NTSB recommendation on failed checkrides

[NuGuy]

This is an interesting twist. But did anyone read the report that prompted the NTSB recommendation?

The guy that wrecked the airplane busted 9 checkrides. No wonder it got the attention of the NTSB. I did think it interesting that they singled out his cert rides, but made no metion of his 135 PIC check or training history.

Normally when this kind of thing happens, any checkairman involved with this guy is going to get an anal probe from the NTSB, and employment, instructor and checkairman records are subpenaed. This is NOT a small deal. Go back and read the accident reports from the Eagle crash in NC in 1994, and the Express I Hibbing, MN crash. I've heard the inquisitions of the checkairmen made it seem as if they crashed the airplanes themselves.

So the NTSB makes a few recommendations. The first is to REQUIRE 121/135 operators to look at busts, and factor that into their hiring decisions. Well and good, and since the Eagle crash in 1994 that generated the PIRA law, most outfits always ask.

But under PIRA, outfits only receive from the FAA your list of certificates and ratings, plus any history of accidents. They DO NOT receive any certification history (pinks, test scores, etc.)

The question here is did this outfit in question ask? Obviously if they did, they didn't care, which begs the futher question of what kind of applicants were they getting? It could have been a mom and pop operation with the pilot in question part of the family or a friend of the family, in which case the reg the NTSB was requesting WOULD DO NO GOOD whatsoever, because they would have hired him anyway.

Now the other part of the NTSB recommendation was to review the certifcation requirements for people who bust rudes. It used to be that if you busted a 2nd time, you had to wait 30 days to retest AND you got retested on the whole checkride, not just the items you missed. I can see the FAA going to a program where if you bust a ride, even once, you have to do the whole thing over again. This would be a quick "fix" for them

As to limiting the number of re-tests...whew, thats a tall order. What kind of limit? 2 per rating? 3 total over a period of years (or even forever)? Opens up all kinds of problems (for pilots, obviously, not the FAA). People would be paranoid to the point of breakdown everytime they went for a checkride.

Finally, with regard to CFI hours. I agree with FN FAL and the others. Letting kids go with a comm and 250 hours isn't the ideal situation. It's weird to think we let guys sign other people off (literally in control of their life) with this kind of experience (and more than likely don't even want to be doing it), yet to fly a bunch of cancelled checks around at night you need 1200 hours.

I say swap the CFI regs with 135 regs (cargo only). To be a VFR CFI, you need 500 hours, for IFR make it 1000. But you can fly 135 cargo with the basic commerical/instrument. Everyone gets what they want...time builders can move right into time building, and the people who honestly want to teach can do so when they put some real world experience in (250 hours really is not much).

Flame suit on!

Nu

 

[A Squared]

First, I agree, the crossradials are out. If they are not printed on the IAP chart, they have not been flight checked, and they are not a part of the approach. I don't fault the examiner one bit for not allowing some roll-your-own navigation fixes.

You keep referring to "situational awareness" when the context makes it sound like something you *need* to have.

Tuning your RMI to the LOM when intercepting the localizer, so you know that you're close before the LOC comes alive, that's situational awareness.

Using an estimated cross radial in lieu of a required DME fix, that's *not* situational awareness.

If approach requires DME, you need DME. If you don't have it too bad.

If the approach doesn't require DME, just fly it without all the screwing around with the cross radials.

Something's not adding up here, maybe you could tell us the airport and approach in question so that we can take a look at a plate and understand what the situation is.

 

[100LL... Again!]

A bust or two spread out is understandble. But overall, we do not hold pilots to high enough standards. We are letting in a bunch of wannabe newbies with questionable qualifications into our profession.

We need to make checkrides much more thorough, and the standards tougher.

 

[mattpilot]

The problem with NuGuy's thoughts about CFI & 135 hour requirement flip-flop is that it would probably raise Instructor fees to $50-$80 an hour just for the CFI.

