Should I switch Examiners?

[cameronbm]

I walked away from my IFR Oral with a pink slip and a poor opinion of the Examiner (long story). My first attempt to reschedule was canceled when the plane lost the DG the day before the exam. I am currently trying to reschedule a second time and have run into the following problem:

The examiner is leaving the state Oct. 10 to winter in warmer climes and won't be back until late spring. Currently I am working a full time job 8-5 Monday - Friday and going to law school 7-4 on the weekends. My choices are either to reschedule my IFR checkride after work the week of the 25th or to find another examiner and schedule the checkride for mid-term break (Oct 19th-21st).

I'm leaning toward the second option as it would be easier to fit into my schedule and I'd be less stressed going into the exam (doing it during the week of the 25th means craming it in between work and studying so I'd be feeling some intense time pressures to get there, get it done and get back -- not the best mind set to go flying).

So, am I looking at this the right way? Is it a big faux pas to switch examiners? Any great words of advice?

Thanks
Bruce

 

[ScottM]

Go with the lower stress option. The IR check ride is one of the harder ones. Best to be prepared and comfortable.

 

[wesleyj]

What Scott said, best bet

 

[mattaxelrod]

One big reason NOT to switch examiners would be if you completed all but a few items on the checkride. Switching would mean having to take a complete checkride all over again. In your case, that's not an issue.

I'd be interested in hearing the story behind the story....

 

[ScottM]

One big reason NOT to switch examiners would be if you completed all but a few items on the checkride. Switching would mean having to take a complete checkride all over again. In your case, that's not an issue.

I'd be interested in hearing the story behind the story....

I don't see that. On a recheck the DE needs to only review those items on the pink sheet. Regardless of how many or how little there should not be a complete recheck happening.

Any DEs want to comment??

 

[Greebo]

I can see how one DE might not feel comfortable accepting another DE's pinkslip and only doing a test for the items required.

 

[Dave Krall CFII]

No sweat for you, just consider the first test a warm-up, review all the stuff and take the whole test over with a new DE if you didn't like the first one.

 

[C-1 PILOT]

What I find strange about this is, The DE taking off to a warmer climate. Although an independant he gets his designation from a particular area (FSDO) and is to administer tests in that area I believe. It is one thing to take a vacation, but leave for several months is another thing. That, is what I have a problem with.

Does anyone know the exact rules for DE's?

 

[poadeleted20]

I don't see that. On a recheck the DE needs to only review those items on the pink sheet. Regardless of how many or how little there should not be a complete recheck happening.

It's hard to give a recheck on part of the IR oral -- it's too much an integrated whole when done the way the FAA wants it done these days (situationally on a planned IFR XC). It's a lot easier to separate the Areas/Tasks on the flight portion of the practical test. In any event, while DPE's are permitted to accept the portions passed by the original examiner, they are not required to do so. While most examiners rechecking someone they busted will just do the busted and unflown portions, most also will do a full check if they didn't give the original one.

All that said, I'd like to hear more about Bruce's issues with the original examiner before offering any advice on what to do now.

 

[cameronbm]

The story behind the story....

I was scheduled a 2 PM checkride at my local airport (RGK) with the examiner and confirmed time, date and location with him 48 hours prior to the appointed day. I then scheduled a noon meeting with my CFI to go over the necessary paperwork and to put signatures in the correct spots.

Day of the checkride, I arrive at the airport at noon, its overcast, raining and my CFI is missing. It turns out he is flying a charter flight and the weather over Ohio has delayed his return, but he is expected any minute now. Now is the time I discover that an hour and 45 minutes can be a very, very long time and by the time my CFI shows up at 1:45, I've become a wee bit tense, the only positive thing is that the examiner has not arrived yet. Now, rather than a relaxed review of my paperwork, we scream through it in about 3 minutes and as we finish, the examiner calls to say that he's decided not to come down to RGK, and that he'll be expecting me at SGS.

I arrive as SGS about 20 minutes later and am greeted by a less than happy examiner (seems I'm late). We proceed to go over my paperwork, the examiner becomes less happy (seems I forgot to sign a page in my log book, and my CFI signed my written test slip on the wrong line -- I start to get a sinking feeling). We complete the paperwork and the examiner pauses to take a call on his cell, by the time the call is completed, his "happiness" meter is reading close to 0 (it appears that a hotel had messed up his reservation).

