When is a repeat a repeat?

[Screwballs]

Just discussing this with a colleague recently. I'm not an examiner or trainer, just a regular line pilot. In a flight test or revalidation when do you have to repeat something? What's the guidance from the CAA?

More specifically I'm looking at speed control. According to Standards Document 24(A) Appendix 2, p. 32, speed accuracy is +/- 5 knots. If someone loses five knots for a moment and recovers then is that okay, or repeat?

And even more specifically, if you saw someone lose only three knots on a single engine approach and go around, momentarily, is that grounds for a repeat?

Many thanks for any opinions on this area,

Screwballs

(Plus, for commercial jet operations, is that Standards Document the right one to be looking at for details regarding Tyrone ratings and LPC/OPCs?)

[nick14]

Essentially if the examiner thinks an exercise has not been completed to the standard required then the option of a repeat is possible however:

Repeats are not a right, they are at the discretion of the examiner
They should be granted at the end only to allow the whole check to be assessed. Should the performance be deemed to require further training or checking then no repeat should be granted.
Multiple repeats are not recommended as it would indicate further training or checking.

An exceedance will be noted however should you deviate and correct immediately there is likely to be no repercussions however a significant error will result in a repeat/partial pass.

[justmaybe]

Not quite what EASA regs say:

AMC1 FCL 215 FCL 235 "Any manoeuvre or procedure of the test may be repeated once by the applicant. The FE may stop the test at any stage if it is considered that the applicant’s demonstration of flying skill
requires a complete retest" which is somewhat at odds with the FEH/Standards Doc

[SpannerInTheWerks]

... and then in the real World ...

[justmaybe]

The point is that this type of nonsense should be resolved before it is promulgated - in the real world it leaves the issue wide open; the CAA approach is practical, but just consider the implications of a Reg 6 appeal for the pedantic unsuccessful candidate. So when can a manoeuvre be repeated and at whose volition?

[+TSRA]

Hiya Screwballs,


Can't comment on CAA rules, but I can at least throw my 2c in from across the pond.


An older examiner once told me (on my MEIFR Ride) that what he looks for is the point at which the pilot applies the corrective action. If it is before the instruments show the limits, than he considers anything else to "...fall under momentum... or inertia; whichever one it is." (his words). This is also the guy who started his briefing off with "I've more time sitting on my left a$$ cheek in the right seat, at night, in light rain than you've got total time - so just fly the airplane and let me worry about the state of your license." Apparently, he did this to lighten the mood - can't say it worked. :uhoh:


Jokes aside, that's been the overall attitude I've seen from examiners both while I've been the student and the instructor running the sim. Gross violations, on the other hand - for example, descending below minima, or busting an altitude and not correcting - have always been met with a repeat at best, a failure at worse.


I've always said, though, that every pilot will fail a ride at some point in their career. I just hope mine comes six months before I retire!:}

[S-Works]

Being an examiner is about learning to apply the rules pragmatically. We know how to fly the aircraft and we are looking for the candidate to do so in a save and controlled manner. If the candidate makes deviations then we assess the conditions and decide if it was external factors or poor handling and then decide if we want to see a repeat or the deviation was so great that it's out of the tolerances.

We are not out to fail people but will if we don't feel they are safe and that's where the judgement calls come in. It's something that comes with experience testing people. I do many hundreds of tests a year both on our corporate pilots and in the training environment and every test is different.

[Screwballs]

Thanks all kindly for the replies. It confirms what I originally thought.

The reason I'm asking is I that in a sim session I once observed, the handling pilot had to repeat a manoeuvre. The reason stated was a loss of three knots at one point in the manoeuvre. It was true they had lost the three knots, however, it was noticed and corrected in a timely and smooth manner. And the rest of the session was all fine, with no points to note.

Now that to me, goes against what the CAA want and what everyone has replied on this thread!

Screwballs

[AerocatS2A]

The words used by our checking staff is "no sustained errors". If you get a wobble and fix it straight away, that's ok, if you don't fix it, that's not ok.

[Fullback]

Screwballs

I think the person you were watching was being a bit pedantic, perhaps the added pressure of you watching him made him get a bit edgy.
If ,as you described, the candidate corrected and flew the rest of the test well then I personally would have not have insisted on a repeat.
If the candidate can debrief himself after an error then that is even better. Experience does play a huge part, you develop a sixth sense on how the check is going and a general feel for a candidate's ability.

[Screwballs]

Ha, no! I wasn't present. I'm not involved in training apart from being checked and trained myself. The query came from a discussion with a colleague.

Everyone who posted has broadly agreed with my own idea on how these limits are supposed to be applied. Which is to say, small errors and timely corrections are the name of the game.

However, when a candidate gets failed for a small error that was corrected in a timely manner, as the candidate, what grounds for redress do you have? If an examiner says it's a repeat for the loss of three knots for a short period can you argue the toss? I, for one, believe that if you want to go head to head with an examiner you better be damn sure you are right, and more importantly, you can back yourself up!

Thanks for the replies,

Screwballs

[S-Works]

Reg 6 appeal. It's why as examiners we are careful that if we fail a candidate it is very clear the reason why and we properly document it.

[ifitaintboeing]

There is a difference between repeating an item an retesting an item.

A candidate does not have a right to a repeat - it is entirely at the examiners discretion. See UK FEH 3.3.

Under Regulation 6 a candidate may only appeal the conduct of a test, not the result.

ifitaint...

[S-Works]

A bit cut and dried that response ifitaint.... The candidate appealing can and will use the reg 6 envelope to their advantage. I have seen it done.

You know as well as I so it's the reason we are taught to ensure that we have unambiguous grounds for failing a candidate.

[Screwballs]

Bose-x, this is the kind of thing I'm after. I've not heard of Reg 6. Could you expand a bit on that? In which document is reg 6?

Screwball

[max alt]

For my input,I don't think the examiner was being pendantic making the candidate repeat an exercise for a loss of airspeed temporarily of three knots,i think thy examiner was a complete ****hole.
I would have had a not so quite word with them,had I been observing.
These types of individuals are the ones that make the sim a trapping tool rather than a training tool.Pilots are reluctant to object as they fear any reprisals but you would find that concerns can be raised through informal means and more than a couple of concerns would interest fleet managers etc.
Rgds,
Max.

[Fullback]

Maxalt
Spot on, agree with you wholeheartedly. It should be a learning exercise, 'an opportunity to practice...' A standard to be achieved within tolerances but not perfection.

As regards previous postings, yes, you have to have the evidence. I write loads of notes, position on the localiser/glide slope on an ILS at every 500ft, what the speed was etc etc. evidence is everything.

The best tool we have though is SimView- CCTV in the flightdeck. I love it when someone says 'I never did that' and then you play them back the tape.... :ugh: