A question for Examiners, Instructors, Pilots & anyone else......

[HercFeend]

Today I was told of an account were an examiner failed a PPL candidate for busting airspace.

Roughly, the circumstances were as follows: during the flight test the examiner instructed the pilot to climb to 2500ft in an area where, if this instruction was complied with, the aircraft would enter controlled airspace.

The pilot unfortunately followed the instructions given and upon completion of the test was failed for ‘busting airspace’.

Now before we go any further, I know that the pilot was the PIC and should not have followed the instructions and ultimately failed because he broke the law and this was his own fault.

My question is, do you think this practice is ok? Personally I’m not a fan! I was always told and it’s always been my experience that instructors and examiners aren’t there to ‘try and catch you out’. They are there to pass you unless your prove otherwise....etc etc. Has something changed since I was told this, is this part of the syllabus now?

Names and organisation’s details have been omitted as they are irrelevant.

I’m just interested from a purely theoretical and moralistic standpoint what other pilots points of view are on this one......

[mrmum]

I'd be very sceptical about this alleged test, sounds a bit made up to me or at least not the whole story.

A wouldn't expect a PPL FE to resort to "setting traps" at all and certainly nothing of the nature described. I'm UK based so this might not be exactly the same in NZ, but the candidate is not PIC on the test the FE is. The student will log the test as PUT if unsuccessful and P1S if they pass, so any unauthorised entry into CAS would be their problem, not the student's. Can't see any examiner putting themselves in line for a infringement bo*****ing just to prove a point.

[Shreddyfender]

In Canada, the PIC is designated to the student taking the flight test, and the examiner as a passenger. Having said that, I have not heard of the examiner attempting to fool or trap the student taking the flight test. That is anti-productive and unacceptable in my opinion, even for a guy whos fresh off getting his license like I am.

I understand the PIC's obvious need to be aware of all goings on, including air space restrictions, etc. But there should be a line drawn in a test situation. I agree it sounds somewhate fabricated.

[IRRenewal]

Not sure what the practise is in NZ, but in the UK (where I examine) the examiner is always the designated commander of the aircraft. I cannot see how a candidate can be PIC and carry a passenger (the examiner) if they have yet to gain a licence or rating.

To get back to your question.

I operate out of a strip which is below controlled airspace. I would ask a candidate what altitude they plan to cruise at 'when able', and tell them during the pre-flight briefing during which parts of the flight they are responsible for navigation and remaining clear of controlled airspace. I would also expect a candidate to know the local airspace situation if they decide to do a test there. Any subsequent attempt to bust controlled airspace (and put my licence on the line, since I am PIC) might well lead to a fail, but I would make sure that my briefing and instructions are watertight and the candidate can never claim I set them up.

Sounds to me like a fabricated story. Candidate failed, for some reason thought they were unfairly treated (or didn't want to face reality) and told the gathered crowds that they were stitched up be the examiner. It would be nice to hear the examiner's side of the story. It wouldn't surprise me if this airspace bust was just one of a number of items that came up during the de-brief.

[Whopity]

Firstly I note the poster is in NZ.
In the UK on a PPL Skill Test the candidate is the PIC for the entire flight, heights to fly are the decision of the PIC not the examiner, who should not give any such direction. The only time the examiner may require the candidate to climb to a specific height/altitude is to complete items of general handling that require a minimum altitude. If the examiner did request a height in controlled airspace the candidate should question it, but if the examiner allowed him to infringe after giving the wrong information the examiner is equally to blame - he is the legal commander of the aircraft. I suspect there is more to it than you claim.

I recently failed a candidate for busting a MATZ not illegal in itself but it was one of three things, the altitude was wrong, the heading was wrong by 60 degrees and the candidate failed to identify the turning point by 10 miles indicating a lack of spacial awareness. Ironically, his overall performance on the Nav section was better than average, he just lost the plot and ran out of luck at the wrong time.

An Examiner should not do anything in a test that he has not briefed before the test!

[Vortex Thing]

The candidate is P1.S and therefore acting as PIC. However the FE has signed for the aircraft and IS the PIC. If the aircraft were to bus airspace then the FE is the only person who can be blamed for not taking control before the incursion happened.

I have let students head straight towards CAS both laterally and vertically and asked more and more pressing questions as they approach but you have to take control and point out the error before it occurs, surely.

I am not a great fan of people below saying well I don't believe that is all there is to the story. The thread is what the thread is, even if we take it as hypothetical, what IMHO the poster is saying is that this IS what happened so lets discuss it as if it is gospel as surely that's the fun of the debate?

So back on thread, for a PPL FE to set up failure is in my view fairly pointless, I think CPL FEs should and loved that military FEs often did but that is because I feel that different qualifications things are being awarded with which the holder will do very very different things and too that end I think that this balance is right.