If that would happen at the local FBO here, it would double the training costs. Is that acceptable?

 

[NuGuy]

The problem with NuGuy's thoughts about CFI & 135 hour requirement flip-flop is that it would probably raise Instructor fees to $50-$80 an hour just for the CFI.

If that would happen at the local FBO here, it would double the training costs. Is that acceptable?

Good grief, you make that sound like a bad thing...Can't have those pesky CFI's making any kind of cash...might make them feel like their job is important or something.

It certainly would mean that the CFIs would be able to make more than a pittance, and MIGHT even make the job worth doing other than time building.

With Golf and Tennis pros approaching that kind of coin, and the he-men at the gym telling MILFS to "just go for one more rep" making $50, I see no problem at all with CFI's making that kind of cash.

While it may double the cost of DUAL, with the cost of the aircraft rental factored in, it would be much smaller percentage.

Nu

 

[mattpilot]

NuGuy - would you have the same opinion if you had, say, 20 hours?

I'm all for CFi's making a living... but as i said, the downside would be that the student population would decrease. Rental cost where i live are $50/hr and instructors get $15. So thats $65 for an hour of instruction. Say their pay got increased by $50 to $65 an hour. An hour of instruction would then cost $115.

While that all sounds good to the CFI, the student might think its to expensive. Student population goes down and the CFI only flies 1/3 of the hours, thus making exactly the same amount of money he did when he only got $15 an hour. Also, do the the decrease in GA activity, less fuel sales, etc... FBO's have to find some other way of getting more money.... how about increased TIe-down fees...? how about Airport landing fees? The cost of training then becomes so high that students go into a foreign country to train... Next cheapest country after the US is South Africa or Australia. The GA/Aviation industry is worse off alltogether....

Come to think of it... thats EXACTLY how it works in Europe.

 

[cale42]

I love the suggestion that 135 minimums and CFI minimums be swapped.. As a very low time pilot(I got my CFII at 190 hours and CFIA at 220 no less) I feel I am probably much more qualified to be flying around hard IFR at night than trying to determine the best way to teach people to fly, but the industry is what it is so I try to be the best instructor I can be. Luckily I do work for a big company with lots of more experienced instructors so I can get second opinions on my students and ask questions on instructing ideas and techniques.. it does help a ton.

However some of the issues being discussed here.. limiting number of failed checkrides before a person can't be hired, or going after a CFI when their student fails is dangerous territory. The biggest issue being there is NO STANDARDIZATION whatsoever with how examiners and inspectors give checkrides. So while one person might have a squeaky clean record, if they had to do their rides with someone else they might have 3 failures. I failed my initial CFI ride because I didn't have a physical copy of the AC of subject area codes from the written exams with me.(I knew where to find it, just didn't have it in the testing room with me). So that is now a failure on my record. Can't say I feel it should ever disqualify me from a flying job.

Second on the topic of going after CFI's whos students fail.. this is a very gray area. I fly in the Chicago area where the examiners are notoriously tough and are encouraged to be intimidating in the checkrides. I've seen a number of students who the day before the ride I fly with and they stick everything stone cold.. not outside of PTS once or even close. But they freak out in the checkride and blow something stupid. I think it is pretty hard to blame this on the CFI. If you trained them to standards and they consistently meet them and you prep them for the checkride and then they get intimidated and fail, that is an unfair burden to place on the CFI.

All in all though there does need to be more accountability both in terms of closely examining pilots who consistently don't meet standards, or CFI's who produce students that don't consistently meet standards. But as soon as you start attaching specific numbers of failed checks or students failed checks you are on dangerous ground.

Anyway.. just my two cents.

cale

 

[Clyde]

Checkrides Are Just Part of the Game

I'd hope that a pilot better be able to excercise good judgement under such conditions, bucause those are exactly the conditions you will be finding yourself under in an emergency.

