redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
Ok dude, whatever you say. Tell that to the FAA, the DPE and the CFI's that trained me.
Question for the DPEs...
- Thread starter Henning
- Start date
Ok dude, whatever you say. Tell that to the FAA, the DPE and the CFI's that trained me.
If you aren't confident to ATTEMPT to land in a crosswind that is within the plane's limits, in what respect does that demonstrate you have gained a MASTERY of the aircraft as required by the PTS?
If you will only do something if someone else is there to bail you out, under what definition of PIC are you meeting the conditions?
If you will only do something if someone else is there to bail you out, under what definition of PIC are you meeting the conditions?
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
Dude please! See post#23. At this point in my lowly experience (less than 200hrs), I've only encountered max winds of about 25 knots and max crosswinds of around 12 knots. Why do you think my PIC credentials rest on what you think I SHOULD be able to handle?
I actually respect your knowledge and experience level but I don't think you should be telling people that they aren't ready to be PIC or fly if they have children they might orphan, just because they don't meet your standard or level of expertise!
So far, I've made pretty good decisions in my flying and hope to continue to do so. That includes flying with a CFI occasionally and increasing my personal limits.
Last edited:
Your PIC credential hangs on your mind and nothing else. You are relying on avoiding a condition you should be able to handle at 20 hrs with proper training and using that as an excuse to not get proper training. The logic just doesn't work out. You have either mastered the plane or not, the PTS says you have to show mastery. Mastery is a mental state as well as physical. "I'm afraid to try" is a statement made by a student, not one in command.
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
Where did I say "I'm afraid to try"? I've tried several landings that I've felt the need to terminate over the fence. The first two were in the pattern on my student solo years ago.
Like I've posted before, Prior to last summer, I haven't flown in over ten years after getting my PPL. Had to give it up due to family issues. Now, I can only fly once or twice a month due to my rotating work schedule and family matters.
It's very possible, I'd never feel confident to handle thirty knot crosswinds. Does that mean I should stay on the ground? If I have to divert after reaching my destination, what's the big deal...if I have enough fuel?
Last edited:
if you did not, you have changed the pretense of the question to one that is non applicable.
If you do not feel comfortable landing the plane you are flying with a rudder pedal on the floor keeping it straight, whichever plane that may be at the time, that is the indication that you need more training/practice in that regime before further flying outings where you serve as PIC; either that or quit, correct. Flying is one of those things if you aren't going to do it right, you'll be best to not do it at all.
When you have to stick it into a spot on the ground with a dead engine and a crosswind, how will you divert?
Last edited:
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
Oh I know I need more training and practice indeed, no argument there. However, I do feel confident enough to serve as PIC and make decisions on whether to continue or divert. Thanks for the insight.
redtail
En-Route
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2011
- Messages
- 4,408
- Location
- 93 million miles from the sun
- Display Name
Display name:
Redtail
you won't! but at that point, I'm not even thinking about the possibility of side loading the gear or bending metal. I'm in survival mode and the aircraft belongs to the insurance company
Last edited:
Right, but PIC is also being in Command of the plane in any situation you get stuck with, not just the ones you choose. 7/8 of ability is confidence.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
I like this as a way of life. I will give some thought to its implications in the context of a pilot who came to aviation late in life (myself).
Good comments in this thread, everyone. Thanks Henning for:
1 posing the question
2 riding the bench while it developed
Again good participation, all.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
I know. I was just busting his chops because he obviously meant to type AWOS/ASOS.
GCA319
Cleared for Takeoff
That's when you pull the "negative ATIS" card and make him read it to youI've been into KLBB a few times where the controller felt the need to complete the recording with a single breath. That's about the equivalent of "broken"
Doggtyred
En-Route
Wow. So you expect someone to be a complete master of all there is in 40 hours??
I regard the PP PTS as the minimum level of proficiency for an entry level certificate. There's always room to improve... I.e. learn.
Yes, I definitely expect a person to have full mastery of the manipulation of the aircraft in 40hrs. If they don't, they weren't working hard enough or need more time, but regardless, until they can confidently fly down final in any conditions with a rudder pedal nailed to the floor into a landing or go around, they are not in command of that aircraft by private pilot PTS which calls for Mastery, it does not say 'mediocrity is ok'.
