Full and free controls check [Archive]

BackPacker

14th Dec 2011, 08:38

I guess it depends on what you call "rapid".

While training in the PA28 I don't recall doing a specific check on rudder travel other than just noticing any restrictions during normal taxi. In the normal course of taxiing you typically make at least one left and one right turn to get to the runway (including maneuvering for the runup) so you have a pretty decent idea on whether things work. But I admit you don't necessarily apply full rudder in both directions this way.

When I started doing aeros in the R2160 we were taught to do a full and free rudder check specifically. At my club we typically use the former heli platform next door. This is done at slow taxi speed - it's a tight area. Full right rudder application with moderate force requires about 1-1.5 seconds to reach full deflection, then full left rudder requires about 1.5-2 seconds to reach full deflection. In that time the aircraft has traveled forward maybe some 20 meters, and has a sideways deflection of the taxi path of about 5-7 meters. And is incidentally nicely lined up with the exit of the heli platform.

So the full check will take about five seconds in total, during which the aircraft moved forward some 20 meters. That seems to be the maximum that this particular aircraft will handle comfortably, without feeling overstressed, squeeling of tires etc.

I would not check rudder movement while standing still with any sort of linked nosewheel. If only because of the wear on the tires. Unless it's spring-loaded and the POH specifically permits it.

(On the other hand, in a castoring nosewheel aircraft like the DA40 you are continuously applying full rudder deflection just to keep the aircraft straight during taxi. No need for specific checks there.)

Pilot DAR

14th Dec 2011, 08:43

Aircraft type appropriately, I like the check during a walk around that the rudder seems to be connected, and is not obstructed locally from free motion. It's also nice to assess if possible that if it reaches full motion, it will not hang up there, but this assessment is not always possible. This was a concern in a silly AD against C 150's. Certainly on some type you can damage the rudder trying to move it full travel whie parked.

Once that's established, I like to assure full rudder travel at the pedals during taxi, and if I can see the rudder moving as it should bonus.

I have had five maintenance failings of rudders/steering, all of which were flyable, but were none the less wrong, and noticeably so. None were detectable at the walk around level of inspection. Were any have been on a twin, and I'd lost an engine, it could have been a real problem!

Genghis the Engineer

14th Dec 2011, 09:13

Regarding rudder, I also agree that it depends very much on type. Many taildraggers the tailwheel and rudder are linked by springs so operation of the rudder is doable. Some types (Grummans, Shadows...) have a castoring nosewheel so a full check on the rudder is no problem. On the other hand in, say, a C172 or a PA28 yes, rudder/nosewheel on taxi.

I also make a point of moving the control surfaces by hand whilst looking in the cockpit (or with the aileron, at the other aileron) to ensure there's no unwanted freeplay in the system.

And ALWAYS check that everything (but especially the ailerons) goes the right way, particularly if you fly gliders or microlights, which may well have been de-rigged then re-rigged between flights.

Bigger than *most* of us fly, but hydraulics changes the whole game of-course. Ditto FBW.

G

peterh337

14th Dec 2011, 09:15

I wrote

Assume your aircraft has a steered nosewheel..

e.g. a TB20.

What would concern me is the huge pedal force required to do a rapid L and R full-travel-all-the-way-to-the-stops check.

GeeWhizz

14th Dec 2011, 09:20

What would concern me is the huge pedal force required to do a rapid L and R full-travel-all-the-way-to-the-stops check.

That's your aeroplane, your nose leg, tyres, cables/torsion rods/linkages (not familiar with TB20), rudder assembly. You treat it as you see fit (....and as always iaw POH).

Whatever the POH says, if it were mine...... :=

mad_jock

14th Dec 2011, 09:27

The other ting with control check is don't do it in the same order every time because it can be free going one way and not the other,

The reason why I know this is because for some reason I had a FO do it the opposite way round to normal and I was just about to mention it when the bloody TCAS VSI unit came out the panel with a crunch.

Turn out that if you went forward left back right The gubbins at the back was clear but if you went forwards right back it caught on the back of the unit.

The unit had been installed for over a year when we discovered this. Out of a fleet of 7 aircraft 2 had this feature.

peterh337

14th Dec 2011, 10:15

The interpretation of the POH procedure hangs on the interpretation of the words on page 71 and 77 of the POH (a generic one is e.g. here (http://www.pilotlist.org/manuels/socata/tb20/PIMTB20.pdf)).

My view is that no way one should force the pedals fully against their mechanical stops unless there is sufficient forward motion on the tarmac to allow the nosewheel to follow the pedals easily.

IOW, there is no way to do this, without excessive stress on the rudder/nosewheel linkages, unless you are taxiing at the time.

And it will result in significant heading excursions on the taxiway.

dublinpilot

14th Dec 2011, 10:20

If it takes more force that would be involved in normal taxiing, then I would say that you're doing it too quickly, and likely to cause damage in the long run.