Matt,
That is a very good point. I want to add some things to this thread:

First, it is normal to be a little nervous prior to any type of check. In a way it's good, because at the very least it shows the individual is not overconfident. Under most conditions this nervousness usually goes away shortly after the checkride is underway.

Second, the best advice ever given to me was from one of my captains I flew Falcon's with about 6 years ago. We were talking about approaches and being stabilized. He told me that if I fly every flight like it is a checkride, the checkride is not a big deal. And he was very right. Perform every takeoff staring at the end of the runway, nosewheels glued to the centerline EXPECTING one of those engines to fail right at V1. It becomes habit after a short time, and when you get into the sim and that engine does fail, you're able to catch it quickly and deal with it like it's no problem. Because it isn't. This works with approaches too. Flying an ILS today? Great, pretend like someone is watching you and keep YOUR tolerances tighter than what's expected. That way, when you are being watched in the sim, it's just like another normal day on the line.

Third, don't think of the checkride as a test where you are being scrutinized and under the microscope. Think of it as what it is: an evaluation of your piloting skills and aeronautical knowledge. You are there to demonstrate to an examiner/evaluator that you are competent to fly that airplane by answering questions and performing maneuvers. A steep turn is a manuever. An engine failure after V1 is simply another maneuver too. Don't think of the V1 cut as a gotcha thing. During training, think of it as just another manuever and learn it like one. On steep turn, we raise the nose and add a little power to the engines. i.e., we learn to fly the airplane a little differently than normal to get it to do what we want it to do. On a V1 cut, we add a little rudder and set the power on the remaining engine(s). i.e., we learn to fly the airplane a little differently than normal to do what we want it to do.

What if the checkride is starting to go downhill? What would you do in the actual airplane? Hopefully one would do everything to save it. Do the same thing in the sim. If you make a mistake in the sim, correct it. Sometimes acknowledge it too. i.e., "below the glideslope correcting", or "left/right of localizer and correcting." Remember, the examiner is also looking for trends, and most understand that the sim is not identical to actual line flying.

What about checkride history and employment:

We all make mistakes, and most if not all have busted at least one checkride or PC in our careers. Stuff happens and most employers know it. But, we are professionals and we do need to hold ourselves to high standards.

Let's look at trends again. If a person has a habit of busting checkrides since day one, he/she should seriously look at a career change, especially if this pattern has followed this person well into a 135/121 job. I'm not being mean, but maybe a person like this isn't cut out to fly airplanes. And we all know there are very few second chances outside of the sim, and the actual airplane doesen't care if you are having a bad day. I think checkride history is a good indicator of how a person is going to perform, and not to sound mean, but either you can hack it or you can't.

It's normal to be a little nervous on a checkride, but it's not normal to be all balled up with anxiety on every single one. Accept it as a normal part of life, especially if you are going to do this as a profession. Always be prepared and keep yourself sharp. If you have to memorize your boldface items and procedures a week before your checkride every year, you need to be looking at them more often. What are you going to do 5 months after your checkride if you have an engine failure and you can't remember what to do? Nobody likes to study, but we are professionals and this is what we are paid to do. (take your stuff to Starbucks and sip on a Latte while you study. Nobody said it had to be incredibly boring). But, bottom line is that checkrides are as much a part of life for pilots like crapping in a diaper is for infants. You just do it.

 

[NuGuy]

NuGuy - would you have the same opinion if you had, say, 20 hours?

I'm all for CFi's making a living... but as i said, the downside would be that the student population would decrease. Rental cost where i live are $50/hr and instructors get $15. So thats $65 for an hour of instruction. Say their pay got increased by $50 to $65 an hour. An hour of instruction would then cost $115.

While that all sounds good to the CFI, the student might think its to expensive. Student population goes down and the CFI only flies 1/3 of the hours, thus making exactly the same amount of money he did when he only got $15 an hour. Also, do the the decrease in GA activity, less fuel sales, etc... FBO's have to find some other way of getting more money.... how about increased TIe-down fees...? how about Airport landing fees? The cost of training then becomes so high that students go into a foreign country to train... Next cheapest country after the US is South Africa or Australia. The GA/Aviation industry is worse off alltogether....

