Examiners The Good The Bad the Ugly? [Archive]

Pace

24th Nov 2010, 23:29

After posting so much on N reg ( hint From MEP its being dropped :) Thought I would start thread on examiners.

I had an examiner on an N reg Jet. Mr Boeing as he was supposed to have been rated on every boeing ever made.

I had a flight test with him and an overseeing examiner. He has a reputation of shouting a lot. The shouting was true to form until he requested a clean approach and landing. He right seated for the flight and bugged the VREF speed for my "clean" approach! Being aware of the overseeing Examiner in the back I noted that he had used the full flap speeds.

Deciding that he had done this on purpose to catch me out I checked the manual and added 20 KTS to the full flap numbers without changing his bug speeds.

True to form on short finals came the response! 20 kts too fast VREF Now!!!

I smiled and complimented him on trying to catch me out! The poor guy spluttered so much I was sure he would cough up yesterdays sandwich.
The second examiner in the back chuckled and said well spotted!
After his red face had changed to a normal shade I got a good pass on te flight test :E

have you had any unusual examiners ;)

Pace

englishal

25th Nov 2010, 08:20

Just one, who was quite a character.

On my IR flight test, on the last approach he goes "I have control". He takes the aeroplane, and revs the throttle up and down about 4 times and then says "you have control". I looked at him and he said "that is to let my wife know I'll be home in 30 minutes" - we were over his house....:)

On my ME test soon after take off he was chatting to me and started saying "doesn't that engine sound rough?" (which I thought it did)...Unbeknown to me he had reached down and switched off the fuel to the engine and low and behold a second or two later the engine stopped :D

Finally after completing the ME test we were at 8500 somewhere over the LA basin and his final instructions were "take me back to the airport as fast as you can, put everything forward and start your decent now"....then he explained that when you get to his age, when you need a pee, you have to pee and he was busting for a pee !! :}

He's a great guy though, very experienced and chats to you all the time. The reason he chats is to distract you from things he's doing to see how you handle all sorts of situations.

IO540

25th Nov 2010, 08:49

My best examiner story cannot be posted because it could not be sufficiently anonymised :)

And, no, it is not the bloke some will be thinking of. I have never flown with him.

Pace

25th Nov 2010, 08:58

My best examiner story cannot be posted because it could not be sufficiently anonymised

10540 You cannot do that we want to know :ugh: Could have a guess was the guy up north?

The old one was the wartime instructor/examiner who just before he cleared a student solo unfastened his rear stick and threw it out over the field telling the student he now had to land.

A student who had heard these rumours smuggled a spare stick into the front.
When the examiner unfastened and threw his out the student threw the spare out proclaiming he thought he was supposed to do the same ;)

Pace

Lister Noble

25th Nov 2010, 09:23

Pace ,that's brilliant:D:D:D

Heliplane

25th Nov 2010, 11:55

I did my initial FAA instructor's rating (I did the instrument version first) with someone that can only be described as a good ole southern boy (although he referred to me almost exclusively as "boy").

I'm not a coffee drinker but this chap plied me full of caffiene with cup after cup of coffee during our 4 hour pre-flight oral exam - thought it would be rude to decline. I was so wired by the time I got into the plane that I could only manage the jerkiest of movements. My brain seemed to be going at light speed!

At one point, he told me to take the hood off and I found us about to fly straight into a cloud (we were VFR). Thinking this was a trick, I rolled into a steep turn to avoid the cloud while muttering something politely about cloud clearance requirements.

I was yelled at at very high volume when looking up at the compass to reset the DG on an NDB approach (I think he thought I was cheating) and I had a number of comments about being jerky on the controls (thank you again, coffee).

When we landed, I was absolutely sure I had flunked but was very surprised to hear him say: "Boy, I like your attitude and I'm gonna issue you your certificate".

Then there was the other examiner I flew with several times in New England who was reputed to decide whether or not you would pass within the first five minutes and then type up the temporary airman certificate while the student was getting the plane and paperwork ready. On each of my 3 checkrides with him, I was always delighted to hear his typewriter going while I was planning the cross country portion of the flight!

