Hi all. Well, sat my PPL test on Saturday, and got a partial. Totally messed up my PFL-there was no way in hell I was getting into the chosen field! I've always found PFLs difficult, but recently they have been good. I couldnt believe I didnt pass first time. Re sit of PFL is this weekend.

Anyone else partial the test? Is this common, and is PFL usually sticking point?

Why exactly did you "fail" the PFL part?

When I practise PFLs (not down to below 500' and never in the same area I might add btw), I certainly can't be 100% confident I would have made the field all the time. This surely does not justify a partial pass in a skills test surely unless you had not shown any evidence of what you had been taught? In other words, I was not under the impression it had to be obvious you would have definately made a safe forced landing from the 500' point in the particular field you were shooting for? moreover it's a question of demonstrating a good pattern, maintaining glide speed, decision to use flaps, checks, RT calls and so on.

Any instructors care to comment on this?

From reading these forums and talking to other pilots the PFL seems to be by far the hardest part of the test.

I struggled with it, and in fact during the test I had to do it twice. The first time I wouldn't have made it. The second time I did.

Now I am fairly sure I could handle a PFL and I got there.

So overall, imho, you are not alone and it does seem to be something that quite a few students struggle with.

To be honest PFL's to 500ft are not much use.

With the permission of the farmer ( well he used to phone up and complained we wern't using his when we used other fields) I used to take them down to 10 ft.

By far the most handeling mistakes were done in the last 150ft.

Some students do struggle with PFL's and not for any handeling issues. Its purely a mental thing. They get all flustered and instead of flying the aircraft they get hooked on the added extra stuff. And thier SA goes out the window.

If you give them one in the over head of the airport they will put it in sweet as you like.

I used to enjoy teaching PFL's and usually didn't have any problems. But then again I was totally crap at them until an old Heavy driver PPruner took me up out of PIK when I was still hour building and showed me his method which was totally unstressful and worked. It's the method I have taught since.

...showed me his method which was totally unstressful and worked. It's the method I have taught since.

and the method is......?;)

MJ, Go on then. Give us a clue. Constant aspect method? In which case please describe your version of it. I have always had a nagging doubt about how I would do if the fateful day ever arrived.
Mike

I 'partialled' on my PFL as well.The only likely looking field was full of sheep,so I picked a less suitable one and made a right hash of it.The examiner said if thais was a real emergency,I would have to take my chances with the sheep. (perhaps a/c should be fitted with a horn for this situation;))

1 hours revision,straight up with examiner,PFL'd no problem.I alway like to PFL whenever I have an instructor on board (check on type model of a/c etc) and seem to have quelled my fear factor for them.)

Good luck with your retest
MM

The weakest element of the PFL amongst test candidates is having not being trained to use the wind as a friend. The wind is too often considered an enemy to, put it simply, be feared. It should be used to replace the engine. Flying into it to reduce ground or running with it to gain ground and to widen and tighten your position

Too often the candidate positions downwind of the field touch down point. In this situation the wind is indeed an obstacle for it is now only doing one thing, it is holding you back. Too many judgements are then required as the w/v changes during the descent. "am I going to be too high or too low .....?" with the resulting 'grabbing at straws' and an abandonment of good proper technique.

The CAA is insistant that the PFL cannot be re-assessed during a single flight. They argue: "you wouldn't get a second chance in the real situation". But, I agree with those that assess good technique in the sum, whatever the actual outcome, good technique can only ensure that results get better.

I'm a great fan of the 'constant aspect/angle' technique for it requires remaining up wind whenever possible with a continous utilisation of the w/v as you descend keeping the field relationship constant. Should your only option be straight ahead with little height then go straight in but leave flap until you are absolutely certain your midfield can be reached, Use side-slip or weaving or a combination of both during the descent.

The examiner has a responsibilty not to put unnecessary problems into the mix. I put a lot of effort into ensuring the candidate has a number of options and further that they have lots of height and have identified their choice before I close the throttle.

I was going to try and write it but to be honest I can't do justice to a 40 min brief and a demo. The brief does included running around the briefing room making aircraft noises with bits of paper on the floor and a fan running.

Its exactly as homeguard points out.

At all points you are using the wind as a tool.

Either to help you see a field or to help you cover distance to get to a good one and of course to get you in.

Low wing I am a fan of constant aspect, high wing I used to demonstrate both it worked for some but not others.

The other thing is if your really having problems with PFL's go and do some gliding. I never had a single glider pilot who struggled wth PFL's, one of the buggers even gained 500ft when I pulled the power on him. Made sure we were well away from any ridges after that.