Come to think of it... thats EXACTLY how it works in Europe.

So basically what you are saying is that GA in the USA is such a tenuous state that we have to blackmail the new pilots into doing a job MOST do not want to do. We blackmail them by saying "you must do this job or you will never get anywhere, futhermore, you will get paid bubkis". No, I don't buy it.

First, the situation in Europe isn't even remotely related to the US. Obnoixious fuel costs, muderous taxes, ridiculous airspace rules and insane administrative and ATC costs are what cripple GA in Europe, NOT slightly more expensive CFIs.

If I had 20 hours and didn't want to instruct, as we hear SO many here lament, I would be clicking my heals if this deal came along.

But anyway, to deflate your argument:

First, there would be considerably fewer CFIs, I am willing to bet. So while there might be a SLIGHT decrease in students (even that I doubt), the people teaching (oh yea, there are there because they WANT to be there) will find themselves busier to make up for it.

Second: While the most price sensitive people MIGHT shy away, these are typically the students you don't want anyway (believe me). You basically have two categories for students...hobby students and career students.

Hobby students generally only go after a private and maybe (big maybe) an instrument. After that, they are on their own, so increased dual costs will not affect them greatly except for the occational BFR. Remember, a lot of these types of students are successful in life, and already pay other professionals similar cash.

Career students will take a bigger hit. But remember, these people are already shelling out huge sums, and have the "bug", so a %10 increase in dual costs (remember dual only makes up PART of the training cost) would be relatively easy to swallow.

I am willing to bet cash money that once the wage of CFIing gets bumped a bit, you might see more interest from pilots that didn't go that way anyway, thus replacing loss of total CFI numbers.

Nu

 

[mattpilot]

uhm.... no. you arguement makes no sense - its basic supply and demand.


Seeing how you have 10000 hours i doubt you know whats going on in todays flightschools and know anything about the attitudes the students have. Also, i'm european and i had to make the choice to either go to school in europe, africa, or the US.

CFI's in europe actually get paid over $50 an hour at most places. But the reason for that is because there are so few students that the instructors are trying to make a living. Would they get more students if they lowered their fee? possibly... go to pprune.org and check out the number of people that go train outside of europe - most actually in florida. Thats lost business for european instructors. Its not all fuel prices - because its only about 2.5x as much - thats ~$20 more in a 152. But of course, fuel price is also a factor why many do not train in europe.

If I had 20 hours and didn't want to instruct, as we hear SO many here lament, I would be clicking my heals if this deal came along.

I don't want to instruct either once i'm done with my training. Yes, i'd like to fly freight at night when i got 250 hours.

The chain reaction that would be started if the 135/instructor requirments get flipped is that the availability of flight instructors will drastically drop. (Now its already bad enough at my local part 141 school, which employs 50 instructors... and they are already 15 short. In fact, me and lots of my buddies are having trouble getting any flight time in - got 2 hours last month.) Most pilots don't want to instruct and just go to airlines. What incentive does a night freight pilot have to instruct instead of going to a regional airline? Why would a pilot pass up carrier advancement to say 50k - 80k a year at a airline for an instructor job? Oh why its PAY and QOL. The only way for a pilot to instruct is if you match the pay he could get at the airlines. How do we do that? Drastically increase their fees.

So lets assume we go ahead and increase their fees to match airline pay. (Oh and yes, there are "career instructors" but there aren't many to fill demand and definilely not at the current low pay) What will happen next is that the overall tuition for flight training will go up... say from 20k to 35k at a part 61 school and from 50k to 80k at a 141 school (mine, for example). Students will realize that it isn't worth it for regional pay thats being offered at the moment and the suppply will shrink - we can debate for hours as to how much it will shrink, but fact is it WILL shrink.

