"The final challenge" - examining standards

[hugh flung_dung]

A question for the examiners out there ...
In the recent "Where to fly" freebie from Pilot mag there's an article called "The final challenge" that describes a PPL skill test from the candidates viewpoint - compared to the way I test people it seems rather OTT.
Is it me that's a soft touch or the reported examiner that's being a bit tough? How does this compare with the way the rest of you run PPL skill tests?

[IRRenewal]

And why scare the chap by including the bit about the man being Marshall's Chief Test Pilot? Relevance?

Btw, seen the picture in the same mag of the BA 'Boeing' all us professional pilots want to fly?

[Freebird17]

I have no connection with the school in question and have never flown with them but I've seen their students on dual and solo 'land aways' at other airfields. They're all very disciplined and methodical and give the impression that high standards are expected of them. Omitting to put the pitot cover on during even a short turnaround is a cardinal sin apparently.

[fireflybob]

>Omitting to put the pitot cover on during even a short turnaround is a cardinal sin apparently.<

An even bigger one is omitting to remove it prior to the next flight!! LOL

[foxbat43]

I haven't seen the article in question but i know people whove had similar experiences with tests. I've always believed that when i conduct a PPL test/renewal, my primary concern should be whether or not the guy can safely operate the a/c!

My 2cents

[Say again s l o w l y]

Who made up the article title "The final challenge"? No it isn't, it's merely a point along the learning process.

Grumble, grumble.....

[foxbat43]

Very true- a good "test" is actually more of a lesson.
Food for thought.

[shortstripper]

As a non instructor I agree foxbat.

I don't "feel" I have ever been "tested", but I know I have recieved some pretty good instruction during those "points along the way" that SAS so rightly refers too. :ok:

SS

[fireflybob]

Also bear in mind that although you cannot complain about the result of a test you CAN complain about the conduct of the test.

In my opinion examiners dont have to be holier than thou to conduct a test properly and can achieve far more by taking steps to put the candidate at ease. This does not mean compromising on the required standard but is, I feel, just common sense.

[Onan the Clumsy]

Very true- a good "test" is actually more of a lesson In the States, this is actively discouraged. It's just a test. At some level I sort of agree with it, but it still seems to me to be a great lost opportunity. In any event, there's usually some knowledge imparted anyway.

[Banjo]

Have to say the examiner is there to examine you NOT teach you. Yes he can do it in a friendly and relaxed manner to help reduce mistakes made from too many nerves but he is not there to give you advice or teach.

If you are not up to standard then you should not be going forward for a test and last minute cramming advice and help from your examiner is only cheating you from having a true impartial opinion as to your ability. something that may well save your life one day, or that of your passengers.

Too often I have seen incestuous test carried out and it is a practice that needs to be stopped. That may seem harsh to some but so is crashing.

[jsf]

IR Renewal

Btw, seen the picture in the same mag of the BA 'Boeing' all us professional pilots want to fly?

Yes haven't you seen all the hype surrounding the launch of the New Boeing "Toulouse" :ok: :)

jsf

[hugh flung_dung]

Onan the Clumsy said: In the States, this is actively discouraged. It's just a test - it's actively discouraged in the UK too; Examiners are forbidden from teaching or commenting during the test. In practise, if everything else is going well, I would normally give them a hint if they mess something up before giving them a chance to repeat the exercise ("now Bloggs, how do you maintain height and speed in a steep turn? that's right, did you do that just now? aha! show me another turn at 50-60 degrees of bank and this time maintain height and speed").

Banjo, I agree totally. It's still legit to test your own IMC and aeros studes but it's far better for stude and examiner if training/examining are done by different people.

I think it's important to try to put Bloggs at his/her ease and not to make life harder than it has to be. People need to be safe but they don't need to be the ace of the base (at PPL level).

[Keygrip]

maintain height and speed
...but, HFD, how do you know thew ground below is perfectly level?

Would it not be more accurate/professional to ask them to maintain "altitude"? They probably have a QNH set anyway.

[hugh flung_dung]

:O err, that's what I said, you must have misheard
;)

[CaptAirProx]

Gotta admit HFD I agree with your start post.