I would also say that if you are doing it really quickly, you get a wobble rather than a proper turn, and don't really know if the nose wheel has turned properly. All you know is just that the pedal has made full travel and you got a bit of a turn.

n5296s

14th Dec 2011, 13:49

Hmm, unfamiliar. In my 182 I can move the pedals to full deflection while static on the ground, and the rudder moves too - or I can move the rudder by hand (and do on every pre flight). And that's true for every type I'm reasonably familiar with - including taildraggers (Citabria, Pitts, T6, ...). They all have some kind of spring or bungee cord in the linkage. It may take a bit more force but nothing extraordinary or to the point where you worry you might break something. (We won't talk about the Great Lakes which seems to have a very thin elastic band rather than an actual spring).

peterh337

14th Dec 2011, 14:04

In my 182 I can move the pedals to full deflection while static on the groundThat's exactly what I was getting at.

It is type specific. On the TB20, you cannot do this at all - short of a ridiculous force on the rudder, sufficient to force the front tyre to rotate statically on the tarmac.

Yet, not doing it is a good way to help fail a 170A if you get the "right" examiner :)

Sir Niall Dementia

14th Dec 2011, 14:17

Peter;

On a 170A its a question of playing the game, I personally would not go for a "rapid left right full control manouvre"; If you brief the examiner that you will carry out a full and free in seperate parts ie "as we turn left from dispersal I will check full left rudder and full right as we turn into wind for power checks" and highlight the reason why then he should not fail you if you have good airmanship/POH reasons.

I've just checked with FF and VH and when we did both 170 and IR power checks were carried out into wind (different from your other post, god knows why that has changed)

SND

RTN11

14th Dec 2011, 16:47

Perhaps get someone to pull the tail down while parked so the nose is off the ground. Then you can test the rudder anyway you please :}

Definately the only way to check is while moving, the first three checks as soon as the taxi starts are full left rudder, full right rudder, brakes working. When you're the one paying for the nose leg and new tyres, you certainly want to reduce the long term wear and tear/damage.

Sounds like you're having a real hard time with the 170a.

peterh337

14th Dec 2011, 16:55

Perhaps get someone to pull the tail down while parked so the nose is off the ground

I think if you tried that with a TB20, you would break it in half :)

You would definitely break off the tailcone.

It's not a C150 (which I know you can do that with). It's so damn heavy you would need a hurricane to move it even if not chocked.

Sounds like you're having a real hard time with the 170a.

Not any more :)

Looking for a new FTO.

mad_jock

14th Dec 2011, 17:10

Peter try Kevin Rowel in sherburn.

If he can get me towing the line he can do it for anyone.

He will give you exactly what you need to get through with zero nonsense.

Yes I know its a pain and some of the things they want you to do you think are bollocks. But to be honest they have stood me in good stead through out my career and I have used pretty much everything that I was tested on includng the partial panel work :\

riverrock83

14th Dec 2011, 17:20

I've always been taught to do full rudder checks - but I have a nice big apron to do them on before reaching the taxiway. At walking pace, I deviate off the center line to one side (say left) then use full right rudder, then left full rudder to put myself back on the center line, ensuring I'm reaching the stops each time. The total deviation off the center line isn't more than a few meters.
I suppose the main question is have you checked all of the controls that can be checked. If you can check them - you should check them!

RTN11

14th Dec 2011, 18:18

I think I see the problem. You've brought along such a nice aircraft, the 170a examiner just wanted another go in it. :}

Jan Olieslagers

14th Dec 2011, 18:18

Not sure if it's relevant or wise, but my approach is exactly the other way round: the bird sitting on the apron, I pull her tail down with one hand, and with the other I check the rudder against its limits. On good days I keep half an eye on the pedals moving accordingly; and if another person is available, they get requested to confirm the nosewheel's compliancy.

Maoraigh1

14th Dec 2011, 20:25

I did a stick full left-right then full forward-back in our Jodel 1050. No problem. Taxied out. Ready for departure. Did a stirring movement. Felt rudder movement. Taxied back. Centre tunnel had been stood on, pushing rudder cables lower, where they caught on the stick at full sideways movement.

Johnm

14th Dec 2011, 21:04

You can't do a full and free rudder check on a stationary PA 28 either, nor did the guy who did my 170a expect me to. I just followed the check list I use normally in my usual reasonably careful and practical fashion and he seemed happy enough.

Edited to add: Are you dealing with some muppet who is trying to make a point about FAA vs JAA/EASA. If so he's made the point that the FAA regime is sensible and other one isn't!

Big Pistons Forever

15th Dec 2011, 00:31

Cessna singles, unlike Pipers, have a spring in the rudder/nose wheel steering circuit. This is why you can move the rudder without the nose wheel moving on the ground and helps to keep the nose wheel centered in flight.