If you believe that because you don't fly much the odds won't catch up to you, ok, but don't rationalize to me that into thinking it's not required by PTS standards.
you won't! but at that point, I'm not even thinking about the possibility of side loading the gear or bending metal. I'm in survival mode and the aircraft belongs to the insurance company
From a person who has looked at that spot wondering if I was gonna pull it out of my ass or not, knowing I could control the plane to the bottom edges of the envelope makes a big difference in where my mind was on the way down. The question isn't who owns the plane at the bottom, the difference is in the vehicle you leave in.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,643
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
When it comes down to it the student would have the PTS on their side. As Ron said earlier a check ride can be postponed due to weather. It doesn’t say anything about the examiner can only be the one to come to this conclusion either. Also there’s a whole section in the PTS in decision making and you are encouraged to evaluate them in modifying their original plan due to weather. That’s what this person did. You did say the student was to perform a landing. I take it you meant full stop because a standard for taking off would be to determine if the crosswind is within the applicants abilities. So you could land but you’d be stuck. If I was the student I’d shoot the approach with the 15 kt crosswind but then I’d do a go around / rejected landing and proceed to the other airfield. That way I knocked out 2 maneuvers!
He’s the thing also. You say at 40 hours someone should have mastered the aircraft. Mastery isn’t perfection, it’s meeting the standards laid out in the PTS. That’s where you become God. Because what’s smooth or coordinated for one examiner might not be to another. As an instructor in the Army I’ve done thousands of autorotations and very few students can do one to my level ”smooth”. Dropping out of the sky at 2300 fpm looking through a green soda straw, smooth is the last thing on their minds. Plus these standards have tolerances based on “good flying conditions.” What if you did fail that student and the very next day you get an applicant and he has the benefit of dead calm winds, glassy smooth air and never has to demonstrate a crosswind landing? On one hand you got a guy who just spent a fortune on an evaluation and now has to spend a small fortune to recheck but the other guy doesn’t? That’s life I guess.
Do I think it’s a little weak they didn’t want to do a crosswind landing? Yep, but as I said they do have the PTS on their side claiming a wx discontinue and go / no go decision making. So they can’t meet a limit set in the POH? My plane is limited to 9 Gs but I’d pass out way before then!
You can postpone but you will not receive a Temporary Airman's Certificate that day either. The determination will still be that (s)he remains Student Pilot. No Pass is no pass regardless the reason.
MASTERY is being able to take the craft to every corner of the aircraft's design envelope with confidence. You should be able to fly minimum controllable airspeed in a full slip buffeting at the edge of stall. NO LESS may be considered Mastery and I expect seeing that of people at the point of having a PP. Maybe I trained around a different crowd but we were not kind in our critiques lol. You learned to perform, at 40 hrs when you took your checkride you knew how to make a plane handle. Heck every landing at LGB practically was a left crosswind.
MASTERY is being able to take the craft to every corner of the aircraft's design envelope with confidence. You should be able to fly minimum controllable airspeed in a full slip buffeting at the edge of stall. NO LESS may be considered Mastery and I expect seeing that of people at the point of having a PP. Maybe I trained around a different crowd but we were not kind in our critiques lol. You learned to perform, at 40 hrs when you took your checkride you knew how to make a plane handle. Heck every landing at LGB practically was a left crosswind.
Last edited:
denverpilot
Tied Down
I'd love to see what you'd load on board my aircraft to get it to full aft CG for a Private checkride, then.
It's damned hard to get my aircraft up against the aft CG limits.
If the Private candidate can't prove (s)he has mastered aft CG flying, I guess they don't get their ticket punched in your silly world.
We will also require a flight at full forward CG, ad at least three different weight loadings.
The gear and seats were certified to a specific downward number of G's, so we will ask for a really hard landing to make sure the applicant knows exactly where that limit is before they overstress the gear.
We will also need some turbulent areas of sky and non-turbulent so the can demonstrate slowing to Va for all possible weights.
And they will be required to take off from KLXV since the airplane is certified for it, and we'll also head over to Death Valley. They must demonstrate the full DA range of performance.