I think what got me in a mess with the PFL was that when the power was cut, we were at 2,000ft and facing into wind. In the pattern Ive been taught, this puts me at my 2,000ft point on the 'crosswind' leg on the centreline of the field I was gonna land in (even tho in this case i was facing into wind already) Seeing as I was already at 2,000ft (and I couldnt figure how id make a whole pattern work picking a field ahead of me) I simply picked a field right under the wing and started turning a pattern around it. I was far too high, tried side slipping but was still way too high.

Examiner got me to climb away and try one more time, because all my checks were spot on he said just fly the pattern, ignore all checks. Still ballsed it up. Flew an ok pattern I thought, but was too high. I turned in towards the field too early, and even with side slip was not getting in. Unfortunately, I didnt decide to try the fields either side, I just kept it coming down, not really accepting the fact that i was too high and wasnt gonna get in. (In back of my mind I was told that if you dont get into the field you choose on test, its a fail).

I was really annoyed with myself, the whole test was really good up to there. I actually was enjoying it. The other 40 mins of the test after PFLs was a nightmare tho, knowing I had already failed. Still, eveything was ok, the only issue he raised being the PFL and a little silly confusion with the VOR tuning. (in that I had the same VOR freq by chance tuned into VOR 1 and 2, but was adjusting VOR 2 whilst identing on VOR radio 1).

I think it is the pattern and realising where I am in the pattern given the wind conditions on the day and my altitude that gets me confused. For example, should you always fly a crosswind, downwind, base final, even if you are into wind and there is a great field ahead but youre too high to get in stragiht and too low to fly the pattern around?

Thanks all, hope I havent confused everyone too much!

I see you're from Aberdeen, so you should pop over to Aboyne and watch the gliders land on what I'm told is little better than a big footpath. You'll see them constantly adjusting the circuit and sometimes improvising radically in what can be extreme conditions.

When I learnt to fly gliders I had a real problem with circuits because I was trying to fly an identical circuit each time. In a glider every landing is a FL (no P), and every circuit needs to be different (having said that, it must be easier in a glider because you have enough performance to give yourself time; my sink rate in the circuit is around 1.5 feet per minute!).

Talk to the guys at Aboyne - you might even be offered a flight to see what unpowered circuit planning is like.

Hmmm got a partial from messing up the recovery from a spiral dive had a moment of madnes and open throttle instead of closing it. Needless to say examinier had a few choice words. (by the way closed it straight away but too late)

Robbo

You cannot have too much height should you have an engine failure (hope is that you never will). Your height cannot be a problem unless your too low. The circuit is not the purpose. The purpose is to get the aeroplane safely into a field. An engine failure should it ever happen will do so at any height.

The late Frank Morgan told me a story of an FIC student of his that was having a problem flying a PFL, yet alone teach it. Instead of commencing at a normal teaching height of 2-2500ft, he took the student instructor to 5000ft to give more time. Frank then closed the throttle and told the very nervous instructor to be to take his time and teach the complete process to him at a steady pace. The student promptly dived to 2,500ft before commencing the lesson which he screwed up in a rush yet again.

Always be pleased to have height for it gives you distance, time and more options. To have chosen a field under the wing is perfect. You will without doubt be able to land in it. Fly an extra orbit overhead the field if far too high. The 'high' or 'low key' points are to give you guidance which aren't always hit, in fact they usually are not. You may have to turn inside or widen out, that is what they are for - guidance.

You should review the taught technique with your instructor and then ask if you could be signed out to practice the PFL solo. Then experiment around different fields from different heights playing with the wind to understand its effect on you. Practising PFLs solo can be important as with a normal circuit. Practising solo will re-enforce your decision making which from your own description is your weak point.

Whatever, trim the aeroplane well and keep things simple. Don't be too hard on yourself. The major problem with the PFL is that the conditions will never be the same twice - accept that.

I got a partial due to my PFL. I picked a field and then was so hung up on all the bits and pieces that I forgot to fly down to it, and ended up much too low. The main problem I had was not admitting it had all gone wrong until too late, when I had no height left.

I think that in the real world all you would do would be to land the plane. You're taught a lot of extra stuff, and I'm not for a minute suggesting this isn't important, but it's easy to think 'Oh no, I haven't warmed the engine' when of course this would be irrelevant in the real thing. I find all these things can be distracting from the job at hand.

It also depends on the examiner - do they assess it as a PFL - that is practice - or do they think this person isn't likely to stall in so would do a reasonable job of landing the plane in an emergency.

I passed on the retake, but was worried because I'd been told that I was being re-examined on the whole flight - I didn't want to mess it up with something I'd done perfectly before!

I partially passed because of a dyslexic moment during the navigation phase (and I'm not even cixelsyd...couldn't resist). The instructor told me to turn onto 300 and I turned onto 030 (or something like that).