Pace

25th Nov 2010, 12:45

Its strange how different examiners can be! One a Piston single/twin examiner barrel rolled a twin on the ILS much to my horror :ugh: (I will say I made it up if challenged)

The other an ex squadren leader checked me out to fly for a group of corporate jets.

On the ground he was the most placid gentle natured indiviidual I had met and I quite happily decided that the whole check flight would be a piece of cake.

How wrong I was. This guy was so detailed a real Rottweiler as soon as he entered the cockpit! I had never seen anything like it.
He loaded and loaded and loaded me quickfire.

After the flight I shook hands with my tail between my legs and slinked off mumbling that I was sure he would find a suitable pilot soon :O " No No you were fine" But I realised I had a lot to learn and how good some really are!

Pace

AdamFrisch

25th Nov 2010, 13:19

I'm stacking the odds up against myself for future ratings/licenses, as the four checkrides/flight tests I've had so far in my life have all been with absolute pussycats. On the last one I screwed up pretty badly, but still somehow managed to pass. I guess they must feel sorry for me somehow.

Fuji Abound

25th Nov 2010, 13:26

Doing my multi with the examiner. Neither of us could get the engine to restart.

I think he was more worried than I was. I remain very grateful when I had an engine fail for real a while after.

Sorry, I have nothing as interesting as the earlier posts, this is the best I can do.

Mark1234

25th Nov 2010, 15:22

Mostly I have fond memories of the instructors I've flown with - generally we've had fun as well as learned stuff. However, I have one particular in mind - I confess not a favourite, very much a procedure man, whereas most of my instructors have been stick and rudder folk. Most of all what unsettled me is he could go for hours without uttering a word. I did a PPL test in two sentences, and a night in about 6. Oddly on the ground he was as chatty as you like..

When I turned up for my night (VFR) test I got a lecture on it being a 'license to kill myself', and that I was not expected to use it - he also took a garmin etrex along propped on the panel (the a/c was equipped a panel mount garmin, 2x VOR and NDB, and we were flying in what's basically our back garden).

Half way down the first leg the cloudbase was dropping - I commented that there was space above MSA, so I would descend to the next cruise level (No IR, just basic 2hrs of instrument appreciation for VFR pilots), got a curt 'fine. climb 500'. Into the cloud we went and spent the next 45 mins doing every possible intercept on the NDB, then the VOR all in solid cloud, turbulence and pouring rain. Talk about sweating! When we came out I was fairly disoriented - I'd have orbited a bit to get my bearings, but started a turn and was promptly lambasted for turning the wrong way to intercept my track to the next waypoint, and asked if I wanted to go home and try another time. Didn't say a word, just went the other way.

The only high point was him failing the GPS, and me not caring 'cos I wasn't using it anyway.

Later he turned down all the panel lighting and asked me what I noticed - I commented that the view outside was much better :D. Apparently I was supposed to treat that as an electrical failure! Then I got told off for not knowing the 430 in detail.. I nearly suggested going home on the spot.

Eventually after another bout of silence he asks if I can find the airfield from here? "reckon so", "get me back there in one piece and you've passed".

Halfbaked_Boy

25th Nov 2010, 16:49

Again, not an examiner but an instructor... I once acted as safety pilot and watched as he taxied, took-off, flew a circuit, made a good approach and a greaser of a landing...

... All while looking over his shoulder and out the back window :ok:

BEagle

25th Nov 2010, 21:55

I do hope that anyone under training for the JAR-FCL PPL in the UK hasn't been put off by reading about the unprofessional clowns described in this thread.

XL319

25th Nov 2010, 22:14

i hope your referring to the examiners there :}

Pace

25th Nov 2010, 22:44

Beagle

This thread is to show that even examiners are just human and do make mistakes. We often put them in a God like status! Of the ones I have dealt with the only one that fits your description was actually JAA and sadly no longer with us without going into further details.