Next problem is instructors will find less students, and they end up making little more than they did before with a "lower wage". Yes, many instuctors will then try to get to the airlines again and the remaining instuctors will get more students and start making a living. But thats not the end of the story. As iv'e said, FBO's will be selling less text books, they will be selling less fuel, they will have less activity. Thus they will start increasing costs like fuel prices, tie downs, and perhaps charge handling fees. But wait - there's more! The Government will receive less tax money from all those lost fuel sales and they will make it up (to maintain the airports) by charging take-off/landing/ and ATC fees. This puts even more financial burden on the students and the supply will drop even more.

So whats next? The GA industry will 'pump' out less pilots to fill future airline demand and airline growth will slow. Perhaps we should outsource the pilot jobs too like China and many other asian airlines are doing right now? They have a fairly large Expat community and i know a half a dozen pilots flying there.

Do yourself a favor and go to Germany and ask *ANY* FBO person - i've talked to numerous - they all make the same arguement. They all tell you about the golden days germany once had, until the government started to tax everything and the training costs became unbearable. Flying is extremely expensive in germany and even lufthansa trains their pilots in Arizona.

What you need to consider in your arguement is the 'trickle' effect it will have on everything. There will never be just *one* area affected, but the entire industry - and your proposal would upset the current system and match it with europes.

oh.. and thats just my 2 cent.

 

[mattpilot]

oh btw... there are also positive changes that would take place if your suggestion where to take shape.

Once less pilots are being "trained" per anum there once again will be a pilot shortage. The end result of that would be increased pilot pay - perhaps what we've seen 10-20 years ago.

But to be honest.. since you are already in the industry and qualified for any job, your thoughts are hardly worth more than a 0 hour student who wants to get into the industry himself. Kinda unfair to shut the door after you've passed through it, no?

 

[NuGuy]

Matt,

It sounds like you've taken too many econ 101 classes. If you ask any accounting professor, you will find that reality differs greatly from theory.

BTW, just because I have 10,000 hours doesn't mean I'm not in touch. I fly GA regularly, keep my CFI current and instruct and have friends who run large AND small schools.

I disagree with your assumptions. According to you, the only way GA can survive in it's present form is to have slave labor wage CFI's.

No, your problem in Europe is as you say "the government started to tax everything and the training costs became unbearable". Don't forget the obscene tax on fuel. You say that fuel is only 2.5 the cost of it in the US...well, since fuel makes up the largest componenet of direct operating costs of an aircraft, well, yas, I think that has a huge effect.

No, your problem with GA in Europe goes much, much deeper than CFIs making a few more sheckles.

BTW: "The Government will receive less tax money from all those lost fuel sales and they will make it up (to maintain the airports) by charging take-off/landing/ and ATC fees."

The National Airspace System in the US is not funded in the same manner as in Europe. Check your facts.

Actually, I find it interesting that you, who comes over to the US to train, and will, I assume, work as a CFI under a work visa program, feels the need to tell all of us that we need to keep CFIs working for no cash because it's in OUR best interest.

Interesting perspective...maybe I should go over to BMW and tell them that since many people can't afford an M3, their factory workers make too much. They would sell a greater number of cars if they would just get with the program and work for less. Boy, what a hero I would be!

BTW: "Now its already bad enough at my local part 141 school, which employs 50 instructors... and they are already 15 short. In fact, me and lots of my buddies are having trouble getting any flight time in - got 2 hours last month.)"

Sounds like a school problem to me. Maybe they could attract more instructors by paying the CFIs more $$$ rather than less. I can tell you, it is NOT a supply problem. My friend who runs the larger shcool has NO shortage of applicants.

If you are only getting 2 hours a month, you have more serious problems that arguing with me on a webboard.

Nu

 

[flyifrvfr]

First, I agree, the crossradials are out. If they are not printed on the IAP chart, they have not been flight checked, and they are not a part of the approach. I don't fault the examiner one bit for not allowing some roll-your-own navigation fixes.