Now, I get my first question, but before I can answer the examiner's cell rings again, he answers, finds out his fishing trip is canceled (buddy's plane is broken -- happiness meter is reading negative numbers). He makes 2 calls to other people regarding said fishing trip before turning back to me for my answer.

The question was: You have planned a 3 hour cross country flight to an uncontroled airport (airport A) without an instrument approach. This airport sits in the middle of class G airspace, at 2000', the maximum elevation in that section of class G airspace is 5500'. After 3 hours in the air, you find yourself at a VOR 20 miles east of airport A and you find that the weather has deteriorated to IMC. 20 miles to the east of the VOR sits airport B. Airport B has several approved instrument approaches and your plane is properly equipped to use all of them. What type of approach clearance do you ask ATC for?

My answer was wrong (ask for a clearance to airport B -- correct answer, ask for a cruise clearance to airport A and then go skud running). That sinking feeling was getting stronger. Time for question #2 (how many radios are required for IFR flight?) my answer was wrong (1 -- correct answer 0, provided you don't intend to use any facilities). OK, 30 minutes into the oral and I know I'm getting that pink slip. I am now starting to think more about trying to make a graceful retreat and less about the rules and regs pertaining to IFR flight. For question #3, he asks me without looking in the FARS, what the number is for the regulation that pertains to question #2. I manage a polite I don't know rather than the first responce that came to mind. For the next hour, the examiner proceeds to show me that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the FARS and I don't. At the end of the 1.5 hour oral, I'm tense, ****ed and am in no shape to fly so I decline his offer to do the practical portion of the test. I then get a 10 minute lecture on why he doesn't like Air Charts, Flight Guides and NOS plates and why I should replace mine with standard charts, an AFD and Jepp plates before he decides to hand me my pink slip and excuse me.

I proceed to do the slowest pre-flight of a 172 on record while I get back into a flying frame of mind. I don't mind failing an honest exam, but I was left with the feeling that this "game" was fixed. On the bright side, I did get a fairly rigourous lecture on the FARS pertaining to the IFR rating, and had a good flight along the Mississippi river for the cost of a few hours of my time and $80. Besides, time spent with airplanes isn't deducted from your lifespan anyway.

Bruce

 

[cameronbm]

The only real issue I have is with the need to schedule the checkride in to my work, study, school schedule. While I could do it, I'd rather not give up the study time if I don't have to. To manage 11 credit hours in law school, I've got to put in about 20 hours of studying a week. There's a little slop in the schedule, but I try to treat that like reserve fuel -- not to be tapped into unless there is a real need.

Whenever there is a school break, things really open up (I get to spread that 20 hours over 2 weeks rather than one). This makes scheduling things like a checkride much easier. If the price of that flexibility is having to retake the entire oral exam, that's OK. However, I'd like to avoid unnecessarily ****ing off either DE (I may have to take other checkrides in the future).

Bruce

 

[cameronbm]

I figure that since the DE is retires, he's entitled to be a snowbird. Can't blame him for wanting to leave MN in the winter.

Bruce

 

[ScottM]

It's hard to give a recheck on part of the IR oral -- it's too much an integrated whole when done the way the FAA wants it done these days (situationally on a planned IFR XC). It's a lot easier to separate the Areas/Tasks on the flight portion of the practical test. In any event, while DPE's are permitted to accept the portions passed by the original examiner, they are not required to do so. While most examiners rechecking someone they busted will just do the busted and unflown portions, most also will do a full check if they didn't give the original one.

All that said, I'd like to hear more about Bruce's issues with the original examiner before offering any advice on what to do now.

So is there a requirement as mattaxelrod said "Switching would mean having to take a complete checkride all over again"?


I say no and it sounds like from what you wrote my guess was correct. However, Some DEs MAY give more in the recheck than what is on the pink slip at their discretion.


If a DE does go beyond what is on the pink slip and you do not pass the element what happens to the ride? After all you passed it once before.