Pace

Ultranomad

26th Nov 2010, 01:16

On my Czech PPL exam, as I was flying the planned route about halfway through the exam (or so I thought), the examiner, a stern-looking man in his sixties, suddenly asked: "May I have it for a couple of minutes? There was a big fire around here, and I want to see if my friend's house is intact." So I relinquished control, and off he went, looking for something on the ground. A few minutes later, he gave it back to me: "You have control. And by the way, WHERE ARE WE FLYING RIGHT NOW?"
When I immediately pointed at a nearby town and identified it as Lazne Belohrad, he smiled contentedly and said: "Fine, let's have one more forced landing, just in case, and we can go home."

doubleu-anker

26th Nov 2010, 04:01

Aerobatics in a non aerobatic cleared aircraft is a no no and a hanging offence. Doesn't matter is he is an examiner. That should have been reported. Someone else has to strap their backsides to that aircraft after a :mad: act like that.

Stopping an engine deliberately is also foolish IMHO. What is to stop the examiner using a zero thrust power setting? As stated you may not get it started. There is also shock cooling to be taken into consideration here. "Look after your aircraft and it will look after you". Keep doing that and it may stop on some other unfortunate individual at the wrong time with disastrous consequences.

S-Works

26th Nov 2010, 07:39

:ugh::ugh: I suggest you find new examiners. I am shocked at these anecdotal stories if they are true. The role of an examiner is to assess, not show boat or try and impress the candidates with their self perceived skills. An examiners job is merely to verify that the skills required are up to standard, not to stress test or try and catch people out. A test is stressful enough and not a real reflection of true life despite our best efforts. We have to make allowances for this when asessing skills not try and make it even more difficult.

I conduct any test as per the guidance for examiners and the content of the SRG1157, nothing more, nothing less.

Perhaps, it is those posting stories of how they survived the examiners from hell that are show boating to impress us with their own sky god skills?

I can honestly say I have never met a bad examiner and I am on the receiving end of a lot of tests every year!!

* stopping and restart of an engine is a requirement for the MEP initial.

mmgreve

26th Nov 2010, 07:59

Aerobatics in a non aerobatic cleared aircraftlike this?
http://i122.photobucket.com/albums/o267/flyafrica/FlyAfrica%204/ClimberAirATRbarrelroll.gif

Check for spotters with cameras before you do a stunt like that :ugh:

Pace

26th Nov 2010, 09:08

Bose
I cannot be critical of what you say. In an ideal world all examiners would be like you. Sadly it is not an ideal world.
There are a multitude of personality types amongst examiners too and sadly some are type A personalities guys who want to impress. All l have written is true but then I have been through a lot of examiners both sides of the pond.
The vast majority are excellent.
The one serious event I would not detail here as he died in tragic circumstances. Different animals for different work.He was regardless an excellent pilot of his type.

Pace

IO540

26th Nov 2010, 09:34

There have been cowboy examiners in both JAA and FAA systems, over here. And yes sometimes they had (well known) fatal accidents, though one cannot say it was caused by the examiner. It is one thing to be doing legally dodgy stuff (itself driven by a combination of DfT rules and airspace regs) and another to be a bad pilot. My best PPL instructor was a total cowboy, pretending to have an ATPL, various type ratings, and god knows what else.

A friend of mine was having his PPL re-val and his instructor pulled the mixture shut after takeoff - in a SE. At about 500ft. The engine did restart OK.... this was at the place where I am based.

The worst things I saw were not crazy instructors but instructors who fully condoned their employer's dodgy maintenance practices. That is worse than most things. I walked out of my first PPL school over that. The instructor is still there, more than 10 years later, presumably still thumbing through the airline job ads, probably having unfrozen his fATPL several times over :)

Fuji Abound

26th Nov 2010, 10:37

A friend of mine was having his PPL re-val and his instructor pulled the mixture shut after takeoff - in a SE. At about 500ft. The engine did restart OK.... this was at the place where I am based.

I was in the aircraft when the chap did exactly this. In fact I gather it was a regular element of his "skills test". I remember thinking I hope this doesnt go horribly wrong on him one day.

Actual engine shut downs on MEP renewals are just about total "no nos" these days but I wonder if they still go on for the intial test?