One worthwhile check almost nobody does is to compare the rudder position with the nose wheel position. If the nose wheel is straight but the rudder is deflected to one side one of the springs is probably stretched/broken.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 06:45

Cessna singles, unlike Pipers, have a spring in the rudder/nose wheel steering circuitIndeed, and I would not jump in somebody else's plane and bang the rudder pedals all the way to the floor, rapidly, on the assumption that it must be like a Cessna :)

The plane's owner in the LHS is hardly going to object, because he wants to pass the test. But he is now more likely to fail the test, because (to the examiner) he looks like a muppet who doesn't know how to do the checks. You should never, under any circumstances, argue with an examiner. Not when he is holding all the cards and the box they came in.

Cusco

15th Dec 2011, 07:00

johnm wrote:

Edited to add: Are you dealing with some muppet who is trying to make a point about FAA vs JAA/EASA. If so he's made the point that the FAA regime is sensible and other one isn't!

Hmm........ that thought briefly crossed my mind.

But it couldn't be true..........

Could it?

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 07:21

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 07:55

I think it depends on where they came from.

US PPL and IR training is of generally good standard, appropriate to the expected environment which is the USA. A US trained pilot can generally jump into a PA28 or whatever and plan the route and correctly execute the plan from some airport in Florida to some airport in Oregon (not nonstop obviously). Whereas a UK / EU trained PPL usually can't do anything of the sort, and a JAA IR holder won't even know how to develop a Eurocontrol flight plan... An FAA IR holder, coming here, will get stumped on the Eurocontrol stuff, and admin stuff like PPR,PNR straight away.

But standards do vary - as they do within JAA Europe. You can do an FAA IR at a school where GPS is heavily used and there is no NDB work. I did my IR at a school (http://www.aerobatics.com) where there was no GPS, which worked a merciless and utterly knackering VOR/LOC/GS regime where you were like a one armed bandit the whole time (partial panel timed turns on almost the entire checkride) and loads of partial panel unusual attitude recovery stuff but ... no NDBs at all. I chose that school, but could have chosen a different one. In JAA-land you can get a JAA IR with no NDBs too.

If you fly fairly extensively IFR in Europe then your radio should be good and so should general IFR flying and IFR knowledge, but NDB holds are likely to need a lot of training (especially if you don't have an RMI) because on the rare occassions that lower airways traffic gets them they are flown using a GPS, which is then totally trivial. I never had a problem with anything in the JAA IR except the work that had to go into the NDB holds and inbound tracking, especially where the inbound track indication goes for a walkabout in the last few nm.

NDB holds are easy in light winds (in essence no different to VOR holds if you have an RMI) but say 25kt+ creates a lot of work, especially under the old regime where you had to be inbound within 5 degrees for 15 or 30 seconds. Certain 170A examiners still operate this old requirement, I found out.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2011, 08:01

I wouldn't have thought so.

To be honest even when I went through the system years ago very experenced FAA twin IR pilots some of them CFII's did have quite a few issues with the JAR IR.

It didn't really come from lack of scan etc more of having to relearn something requiring a prescribed procedure for the test.

The stalling was different to what they had been taught. ie no powering out reduce AoA then apply power.

The FAA publish that stall recovery is reduce AoA then apply power.
The CAA & JAA publish that stall recovery is simultaneously reduce AoA and apply power.

Neither have ever, that I can find having researched this a fair bit, published a "power out of it" stall recovery. However, it's clearly crept into a lot of training both sides of the Atlantic. Somebody at Denham the other day (Duchess Driver?) was telling me that they've recently seen graduates off JAA integrated courses who are displaying this dreadful habit.

I suspect it's that one of the few aeroplanes that this recovery works well on is the tapered wing PA28 -which of-course is probably the favourite CPL training machine both sides of the Atlantic.

In the meantime however, FAA, CAA and I think even EASA have been trying to stamp this dreadful and unapproved habit out.

NDB work was ropey.
Hardly surprising, NDB holds and approaches are quite rarely used in the USA. I'll bet their GNSS approaches were a lot better than yours or mine however.

Altimeter work was quite often forgotten.
Again, no QFE in the USA, transition levels so high you seldom use flight levels in the USA, and no concept of RPS in the USA. You'd expect them to struggle in the UK.

RT was utter ****e.
No formal training or examination for it in the USA, plus the protocols are quite different. So, hardly surprising.

They were quite lost without GPS as it was an intergral part of their scan.

I find it interesting that even if I have a conversation with senior air navigation people from the USA about the vulnerability of GPS, and they accept every point I make, they then remain convinced that GPS is the only way ahead and simply ignore all the problems. This attitude is clearly continuing to permeate their whole aviation culture - one of these days it's going to end in tears.

Holds, there was a difference there which seemed to cause no amount of grief.

Really? Surely all holds are just geometry and timing at the end of the day and you follow the diagram? What are they doing different?

When the work load got up they reverted back to FAA practises.

