming the runway layout and checking for wildlife or debris or whatever.

2) I can more easily make out the wind direction indicator, and

3) I think I can spot traffic more easily from above, including taxiing aircraft.

I make my overfly about 1,500' above the airport, with the goal of being above other traffic in the pattern as I check things out.

Once I've done that, I pass clear of the pattern and make a descending turn to arrive pretty much at my "key" position at a 45º angle - abeam the numbers at 1,000' agl. When I hit that key position I throttle back, slow down, deploy flaps and start down, keeping both my downwind and base legs in pretty close.

My point is, I spend hardly any time at the TPA, unless doing pattern work - just a brief level-off abeam the numbers before starting down.

Anyway, this is a mea culpa. I cannot remember the last time I looked at a physical A/FD - as I said before I get my info before a flight from Airnav and during a flight from WingXPro7 or my Garmin.

In any case this thread has prompted me to pay more attention to the published TPA - its a sad state of affairs when a 6,700 hour commercial pilot and CFI could blow a private checkride, but there you have it. Glad there's still stuff for me to learn - and re-learn!

 

[Skyscraper]

There's never "no way at all" in an aircraft with a working radio.

Ask FSS on 122.2, or Oakland Center. If the airport is towered, you can ask Tower. I wouldn't depend on advisories from a non towered airport as it could be any old schmo, and many non towered airports share the same CTAF (e.g. Angwin and Yolo).

But the DPE will be ****ed off if you don't have a current A/FD in the aircraft. You might possibly need the radio option if it's turbulent as hell and fumbling with an iPad or A/FD risks overturning the aircraft.

That's kinda my point, using field elevation plus 1000' should never really be something you need to do. There's not really any excuse for not knowing TPA besides being caught off guard.

 

[jsstevens]

Also pretty much what I was taught (in 2004-2006) except-BEWARE the turbine TPA at 1500' AGL! I flew into KOCF (Ocala Fl) during training (untowered then but had commercial service) and their turbine TPA is 1500AGL as are many others. If you overfly at 1500 for aloof around you're right in the TPA for big, fast planes.

John

 

[Jimmy cooper]

On other sites I've seen others say things like " radios ain't important in a pattern. Just see and be seen") remember....people like them, and there's quite a few) may be in the pattern with you and may not care much about what altitude they are at. I always speak very clearly and distinctly when using the radio near an airport. ( no bored ole airline captain abrupt speech) and always try to follow the pattern altitude exactly. I'm usually at a small airport, no tower. The most dangerous. I overfly at 2000 ft.

 

[MAKG1]

Also pretty much what I was taught (in 2004-2006) except-BEWARE the turbine TPA at 1500' AGL! I flew into KOCF (Ocala Fl) during training (untowered then but had commercial service) and their turbine TPA is 1500AGL as are many others. If you overfly at 1500 for aloof around you're right in the TPA for big, fast planes.

John

Also beware the nonstandard TPA. One occasionally runs into unusually HIGH TPAs, and they are there for a reason.

Example: KTVL. The extra 200+ feet is there because of rising terrain in three directions.

Gliders and ultralights will often have lower TPAs. Petaluma used to have three different TPAs, but that's changed (mercifully).

 

[Shepherd]

Part of the problem is DPE training. I had lunch with 3 DPEs the other day, and it ended in a rather loud argument between the three of them because they all disagreed on what was expected by the PTS.
They really opened my eyes to just how random the check ride process is and how much their own personal interpretation comes into play.
Personally, I think the entire check ride should consist of flying at least 100 miles to an airport (preferably class "D") you have never seen before, some of it "under the hood", successfully navigate communicate, and aviate yourself into the pattern, land, do a short field take off and landing, a soft field take off and landing, an emergency landing, then fly back home. Every aspect of flying and surviving in an airplane are encompassed by those activities. Everything else is fluff, and bureaucracy.

Just my opinion.

 

[poadeleted20]

Also pretty much what I was taught (in 2004-2006) except-BEWARE the turbine TPA at 1500' AGL! I flew into KOCF (Ocala Fl) during training (untowered then but had commercial service) and their turbine TPA is 1500AGL as are many others. If you overfly at 1500 for aloof around you're right in the TPA for big, fast planes.

Good point, except the "turbine" TPA isn't always at 1500 AGL and it isn't always just for turbine aircraft. For example, at Freeway W00, it's "TPA 1000 FT MSL (832 FT AGL) FOR ACFT LESS THAN 4000 LBS MAX GWT; TPA 1200 FT MSL (1032 FT AGL) FOR ACFT GREATER THAN 4000 LBS." Likewise, at Martin State KMTN, it's "TPA RECIPROCATING ENG ACFT 978 FT AGL; TURBOPROP & CIVIL JET ACFT 1478 FT AGL; MIL JET ACFT 1978 FT AGL" (note those are 1000, 1500, and 2000 MSL, respectively).