Nibbler

26th Nov 2010, 13:50

About 8 hours into my PPL training I was doing a few circuits with my instructor / examiner and on landing for the 4th time he said in a frustrated voice "I've had enough of this! I bet you think you know it all!" Without the slightest thought and a big smile I quipped back "yeah!"

His reply threw me entirely " Right off you go then " and with that he got out. He must have been laughing all the way back to the club house seeing the look on my face.

Once my brain caught up with events I went and flew my first solo.

S-Works

26th Nov 2010, 15:12

Actual engine shut downs on MEP renewals are just about total "no nos" these days but I wonder if they still go on for the intial test

Yes they are requirement for the initial. See SRG1157 Sec5.5 refers.

Fuji Abound

26th Nov 2010, 15:15

Bose

Thanks.

Do you think they are still worth while compared with zero power?

Big Pistons Forever

26th Nov 2010, 15:32

Bose

Thanks.

Do you think they are still worth while compared with zero power?

Canada just ended the foolishness of demanding a full in flight shut down and feather as a requirement for the multi engine rating. The aircraft handles exactly the same with zero thrust set as compared to having the engine actually feathered and leaving the engine running preserves the safety of having the "failed" engine available if things start going pear shaped.

S-Works

26th Nov 2010, 16:10

Bose

Thanks.

Do you think they are still worth while compared with zero power?

Nope, not in any shape or form. I think it is a pointless exercise and just invites trouble. I have had a number of occasions where the engine has failed to restart both when teaching for the ME and Examining requiring a single engine landing for real. It is the reason on a LST I leave it to the very last moment!

I have mentioned it a number of times at Examiner events and the general consensus is that I am agreed with. However getting it changed is more difficult. I think it will come in due course.

Big Pistons Forever

26th Nov 2010, 16:40

I have had a number of occasions where the engine has failed to restart both when teaching for the ME and Examining requiring a single engine landing for real. It is the reason on a LST I leave it to the very last moment!
.

Me too. I am still amazed at how few know that there is no certification requirement that the aircraft/engine makers have to prove you can actually restart the engine in flight under all or even any conditions. All that is required is that the emergency procedures section of the POH have a restart procedure. If you are doing a for real inflight shut down and then restart you are now a test pilot.....

maxred

26th Nov 2010, 18:50

Lined up on 9000 ft runway, PA28, IMC test, Off you go states my instructor, climbing through 70 feet, bang, up comes the front cowlings, s***, says I, intending to land ahead, when I am bundled off the controls, yes forcibly, he screaming I have, and then mumbling to himself, Keep Calm *****, Keep Calm *****, as he banks left at 150 feet, goes back downwind, comes round and lands on the runway, forcing a large jet on 5 mile final to go around:confused:

I sat there utterly dumbstruck. Handled that well he says to me, taxied in, got out, fixed down the cowling, and suggested we go again.

I handed him the headset, Another day I offerred.:mad:

mary meagher

29th Nov 2010, 14:07

O yes, I did that once in Ireland, forced a big jet on 5 mile final to go around....and around and around and around. Alas, the grass on which my PA18 wound up after a misunderstanding with the Tower, proved to be a trifle damp, and I ended up like Alcock and Brown, arse end up in an Irish Bog.

Waited quite a while to discuss it with the Irish Police. At last the officer arrived, got out his notebook

"How many injured?" None, I replied.

"Any damage" No, no damage, I replied (which was, incredibly, true)

"Well then," he said, snapping his notebook shut, "I don't need to make a report then!" And that was that. I never did get a bill from Aer Lingus.

hugh flung_dung

30th Nov 2010, 10:38

There *is* value in the required shutdown during training because it's the only time that the stude gets to see that the aircraft will behave "as advertised" with one feathered and that the zero-thrust setting is a realistic alternative for training. It's also needed to *find* the zero thrust setting.
I don't see the point of a shutdown on the initial test because they've only just seen it during training, but maybe there's a weak argument for a reminder every few years.