I am however not an FE so my view is that of an FI, from the FI view though I will not release a student to and FE who I am not sure will pass as I think it makes me look bad and if a CFI is insistent (normally due to cost to the student in my experience) then I ask them to fly with them and release them to test.

In sum if I have released them to test and they fail because they do something stupid then it is not an overall level of competence but failure is failure and if they allow anyone much less an FE to put them in that position then they deserve to fail as they should level off and say they cannot continue into CAS if not question the original request.

VT

[NazgulAir]

On my flight test for the PPL, my examiner said that he was going to act as my first passenger. Boy, didn't that turn out to be a new experience. He did all kinds of things besides asking me to do unsafe manoevers, like interfering with the controls and providing plenty of distractions. I was fully prepared for having the throttle suddenly pulled for a simulated engine failure, but not for the silly things that he pulled.
Just to see that I wouldn't forget to fly safely, and yes, airspace awareness was part of it too.
I suppose this was all done to make sure that I'd be safe giving friends and neighbours first rides...

[mrmum]

Let's take the original post as factual then.

I would not expect any FI to send a student to me for a PPL skill test who they weren't pretty sure would pass and when I'm the FI I don't. I probably start a test with the attitude that I'm going to pass the candidate, unless they do something stupid, unsafe or illegal.

It's probably fair game in the military to set the occasional trap, maybe even at CPL level, but we shouldn't be doing it to PPL students. If something happens on test and they deal with it badly, then fair enough, but we shouldn't be creating situations to try and fail people. What level the aircraft is to be flown at is the choice of the candidate, I'll ask them what they intend to do, but wouldn't tell or ask for a particular altitude, that's their choice.

Having said that, if the FE did ask for a climb into CAS, then the student should have enough awareness of his position and surrounding airspace to not do it. Isn't that just the kind of blind obedience or deferring to greater experience, that human factors training was brought into the PPL syllabus to prevent?

[HercFeend]

Thanks for the input.

Please see the original post on a forum in NZ: A question for Examiners, Instructors, Pilots & anyone else...... - New Zealand Flightsim Forums (http://nzff.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=12293&st=0&gopid=8261910&#entry8261910)

It's interesting to note that 'generally' the instructors and examiners on this forum (PPRuNe), mainly UK based by the look of it, seem to disagree with the practice of "creating situations to try and fail people".

There's certainly no right or wrong answer - I suppose it depends on ones personality as much as anything. I'll maintain that personally I think it's poor practice - if a PPL candidate does something stupid, dangerous or illegal i.e. inadvertently entering CAS because they're unaware of their position, then sure they fail, but to purposefully set out with failure in mind and try and trick, catch out (however you want to word it) the candidate so you CAN fail them is a counter productive mind set and practice - IMO.

[kharmael]

...

Please tell me that was Lyneham. Had a GA Aircraft fly straight through the circuit at 1000/1500ft the other week!

ATC informed us that the intruder missed their turning point!

[Whopity]

Please tell me that was Lyneham.No, it was Wittering, the student was heading for Oundle, climbed to avoid the Lyveden Gliding site turning left in the process and infringed the stub near Spanhoe, he then turned South and declared Thrapston was Oundle. During all of this he was in contact with Cottesmore.

the practice of "creating situations to try and fail people".An examiner has a very good idea if a candidate is going to pass or fail a test before the aircraft even takes off. On no account should an examiner contrive to fail a candidate. He should brief the candidate on everything that will be required of him. If the examiner were to do some of the things indicated here, the candidate would in the UK be able to appeal under Regulation 6 against the improper conduct of the test and have it annulled.

[IRRenewal]

It's interesting to note that 'generally' the instructors and examiners on this forum (PPRuNe), mainly UK based by the look of it, seem to disagree with the practice of "creating situations to try and fail people".

In the UK we (try to) test for competence, we don't test to destruction. The examiner doesn't set traps or play tricks to catch out the candidate. If we did, the candidate would have legitimate grounds to appeal based on the way the test was conducted.

(Whopity, I see we crossed posts here. At least we agree!)

[DB6]

To address the first post; the practice is definitely not OK, except maybe in one circumstance. If the examiner, in his brief, informed the candidate that during the flight he may issue some instructions that would contravene the rules of the air and should not be complied with, then possibly it might be acceptable (but I would suggest almost certainly unnecessary). Otherwise nyet tovarich.
From the UK Flight Examiner's Handbook, section 4.1.2: 'They [examiners] should not set any traps or pitfalls'.

[S-Works]

As whoppity says we are testing to see if they are safe and competent. The purpose of the test is not to demonstrate how smart the examiner is. I have only ever failed one candidate on a skill test and as Whoppity said, I could pretty much tell before the flight even started that the guy was not ready.