Suggesting poor quality individuals in the first place - with insufficient spare capacity?

But that is only from the 3-4 that were at the school at the time.

Which is always the problem for all of us in comparing stuff like this - that we're dealing with anecdote and limited information rather than a really large set of examples.

G

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 09:06

was telling me that they've recently seen graduates off JAA integrated courses who are displaying this dreadful habit.

yep its disgusting the level of incompetence that gets shoved out the door.
Then we have to teach them how to fly properly on the line. It has its roots in the flying basic exercises 1-14, can't trim properly, can't fly an attitude just a flight of needle chasing with thier head in the cockpit. Apparently it produces a good company pilot for the big boys with autopilots and fancy boxes of tricks. Its bloody useless for the rest of us that require some pilot savy.

I'll bet their GNSS approaches were a lot better than yours or mine however.

At the time they would have been, but now I would hope not. There is nothing special about GNSS approaches its just another NPA if you slave the HSI through to the GPS and ramp up the sensitivity scale its just like flying a localiser approach just another tool in the box which is easier than a NDB but not by much these days for me.

Surely all holds are just geometry and timing at the end of the day and you follow the diagram? What are they doing different?

I am not 100% sure on this I am sure peter will correct me. In the US they do the 1 min inbound and alter things so they get 1 min running into the fix on the required track. To be honest I wouldn't have a clue how to do it thier way along with most EU pilots who don't have a FAA IR. FMC's have the option in the hold page for both methods which sorts it out for commercials flying over there. Persoanly I can't see there being much difference between the geometry as you say.
BUt if your wanging around getting thrown about under test conditions... its easy to confuse which one your doing.

Suggesting poor quality individuals in the first place - with insufficient spare capacity?

I wouldn't say so, its quite a common pilot error to revert to original training even when its not approprate which is one of the reasons why the UK has always gold plated IR training and testing, it will be with you the rest of your life. Its also the reason why they don't mess with the position of the six instruments because thats where you will look when the **** hits the fan. Quite a few accidents with western pilots flying eastern hardware and vice versa.

I can't remember if you have your IR or not, its very easy to get over loaded and thats without having another way of doing things floating around in your head. And 15 hours is not alot of time to reprogram your habits aquired over 500-1000+ hours of flying. I suspect single crew I would be overloaded these days quite easily and I am very current flying none autopilot IFR appoaches down to mins in crap wx with 140-160knt appoach speeds but multicrew.

The powering out of stalls is an utter bastard to get out of pilots once they start doing it. Even if you get them to repeat until they are doing it correctly its still stilted, as if they are pattering it to themselves while doing it as an exercise. When the **** hits the fan my gut feeling is they will still go for the power out. And its hairy as hell when they do it. The whole aircraft just wallows and doesn't do much for ages while despite thier best efforts of stopping the nose dropping it does anyway and it recovers.

And I take you point about the limited sample. I have flown with pilots outside the EU commercially that wouldn't have a hope of passing a JAR IR or for that matter a CPL test or type LST. Thier tech knowledge is poor both of the basics and the aircraft systems. Although to be fair this is becoming a bug bear of mine with JAR trained pilots as well now that they seem to be passing the exams by learning the exam banks.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2011, 09:42

I can't remember if you have your IR or not, its very easy to get over loaded and thats without having another way of doing things floating around in your head. And 15 hours is not alot of time to reprogram your habits aquired over 500-1000+ hours of flying. I suspect single crew I would be overloaded these days quite easily and I am very current flying none autopilot IFR appoaches down to mins in crap wx with 140-160knt appoach speeds but multicrew.

The powering out of stalls is an utter bastard to get out of pilots once they start doing it. Even if you get them to repeat until they are doing it correctly its still stilted, as if they are pattering it to themselves while doing it as an exercise. When the **** hits the fan my gut feeling is they will still go for the power out. And its hairy as hell when they do it. The whole aircraft just wallows and doesn't do much for ages while despite thier best efforts of stopping the nose dropping it does anyway and it recovers.

And I take you point about the limited sample. I have flown with pilots outside the EU commercially that wouldn't have a hope of passing a JAR IR or for that matter a CPL test or type LST. Thier tech knowledge is poor both of the basics and the aircraft systems. Although to be fair this is becoming a bug bear of mine with JAR trained pilots as well now that they seem to be passing the exams by learning the exam banks.

No IR, but I've become a fairly current and regular IMCR user - glancing at my logbook, averaging around an hour by reference to instruments and an approach a month at the moment. So, starting to feel I know something about instrument flying, but not claiming to be the expert that some here clearly are; but yes I can certainly relate to it all starting to go pear-shaped when overloaded. I'm sure I'll do an IR eventually - under the glorious new EASA regulations I'll apparently need it to test fly anything over 2000kg, but that's an issue I'm avoiding for the time being.