Like Bose I usually put the shutdown at the end of the test. I'm not too bothered about being in a lightly-loaded single-engined twin under these conditions but being chased by the fire engines is embarrassing when the damn thing starts easily as soon as the aircraft is on the ground! I think my count is: 1 intentional shutdown on final for mechanical reasons, 3 failures to restart after a deliberate shutdown, and several very reluctant restarts that can't have done the starter motor much good.

HFD

IO540

30th Nov 2010, 11:05

Surely, an engine stoppage in a twin is a non-event when in cruise, due to the more than adequate rudder authority, but is a major event at the other times.

So there is little point in training it in cruise with the engine actually stopped.

If you are going to do a real engine shutdown, you do it right after takeoff, or at 250ft on the ILS, in IMC ;) Both of these scenarios would result in a lot of dead examiners...

Fuji Abound

30th Nov 2010, 13:00

Actually in my experience an engine at zero or very low power is far more of a handful than an engine shut down with a feathered prop. for obvious reasons - it just amplifies what happens when the donkey quits for real.

An engine stop (or a reduction to zero power) in the crusie should be a non event - however the pilot does need to be able to identify the failed engine, trim, and make the engine secure. While your heart is missing a beat, as with any drill, you are more likely to sequence through the vital actions if you have demonstrated the drill previoulsy.

While I have fortunately not had it happen to me, in fact after a failure on the climb out, a failure during the descent can be nearly as challenging, while a failure in the cruise should come as nothing more than a unpleasant surprise and a sense of urgency to bring the flight to a successful early conclusion. ;)

hugh flung_dung

30th Nov 2010, 13:20

IO ... if you had experience as an ME FI or FE you would have seen the typical stude's reaction to seeing the prop stopped ...didn't you find it a useful part of the course?

Fundamentally, studes need to see and deal with as many as possible of the situations that they may need to deal with later. Having experience of flying the aircraft with one engine feathered takes away the unknown, and having seen that zero thrust simulates the situation fairly accurately the training for the other areas that you mention can continue safely.

HFD
(edited to fix minor typo, marginal grammar left unchanged:O)

BackPacker

30th Nov 2010, 14:09

I haven't done any ME training so far, but I have deliberately stopped the prop on a SE/fixed pitch aircraft in-flight (under controlled circumstances) and found the experience very valuable.

I would not consider my ME training complete without having stopped, feathered, unfeathered and restarted one of the engines a couple of times. (Or maybe even both of them...:})

maxred

30th Nov 2010, 15:12

This drift is paralelling the 'no need to teach spin training' in the UK/JAA PPL. The things that kill ya are CFIT, either caused by spin, total ignorance and awareness, engine failure at an awkward moment etc.

If a pilot, has not experienced, call it an event, then they are 90% on their way to certain calamity. If however the event has been shown, (demonstrated), all be it under 'safe circumstances', then at least the limited knowledge of what to expect is there. Memories of my 'inverted spin' training when we 'lost' 7000 feet in the process.:cool:

rusty sparrow

30th Nov 2010, 19:08

"A friend of mine was having his PPL re-val and his instructor pulled the mixture shut after takeoff "

My instructor always did that during my PPL training. Once, downwind at around 800' he did it and pulled the mixture control and now broken cable right out of the Cessna's dashboard . So a real engine failure and one of my best ever landings.

IO540

30th Nov 2010, 19:28

It is a stupid procedure. At the low speed involved, and the high pitch attitude, the engine could easily stop, and you won't restart it with a starter.

It is the kind of stupid stunt which macho instructors do to impress people - especially females.

It teaches the student almost nothing, because the psychology with an instructor in the RHS is very different to when flying without one. I was happy to go up in (most of) the flying school wreckage (the worst of which incidentally belonged to the local AOC holder) because if the engine quit (which I thought was quite likely given their dodgy fuelling practices) I was fully intending to just fold my arms and let the instructor land it... and organise the pickup of the slightly worse for wear wreck which would never again fly straight after the wings were screwed back on.

hugh flung_dung

30th Nov 2010, 19:38

I agree that deliberately shutting down the only source of power in the circuit is rather unwise, but why do you think the engine will stop (rotating)? Have you ever tried to stop an engine rotating? It's very difficult if you can't feather it - think back to your MEP training.
During aerobatic courses we are supposed to teach airborne restarts but it's next to impossible to stop the damn thing, except sometimes in a sustained spin in some types - and then re-starting after only a few seconds delay is never a problem. The starting issues we discussed earlier are after being shutdown for a couple of minutes.