Also, you will need a Class B clearance to safely overfly the patterns at W00, and maybe even a SFRA clearance depending on how quick you turn after crossing the middle of the airport.

 

[RotorAndWing]

Part of the problem is DPE training. I had lunch with 3 DPEs the other day, and it ended in a rather loud argument between the three of them because they all disagreed on what was expected by the PTS.
They really opened my eyes to just how random the check ride process is and how much their own personal interpretation comes into play.
Personally, I think the entire check ride should consist of flying at least 100 miles to an airport (preferably class "D") you have never seen before, some of it "under the hood", successfully navigate communicate, and aviate yourself into the pattern, land, do a short field take off and landing, a soft field take off and landing, an emergency landing, then fly back home. Every aspect of flying and surviving in an airplane are encompassed by those activities. Everything else is fluff, and bureaucracy.

Just my opinion.

There is no manual detailing the DPE's function line per line. The FAA has Orders for guidance but they expect the DPE to use good judgement when executing an examination.

Every DPE receives initial training and recurrent training. Each DPE receives an annual "check" by an FAA Inspector and. His performance is tracked.

Now the FAA could tighten oversight of DPE's by developing a "military" style Order detailing every part of the check ride and placing tighter standards but then you would see the failure rate go up and even more complaining.

The PTS when used correctly is a very good guide to conducting an examination. Do you really want to make it tougher?


And again, maybe the FAA should just revert to the Post Office option I've suggested.

 

[Shepherd]

These guys disagreed on things like whether a maneuver should be flown to full stall, or not (2 no, 1 yes). How to fly a short field landing. (High, Low or depends on the field). The TPA question that started this discussion thread. Should the pilot do a running commentary while flying the maneuver2 or not (2 yes, 1 no). Lots of other areas of disagreement.
My point to them was if they don't know what to do, how can the person being tested be expected to know what to do?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Best check ride prep is buying lunch for someone (smart) who just took the same check ride with the same dpe.

 

[dmcmurry]

Now the FAA could tighten oversight of DPE's by developing a "military" style Order detailing every part of the check ride and placing tighter standards but then you would see the failure rate go up and even more complaining.

I disagree with the assumption that failure rate would go up. Maybe that's just because I am a navy trained pilot, but it seems to me that if the FAA made the exam even more regulated there would be less confusion on expectation. If the FAA said "You shall divert (non-emergency), to include properly determining runway in use, TPA, pattern direction, locating traffic, and entry point, and then flying to the previously established PTS," this thread would not exist because every CFI would know that the DPE was looking for those things and the student would have been trained to do those things all along.

It's like giving a college student the question bank. Some professors won't do it because they don't want the student to only study those things. In my mind the correct course of action is to give the student a question bank with all the information you want them to know in it. Would it be wrong if the newly minted private pilot always checks TPA before entering a divert because the practical exam says he must and so he has always been trained to do it. Naturally with experience we start to understand why we do certain things certain ways, but it's a lot easier to train a habit pattern and then teach the why than it is to teach the why to someone and force a habit into a preconditioned habit pattern. For example: emergency checklists. It would be great if every pilot knew exactly what each step of each emergency procedure did, and why we do it in that order. Not everyone is going to put that much effort into it (even though they should). So we start by teaching the student to follow the emergency checklist. Every step, in order. The ones who are any good will at least attempt to figure out the why. I would rather everyone knew how to do the right thing as opposed to taking a good enough attitude on why do the things we do and not fully being able to execute.


Sent from my iPad using ... Wait a minute, I didn't type that...

 

[Speedy]

Wow ! I had a great examiner. We were friendly way before I was ready for the check ride. On that day, we did all the work including steep turns and diversions. No problems there. What got me was when he pulled power when I was on down wind leg in the pattern. I made a perfect dead stick landing and he just smiled. During the flight he would ask me "what air space are we in now"? For some reason I always had a problem with that. He said just remember this " A is for austronauts. E is for everyone else. I never had another issue with air space. Glad your student made it ok.

 

[FastEddieB]

"A is for astronauts. E is for everyone else. I never had another issue with air space.

Mine was fleshed out to:

A - Altitude
B - Big (airports)
C - Communicate
D - Dialog
E - Everything else

Not perfect, but a good starting point.

 

[poadeleted20]

These guys disagreed on things like whether a maneuver should be flown to full stall, or not (2 no, 1 yes).