I agree that people will revert to earliest or most practiced training, including for stall recoveries (I recall nearly killing myself this way in a Flash 2 alpha when I pushed in response to an incipient stall on go-around.... .... when I had at the time only single figure hours in flexwings, and was applying a 3-axis/light aeroplane response!) So, the question is "where is this poor training coming from".

I'd venture that the culprit may be a good friend of yours and mine: the trusty tapered wing PA28. It is one aeroplane that will allow you to power out of any stall with safety - but will lead to habits that might well kill you in, for example, a PA38 or T67.

And presumably that very safe aeroplane has led students and instructors with very limited breadth of experience to believe that this technique works universally, rather than just on a handful of very safe spamcans such as the Warrior and Arrow?

G

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 09:59

VOR holds are flown the same way as NDB holds in that you track inbound to the holding fix using the navaid and have to make a dead-reckoning wind adjustment on the outbound leg on which (in "classical IFR") there is no track guidance.

If you can get track guidance on the outbound leg (e.g. can see the numeric GPS track, never mind a moving map) then the whole exercise becomes trivial because you just adjust the heading until the desired track is achieved - so long as you keep track of where you are on e.g. a teardrop join.

As regards the size of the holding pattern, AIUI, NDB holds in JAR-land are always supposed to be timed (below FL140, IIRC, supposedly, 1 minute +/- a wind correction). Using a DME distance is very much a no-no (makes it too easy), unless thus published (I don't recall seeing a holding pattern published with a DME distance on it). In the USA this is the same but we did sometimes use DME for the hold size.

VOR holds are easier than NDB holds because the CDI / HSI is a proper command instrument and if you have the vaguest idea of which way the wind is blowing, tracking inbound is easy. Whereas with NDB holds you have to "push the head / pull the tail" and especially without an RMI this is heavy brain work right when you don't need it, and exceeding 100ft on altitude is a prob fail and busting the MDA (because ATC called you right at that moment :) ) is an instant fail and another grand. And if you go around at MDA plus more than 50ft (e.g. during the time after reaching the MDA but before reaching the beacon, when you are supposed to just fly level) that is an instant fail too. During this time, ATC is very likely to call you with missed approach instructions ;)

Also, the VOR indication is much more stable, whereas ADF indication is usually all over the place, on top of which you have the ~ 7 degree ADF DIP. And on every coastal NDB approach I have ever seen there is a big "wonder" c. 2-3D which, in the JAA IR, you are supposed to actually track even though you know it is a false indication.

All good stuff for separating sheep from real men :)

On stall recoveries, I was taught to pitch down and at the same time gradually apply power, so as to recover flying speed with an altitude loss of less than X, and I don't remember what X was (prob 500ft or so). It's normally very easy to do.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 10:11

You should never, under any circumstances, argue with an examiner. Not when he is holding all the cards and the box they came in.

No, you should not argue whith anyone on the cockpit regardless of the capacity. However, you as the owner operator of the aircraft should have briefed the examiner on any unique qualities of your particular aircraft. As an Examiner I fly in a multutude of different types and if I am not familiar with the type would request a brief if the pilot had not already had the wherewithal to take it upon themselves to brief me on any differences.

The problem here Peter is that in your world everything has to be done YOUR way. This is inevitibly going to cause you problems when trying to adapt to the JAA training system which has a very ridgid culture.

As you pointed out on the thread you pulled there were many points during your 170A test that caused issue. You have not discussed any of the actual failure points yet because not turning into wind or an 'incorrect' full and free check are not failures they are debrief points.

If you continue to blame other for your shortcomings then you are going to go through a lot of FTO's and 170A tests.

Can I suggest that you try and get into the groove of the JAA system, think ahead and work with it rather than fighting it. You might find it galling but it will make your life so much easier.

Why don't you discuss the actuall failure points as given to you?

Although I assume now this thread will also get pulled for 'political' reasons rather than your inability to discuss openly your issue.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 10:23

That's bollox, bose-x.

Now, tell us, what actual categories are you an "Examiner" for and how long since?

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 10:37

That's bollox, bose-x.

Now, tell us, what actual categories are you an "Examiner" for and how long since?

Why is it bollox Peter? You have run two threads now alluding that the reason you have failed your 170A test is through not pointing into wind and not doing a full and free movement check. Neither of these are exam failures.

Why don't you list the actual polints on which you failed the test. The SRG1157 is split into 6 sections. Each section has a number of mandatroy skills and each skill has a pass or fail criteria. A failure in one or more skills in a single section will result in a partial pass. A failure of one or more item in 2 or more areas will result in a failure.

Failure to turn into wind or do a full and free movement check to the examiners taste are not failures. You therefore have grounds for an appeal or you failed in other areas as well.

Why don't you share the other areas. Believe it or not people are actually trying to help you even if it is with answers that don't like.