Then we'll go find something that will plug up the induction system. Ice won't do, since we're not certified for that, but a good dust storm will work. We'll have the applicant fly into it, choke the engine out for air, and then pull carb heat, since that's the certified backup.
I'll think of some more examples.
We can't possibly hand anyone a license until they've demonstrated the full envelope of all of the systems on board.
(Rolls eyes...)
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,643
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
That's your definition of Mastery not the one in the PTS. If I ventured to every corner of an aircrafts design envelope (especially with older aircraft) I would be playing with fire. Because my aircraft was designed for 9 Gs doesn't mean I want to go there. The PTS standard for a forward slip is at the "recommended approach speed" not buffeting at the edge of a stall. I don't know of any POH that has a recommended approach speed that specifies "buffeting at the edge of stall."
When it comes down to it the student has the PTS on their side. When you have a guide that has statements like "determines if the crosswind component is above his or her ability" you leave it up to the student's decision making for a go/no go. As Ron said earlier, this ain't the military. When I was in the Army we didn't let the student dictate when conditions are hunky-dory. If that was the case we wouldn't be able to "get them out the door" and we'd have a backlog of students. I decide if the conditions are satisfactory for a checkride because I'm the one ultimately responsible for the aircraft. And that's not an aircraft envelope choice either. Just because the wind limit for a Black Hawk is 45 kts doesn't mean it's wise to fly in that let alone attempt a checkride. Although the IP can modify the standards based on conditions at some point when the aircraft is in moderate to severe turbulence you have to ask if this is worth it?
dtuuri
Final Approach
C'mon now. It's a 'practical' test--a demonstration of certain specified tasks on a random day. If, though, you opted to take your test in an approved flight simulator, I'm betting the approved test scenario would include a hot day takeoff at max gross weight even if the applicant swore never to do such an insane thing. CG at the aft limit? Why not?
You're being silly. The Cessna 172 POH says it takes 'average ability' to handle a 15 kt crosswind. If you can accept that commercial pilots should have above average ability and students pilots have less than average, shouldn't a private pilot be able to do it even if they choose to voluntarily continue to abide by conservative student pilot practices later?
If you don't like the word 'mastery', which IIRC you don't, how would you codify a change? "The applicant must be master of at least 70% of the aircraft"?
How would an examiner distinquish 'pass' from 'fail'? It's easy the way it is: The applicant must do the tasks required within the limits of the airplane's certified capability. Not a 55° banked steep turn for commercial pilots, but a 45° turn for 'average' pilots. Yes, the applicant gets a point for saying, "I'd go somewhere else to be more comfortable with the risks," but that doesn't relieve the requirement to demonstrate a crosswind landing under a reasonable scenario for an average private pilot, imo.
I'd like a current examiner to weigh in on this. My opinions are based on when I did the job before the FAA went on this ADM/SRM/FITS/PAVE/ADAPT/PPPPP/TRACK no-time-left to-learn-how-to-fly, just memorize-all-the-acronyms-instead BS. What are your marching orders in the OP's case?
dtuuri
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,643
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Say this student says heck ya I can do this crosswind landing. They're usually quite good at them but this time they hit a gust and blaaam! The aircraft lands hard and the examiner fails them for the ride based on this. Now they have to come back and re-check, spend more money when if they would have just chosen to use an alternate because their primary wasn't under "good conditions," they would have passed. Holding one standard (student gets to check with calm winds) to another standard (student got screwed with 15 kt x-winds) is nonsense. It's simple, the PTS needs to be written to say "the applicant must demonstrate IN THE AIRCRAFT a crosswind landing within the maximum demonstrated limit." We have certain tasks in the military that must be done in an aircraft. I don't care if a student can talk about doing a slope landing in a helicopter, I want to see it. At the same time if the aircraft slope limit is 15 degrees they don't have to do that if they're not comfortable. All I have to grade is a slope. I won't enforce an aircraft limit to someone with low hours. Someday maybe they'll reach that limit on their own.