Please do not get into a consistancy or mastery of performance issue. I am just asking what the legal loophole issue would be.

 

[EdFred]

Bruce, if that is how the exam went, report him to the FSDO. That's a BS pink slip.

Question 1 is bogus - you are PIC. I also dont agree with the answer. The OROCA in that area (assuming mountainous) would be up over 7,000 feet. ATC isn't going to clear you below that. The whold descend under VFR.

Question 2 is one of those trick questions. With NO radios how do you navigate under IFR? All vectors?

Question 3, is total BS. There is nothing in the PTS about having to MEMORIZE the FARs.

Taking calls and making calls during the examination is...well...just report him. If he denies taking/making the calls, have the FSDO get a copy of his phone records for that day.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Bruce, if that is how the exam went, report him to the FSDO. That's a BS pink slip.

Agree.

Question 1 is bogus - you are PIC. I also dont agree with the answer. The OROCA in that area (assuming mountainous) would be up over 7,000 feet. ATC isn't going to clear you below that. The whold descend under VFR.

Yup. Being more conservative is never "wrong" unless the question is "what is legal" rather than "what would you do." The only way you'll get a clearance like that is if you're on an airway away from the terrain so the MEA is lower than the OROCA. It wasn't quite clear whether that was part of the scenario in the question.

Question 2 is one of those trick questions. With NO radios how do you navigate under IFR? All vectors?

And how do you get vectors without a radio???

Plus, how can you comply with 91.183 or 91.205(d)(2) without a radio?!?

Question 3, is total BS. There is nothing in the PTS about having to MEMORIZE the FARs.

Bingo. This guy needs to be reported.

Taking calls and making calls during the examination is...well...

Completely unprofessional is what it is! I wouldn't go back to this guy even without all of the other circumstances. He does not deserve your business. Or anyone else's, for that matter.

 

[cameronbm]

While I appreciate your sentiments, I figure that my current priority is to finish my checkride. Besides, I'd like to have a little distance from the event before charging off to FSDO -- let the emotional response cool, after all the DE was having a bad day too which may have colored his actions (those phone calls are another thing).

Bruce

 

[Henning]

I'm leaning toward the second option as it would be easier to fit into my schedule and I'd be less stressed going into the exam (doing it during the week of the 25th means craming it in between work and studying so I'd be feeling some intense time pressures to get there, get it done and get back -- not the best mind set to go flying).

So, am I looking at this the right way? Is it a big faux pas to switch examiners? Any great words of advice?

Thanks
Bruce

Your logic sounds good, sounds like you answered your own question on what would be best; so why would a faux pas (if it existed, it does not though) even come into play?

 

[Henning]

However, I'd like to avoid unnecessarily ****ing off either DE (I may have to take other checkrides in the future).

Bruce

DEs are service sector contractors out there to make a dollar. YOU HIRE THEM! There are many DEs out there who would be most happy to take your money. If none of them want your money, the FAA is still available for free. This isn't about what's best for them, it's about what's best for you. His going of to warmer climes is what is losing him the work, not your school schedule. YOU are the customer, every DE knows this, chosing another under these circumstances is completely understandable. Get the school work done so you have time to really study up. You don't want to pink the 2nd oral, and if you try to cram it in, that's what you are setting yourself up for.

 

[cameronbm]

Why be concerned with committing a faux pas?

Well the DE community is small and I'd rather not develop a "rep" within the DE community (I'd rather everybody didn't know my name) if what I'd like to do, while legal and logical in theory, is so rare in practice that it would cause notice (there are other checkrides in my future, I'd rather not make them harder simply because I broke with protocol).

Most likely, I'm over-thinking things and should go with my gut feelings, but I appreciate independent confirmation that my decision is rational.

Bruce

 

[Henning]

Question 2 is one of those trick questions. With NO radios how do you navigate under IFR? All vectors?

In theory, DST. The question, while a bit bogus, is legit to finding out what you've learned and haven't. It holds to make you think, how do I fly in a 7600 situation when I not only lose comms, but navs as well? If you've dwelled on that matter, or the instructor went into it with you, your natural answer would pop up "to fly? None."