If my chap has passed with flying colours I tend to use the opportunity to throw in some possible words and themes of sound advice. As generally you have their attention. If a doubtful pass, I shut up but still give the odd helpful prod. But still play by the rules. If a definate cocked up test and I have made up my mind during that test, I use the rest of the test as a lesson to give the guy/girl a positive building block to learn from before they go off and do their recommended retraining then retest.

[BEagle]

Well personally I thought that the test seemed rather on the harsh side...

Take-off straight into a best angle-of-climb departure? I'd let the chap settle down into a totally normal departure.
Was all that RT yack really needed? Personally I'd expect the chap to tell, not ask, Wyton that he'd be routing through the overhead, not to have bothered with Conington as he was going to be well clear of their ATZ, then a quick call to Cottesmore to cross the Wittering MATZ stub. But to ask for a RIS on such a nice day - vis. at least 15 miles with a 3000 ft cloudbase? On the second leg I'd have expected a courtesy call to Fenland as he was routing directly overhead, then FIS from Marham for MATZ penetration en-route to East Dereham..

Descend to min. level? Where is that in the PPL Skill Test? It used to be in the old NFT, but has been out for over 5 years now. I presume the 180 deg turn was done with foggles? Then a diversion straight afterwards? Hmmm... The div itself should be prefixed "When you are ready, I want you to divert...." Again, screw ATC, fly the a/c and think ahead about the Chatteris site. A bit of a rotten trick to spring a diversion which would track right through a parachuting site - but why oh why waste time with Marham when a call to Chatteris Radio would have clarified things?

Fix position - fine. But "Track the CAM NDB to depart the overhead on a heading of East?" - that's a bit OTT, in my view. "Fix position, now track towards Cambridge until I tell you" would have been more reasonable.

A 20 min break for the FE to feed his face doesn't give the applicant much of a break if he's expected to dip the tanks and check the fuel as well - probably worse than just 'diverting' somewhere further away during the nav section, then to have done the GH on the way home, then the circuits?

And as for keeping the poor sod dangling for so long before telling him he'd passed......

I see that the whole thing took 7 hours!! The guidance in the PPL Skill Test guide is 4 1/2.. Which is about what I find it usually takes; 2 hours to brief and plan, 2 1/2-ish for the test, then the debrief.

[CaptAirProx]

BEagle, precisely.

That profile reminded me of my commercial flight test.

I can think of many a prospective student that what faulter at the mere prospect of such a test.

[BEagle]

And another point - who on earth teaches "..the only time you shouldn't be busy doing a FREDA check is when you're busy doing a FREDA check"? Utter twaddle - about every 15 minutes is fine. Nor should FREDA checks be done at turning points, that's the time for Heading/Airspeed/Altitude/Time checks - FREDA should wait until a low activity point e.g shortly after an ETA revision at a visual fix point.

I'm sure that the conduct of this Skill Test has raised an eyebrow or two!

[bookworm]

I'm sure that the conduct of this Skill Test has raised an eyebrow or two!

The candidate's account of his recollection of this Skill Test seems to have raised eyebrows. While I don't doubt for a moment that the account is related in good faith, it seems unlikely that the candidate had the spare capacity to take detailed notes for the purpose of the article. You might find that the examiner paints a different picture.

I haven't flown with the examiner in question, but my impressions from conversations with him are that there are are few as able as he is to align the level of both teaching and challenge to the abilities of the student.

[IRRenewal]

but my impressions from conversations with him are that there are are few as able as he is to align the level of both teaching and challenge to the abilities of the student.But this wasn't a lesson, this was a test. Are you saying that this examiner sets the level of the challenge based on his perceived ability of the candidate?

[Say again s l o w l y]

I do hope not. There is obviously a level any student must achieve, but this should always be consistent.

[homeguard]

Quite often it would seem to me the purpose of a test is forgotten. Why can't we just get a friend to show us how and when we think we are ok, leave it at that?

