Superpilot, I'm sorry to hear that the track-up / North-up problem caught you out as well. You most certainly are not the first, and more importantly, you most ceretainly will not be the last...
I took a long time to reply to Wannabe24 when he posted about his partial IR last year. He was so convinced that the moving map could only be showing information exactly in the same format that he had ever seen, he was convinced that the examiner was wrong, that the wind had swung all over the place, that the forecast was wrong, that the G1000 wind arrow was too erratic to use, etc, etc etc. In fact everything had to be wrong to fit the single erroneous bit of the equation - that he had failed to notice a change in presentation of the map orientation, and therefore the presentation of the wind vector.
I took a long time to compose a reply to point out how all the indications he was seeing added up to an un-noticed switch from track-up to North-up, but his pride obviously wouldn't allow him to accept any blame for error on his part. He demonstrated perfectly the insidious and dangerous mental trick our mind plays, especially when under pressure, where we find it very difficult to get away from the very first mental picture we draw, and then we have to bend every other 'opposing' fact around it to make them fit our wrong mental picture. As in Wannabe24's case, this often needs to be done to extremes, where the absurdity of what we are now forcing ourselves to believe as true is lost on us as we cling on to a spurious and completely flawed belief. And all because we are so convinced that we are right. He even had to make himself believe that his highly experienced examiner was wrong, when the examiner was visual with his home airfield and could see the drift out of the windows with his own eyes. Yet he felt compelled to believe that somehow he was right, despite being under pressure of an exam, under the hood, the novice pilot, running out of mental capacity by his own admission, who became massively disorientated by a wind vector which was being presented in a different format - a piece of information that he schouldn't even have been using for the test at that!
For whatever reason, Wannabe24 chose to delete his thread, along with my carefully thought through analysis of where he went wrong, with detailed explanations of how what he recalled seeing fitted perfectly with the simple error of assuming that the map would present the wind vector in a track-up format that he was accustomed to.
It is a great shame that he chose to delete the thread, which might very well have saved you and others from making the same unfortunate, yet very-easy-to-make mistake. I guess his pride never did let him accept that he could be wrong, and you have now paid the price of his pride. But please don't copy his mistake, as you seem tempted to do when you speak of 'finding the person to blame'. Accept it squarely on the shoulders - you were to blame, for not fully understanding a useful and powerful piece of equipment. Believe me, the planes that you hope ultimately to fly will have far more complex and easily-misunderstood systems and equipment. It is excellent training at this stage to put your hands up, just as 2098 has suggested, and accept full responsibility for your lack of familiarity with the systems which you used; systems in which you put far too much faith given your shaky understanding of them.
If you can accept your mistake and learn from it, then you will make a better pilot than someone who simply does not accept that they were wrong. As he never accepted his error, the previous poster probably still finds himself having to bend everything around his mistakes and misjudgements, to try to make the facts fit his misinterpretation of them. A good pilot will accept that he makes mistakes, he will learn from them and continually improve. A bad pilot will always blame sombody else, blame some equipment, and therefore deprives himself of the chance to learn just what a potential liability he is.
Here is Wannabe24's original post, which probably bears a remarkable resemblance to your own situation. What a shame that you were not allowed the opportunity to learn from his mistake by him deleting the post with the helpful and informative replies (which I can re-post if required). In reading it, you must remember that the writer was UTTERLY CONVINCED that the wind vector was being presented as he expected it to be, ie almost 180 degrees reversed:
Wannabe24
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Age: 26
Posts: 53 IR partial pass - bad experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently I tested for my IR and received a partial pass. I failed the non-precision approach section which for me involved an off the field NDB approach at CFD. I wanted to share my experience with you to get some opinions. I believe I was doomed to failure by the examiner’s actions and very quickly got caught up in a no win situation.