I think it could be established in a better way, but this is the method he chose. (If I was a DE, I'd fail the radios on the ride.)

 

[Henning]

Why be concerned with committing a faux pas?

Well the DE community is small and I'd rather not develop a "rep" within the DE community (I'd rather everybody didn't know my name) if what I'd like to do, while legal and logical in theory, is so rare in practice that it would cause notice (there are other checkrides in my future, I'd rather not make them harder simply because I broke with protocol).

Most likely, I'm over-thinking things and should go with my gut feelings, but I appreciate independent confirmation that my decision is rational.

Bruce

Trust it, You aren't going to alienate the DE community. BTW, not all DEs are exactly friends either. They are all Competitors in the same industry. It would be different if you were trying to slide by on something. You have a valid complaint with him, and he is not available on your schedule. There are prob ably other DEs in your region who think that guy is an a**. This is business, pure and simple, and the DEs are competitors. If one offers better service than another, you have a right to chose. If you do not like the quality of the service offered, you are perfectly right as a consumer to seek better service. You'll not alienate any DE with this.

 

[gibbons]

Why be concerned with committing a faux pas?

Well the DE community is small and I'd rather not develop a "rep" within the DE community (I'd rather everybody didn't know my name) if what I'd like to do, while legal and logical in theory, is so rare in practice that it would cause notice (there are other checkrides in my future, I'd rather not make them harder simply because I broke with protocol).

Bruce

Without knowing anyone involved I'm going to suggest that the DE community is well aware of this particular DE and his style (assuming it's standard for him to act this way). I'm also going to suggest that they aren't any more impressed than I am.

You gotta do what you gotta do, but there is no doubt that I'd find another DE and take the entire oral over again if that's what is required. I would not give this guy another chance to bust my chops and get paid to do it. But that's just me.

 

[gismo]

The story behind the story....

Bruce

Bruce, I wish you'd PM me with the name of this DPE. I know many of the ones in this area (Mpls) and I have yet to meet one anywhere near as bad as this one appears. I also have a couple friends at the FSDO that I'm sure would be interested in your story and I'd be willing to bring your disaster of a checkride to their attention without mentioning your name. And if you want to tell them the story personally, I can all but guarantee that they will listen in earnest and that there won't be any repercussions for you. In any case I'll bet I can find you a much better examiner than the one you experienced. I've survived seven checkrides in this area with nary a single bad experience.

 

[gismo]

In theory, DST. The question, while a bit bogus, is legit to finding out what you've learned and haven't. It holds to make you think, how do I fly in a 7600 situation when I not only lose comms, but navs as well? If you've dwelled on that matter, or the instructor went into it with you, your natural answer would pop up "to fly? None."

I think it could be established in a better way, but this is the method he chose. (If I was a DE, I'd fail the radios on the ride.)

I'm sorry Henning but I see a vast difference between a question about what to do when the comms fail, and a question where the supposedly correct answer comes perilously close to a violation of the FARs. IOW if the question was "can you continue an IFR flight in IMC if your one and only comm fails?" is legit but "Can you depart IFR with no radios?" is bogus if the "correct" answer is yes.

That aside, taking a single personal/non-emergency cellphone call let alone multiple calls during any portion of a checkride is by itself seriously improper and something that simply shouldn't be tolerated.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

In theory, DST.

DST?

 

[Henning]

DST?

Distance Speed Time aka ded reckoning

 

[Henning]

I'm sorry Henning but I see a vast difference between a question about what to do when the comms fail, and a question where the supposedly correct answer comes perilously close to a violation of the FARs. IOW if the question was "can you continue an IFR flight in IMC if your one and only comm fails?" is legit but "Can you depart IFR with no radios?" is bogus if the "correct" answer is yes.

That aside, taking a single personal/non-emergency cellphone call let alone multiple calls during any portion of a checkride is by itself seriously improper and something that simply shouldn't be tolerated.

Heck, I stated clearly the question was a bit bogus, but as worded the answer was obvious. How many radios required for IFR flight. I'm just soooo used to taking these stupid tests and training people to take these stupid tests, and the maritime sector writtens and oral are worse, because that's all they have. I don't back the DE in any way shape or form. Out of everything else that was listed, that was the only thing that I thought was in bounds, and even it was bouncing on the foul line.