Like it or not I am an Examiner, I have met the required standards of the CAA and am qualified to give you input. You are the one who has chosen to creates threads seeking input, don't throw your toys out the pram when you are told something that you don't like. Look introspectivly and ask if it is not this attititude that seems to be making what you assured us all was a waste of your bandwidth in converting from your FAA IR to a JAA IR.

The two systems are very different and the JAA system is way less flexible. This coupled with your period out in the wild doing it YOUR way is going to create barriers. if you want to pass then you need to look at ways of knocking those barriers down.

Attacking me in response to trying to give you valid input serves no purpose.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 10:41

I don't think we can link it to a particular aircraft type. I think its the fault of the current training system. Linked into the sausage factory PPL production facilities using none JAR instructors.

Commercial students arn't taught to fly light aircraft properly, they are taught to fly them like an airliner.

You then get bad habits brought into the system from other countries.

And there are no checks and measures to ensure that our standards are being complide with. If there are students coming out of intergrated courses being taught powering out of stalls with all the integral QA and standisation that is meant to be part and parcel of the course. There isn't a hope in hell that your average FTO is going to be any better that uses 200 hour FI's.

Its a spiral dive in standards which is going to be very hard to rectify. Its got to the point now that the Gliding training is looking professional compared to commercial fix wing. All thier instructors have progress targets and are mentored through with progress checks. The standards through out the country are pretty constant and if an instructor isn't doing the correct thing they are stopped from instructing by the CFI.

Where as taking me for example I rocked up for my first job as an instructor with 220hours under my belt. Spent 5 weeks working my nuts off learning on the job with no input from the CFI drinking irish coffees from 9am onwards. He signed the form and a week later I was unrestricted. From then on until I left instructing I was on my tod with no checks apart from all my students passed there PPL tests. I left instructing after 14 months and 900 hours to fly the line. 6 years later I did the seminar and a flight check and I was back to being an unrestricted instructor again with the sum total of 6 hours SEP time in the last 6 years. Must admit though the old patter came back remarkably quickly and flying the tommy was like putting an old pair of slippers on.

And another huge factor is most instructors don't actually want to be instructors they are only doing it because they can't get an airline job. They have no interest at all about improving thier own knowledge or for that matter technique. Every hour is just one more hour until they hopefully get to fly something shiny. There are some out there that are good and have a real interest in general aviation, most just want to get out of it as fast as possible.

proudprivate

15th Dec 2011, 10:59

On stall recoveries, I was taught to pitch down and at the same time gradually apply power, so as to recover flying speed with an altitude loss of less than X, and I don't remember what X was (prob 500ft or so). It's normally very easy to do.

I was taught exactly the same thing, but X was less than 500 ft.

You then get bad habits brought into the system from other countries.

This is of course a very provincial way of thinking. There is not just a difference between the UK and the US, there is also a significant difference between the UK and Belgium, or the UK and France for that matter. The latter are of course JAA countries.

To use that as as an argument to gold plate the UK flying scene is reminiscent of the pre-JAA days, when every national country invented protectionist rules to shield their national carrier and its flight training scheme. I think we have moved on from that.

I must say that I find the patronising attitude of Bose-X in this thread quite revolting. What is clear to me is that both the flight training and pre-examination practices such as the behaviour of 170A check pilots at some unnamed FTO in the South-East of England leaves a lot to be desired.

I very much doubt whether listing the complete debrief would give Peter useful information in such an opinionated environment. Clearly you are all providing a commercial service and you have NO FRIGGING IDEA about customer focus.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 11:03

And peter bose is correct.

Manchester ROSUN hold has a DME limit on it to stop you going outside protected airspace.

And have you ever thought that the NDB hold and approach might show a bit more than your ability to fly an approach using a wanky old nav aid which is nobody in there right mind would use if there was anything else available.

I use them to see how much capacity the pilot flying has. When they can fly one while cursing me for having requested one in nice wx and me being no help what so ever with tracking steers and only calling the distance and heights. Then they are ready to start thinking about getting the book work going for sitting in my seat. If you have the capacity to fly a tight NDB approach every other approach is a piece of piss.

O and its fair game if I am flying and the FO does the dirty on me and requests one on a nice wx day at a quiet airfield. I actually quiet enjoy it, any pillock can fly an ILS spot on. A tight NDB and +- 20ft on your check heights is something to be chuffed with, never mind how experenced you are.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 11:18

I agree there are differences. But both those countries arn't quite JAR I couldn't fly in either commercially with my UK JAR ticket on the local reg.
I don't think I can even fly privately in France on a F reg without some hoops to jump through.

I wouldn't like a UK airline to have Air Frances safety record.

And once you sit in an aircraft for an exam your NOT a customer the examinor is a representative of the CAA. If they step outside the published standards you complain to the CAA not the school.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2011, 11:19

Drifting the thread off topic even more, but perhaps you can enlighten me on something there Jock.

