NTSB recommendation on failed checkrides

[flyifrvfr]

Wheelsup, the beauty of the GPS/coms is that you can isolate the GPS from the nav/com. I was using the GNS480 and I was not putting the nav/vor frquency into the unit. Remember that I said that failing the checkride was my fault and I deserved the pinkslip, but the DE had the option of letting me use the GPS as we were VFR in VMC. I can use the GPS and all of its functions on a checkride even if the database is expired. The choice to let me rests with the DE and he saw that I didn't put the frequencies in so he turned off the screen and immediaitely failed me.

I can't stress enough that I deserved the pink slip, but I didn't deserve his attitude on the retest. Please understand that you can use a GPS for primary navigation, even when doing practice approaches while VMC in VMC. It made no difference if the database was expired.

 

[wheelsup]

but the DE had the option of letting me use the GPS as we were VFR in VMC.

Ah, I see. You failed to mention that in your first post - there was no mention of it being done VFR or on a VFR flight plan...I can only go off the information given to me by you.

I understand why he failed you know, and why you were upset, he never gave you a chance to "intergrate" with the other forms of navigation. A dick move? yep...of course threatening bodily harm probably was a dick move on your part.

Also, did the DE not want you to use published cross-radials from other VOR's on the approach plate? What's up with that? If they're published, its legit. That doesn't make any sense.

sorry mate,
~wheelsup

 

[TonyC]

What a great story

I figured it was all fiction after, "... then turned to the examiner and warned him that if he touched the GPS I was going to break his arm. I stated that I know that he is going to fail me but when we are done, I would be the only one getting out of the plane with two working arms."

Mind you, they were still on the ground at this point. Any examiner that would continue to fly at that point should have his head examined.





.

 

[flyifrvfr]

I swear to god that this is a true " story ". I told the examiner straight forward that I know he is going to fail me again but if he touched the GPS I was going to break his arm. Now what I didn't mention in the story is that the examiner treated me with some respect after that. The DE also told my CFII what I said to him after I passed the re-ride and why; it was the longest flight back to the home airport I have ever had.

The morning of the re-ride, I walked into the office and told the examiner that I did some flight planning and was going to use cross radials from a VOR which is located 15 miles from the VOR I was using for a VOR approach. This radial was selected and plotted for distance but is not part of a charted approach. I was doing more work, but when I crossed the radial I knew I was two miles from the VOR I was tracking. I would than switch to the second VOR and prepare for a holding pattern in lieu of procedure turn outbound. The examiner told me no, I couldn't do this. I asked him to show me a reference where it prohibits using a non charted cross radial for situational awareness.

The DE said he knew of no reference other than that he could do what he wanted to do, not what I wanted to do. My CFII was in the office when I said that I have used this procedure before, it is safe and should be allowed as it tells me exactly when I will be in the zone of ambiguity. My CFII saw me get angry with the DE while still in his office and my CFII told me to wait outside. I told the examiner that I don't need to see him again until 12:00pm and that he would be best served to avoid me.

12:00 came and I went into his office. I was led to believe that we would go directly to the plane, but to my dismay he wanted to do another oral exam which I had already passed the day before. He tried everything he could think off to throw at me but I answered every question and showed him references to all of my answers. He said lets go to the plane. I once again told him that I was going to use the cross radial and he again said no. I than said as I was starting the engine that you are going to fail me anyway and as I entered the destination into the GPS I turned to him and said, touch the GPS and I will break your arm. I told him that I may fail but I will be the only one getting out of the plane with two working arms.

In closing, I have to say that I am not proud of how I treated the examiner. We were both unprofessional and threatening him was a STUPID move. I tell this story so others won't make the same mistake I made. I took two additional rides with the DE and as a CFII/MEI I would not hesitate to send a student to him for a checkride. We just got off on the wrong foot. Even though I threatened him, I still had to perform to PTS standards. I actually made it worse for myself because he could have failed me for just saying that to him. I am sure he looked for reasons to fail me again that are based on performance and not emotion. I do perform well under pressure. Heck, I recall that the procedure turn is to the left, guess which engine was failed and which engine I had to turn into.

 

[mattpilot]

The DE said he knew of no reference other than that he could do what he wanted to do, not what I wanted to do. My CFII was in the office when I said that I have used this procedure before, it is safe and should be allowed as it tells me exactly when I will be in the zone of ambiguity.

Uhm.. i don't suppose YOU have a reference for that?

You can not use an uncharted radial for an instrument approach. Perhaps you can in VMC under VFR flight rules, but under IFR rules you may not do that. The reason is because it has not been tested, or it has been tested and it was found the accuracy or some other critiria was unsatisfactory. There is a book called TERPS which outlines the requirements for EVERYTHING on an approach - if those requirements are not met for a certain 'procedure', it will not be authorized.

Since your checkride was supposed to simulate IFR conditions, the DPE was well within his rights to not allow you to use it, even if the flight was unde VFR rules, since in a real world situation, you wouldn't be allowed to use it either.

 

[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