Finally it all comes down to what that pilot believes is safe and within their comfort level not what a book or reg says. Example: my company's wx mins are 800 & 2 in class G to accept a flight. However, any crewmember regardless of wx can speak up and say that they're uncomfortable with the current wx and turn down a mission. Should my company say "screw that, you have your minimuns, no go out an execute!"? We all have different personal comfort levels. Forcing someone into a situation that they're uncomfortable with is a recipe for disaster.
Like I said, if it was so important to the FAA that the applicant demonstrate a crosswind, then why two standards? One can do it orally and pass while one can do it in the aircraft and possibly fail.
Finally it all comes down to what that pilot believes is safe and within their comfort level not what a book or reg says. Example: my company's wx mins are 800 & 2 in class G to accept a flight. However, any crewmember regardless of wx can speak up and say that they're uncomfortable with the current wx and turn down a mission. Should my company say "screw that, you have your minimuns, no go out an execute!"? We all have different personal comfort levels. Forcing someone into a situation that they're uncomfortable with is a recipe for disaster.
Like I said, if it was so important to the FAA that the applicant demonstrate a crosswind, then why two standards? One can do it orally and pass while one can do it in the aircraft and possibly fail.
dtuuri
Final Approach
You know that isn't the case. You said yourself standards are based on good flying conditions. Allowances are made for gusts.
It can't possibly say that and you know it. It's a 'practical' test. The FAA can't prescribe the weather. You have a certain flair for erecting strawman arguments.
I don't know anything about helos. So, I looked in the PTS for private pilot rotorcraft. It states:
"Recognizes if slope is too steep and abandons the operation prior
to reaching cyclic control stops."
The applicant also needs to explain the factors involved in 'dynamic rollover' to reaching cyclic control stops."
as it applies to slope landings. I think there's no comparison between that type of selective off-airport risk and a crosswind landing in an airplane. So then, no need for any standards or minimum skill level at all, since the applicant gets to make up their own test?
Your company wouldn't hire a rookie who didn't feel comfortable doing 800 & 2 under usual circumstances. Another strawman.
If it wasn't "so important", why don't they remove it from the PTS?
dtuuri
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,643
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
You know that isn't the case. You said yourself standards are based on good flying conditions. Allowances are made for gusts.
It can't possibly say that and you know it. It's a 'practical' test. The FAA can't prescribe the weather. You have a certain flair for erecting strawman arguments.
I don't know anything about helos. So, I looked in the PTS for private pilot rotorcraft. It states:
"Recognizes if slope is too steep and abandons the operation priorThe applicant also needs to explain the factors involved in 'dynamic rollover'
to reaching cyclic control stops."
So then, no need for any standards or minimum skill level at all, since the applicant gets to make up their own test?
Your company wouldn't hire a rookie who didn't feel comfortable doing 800 & 2 under usual circumstances. Another strawman.
If it wasn't "so important", why don't they remove it from the PTS?
dtuuri
It's not a straw man arguement If I already proved the point that the student made the right decision based upon regognizing the crosswind was out of their comfort zone. Just like the guy above me pointed out. I was simply bringing up hypotheticals to make the point clearer. You and Henning have made statements to the fact you must control the aircraft to it's entire envelope not "70 percent." Nowhere in the PTS does it say that the applicant has to reach the limits of what the aircraft has. That isn't mastery. By satisfactory completion the maneuvers is demonstrating mastery.
Does it say in the PTS the examiner has to make allowances for gusts? I don't know.
No, obviously the FAA can't dictate that every applicant must do a crosswind landing. That would be completely unrealistic. But if your going to call it a task that one person has to do yet another only has to do it orally, how is that fair?
Not sure what you're getting at with slopes. My point there is simply you don't have to reach the limit or envelope of a manuaver to demonstrate mastery. A completed task is a completed task. And yes, as with any maneuver if you reach a limit (cyclic) you must abort as you would reaching maximum deflection for a crosswind landing.
Yes you must have standards- 100 ft,10kts etc. But to say a student must perform a crosswind landing at it's maximum component is making up your own standard.