I trained for my IMC between two well regarded schools "somewhere in England", I switched halfway because whilst the instructor was great, the school was a shambles. Anyhow, both were teaching NDB procedure primarily by timing - which so far as I can see is a backup procedure for most people and aircraft because the plates show everything in terms of DME then the timings are shown "for aircraft unable to receive DME".

Any particular reason for this tendency not to use DME, which was always available to us, and to my mind, is a hell of a lot easier to fly accurately.

G

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 11:28

Any particular reason for this tendency not to use DME, which was always available to us, and to my mind, is a hell of a lot easier to fly accurately.

Of course it's easier to fly a DME hold than a timed hold. Maybe the particular holds you flew we're published timed holds not DME holds?

If you can fly a decent timed hold you can fly a DME hold. If the hold was unpublished around a beacon for training purposes only, the FI probably wanted you to demonstrate you could correct for timing. Most NDB holds I've flown have been timed. There are of course both in the real world. That's what there training you for.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2011, 11:31

Valid points, thanks for the input 500. As I said, they are published as DME holds with a timed backup procedure - but I can see why using times may be a better learning method.

Incidentally, for anybody who hasn't read it: CAA advice on stall recoveries (http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/130711_SafetyNotice_StallRecoveryTechniques.pdf).

G

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 12:02

I must say that I find the patronising attitude of Bose-X in this thread quite revolting. What is clear to me is that both the flight training and pre-examination practices such as the behaviour of 170A check pilots at some unnamed FTO in the South-East of England leaves a lot to be desired.

Now there is the problem. Based only on what Peter has posted you are making that assumption.

I work for a commercial operator and have no vested interest in mainstream flight training. However as an examiner I know exactly what the standards requirements are. If Peter failed the 170a purely on the situation he has described then he had recourse for compliant. Without understanding the entire conduct of the test how do you expect to be able to be disgusted at the conduct of these mentioned south coast schools?

I know Peter and he can be a little cantankerous in his opinion.....

But at the end of the day the JAA system is very rigid compared to the FAA complaining about it will not change it, especially on Pprune!

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 12:06

Can you give an example of one G?

I have never flown a DME hold in europe. Ie apart from the fix which is referenced by a radial and a DME from the beacon.

What you do get though is sometimes there is a DME limit to your outbound to stop you going outside the protected area or to keep you away from terrain. They either do that or limit your airspeed.

There is nothing to stop you turning inside this if your timing works out that you need to.

There are some other holds that are miss read where you are routed to a point yyyy from a missed appraoch which will be at a point on the outward bound course then told to take up the hold at xxxx and some interprete that you have to pass through both points in the hold. When all its trying to do is make sure that you stay within the protected area on a known track joining and then after that you just do timed holds as normal using xxxx.

Dave Gittins

15th Dec 2011, 12:16

Whole new lot of thread drift Genghis :

I have to say I have never considered (nor been told to) trying to use engine alone to get out of a stalled condition.

Surely it's stick briskly forwards, full power, unstall and try to minimise height loss. Only if I was at 50 feet would I contemplate engine only and then I am sure I'd instinctively use whatever height was available to me as well.

Genghis the Engineer

15th Dec 2011, 12:17

Jock:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadbasic/pamslight-7FE55F4F2E51708BD160778E5EF08685/7FE5QZZF3FXUS/EN/Charts/AD/AIRAC/EG_AD_2_EGTC_8-1_en_2011-10-20.pdf

An NDB procedure, with turning points defined by DME, but with timings published as a backup.

Dave: from the CAA document I linked above...

CAA Training Inspectors have raised concerns that some instructors (both SFIs and TRIs) have been teaching inappropriate stall recovery techniques. It would appear that these instructors have been encouraging their trainees to maintain altitude during recovery from an approach to a stall. The technique being taught is to apply maximum power and allow the aircraft to accelerate out of this high alpha stall-warning regime. There is no mention of any requirement to reduce angle of attack – indeed one trainee was briefed that he may need to increase back pressure in order to maintain altitude.

G

Dave Gittins

15th Dec 2011, 12:23

Yeah I read the document .... I can only think some instructors must be mad.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 12:35

Slightly different to a hold G. And thats not a NDB procedure as such it just uses one to get you onto the localiser. In the US they would just use the loc backcourse which we arn't allowed to use in the UK or G reg aircraft.

It is quite common for the NDB procedures to be DME linked and you also will get a lower MDA compared to a timed one.

Holds though only have one point and are timed. The 6.6DME FAF has nothing to do with the hold.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 12:44

Yep, that hold is just a timed one. Did rather a lot of time in it when I did my IR!! When you are realesed from the hold you then do the alternate procedure of extending the outbound leg and descending into the base turn.

proudprivate

15th Dec 2011, 12:47

If Peter failed the 170a purely on the situation he has described then he had recourse for compliant. Without understanding the entire conduct of the test how do you expect to be able to be disgusted at the conduct of these mentioned south coast schools?