With regard to PFLs, I struggled with them in Dundee, but my instructors in Jersey were great at teaching them...Trim to 75kts look out for a decent field, look for the tell-tale signs of wind direction (trees, flags, chimney smoke), check engine gauges, fuel, mags, etc., put in a Mayday call, and when you're sure you will get into the field then put your flaps down.

For example, should you always fly a crosswind, downwind, base final, even if you are into wind and there is a great field ahead but youre too high to get in stragiht and too low to fly the pattern around?

immeadiate action obviously is trim for best glide - then pick a field - if a suitable one is straight ahead - use that.

Flying a circuit round a field isn't necessarily going to help you if you have a real engine failure - pick a field and make sure you can get into it - fly curved approach or extend if you're too high, if you're not going to make that realise it early on - accept it, and choose another (closer) field!

You adjust the approach depending on your height with ref to the chosen field - the important thing is to get into it, not to do xw/downwind legs.

On my recent reval skills test, I changed the field I was heading for once the first started looking less suitable for one off to the side - the examiner was perfectly happy with that.

The test is to see if you're competent, safe, and can cope with a changing situation - they're not going to fail you for picking a different field if you're not going to make your chosen one.

Always during a skills test (if you can manage it without overloading yourself) spend a few seconds scoping out the terrain as you fly along - on the assumption that the examiner is going to pull the throttle at any given time.

And also - be aware of where you are on the chart - I've had two different examiners/instructors who have done a PFL on me, let me do it (prefectly well), and then gleefully point out the gliding site/disused but clear runway that we flew over 2 mins ago! It's a bit like exits on a 737 - the nearest one might behind you!

Thanks for this thread, most useful as PFL is one of things I am doing at the moment.

(PP is telling me it's a long time since I posted but the thanks are genuine!)

Vancouv wrote:

I passed on the retake, but was worried because I'd been told that I was being re-examined on the whole flight - I didn't want to mess it up with something I'd done perfectly before!


I seem to remember the examiner stating on my retake that I would be examined on my departure and approach as well as the PFL.Seem to remember that the landing was not marked again,the examiner could even do it for you.I did it myself-always wondered if I had wrecked the a/c if I would still have passed:confused:
MM

Those of you that kid yourself that certain things do not matter should have a serious rethink.

1) Why fly the aeroplane first? To conserve height maintaining the maximum options open to you.
2) Why choose a particular field and plan a 'circuit/pattern' through to the landing. Throughout the descent things may appear to change and temptation will often be to change your mind - illogically. Having a plan will give you something to assess your progress against.
3) Why do checks? Simple - the most likely reason for the failure will be YOU. Failure to routinely check for carb. icing, mixture not returned to rich for the descent, primer not locked properly, a fuel tank run dry, etc. Feel a bit of a twit won't you when it becomes obvious later that there was nothing wrong with the aeroplane - much worse you may now have injured passengers following the landing in a muddy rough field and less important you now have a broken aeroplane that wasn't broke before.
4) Why simulate the 'mayday'. It will be critical that ATC know where you are, you perhaps cannot be seen on RADAR. The POB is critical for you could all be seriously injured but scattered around the area, shocked people often will wander off and need finding. The rescue services MUST know how many people, who could need immediate and critical treatment, to find/look for before leaving the scene for the hospital.
5) The shut down is very important in the process. a) to avoid temptation/distraction should the engine come to life temporarily once you are commited. b) To isolate electrics minimising sparks following landing. c) to isolate fuel from fractured pipes and the possibility of ignition.
6) Doors unlatched . Will minimise the risk of a door jam preventing evacuation and harnesses tight etc will minimise injuries

I've kept the points to the minimum and only responded to the particular wayward but to be fair naive remarks made here by some . Vancouv, slopey and Emma think again about what you have said, these things will not/should not be left out I assure you, whatever rumours you have heard. You may have picked up that the origin of this thread was the very honest partial candidate admitting to confusion - imagine the real thing then. It will be very important, in the unlikely event that a total engine failure happens, that a technique is understood and followed as much as is possible in a very great moment of stress. Your passengers may be your children, don't forget that!

Vancouv, slopey and Emma think again about what you have said, these things will not/should not be left out I assure you

Absolutely - just because they're not in my post doesn't mean I wouldn't or don't do them - I do all checks, radio calls, etc as described on every PFL - practice makes perfect should the real thing ever happen.

I was merely pointing out that it's ok to change the target field if for any reason the first one becomes unsuitable (sheep/won't make it/etc), that you were unlikely to be penalised for doing so, and that if there's one straight ahead, and you're happy with it - land in that!

checks/restart if time/comms/harnesses/unlatch doors/flaps/master/fuel off etc should all be done of course, just wasn't going to give the proceedure chapter and verse! :)

Emma, Vancouv and Robbo

My fingers are crossed for you all and I wish you the best, i'm sure that you will not need luck.