Every other post I made was to use someone else. I think that DE should be eliminated from the roster and just enjoy his retirement. Although considering a lot of the old codgers I know, hasseling and haranguing "young bucks" may be part of his enjoyment. In that case, a young buck should come and fight out of the pack in a "Natural Order" kind of way.

 

[Bill]

I proceed to do the slowest pre-flight of a 172 on record while I get back into a flying frame of mind. I don't mind failing an honest exam, but I was left with the feeling that this "game" was fixed.

Concurr. Sounds like this guy had no intentions of giving you a fair checkride.

 

[poadeleted20]

...the examiner calls to say that he's decided not to come down to RGK, and that he'll be expecting me at SGS.

I arrive as SGS about 20 minutes later and am greeted by a less than happy examiner (seems I'm late). ...the examiner pauses to take a call on his cell, by the time the call is completed, his "happiness" meter is reading close to 0 (it appears that a hotel had messed up his reservation).

Now, I get my first question, but before I can answer the examiner's cell rings again, he answers, finds out his fishing trip is canceled (buddy's plane is broken -- happiness meter is reading negative numbers). He makes 2 calls to other people regarding said fishing trip before turning back to me for my answer.

Completely unprofessional, and worthy of reporting to the FSDO. If you agreed to meet at RGK, he has no right to be anything less than apologetic and conciliatory about his last-minute decision to stay at SGS and require you to go to him.

"An examiner is expected to honor appointments unless special circumstances warrant cancellation or postponement."

"The examiner must conduct the oral portion of the practical test in a private area free from distractions. The examiner must give the applicant his/her undivided attention during the test..." (excerpted from FAA Order 8710.3E, Chapter 5, Section 1, Paragraph 2.)
​

The question was: You have planned a 3 hour cross country flight to an uncontroled airport (airport A) without an instrument approach. This airport sits in the middle of class G airspace, at 2000', the maximum elevation in that section of class G airspace is 5500'. After 3 hours in the air, you find yourself at a VOR 20 miles east of airport A and you find that the weather has deteriorated to IMC. 20 miles to the east of the VOR sits airport B. Airport B has several approved instrument approaches and your plane is properly equipped to use all of them. What type of approach clearance do you ask ATC for?

My answer was wrong (ask for a clearance to airport B -- correct answer, ask for a cruise clearance to airport A and then go skud running).

No, that is not the correct answer. If Airport A does not have an approved instrument approach, you cannot under a cruise clearance descend below the minimum IFR altitude for that area. Your answer was indeed correct, and this exchange should also be reported to the FSDO, as it is encouraging an unsafe practice and discouraging the safe and legal procedure. Note that the definition of "Satisfactory Performance" in the PTS includes "demonstrate sound judgment and ADM," and attempting to get into an airport without an SIAP in IMC under a cruise clearance does not achieve that.

That sinking feeling was getting stronger. Time for question #2 (how many radios are required for IFR flight?) my answer was wrong (1 -- correct answer 0, provided you don't intend to use any facilities).

FAA Legal has stated in writing that while in some limited circumstances it may not be a violation of 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2) to launch IFR with no nav radios, it is probably a violation of 14 CFR 91.13 to do so (see quote below). Therefore, while the answer to the question "How many nav radios does 14 CFR 91.205(d)(2) require for IFR flight?" is technically "Zero," given that safety and judgement are pass/fail criteria in the IR PTS, anyone who says he'd launch IFR without any radio navigation equipment should probably fail the IR check.

"The loss of precision inherent in flying IFR without radio navigation equipment places a greater burden on the pilot's skills and judgment. Neither Federal airways nor ground based standard terminal procedures will be available, adding to the workload of the pilot and the air traffic controller. The lack of radio navigation equipment also considerably narrows the available alternatives in the event of the need for holding or an amended clearance. The loss of efficiency in resolving unexpected circumstances (weather, traffic, mechanical problem) may create or aggravate considerable anxiety if not a critical situation.

