Jack, hence the need for those that regulate this pathetic industry of ours, and the industry itself, to get its sh!t in a pile and standardise the training preceding the I.R. TEST (for that is what it is - a test) and the test itself.
In the airline scene where their pilots are all known to the organisation and all are subject to at least two proficiency checks and a line check each year, I firmly endorse the big 'T' for Training and little 'c' for checking. But the I.R. is like your medical - you pass or fail according to your fitness. At least that's how it should be, even in the airlines.
But what often happens is something like this: Because standard simulator sessions run for two hours, the I.R. is rolled in to a sim detail in parts; in this situation the examiner needs to make it absolutely clear which part is training and which part is the actual test, but some do not do this. When this is not done, pilots often get the idea that it is all training, with the necessary boxes ticked as various approaches are flown to tolerances after practice as necessary. So the guy/gal does a wobbly ILS, then a good one, then another wobbly one. The examiner ticks the box because at some stage of the two hours one good one was demonstrated.
The candidate should not present himself/herself unless reasonably confident of being able to demonstrate the required standard, without immediately preceding practice. As for a candidate crying 'foul' because an ATO asks for something that the candidate has not trained for - how would the ATO necessarily know unless he had also supervised the training of that candidate? In GA this often won't be the case.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 20th May 2013 at 23:08.