This particular approach was a procedural one and involved an alternate procedure following a single hold. Whilst beacon outbound (i.e. on the extended outbound leg of the approach procedure) the wind was quite literally all over the place and far from my planned wind of 270/15. This particular a/c had a moving map GPS displaying a wind arrow. However this wind arrow was far too erratic for me to use for any kind interpretation so I decided to stick to using my planned wind. This resulted in a 10 deg overshoot when it came to intercepting the final approach QDM of 214 degs back to the beacon (proof that the wind was a northerly one).
No problems I thought, let’s get back on track which I attempted to. However the wind arrow become even more erratic now (moving through almost 120 degs) and I knew I just had to concentrate on tracking the NDB and not worry about flying any drift adjusted headings because I was running out of mental capacity to work out what the hell the wind was doing from one second to the next and the fact that I was asymmetric! According to this wind arrow, the wind changed from a Northerly to a South Easterly-Southern wind once I became established on the FAT! It was at this point that the examiner remarked that I should be flying into wind. To which I replied that I agreed, but the beacon was nearly 10 degs to my right and I needed to “Get it” first as I needed to descend soon! I attempted to turn further right to re-intercept my final approach track and maintained this intercept heading. The examiner became agitated that I was ignoring his advice and had another go at getting me to turn into wind. I could not believe what I was hearing. Yes, if I had the right QDM I too would be flying into this wind (roughly from the South according to the wind arrow) but what’s the point if the gap is getting bigger to the right? I debated very quickly whether or not I was being stupid or this guy was having a brain fart. Still unsure at this stage, but logic spelt it out for me. If I did what he was asking me to do I would never get back on track! I maintained the new heading knowing that I would be making him cringe by now. Even though I turned 10 degs past (greater than) my intended QDM and even with a wind from the left (allegedly, according to the wind arrow and the examiner) it was obvious that my final approach track was never going to be re-intercepted and in the face of all this evidence the examiner wanted me to fly further to the left!
Anyway, at this point it occurred to me if this guy has already said it twice and is edging to say it for the third time then he must be right. Further more if I don't listen to him am I running the risk of pissing him of and thus guaranteeing a failure? so I decided to please him by flying a heading that was less than the inbound QDM (into wind allegedly) even though the needle was moving to my right. As I saw the needle falling further to the right it proved to me that the wind arrow was outputting pure garbage and the examiner was not only believing it but making comments that I should be flying into this wind (left of the inbound QDM). As it happens, the needle finally fell behind at a painfully slow rate to the right and I knew I was well out of limits by then. Just imagine how much slower it would’ve fallen if I had maintained a heading into the alleged wind much earlier on as advised. Beacon inbound I could no longer let the now 20 degs diff get any bigger, I drasticaly increased my intercept to the right to win back the now QDR. Incidently, by this point the runway would've become visual and I heard no more from the examiner. Covers went down and the runway was right in front of me. Further proof that the wind arrow could not be trusted during the descent.
After sleeping on it, I cannot believe what has happened here and am deeply saddened. The examiner (pleasant and nice in every other conceivable way) got it wrong (plain and simple) but who in the world is going to believe me?
I feel if he didn't speak at this crucial and final moment I would've not hesitated to increase my intercept to get back on track. Instead he created a doubt in my mind that turning right was the wrong thing to do when it obviously wasn't. I genuinely feel that he thought he was trying to help me (probably already pissed of at the no. of candidates who partial on the NDB) but something was not right with his understanding on that day. He gave too much attention to the wind arrow and not what was actually happening to my track. I sound like a cretin for accusing a CAA examiner of such a thing especially when he's probably got thousands of examinations under his belt but what else is there for me to say?
The partial I can live with, but it’s a day out that costs £1,500. That I can’t live with. I promise you my vivid account is as accurate and truthful as possible. Would be grateful for your advice and in particular past experiences and appeal outcomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Wannabe24 : Yesterday at 21:13.
This has been re-posted purely to help prevent anyone else from falling into this easily made trap.
PM