"Accordingly, although not outright prohibited, attempting IFR flight without radio navigation equipment under some circumstances could risk compromising safety. The pilot's willing acceptance of the accompanying risks would appear to enhance the likelihood not only of the commission of a regulatory violation (other than §91.205( d)(2), but also of the perception of such an operation as careless or reckless (see § 91.13(a)) should· an unsafe situation arise. The pilot's judgment, flight planning, and non-radio navigation proficiency will likely receive close scrutiny in the event of a deviation from a clearance, failure to follow an ATC instruction, or other situation." (Eastern Regional Counsel letter, 4/26/06)
​

OK, 30 minutes into the oral and I know I'm getting that pink slip. I am now starting to think more about trying to make a graceful retreat and less about the rules and regs pertaining to IFR flight. For question #3, he asks me without looking in the FARS, what the number is for the regulation that pertains to question #2.

Totally inappropriate question. The PTS does not require memorization of FAR section/paragraph numbers, and the FAR/AIM book is listed in the PTS as an item to bring to the test.

"Examiners shall test to the greatest extent practicable the applicant’s correlative abilities rather than mere rote enumeration of facts throughout the practical test." (FAA-S-8081-4D, IR PTS)
​

I manage a polite I don't know rather than the first responce that came to mind. For the next hour, the examiner proceeds to show me that he has an encyclopedic knowledge of the FARS and I don't. At the end of the 1.5 hour oral, I'm tense, ****ed and am in no shape to fly so I decline his offer to do the practical portion of the test. I then get a 10 minute lecture on why he doesn't like Air Charts, Flight Guides and NOS plates and why I should replace mine with standard charts, an AFD and Jepp plates before he decides to hand me my pink slip and excuse me.

Again, violation of the Examiner's Handbook. Since he continued the oral portion to the end, and said he was ready to do the flight portion, you must have passed the oral. If you discontinued the test at that point, you should receive a Letter of Discontinuance, not a Notice of Disapproval.

For all the above reasons, this event should be reported to the FSDO so nobody else is forced to endure the abuse you received.

 

[poadeleted20]

So is there a requirement as mattaxelrod said "Switching would mean having to take a complete checkride all over again"? I say no and it sounds like from what you wrote my guess was correct. However, Some DEs MAY give more in the recheck than what is on the pink slip at their discretion.

If you want to quibble, Scott, fine. The fact is that there is no requirement for the examiner on the second test to accept any of the first test's passed areas/tasks. Yes, the examiner has the option to do so, but it is not required. So if one is to answer Matt's question with the legal precision you seem to desire, the correct answer is neither "yes" nor "no," but rather, "It is up to the examiner on the second test unless more than 60 days elapse after the first test or the applicant loses the Notice of Disapproval, in which cases all areas must be examined."

If a DE does go beyond what is on the pink slip and you do not pass the element what happens to the ride? After all you passed it once before.

Regardless of whether you passed that area/task once before, if the examiner requires you to repeat on the second ride something you successfully completed on the first (something the examiner is entitled to do), and you do not satisfactorily complete it on that second ride, you fail. Here is the exact language:

"An applicant for retesting may receive credit for those areas of operation satisfactorily completed; however, an examiner may re-examine an applicant on any area of operation required for the certificate or rating sought. If an examiner has reason to doubt an applicant's competence in areas of operation for which the applicant received credit during a previous test, or if more than 60 days have elapsed since the previous practical test, the examiner must re-examine the applicant on all areas of operation required for that certificate or rating. Applicants who do not have their FAA Form 8060-5 must take the entire practical test. The applicant may obtain a duplicate FAA Form 8060-5 from AFS-760 or the issuing pilot examiner. " (FAA Order 8710.3E, Chapter 5, Seciton 1, paragraph 27C)​

​

 

[Ed Guthrie]

Bruce, if that is how the exam went, report him to the FSDO. That's a BS pink slip.

Question 1 is bogus - you are PIC. I also dont agree with the answer. The OROCA in that area (assuming mountainous) would be up over 7,000 feet. ATC isn't going to clear you below that. The whold descend under VFR.