Our role as examiners is merely to validate the training the candidate has been given by the Instructor/School not play the smart arse.

[HercFeend]

.............

[OneIn60rule]

Perhaps the person taking the test misunderstood what the examiner had said.

If he did not misunderstand him and if he knew where he was etc. why did he not tell his examiner that this would bust airspace?

Perhaps his situational awareness was being tested as he wanted to make sure the candidate knew where he was.
Also please bear in mind, it rarely is just one item a person fails on. It's always a multitude of things which aren't satisfactory.

I hope that whoever took the test also took notes on what exactly he/she did wrong.

Normally there is a form you get with the description of the failed section.

[BEagle]

Use of Distractions During Practical Tests

Numerous studies indicate that many accidents have occurred when the pilot has been distracted during critical phases of flight. To evaluate the applicant’s ability to utilize proper control technique while dividing attention both inside and/or outside the cockpit, the examiner shall cause realistic distractions during the flight portion of the practical test to evaluate the applicant’s ability to divide attention while maintaining safe flight.

What a bizarre idea! It'd be worth going to the US to take the PPL test just to be able to say to some prattling FAA Examiner:

"Listen, a***h*le, will you just SHUT THE F*** UP!!"

[Oktas8]

In NZ, the candidate certainly is the PIC.

Most examiners in this part of the world, like any other, would not deliberately set up a fail. However, it would be fair game to say something like "when you're ready, climb to 2500' and show me a steep turn." If the candidate doesn't check for airspace first, sorry. The NZ flight testing system is similar in this respect to the FAA system.

I'm sure most of us have encountered similar scenarios in the course of everyday flying.

What a bizarre idea!

Travel broadens the mind. I recommend it.

O8

[Whopity]

To give anyone misleading or in inaccurate requests whilst operating as an examiner simply indicates a very poor standard of examination.

['I' in the sky]

Agree with Whopity, although it would depend on what the examiners handbook and/or standards documents are for where you operate.

In the UK, during the airwork section both navigation and ATC liason are the responsibility of the examiner. Now within that an examiner might nominate a specific area that he wants the candidate to operate in, including remaining in the appropriate class of airspace, in which case two things:

First it must be absolutely clear in the brief what is expected.

Second having told the candidate what is expected you have to let him get on with it and if at any time you have to intervene then fair enough, he's blobbed it.

If though the brief was simply that during the airwork section, navigation and ATC liason were the examiner's responsibility and he subsequrntly asks for a climb to ... on a heading of ..., then I would see the avoiding of controlled airspace or obtaing an appropriate clearance to enter it as his responsibility.

During the departure, en-foute and arrival sections then clearly the navigation and ATC are all the candidates responsibility, but at no point during these sections would the examiner start issuing climb or heading instructions.

[Vortex Thing]

I agree with Whopity, BEagle BoseX and Aston Martin!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Sorry the post doesn't add much to the thread but I just wanted to take the opportunity to show that I don't just disagree with everything y'all say.

So HFD & DFC you need to drop your tuppence worth in so that I can agree or disagree with you :)

VT:)

[hugh flung_dung]

Did someone call ? :O

I would give the same answer as every FE I know ... the FE should establish as relaxed an atmosphere as is possible under the circumstances so that the candidate can demo what they're capable of; clearly the setting of traps would not be appropriate.
My assumption at the outset is always that the candidate is going to pass, but now and again they have been put forward too early or nerves get in the way and the standard is sadly not good enough.

What I find tricky is when the bod is likely to bust airspace. As the legal Captain one must not let the aircraft enter without a clearance yet must give the candidate every opportunity to notice (and correct) the error of their ways. It can be a difficult balance to strike.

HFD

[Oktas8]

Indeed, especially when you can't look at the map yourself, as it would cue the candidate that something is wrong. Had such a case today... Partial pass. But that is JAA, not NZ.

Good examining is good examining in all parts of the world, with subtle variations in phraseology and assessment tasks. It is possible to assess a candidate's awareness of airspace without setting traps, but only ever in an amicable atmosphere and of course as per the national flight test guide as said above.

Two examples: If there was no possible way for the candidate to climb to the suggested height legally, it would be setting a trap. If the candidate could have climbed legally by heading in that direction but not this direction, that would be fair assessment of SA in NZ but not the JAA system. The presence of the words "when you're ready..." or "in your own time..." would increase fairness too.

An example I use of a completely unfair test in anyone's world is this: candidate is underneath CTA. Examiner firmly instructs candidate to climb to LL of CTA. (Legal in most ICAO states, UK is different.) Later on during S&L flight, candidate wanders up 100' which is the flight test tolerance. Candidate corrects, but examiner says sorry, you've failed for busting airspace. Candidate has reason to complain.