On that, the current PTS's are clear, but the answer is not the same at all levels. For Private/Commercial, the current answers are:

Recognizes and recovers promptly after a fully developed stall occurs.

Recognizes and recovers promptly at the “onset” (buffeting) stall condition.

Note that these were established for the latest revisions of those PTS's for June 2012, and differ from previous standards. It's possible that a DPE who wasn't keeping up on the changes might get this wrong, so I can see how that disagreement could happen, but it doesn't change the fact that this disagreement should not happen.

How to fly a short field landing. (High, Low or depends on the field).

What do you mean "high, low, or depends on the field"? The only part of the Short-Field Approach Task which "depends on the field" is selection of the touchdown point, which is done based on wind conditions and landing surface obstructions. And there is no "Short Field Landing" Task.

The TPA question that started this discussion thread. Should the pilot do a running commentary while flying the maneuver2 or not (2 yes, 1 no). Lots of other areas of disagreement.

There is no requirement for a "running commentary" in any non-instructor PTS. It's entirely up to the applicant whether or not to do that -- some folks find it helps them, others find it distracting. Further, no matter what the applicant on a pilot practical test says like that (we're not talking about radio comm or answering specific examiner questions here), the only thing that matters is what s/he does.

My point to them was if they don't know what to do, how can the person being tested be expected to know what to do?

The fact that some DPE's aren't fully up to speed on the rules for practical tests doesn't change the facts that the rules are clearly established, and instructors and their trainees are obliged to know and train to meet them.

 

[Shepherd]

Best check ride prep is buying lunch for someone (smart) who just took the same check ride with the same dpe.

May be the best idea in this entire discussion.

 

[skiesguy]

The DPE probably allowed her to continue thinking he would debrief the TPA if the rest of the ride was solid. The FAA's Examiner Handbook does not allow for second chances and he could have ended the ride at the TPA. I found that my best students/clients had the most trouble on practical exams. I think they know more about what they don't know and it makes them more nervous than others not as diligent. I also think it is a good practice to call the DPE after the checkride and get a short debrief and ask what you can do better. Good DPE's like open communication with the recommenders.

I had one DPE that was old fashion, didn't think women should fly-I sent my wife to him; that was the end of that.

 

[poadeleted20]

The DPE probably allowed her to continue thinking he would debrief the TPA if the rest of the ride was solid.

If later in the ride, after something else went wrong, the DPE said she failed that Diversion Task too, that would be grounds for complaint. The DPE is not allowed to continue the ride after a Task is failed without the informed consent of the applicant. This is clearly stated in FAA Orders 8900.1 and 8900.2. Once you've completed a Task and the examiner hasn't said anything, you can safely assume you completed it successfully, and the examiner can only fail you on something you do later in the ride.

 

[Ghery]

If your passengers change their mind you no longer have common purpose.

If my wife changes her mind we still have a common purpose.

I have never had an examiner ever actually take me to the diversion airport - whats the point? To fail me for coming in at a TPA 200' too high? In my private check ride, once the guy knew I knew where I was and was heading in the right direction and had it under control we were over this big azz farm and all of sudden, my engine failed. . . . you know how it goes.

I did on my PP ride. She diverted me to an airport where upon approaching the downwind she pulled the power. Same idea as your farm, but at least I had a runway to shoot for.

 

[kenjr]

May be the best idea in this entire discussion.

exactly what I did. Obviously people like talking about their checkride experience. I've been on the other end of that deal a few times since I passed my checkride.

 

[CodeMonkey]

Hey, Jonesy,

Have you confirmed that he busted her for the TPA in the A/FD and NOT the one listed in ForeFlight

Howdy folks,

Here is the order and sources of US traffic pattern data in ForeFlight and the various other issues that affect the values shown:

1. If a TPA is published in the FAA's National Aeronautical Subscriber Records (NASR) database, we use it and consider it to be authoritative.

2. If no TPA is published in the NASR records, we utilize the TPA values provided by AOPA, which are either provided by the airport manager (a local convention may be established, which is allowed) or transcribed from the airport remarks (remarks are from NASR). The airport remarks take priority.

3. If none of those are available, use the estimated altitudes and put "(est.)" after the TPA, which is an indication that we received no specific value.

There are situations where FAA/AeroNav publish a value on an AF/D page that is not provided in the NASR data ... unknowable without inquiry which is correct. This is a disconnect that FAA needs to resolve (garbage in, garbage out).

The FAA certainly have some work to do with their NASR databases ...