In all walks of life we are now required to demonstrate a MINIMUM standard of ability in order to protect the SAFETY of others. That minimum standard is normally demonstrated within a practical test and the knowledge required - in the most part - within a written and oral examination. However, it is so easy to create a science of it all and for the test to become, unwittingly, an event sustained only for itself. A 'challenge'. This became a desease within the old CAFU regime and hasn't entirely been cured. Not every one but some see the GFT/Skill Test as a hurdle or a performance for which a rehearsal is required, much like an actor rehearses for a performance. The CPL course sadly is no more than a rehearsal for the big day because of the dominance of the test at the end. The sequence and routes being practiced extensively. Too much imput from the examiner (such like a heckler in the audience) and the candidate may appeal against the conduct of the test.

BEagle is absolutely correct in his analysis. The job of us as Examiners is not to impose some sought of barrier to an applicant applying to join a club. They are not joining a private club of like minded individuals. The Skill Test is no more than a safety check. The question should only be; Does this individual have the ability and the knowledge not to cause others and themselves harm? If yes they should be allowed their right to exercise their freedom. In our case FLY an aeroplane or Helicopter! They will only get better.

Having said that the late Ron Campbell told a story of a PPL he was checking out for his local flying club. Apparently the PPL was dreadful. He asked the individual who had taught him to fly. "you did sir, some fifteen years ago", the PPL replied.

[bookworm]

But this wasn't a lesson, this was a test. Are you saying that this examiner sets the level of the challenge based on his perceived ability of the candidate?

I haven't been examined by him, so I have no clear view as to how he conducts his tests.

[bookworm]

I'll quit on the test standards issue, but I would like to pick up on one point made earlier, which is something of a hobby horse of mine.

But to ask for a RIS on such a nice day - vis. at least 15 miles with a 3000 ft cloudbase?

The probability of having a mid-air collision is dependent on both the traffic density and the probability of not spotting a conflicting aircraft before it is too late. I would contend that fair weather has a huge influence in increasing the former, and only a minor influence in reducing the latter.

The latest AAIB bulletin contains a report (http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/publications/bulletins/april_2005/robinson_r22_beta__g_lids_and_hybred_44xlr__g_mtjp.cfm) on a fatal mid-air collision between an R22 and a microlight. Despite the 30 km visibility, and airspeeds of the order of just 70 knots each, they didn't see each other in time. The incident is not unusual in that most if not all mid-air collisions occur in good VMC.

A RIS would not have saved these aircraft, but the incident does put yet another nail in the coffin of the myth that assistance in collision avoidance, whether from ATC or electronics, is only necessary or useful in poor visibility.

[BEagle]

Sorry, I disagree completely. VFR means 'see and avoid'; on a nice weather day there will be more a/c out and about generally, and ATC will neither be able to cope nor provide any worthwhile RIS. Ever tried flying in France?

About the only time I use a RIS when flying GA is under IMC when self-navigating as I can then make my own decisions on separation standards rather than having them imposed by a third party which would be the case under a RAS*. Similarly with RAS - I'll use that only when under radar vectors in IMC when flying GA.

LOOK OUT!!

*amended for clarity.

[Keygrip]

The law of averages suggests that for any given number of good answers and comments, at least one other of them will be garbage.

In my opinion the last response from BEagle falls into the latter - with the obvious exception of the comments that VFR is "see and avoid" - and his 'out' line of LOOK OUT.

Fortunately, we are all entitled to our own opinion - and BEagle can continue doing it his way, whilst bookworm does it his.

A RIS doesn't set any standards of separation at all, you still have the authority to set your own.

[BEagle]

Read my post again - where did I imply that RIS 'provided' separation? It's in IMC in the GA environment where I prefer a RIS to a RAS so that I can decide my own separation based upon information provided by ATC rather than necessarily being given the separation standards provided by a RAS. Unless I'm following radar vectors, in which case I'll do as requested.

Have amended my earlier post for clarification on this point.

The endless yack on RT on good weather days from the "Err, good morning, sir, this is Golf Alfa Blah Blah Blah, err, I'm an AB34R turbo in a fetching shade of red routing from Little Piddle on the Gusset to err, Stupidville, err via the, err, ABC to the DEF to the FGH, sir, err, request Radar Information Service, sir, err, over" brigade who really do annoy me though!