You keep referring to "situational awareness" when the context makes it sound like something you *need* to have.

Tuning your RMI to the LOM when intercepting the localizer, so you know that you're close before the LOC comes alive, that's situational awareness.

Using an estimated cross radial in lieu of a required DME fix, that's *not* situational awareness.

If approach requires DME, you need DME. If you don't have it too bad.

If the approach doesn't require DME, just fly it without all the screwing around with the cross radials.

Something's not adding up here, maybe you could tell us the airport and approach in question so that we can take a look at a plate and understand what the situation is.

Asquared,Mattpilot. The cross radial is legal to use because I was tracking inbound to a VOR to do a VOR approach. Not VOR/DME, just VOR. I was tracking inbound to the VOR with NAV 1 and since NAV 2 was basically not busy, I tuned in NAV 2 to a VOR just 15 miles away from where I was and used a cross radial as a poor man's DME. The terps would not apply in this situation because primary navigation was being handled by NAV 1 with a centered CDI needle for guidance. So if you guys really think about it I had the option of doing anything I want with NAV 2. I could have set it up for the inbound course for the VOR approach and let it sit there unused.

This VOR approach is simple. Track to the VOR turn left and enter the holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn using a tear drop entry from where I was coming from. Once I cross the VOR do the 5 T's and shoot the approach. Since I didn't want the NAV 2 radio to sit idle waiting for me to turn inbound, I wanted to use the cross radial deal so I knew when I was 2 miles from the VOR. Once that radial is crossed, Do the 5 T's which still leaves me plenty of time to be set up properly for the Approach. It actually was a great idea which I used on my ASEL instrument checkride. The examiner who gave that ride actually congradulated me on being resourceful. The approach in question is the VOR34 approach at KDMW. The cross radial is from FDK VOR. The flight I originated the idea from was from KMTN to KDMW VOR34.

Finally I have to say that situational awareness is important but perhaps more important in the Baltimore/ Washington airspace. The approach did not require DME which I never said it needed. And doing what I proposed was entirely legal.

 

[mattpilot]

NuGuy...

According to you, the only way GA can survive in it's present form is to have slave labor wage CFI's.

No. I said everything is connected to each other in some way. You can't change something in one part of the industry and don't expect it to affect the other part. One of the effects of changing CFI pay is that less students would get trained. GA will indeed suffer if less pilots are flying around on the GA ticket. Even you and your occasional pleasure flight.

No, your problem with GA in Europe goes much, much deeper than CFIs making a few more sheckles.


The National Airspace System in the US is not funded in the same manner as in Europe. Check your facts.

I did not say it was the same. There is a Fund in the US that funds all of the services we enjoy. The name escapes me at the moment, but i'm sure you know what i'm talking about. Every aviation tax gets paid into this fund and this fund pays for all the bills. Granted, airlines are the biggest contributers, but GA also pays its fair share.

So lets assume the GA 'tax' source dries up, one of the results of that would infact be a system more similar to that of europe. How else would they fund it? Nothings for free.

Actually, I find it interesting that you, who comes over to the US to train, and will, I assume, work as a CFI under a work visa program, feels the need to tell all of us that we need to keep CFIs working for no cash because it's in OUR best interest.

Nope.. didn't say that either. I'm all for an increased CFI wage. Be it $5 or $10 or whatever... . The problem i see is with your suggestion of reversing 135/instructor requirements. The only way to meet CFI demand is to pay CFI's the same as airliners do... AND THAT will result in the situation i've been describing in the last posts.

Agree or not.... but everything is always connected. You can't single out one thing and hope it will not somehow affect the other part of the industry. Especially if its as drastic as you are recommending it.