(Note - I'm not condoning pulling mixture below 2000ft in anything).

Edited to add: from your frequent comments about the state of school aircraft it seems you chose badly - I'm aware of many schools in my local patch with good aircraft so can only assume that they exist everywhere.

HFD

BackPacker

30th Nov 2010, 20:08

During aerobatic courses we are supposed to teach airborne restarts but it's next to impossible to stop the damn thing,

Took a few tries but eventually a 1/2g pushover at 30 knots worked just fine. Not something you'd do in the circuit of course...:ugh:

IO540

30th Nov 2010, 20:47

gingernut

6th Dec 2010, 19:25

"Is that an English or a Canadian Goose?"

"Where?"

"Engine failure!"

With hindsight, I think he was saying don't fly over Martin Mere 'cos it's restricted. Top fella'

LH2

6th Dec 2010, 22:53

IO ... if you had experience as an ME FI or FE you would have seen the typical stude's reaction to seeing the prop stopped

What is that reaction supposed to be? :confused: Mine was an ear-to-ear grin and the satisfying thought came to my mind that I could for the time being stop mucking with the levers attempting to sync the props... then the bastard on the right seat wanted it restarted. :{

hugh flung_dung

7th Dec 2010, 00:43

"What is that reaction supposed to be?" it's not "supposed" to be anything in particular; I was replying to IO's comment that "there is little point in training in cruise with the engine actually stopped".
Most stude's are slightly amazed that the aeroplane carries-on regardless and can be manoeuvred normally - a good demo that you can tell people anything but showing them has a bigger impact. There's almost always a grin, and frequently a desire to take a photograph of the stopped prop.

HFD

IO540

7th Dec 2010, 06:37

It sounds like that the stopped prop demo ought to be preceeded by a bit of ground school explaining how a plane flies, i.e. the engine doesn't do anything useful in a plane other than improve the rate of climb

:)

mad_jock

7th Dec 2010, 07:36

O yes it does :D

Sodding great air brake.

IO540

7th Dec 2010, 08:06

I would call that a reduction in the rate of climb.

The plane still behaves as usual.

S-Works

7th Dec 2010, 09:32

No it does not. It creates a massive yawing moment as you lose 50% of your thrust and 80% of your performance. Made worse if its the loss of the critical engine on an aircraft without counter rotating props.

In a cruise or power of descent the effects are less noticeable but still present.

Edit: Mistoooks.

IO540

7th Dec 2010, 09:55

WOW I learn something every day on here. I thought the whole point of a twin was that you could shut down one motor to save petrol.

S-Works

7th Dec 2010, 10:21

WOW I learn something every day on here. I thought the whole point of a twin was that you could shut down one motor to save petrol.

Clearly with a comment like that....

The plane still behaves as usual

I've never had any real formal MEP training.

Perhaps pontificating on stuff you know about might be more in order then?

mad_jock

7th Dec 2010, 10:42

I wouldn't when I have to dump 100 knts to start getting the services out.

And it doesn't behave as usual it can have some quite marked changes in handling depending on type as bose says.

It takes a reasonable time before new FO's will dare to venture below 10-15% torque as they usually don't like it because it can bite thier arse in seconds. Once your used to it it can be a right joker card depending on the aircraft letting you get away with murder dumping altitude and speed.

LH2

7th Dec 2010, 12:03

There's almost always a grin, and frequently a desire to take a photograph of the stopped prop.

Guilty! :O

---

Excuse the pedantry, and I know you know, etc., but...

Made worse if it the loss of the critical engine on an aircraft without contra rotating props.

...you can still have a critical engine even with contra-rotating props (although I suppose strictly from a handling point of view it doesn't make any difference).