Question is more bogus than you think. A cruise clearance authorizes the aircraft to operate between the IFR minimum altitude and the cruise clearance altitude. With no approaches at Airport A the "minimum IFR altitude" during a cruise clearance is, as you stated, the OROCA. However, in most places the MVA (minimum vectoring altitude) is usally much, much lower than the OROCA. BTW, the MVA is not applicable for a cruise clearance. IOW, if the goal is to get into Airport A the best approach request is vectors for a visual approach.

Bust the DPE's answer on that one.

Question 2 is one of those trick questions. With NO radios how do you navigate under IFR? All vectors?

With no radios how do you receive a vector? Telepathy?

Question 3, is total BS. There is nothing in the PTS about having to MEMORIZE the FARs.

Amen.

Taking calls and making calls during the examination is...well...just report him. If he denies taking/making the calls, have the FSDO get a copy of his phone records for that day.

BTW, if the CFI-IA recommended this DE I'd be having a very strong conversation with the CFI-IA right after I phoned the FSDO.

 

[poadeleted20]

IOW, if the goal is to get into Airport A the best approach request is vectors for a visual approach.

The question said the weather was IMC, and a visual approach requires the reported weather at the destination airport to be at least 1000-3 (AIM 5-4-21a) as well as the pilot having the airport in sight. If there's no weather reporting at the destination airport, or the airport is not in sight (see "in IMC," above), a visual approach is not an option. A contact approach is not an option since there's no SIAP. Any way you cut it, given the described circumstances (IMC, no SIAP), I would have to question the judgement of any pilot who gave any answer other than the original one given -- request an instrument approach at Airport B.

With no radios how do you receive a vector? Telepathy?

I think the original question was no nav radios. As stated in the EA RC letter, that's not necessarily a violation of 14 CFR 91.205, but it will probably lead to violation of other rules, and is also most likely stupid (well, they didn't say "stupid," but they came as close as an FAA lawyer could to that word). If someone accidentally dropped the "nav" out of the question, that was probably an inadvertent elision.

 

[EdFred]

Oy Vey! Ron and Ed agree with me. Maybe I am ready for the CFI ride on Tuesday.

 

[cameronbm]

I've scheduled check ride #2 with a new DE.

Thanks to all for your advice and support.
Bruce

 

[Ed Guthrie]

The question said the weather was IMC, and a visual approach requires the reported weather at the destination airport to be at least 1000-3 (AIM 5-4-21a) as well as the pilot having the airport in sight. If there's no weather reporting at the destination airport, or the airport is not in sight (see "in IMC," above), a visual approach is not an option. A contact approach is not an option since there's no SIAP. Any way you cut it, given the described circumstances (IMC, no SIAP), I would have to question the judgment of any pilot who gave any answer other than the original one given -- request an instrument approach at Airport B. Any way you cut it, given the described circumstances (IMC, no SIAP), I would have to question the judgment of any pilot who gave any answer other than the original one given -- request an instrument approach at Airport B.

Well, let's first dismember the highlighted misinformation above: Totally incorrect. Totally.

Here's the applicable reference (FAA Order 7110.65):

7-4-2. VECTORS FOR VISUAL APPROACH
A vector for a visual approach may be initiated if the reported ceiling at the airport of intended landing is at least 500 feet above the MVA/MIA and the visibility is 3 miles or greater. At airports without weather reporting service there must be reasonable assurance (e.g. area weather reports, PIREPs, etc.) that descent and flight to the airport can be made visually, and the pilot must be informed that weather information is not available.

IOW, if I, the pilot, report the airport in sight at MVA then even if the airport lacks weather reporting the controller has reasonable assurance (my report of the airport in sight) and may then legally issue a visual approach clearance and I, the pilot, may legally accept that clearance.

Having exposed the erroneous information we can now move to discuss all available answers.

FWIW, the type of question posed by the DE isn't necessarily only concerning judgment. Frankly, for the most part is isn't about judgment skills at all. Why? Because every 250 hour wonder kid CFI-IA knows to teach their candidates that the best answer to and question in the orals is the conservative, legal answer:

"Which would you choose, sunshine and 80 degrees or blowing snow?"

"Sunshine."

"Which would you choose, staying at home or flying a non-K-ice aircraft through forecast & actual freezing rain?"

"Stay at home."