I think i know where your comming from ... your about, or soon, to retire and still want to make a living instructing - but still make a decent living doing so. Well sure... we all would like that. But again, your opinion will differ greatly from someone who is a low time student. And students don't like to pay a lot, thus supply will reduce.. (i think i'm repeating myself here).

No, your problem in Europe is as you say "the government started to tax everything and the training costs became unbearable". Don't forget the obscene tax on fuel. You say that fuel is only 2.5 the cost of it in the US...well, since fuel makes up the largest componenet of direct operating costs of an aircraft, well, yas, I think that has a huge effect.

Fuel makes up half of the direct operating costs. In the US its even less. Lets take a 152 that eats 6gallons an hour. Thats $15 of $60 fee. Now multiply the fuel cost by 2.5 and you get $37.5 for a total of $82.5 per hour in europe. Lets say we pay instructors at least $50 to match airline pay. That makes it $132.5 an hour... about the same price as the cheapest 152 i've found in austria. Now tell me.. whats the biggest part of the equation? Instructor fee or fuel cost?

 

[A Squared]

Asquared,Mattpilot. The cross radial is legal to use because I was tracking inbound to a VOR to do a VOR approach. Not VOR/DME, just VOR. I was tracking inbound to the VOR with NAV 1 and since NAV 2 was basically not busy, I tuned in NAV 2 to a VOR just 15 miles away from where I was and used a cross radial as a poor man's DME. The terps would not apply in this situation because primary navigation was being handled by NAV 1 with a centered CDI needle for guidance. So if you guys really think about it I had the option of doing anything I want with NAV 2. I could have set it up for the inbound course for the VOR approach and let it sit there unused.

This VOR approach is simple. Track to the VOR turn left and enter the holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn using a tear drop entry from where I was coming from. Once I cross the VOR do the 5 T's and shoot the approach. Since I didn't want the NAV 2 radio to sit idle waiting for me to turn inbound, I wanted to use the cross radial deal so I knew when I was 2 miles from the VOR. Once that radial is crossed, Do the 5 T's which still leaves me plenty of time to be set up properly for the Approach. It actually was a great idea which I used on my ASEL instrument checkride. The examiner who gave that ride actually congradulated me on being resourceful. The approach in question is the VOR34 approach at KDMW. The cross radial is from FDK VOR. The flight I originated the idea from was from KMTN to KDMW VOR34.

Finally I have to say that situational awareness is important but perhaps more important in the Baltimore/ Washington airspace. The approach did not require DME which I never said it needed. And doing what I proposed was entirely legal.

OK, so it was a VOR only approach, that helps un-muddy the waters. Looking at it from the examiner's perspective, I think it migh have raised a red flag when on the second go around, you made such a big deal about first the GPS then the cross radials. It might have raised the possibility that, hmmm, maybe this guy can't fly a simple VOR approach using only the VOR. If you's showed up at the retest saying "well the GPS still doesn't have a current database, but no problem, we just won't use it" He wouldn't have thought any more of the matter, but you argue for using a GPS with an expired database when he's already failed you oce for that, then you go and start scaling cross radials off a chart. That seems to suggest that you have some anxiety about doign a VOR approach using only the VOR and a clock, as an examiner, it's reasonable to follow up that suspicion, and certainly it is reasonable on a Comm multi ride for instrument privileges in a twin, it is reasonable to expect you to be able to do a simple VOR approach.

I one context the cross radials could be seen as a "situational awareness" thing, and a plus, in a different context, they could be seen as a crutch, and it's not unreasonable to expect that you do it without the "crutch".

Now, I'm not saying that you aren't capable of flyign the VOR approach with just a VOR, but I can also see how that might seem like a possibility to the examiner.


As for threatening to break the examiner's arm, if in fact you actually did that, if I was the examiner, I'd have pinked you right there. The reason for the disapproval would have been "thretened examiner with bodily harm" and I would have brought the matter to the attention of the local FSDO. I think that instead of complaining about he examiner, you should be quitely thanking your lucky stars that the examiner let you slide on this.