-tyson

 

[Cpt_Kirk]

I disagree with the assumption that failure rate would go up. Maybe that's just because I am a navy trained pilot, but it seems to me that if the FAA made the exam even more regulated there would be less confusion on expectation. If the FAA said "You shall divert (non-emergency), to include properly determining runway in use, TPA, pattern direction, locating traffic, and entry point, and then flying to the previously established PTS," this thread would not exist because every CFI would know that the DPE was looking for those things and the student would have been trained to do those things all along.

It's like giving a college student the question bank. Some professors won't do it because they don't want the student to only study those things. In my mind the correct course of action is to give the student a question bank with all the information you want them to know in it. Would it be wrong if the newly minted private pilot always checks TPA before entering a divert because the practical exam says he must and so he has always been trained to do it. Naturally with experience we start to understand why we do certain things certain ways, but it's a lot easier to train a habit pattern and then teach the why than it is to teach the why to someone and force a habit into a preconditioned habit pattern. For example: emergency checklists. It would be great if every pilot knew exactly what each step of each emergency procedure did, and why we do it in that order. Not everyone is going to put that much effort into it (even though they should). So we start by teaching the student to follow the emergency checklist. Every step, in order. The ones who are any good will at least attempt to figure out the why. I would rather everyone knew how to do the right thing as opposed to taking a good enough attitude on why do the things we do and not fully being able to execute.


Sent from my iPad using ... Wait a minute, I didn't type that...

Sometimes I wish I was a Navy-trained pilot...

Actually, it's more like all the time. Some of the best guys I've flown with have been Vietnam vets (some POW's), etc. The way they think about flying makes all the difference. They're good.

 

[fiveoboy01]

DPE's are specifically prohibited from giving applicants a second bite at any given apple.

I had to dig around for this lol. This has come up in conversation a few times and I am wondering if you can cite the reg or text that supports this. I've said the same thing but haven't been able to back it up and I searched around without much luck. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

 

[MAKG1]

I had to dig around for this lol. This has come up in conversation a few times and I am wondering if you can cite the reg or text that supports this. I've said the same thing but haven't been able to back it up and I searched around without much luck. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

It's in the practical test standards.

 

[Jimmy cooper]

Sometimes I wish I was a Navy-trained pilot...

Actually, it's more like all the time. Some of the best guys I've flown with have been Vietnam vets (some POW's), etc. The way they think about flying makes all the difference. They're good.

Many questions asked on this site would not be in play if one was navy trained. Probably the best training ever. Probably why many are called, few are chosen.

 

[eetrojan]

I had to dig around for this lol. This has come up in conversation a few times and I am wondering if you can cite the reg or text that supports this. I've said the same thing but haven't been able to back it up and I searched around without much luck. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place.

While it has some contradictory language, based on the PTS, it looks to me that the DPE has a lot of latitude to give a student a second bite of the apple (if justified in the DPE's mind), or forgive some misbites so long as the applicant is not consistently out of standard.

PTS, Page 10:

If the examiner determines that a Task is incomplete, or the outcome uncertain, the examiner may require the applicant to repeat that Task, or portions of that Task. This provision has been made in the interest of fairness and does not mean that instruction, practice, or the repeating of an unsatisfactory task is permitted during the certification process. When practical, the remaining Tasks of the practical test phase should be completed before repeating the questionable Task.

PTS, page 11:

Typical areas of disqualification are:
1. ***
2. ***
3. Consistently exceeding tolerances stated in the Objectives.
4. Failure to take prompt corrective action when tolerances are exceeded.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Thanks for the info Joe. Definitely seems contradictory. Maybe a DPE can clarify a little but.

 

[James331]

Busted the TPA for a diversion? That's one examiner I'd never use again and I'd make sure to tell him so, too.

+2

Shy of there being overlying airspace or something that's chicken chit.

If its a diversion for a critical reason 1000' height above field based off the sectional that's sitting on your lap.

Based on what you said I'd use another DPE and let him know why.

 

[cirrusmx]

is it on the FARs that you have to fly a pattern to land in an uncontrolled field? I thought it was only a recommendation on the aim?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Many questions asked on this site would not be in play if one was navy trained. Probably the best training ever. Probably why many are called, few are chosen.

Heck yes, that Tom Cruise fellow is one excellent pilot.

 

[denverpilot]

Thanks for the info Joe. Definitely seems contradictory. Maybe a DPE can clarify a little but.

Just ask the Chief Counsel. That'll fix it.

Seriously though, you don't want this defined in a "hard" way. You need to leave the DPE some room for judgement.

Anytime you nail down a requirement so hard no one can even think, it becomes a problem somewhere, sooner or later.