Where orals get fun is when you push the candidate past the pat conservative answer every 250 hour wunderkind CFI teaches. Give the candidate a legal choice s/he would normally reject. Now you truly can probe judgment, knowledge, etc.:

"Yeah, okay, so you'd choose Airport B, but can you legally continue towards Airport A given the conditions stated and if so, which approach would you request, and why?"

Now we get an open ended discussion going. Now we find out if this candidate really understands the regulations and can make reasoned decisions within those regulations, or whether the candidate merely uses "safe judgment" as an excuse and really doesn't comprehend at all--a victim of a 250 hour wunderkind CFI's lack of understanding of the IFR system, so to speak. In the later case where the student doesn't really understand IFR flying, the rules, or visual approaches, the student quickly offers up a bad answer, for example Ron's highlighted answer above.

You then pink slip the student and leave for your fishing trip.

FWIW, if you have the gas to spare there is neither prohibition nor penalty in taking a look. If someone tells you "the area went IMC" they are relaying reported conditions (surface at best, not necessarily the destination airport either). FWIW, what matters with respect to making the airport or not is not reported conditions some time in the past (i.e. as received at some distance from the airport) but actual conditions when you get to the airport (either reported if there is a report, or observed if there is no report). If upon arrival over or near the airport you can visually find the airport and maintain visual contact with the airport you can legally fly a visual approach (assumes if reported then the required >1000-3 is met)—regardless of what was reported “back there”.

Often times that's exactly what happens (weather changes), which is why taking a look isn't a bad answer at all, and as orals answers goes that answer certainly beats clearly articulating/demonstrating your lack of knowledge regarding visual approaches and the associated rules.

As I said before, if you want to make it into Airport A the best request (greatest probability for success) is vectors for a visual.

BTW, Ron, you not only bombed a rather fundamental IFR rules question, but you also bombed a rather rudimentary understanding of corollary logic. The fact that "reported weather must >1000 & 3" does not logically connote a corollary of "weather must be reported".

I think the original question was no nav radios.

You can think all you want, but the stated question contained no such delineation.

 

[flyersfan31]

Good call on going with the second DE. The checkride should be, as has often been said, one of the best lessons of your life. Doesn't sound like the DE was trying to teach you anything useful (and maybe tried to teach you something pretty dangerous!)

Take the checkride with the new DE, consider the 1st one a pretty crappy dress rehearsal, and don't look back.

Good luck -- you deserve it.

 

[gismo]

Good call on going with the second DE. The checkride should be, as has often been said, one of the best lessons of your life. Doesn't sound like the DE was trying to teach you anything useful (and maybe tried to teach you something pretty dangerous!)

Take the checkride with the new DE, consider the 1st one a pretty crappy dress rehearsal, and don't look back.

Good luck -- you deserve it.

Technically DPEs aren't supposed to be "teaching" on a checkride but IME they just can't help themselves. That said, it seems the first one was mostly interested in "teaching" his applicant that he (the DPE) had vastly greater aviation knowledge than the applicant.

 

[Henning]

Again, violation of the Examiner's Handbook. Since he continued the oral portion to the end, and said he was ready to do the flight portion, you must have passed the oral. If you discontinued the test at that point, you should receive a Letter of Discontinuance, not a Notice of Disapproval.

Ok, thanks, I was wondering about that. So I was right, that's what I thought. Basically when an examiner knows they're going to fail you, end of show, go home. I was thinking as I read that, "Wait, if the examiner was going to go flying with you, he had to pass you on the oral."

 

[Henning]

Technically DPEs aren't supposed to be "teaching" on a checkride but IME they just can't help themselves. That said, it seems the first one was mostly interested in "teaching" his applicant that he (the DPE) had vastly greater aviation knowledge than the applicant.

A piece of advice I was given by an old pilot friend/DE (never took a ride with him though) was when the DE starts teaching you on the ride, relax, because you already passed it. Every ride I've taken I've learned a few good tricks.

 

[Henning]

I've scheduled check ride #2 with a new DE.

Thanks to all for your advice and support.
Bruce

Good, and good luck. I think #1 may be getting a touch of the Alzheimers. Dude forgot what his job was.