And some FIs are teaching RT yack to the detriment of basic VFR navigation skills. A point which we are currently investigating.

[Keygrip]

Suitably amended message does make more sense. But - can't read it again because it's changed.

Fully agree with the comment about instructors teaching too much 'Yap'.

Am curious to know who is the "WE" in the phrase, "A point which we are currently investigating".

[BEagle]

Well, the meaning was the same before the amendment - I just tried to clarify it further by subsequently adding the items in italics.

'We' are a small unofficial group looking, on behalf of a safety organisation, at possible reasons behind poor navigation standards shown by some private pilots in the UK.

[homeguard]

I whole heartedly agree with BEagle on this whole issue.

A RIS service in a PPL Skill Test is put simply; over the top and would probably have been a distraction for the candidate and therefore a hindrance for everyone. In many cases it could hinder the conduct of the test.

Whatever the arguments, if all VFR flights request an RIS it will not happen for the majority. The ATC Unit would, due to needs must decline the service to all other than the most in need. The Controller is limited to a specific maximum number of recipients that they are allowed to handle.

[CaptAirProx]

Im on BEagle's side here.

It does nark me that people use the radar services of LARS units a little too much at times. Unfortunately it does seem to me that a lot of people use the limited and underfunded services of a LARS unit at the expense of someone who perhaps really needs the radar cover. It appears most of the RIS/RAS provided is to a VMC condition pilot just asking for it cos its nice. Then the Navajo or whatever flying IFR, paying airways charges calls up in iMC and told, negative due workload only a FIS is possible. Arrghh.

If I need it to get on top of cloud for training, I cancel the RIS once 'ontop' and keep a bloody good look out. Then ask for it again on descent. Quite often my local LARS unit seem to appreciate this and always give me a RIS on return as best they can!

Mind you controllers really need to remember that when offering a FIS and then being kind and pointing out traffic on radar, is forcing Joe Public GA into thinking they have something more than a FIS or indeed a FIS entitles them to have a running commentary on anything airbourne. Quite often I hear a pilot bitching to the controller that an aircraft got 'awfully' close whilst under a FIS and blaming the controller! Oh please!

Anyway, back to the topic!

[davetidwell]

Hi fellows flyers!

I've been reading this thread with some interest! I am the poor culprit at the heart of the article!

In clarification of the many observations made in the thread I'd like to firmly state that the document you all read was a "condensed version" of a much longer document, and the intent of it was to celebrate the succesfull completion of training, rather than to scare-monger potential skills-test candidates!

My examiner couldn't have been a nicer chap! The angle that he is a Chief Test Pilot was a self imposed pressure, as a result of spending a couple of years scurrying past his office on the way to the pilots or briefing rooms! He has throughout my training and beyond been a pillar of excellence, continually motivating and supporting his fellow colleagues as well as us trainee private pilots!

The test was not a "pressure" environment induced by the examiner. The pressure "was self induced" by my own pressure to perform. I didn't want to fail!

Anecdotes, like the "only time you shouldn't be doing a FREDA check is when you're busy doing a FREDA check" carried me through my training, help to re-inforce the process of managing cockpit time effectively. We all know flying is a matter of doing 3000 simple things in the right order at the right time. The slightest bit of additional worry can blow your ability to aviate effectively! Words of advise like that didn't do me any harm at all. I'd rather do too many FREDA's than too few!

For those of us that have hundreds of hours under our belts, maybe the routine is more normalised, but for me, snippets of advise like that did burn home, to the extent that I can still clearly remember them and I carry them with me today every time I fly.

I'm delighted that the article spurned a few debates. I was immensely proud of my achievement on passing my test, and as some have pointed out, it represents the beginning of the learning curve, not the end of it!

Happy landings to you all, and best wishes from our new home in Canada!

All the best

Dave Tidwell

[BigEndBob]

I always had my candidates cross country go through or close to a matz/lars so that they had the option of asking for FIS or RIS.
Usually RIS was asked for. This in no way was detrimental to the progress of the test. This is used to check correct use of procedures, r/t, transponder.

There have been very few who couldn't cope, otherwise they wouldn't have been put in for the test.