Your examiner will not throw things at you randomly. A simulated engine fire will not be combined with a PFL.

The task of the examiner is to assess whether you have completed the syllabus and can apply it to a reasonable standard, that is all. He/she will only wish to see that the training given can be carried out by you. You will not be expected to be the ace of the base. A subjective assessment will only follow a genuine mistake. You will make some mistakes for we all do. The examiner will recognise that and allow it based on what else you have demonstrated during the flight.

The PFL is a particularly difficult one, also for the examiner, owing to the CAA insistance that the candidate demonstrates without doubt that the landing could take place within the chosen field. But, also equally without doubt examiners are gunning for you to pass and a correctly flown procedure flown as per the training will carry the most weight and will tip the balance should there be a little doubt as to the end result.

As with all of the flown exercises the correct technique flown exactly as your've been taught will be assessed. Things can only get better. However, a sloppy or seat of the pants ad hoc technique flown will give doubt, even if the end result is somehow achieved. If the candidate cannot or will not fly the taught techniques then what is there to assess. Mistakes will then only give cause for further doubt as to whether the candidate is ready.

Remember, the test is a series of flown exercises and boxes are ticked. You have proven your abilities by getting to this point. Think about it. You will have at least 10 hours solo. Have flown a cross country of a least 150nm and landed away several times. You can do it!

The Skill Test goes no further than that, I promise you! Every candidate that comes to me has passed before we begin. I then pray they don't fail. Very few do fail but when they do it is always because they have thrown their training out of the window owing to indicision and ad lib'd, which never works.

One useful skill for PFLs is knowing how to sideslip properly. When there's only 1 field you're going to get into, being too high can be as bad as being too low. I tend to play safe on the altitude side during PFLs, then once I know I'm going to get in slip the altitude off. Lets you dump a load of altitude in a matter of seconds without building excess speed.

homeguard,

I agree with you 100% and I even said in my post

and I'm not for a minute suggesting this isn't important

What I was trying to get at was the fact that 10 instructors teach you 10 ways of doing PFLs - but ultimately getting into your field in a real emergency, along with all the essential checks, is what it's all about.

Hey All,

I just took my PPL in flight test. I got a partial pass because I failed the forced approach. I was WAY too high. in the debriefing the examiner suggested I pick the longest 2 fields first, then think about other factors (wind, surface etc.). I would also recommend that you remember it may be better to circle a point to lose altitude rather than slip. I tried slipping when I was 500' up and 400' away from the field, got too much speed and would have needed much more glide distance even if I had gotten low enough.

Hope these tips help others avoid my mistakes. Pc.

Can someone clear up the matter concerning failing for not going into your chosen field?

I was practising PFL's recently and I thought that the whole idea is to make sure that you get that plane down safely. PRIORITY.

Now, when practising, part of the selection process is a suitable field that has an undershoot, and overshoot and even better big enough to land directly into wind. So on a skills test, I come in a little too high and adjust for my overshoot field...does that mean a fail?

Obivoulsy taking into account that you do not always have the pleasure of overshoots and undershoots but I cant understand why adjusting your choice for something more suitable as the excercise progresses is a bad thing.

So can anyone clear this up as we currently seem to have conflicting views on the matter.

PilotPieces. As an instructor I teach students that where possible they should choose a field with suitable fields in the overshoot and undershoot to maximize their chances of survival.

As an examiner I attempt to set up the start of the PFL such that amongst other fields a suitable field with an overshoot and undershoot is available. If the candidate selects that field and then ends up high or low and the elects to use the overshoot or undershoot then he would pass the PFL. After all he/she has shown judgement in selecting a field that maximises the chance of survival and has shown further judgement by realising that the aircraft is too high/low and has made a positive command decision to overcome the problem.

I think 'Another CFI' has hit the nail on the head - how to do a PFL is one thing, but where to do it is another. Taking his advice, selecting an undershoot, target and overshoot field is the secret. This is especially true in a real FL as you'll have a greater rate of descent with a dead engine, be fairly stressed(!) and trying to set up extra safety margins during the procedure will serve you well.

This is the way I was taught:

1) Best glide speed
2) Note direction of wind.
3) Look out and see where the most suitable fields are. Don't waste time looking for a specific field.
4) Turn crosswind and do your re-start thing.
5) At 1500ft turn downwind and do your Mayday thing. Keep a watch out for a good field.
6) Turn base leg. Only now make a final decision about where to land.

I used this method on my skills test. Only problem was that my chosen field was planted with potatoes! The examiner took me back up to 1000 feet and made me choose another one.

I made so many mistakes on my skills test I was very surprised when I was told I had passed!

I think good decisions rather than handling skills is what the examiner is looking for.