Now he failed his JAA 170A, and this is apparently one of the reasons. So he wants to get to the bottom of this.
I think there is a misunderstanding here. If I recall from an earlier deleted thread, Peter was quite open that there were in-flight error(s) which led to a fail. As I understand it, he is not asking "why did I fail" but trying to understand why he got the feedback he did on various other items.
The 170A signatories job (he doesn't have to be an examiner) I think is to
- assess if the candidate has flown to the test standard and is ready for test
- help the candidate by debriefing on any points which might be picked up by an examiner
I think there are a number of points to be made here. When the examiner notices a potential or actual "deviation" it could be to a degree varying from "on its own, this would be a fail item" through to "it might be preferable if you did this a bit differently". His debriefing has to cover all of these. The 170A guy might only fly once with a student, so he has to pack everything into the debrief. Perhaps some examiners are inclined to polarise feedback and label something a "fail item" as a means of emphasis.
It seems to me that most (all?) of the topics discussed are legitimate items of feedback.
- you mustn't omit the pax brief under any circumstances. The training slot is not as rigid as a CTOT!
- brief the examiner beforehand and agree the conduct of power and rudder checks
- call "localiser established" not just when within half-scale deflection on intercept, but also having rolled out and stabilised on the inbound heading
The 170A Signatory/Examiner's conduct is something Peter was unhappy with and he will avoid flying with him again. These things happen. Us ranting on about it has no value, and (forbid the thought) we might even think it unfair to do so, not having been present.
There is an article here
PPL/IR Europe - FAA to JAA IR Conversion Flight Training on FAA to JAA IR conversion flight training. One point it makes in the section about "attitude" to conversion training is:
As a conversion candidate, you won’t be learning anything fundamentally new in the IR course. Instructors will tend to treat you more like a peer than a young cadet. In this context, there is a potential trap. Success in the JAA IR is dependent, to an extent, on a long set of ‘secondary’ disciplines – from how you prepare and plan a flight through to the exact way in which you execute the checks and standard procedures. For the experienced candidate, there is a temptation to blend what the instructor teaches with your own established methods, or to dilute methods that seem excessively laborious with a more pragmatic style. This could apply to many elements of the course, from how avionics are configured and checked at every phase of flight, through to the exact method for executing a hold or the exact sequence of engine failure drills. If you don’t try to understand and emulate the instructor’s methods 100% from the very start of your training, you may create a problem that won’t manifest itself until late in the process.
I think the key point here is that a conversion candidate needs to "immerse" himself in the methods specific to the JAA IR test. Many of the feedback items discussed are legitimate elements of that.
On the choice of alternates, I think there is a misunderstanding. The alternate in question is not an alternate to Bournemouth, but to Shoreham. Although the training flight described simulates a flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth diverting back to Shoreham, the actual IFR flight plan filed is for a round-robin flight from Shoreham to Bournemouth and back, and thus the alternate is for the arrival at Shoreham. Southampton is the best and obvious choice for an alternate in these circumstances (IMHO), subject to TAFs and NOTAMs obviously and if I were training someone, I think I'd suggest that in preference to Lydd (and certainly Southend).
It may well be that the manner in which these points were made to Peter was wrong. But there is some reasonable substance behind (most of) them, and a more general and important point - your approach to the IR test as a conversion candidate needs to be as closely aligned to all the detailed expectations of the JAA "way" as possible. There is much more value to be had in trying to understand how to do this than in over-analysing every element of how this "way" differs from one's established methods.
brgds
421C