Yes my company would hire someone to turn down a flight at 800 & 2. Have you ever heard of the old saying "what's legal isn't necessarily safe"? You can't seriously believe with a forecast of 800 & 2 along a cross country flight that it will stay that way the whole time. Forecasters are 100 percent right I guess. The point is that while my personal mins are somehwhere less than this, someone else might be slightly higher. Doesn't make them any less of a pilot. I never heard of someone getting into trouble for being overly cautious...could result in getting fired if it became a trend though.
Finally as Capt Ron stated before. It isn't required in the PTS to do a crosswind landing. If that was the case then we would have to schedule rides only on windy days. If they feel safe doing one then go at it, if not, well then they just demonstrated risk management and SRM.
Tolerances.
dtuuri
Final Approach
Didn't prove anything to me. Flight tests aren't about "comfort zones", they're about competency. ADM is only one part of that.
No that's not what I mean, Henning can defend himself. As far as the tasks required, if the airplane is certified to do it, the pilot should be able to. If not, the pilot should bring something s/he can actually handle. Then, I'd hand over a license and they can go back home and get checked out in the plane they couldn't handle. The monkey will be on somebody else's back then.
Correct. The issue is that a crosswind landing must be demonstrated unless one doesn't exist.
Yes.
"The tolerances represent the performance expected in good flying
conditions. If, in the judgment of the examiner, the applicant does
not meet the standards of performance of any Task performed, the
associated Area of Operation is failed and therefore, the practical
test is failed."
conditions. If, in the judgment of the examiner, the applicant does
not meet the standards of performance of any Task performed, the
associated Area of Operation is failed and therefore, the practical
test is failed."
Who said the conditions have to be fair? The examiner has to be fair.
Sounds like a helicopter rolls over and crashes if you exceed the limit. On a crosswind landing, you just run out of rudder--not comparable risks.
I'm not saying that and you're not reading what I am saying.
Again, that's not what I said and this is getting tiresome. Your company would not hire a rookie who would NOT fly with company established minimums under the usually acceptable conditions the company has in mind. They'd get somebody with enough experience to do the job and accept the occasional times the pilot refused because of the unusual conditions. Better?
dtuuri
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Henning once talked about testing until failure - continue to stress the student until he breaks. This is what I was thinking while reading the above.
I view my PPL that I have demonstrated enough ADM and the application of skill that the odds are in my favor that I can be trusted to continue to grow without killing myself, anyone else or breaking the rules.
I view my PPL that I have demonstrated enough ADM and the application of skill that the odds are in my favor that I can be trusted to continue to grow without killing myself, anyone else or breaking the rules.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2012
- Messages
- 15,643
- Display Name
Display name:
Velocity173
Yes this has become tiresome. It's obvious you won't budge on this. While I respect your case for failing this student, I think those of us supporting this student's decision based on safety and wording in the PTS have a valid case as well.
That's only for command of an airliner, although finding ones reactive state may be useful information you'd seek out anyway.
dtuuri
Final Approach
I would if a current examiner came on and said, "Believe it. The FAA now lets applicants avoid tasks that are uncomfortable and strand DPEs 40 miles from where the test originated."
dtuuri
jspilot
Cleared for Takeoff
- Joined
- Oct 22, 2011
- Messages
- 1,346
- Display Name
Display name:
jspilot
I've really enjoyed reading this thread so far. This post really caught my eye because I'd like to suggest that flying an airplane to the very brink of its design limits may be something a commercial pilot should be comfortable doing everyday but if a private pilot knowingly places himself into a situation in which he must perform something that is beyond his abilities that shows just awful judgement. I don't need any "standards" to tell me that. I would think that placing oneself in a situation that exceeds ones skill levels should result in a failure on the Private Pilot check ride because it shows terrible decision making. That go/no go desicion is something I take very seriously and is something that after you pass your check ride is, probably the most important aspect of being a private pilot.
I also get the point that if a pilot launches in beyond his ability level conditions he has to be able to control the airplane. I'd hope that private pilots are using better judgement than launching in +15 xwinds.
You don't always land with the conditions you launch with nor that are forecast. I was up solo when an unforecast Santana wind filled in. Luckily I did my night work in the same conditions.
Jaybird180
Final Approach
Some guys get all the luck:wink2:
TMetzinger
Final Approach
Did it play "Black Magic Woman"?