I recall Peter admitted making more serious errors that would be grounds for a fail. My point is that you have a 170A check pilot
- showing up late to meet EOBT without giving notice
- prattling about irrelevant items such as run up into the winds
- examining with an apparent focus on wholly different issues than he was taught by his IRI.

In view of the excessive cost of a current JAA IR and JAA IR conversion, those points itself are sufficient grounds for a CAA inspection of the outfit annex check pilot's practices.

In addition, due to inappropriate glee of some participants, the possibility of getting valuable debriefing information to the pilot community has been lost.

The fact that you have no direct commercial interest in this matter is not an excuse to poison the atmosphere. Admittedly, you're not the only one and you're certainly not the worst. At least you read what is being written, a quality that surpasses some on this forum.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 12:59

You have read into my post what you wanted to read. My interest was two fold, one in which Peter can gain some useful guidance on how to get through his 170A from those of us who have done it, taught it and examine. Believe it or not there is some useful input there. But we can't do it unless we know the whole story not just subjective excerpts.

Secondly I am interested to know if this examiner did act outside of the standards expected of an examiner and if this is the case as I have said several times Peter then has recourse for complaint and the CAA has a very clear process for an appeal on any flight test. However in order to ascertain this we again need to know all of the facts.

You have to understand how JAA training organisation work and the standarisation that is required from the teaching and examining staff. The examiner and the IRI should have gone through the same standarisation process so there should not have been any differences between what Peter was taught and what he was being examined on. We can argue until we are blue in the face about the merits of turning into wind and full and free checks, but neither of those are grounds for a failure. They would have been used to give a rounded debrief from the examiner on the whole test and given Peter areas to think about for improving his performance next time.

Everything else that has been posted here about the conduct of the test is just subjective because we do not know the whole story. I am merely trying to balance this by asking the whole story.

FlyingStone

15th Dec 2011, 13:18

I have never flown a DME hold in europe. Ie apart from the fix which is referenced by a radial and a DME from the beacon.

What you do get though is sometimes there is a DME limit to your outbound to stop you going outside the protected area or to keep you away from terrain. They either do that or limit your airspeed.

There is nothing to stop you turning inside this if your timing works out that you need to.

Exactly, the most important thing in practical IFR flying is that you stay inside protected area. For example, the same moment you are established on the outbound course of the holding, you are cleared for approach. I hope there aren't many people who would continue to 6 DME (or whatever outbound distance is) in a C172 just to get to the holding fix from where they can start the approach.

VOR holds are easier than NDB holds because the CDI / HSI is a proper command instrument and if you have the vaguest idea of which way the wind is blowing, tracking inbound is easy. Whereas with NDB holds you have to "push the head / pull the tail" and especially without an RMI this is heavy brain work right when you don't need it, and exceeding 100ft on altitude is a prob fail and busting the MDA (because ATC called you right at that moment ) is an instant fail and another grand. And if you go around at MDA plus more than 50ft (e.g. during the time after reaching the MDA but before reaching the beacon, when you are supposed to just fly level) that is an instant fail too. During this time, ATC is very likely to call you with missed approach instructions.

Exceeding MDA is and should be instant fail, since you bust the approach minimum. I'm sure you wouldn't do it in actual IMC on an NDB approach at night regardless of what was ATC telling you. You can always ask the ATC for missed approach clearance (if required) when you fly the CDFA-part of the non-precision approach so you have less workload during the "drive" part at the MDA(-0/+50ft).

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 13:47

I would be getting the missed approach instructions before going beacon out bound. Remember ATC are there to provide you with a service, You tell them what you want when you want. This is a bit artificial training/test anyway normally you wouldn't be getting missed approach instructions if you were doing it for real. But if you really want to double check, when they clear you for the procedure ask for them.

Also as well remember that the platform heights for the base turn are -0 as well, there is nothing stopping you flying around above them though. I will do a CDA round the procedure with a 1.5 Nm level off at +50 before top of drop to get fully configured before decending to start decent on the numbers for level, speed and distance. Lets you get the correct VS rate sorted out as well before decending if you have your DME set on GS.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 14:11

Exceeding MDA is and should be instant fail, since you bust the approach minimumIf you mean going below MDA, yes, but I was referring to going above MDA+50ft (during the level flight section which normally exists between reaching MDA and reaching the MAPt) which is apparently also a fail.

The word "exceeding" is a little ambiguous in this case :)

As regards the suggestion to file a complaint, only an idiot is going to do that in this rather small business. You would want to have all the papers you ever want securely in your pocket before even thinking of something like that. I appealed several questions in the written exams, but that's different (a friend of mine appealed 5 in just one exam alone) because it seems to get ignored anyway :)

remember that the platform heights for the base turn are -0 as wellAre they always so? I thought that an altitude marker drafted with an underscore like this 2500 (on Jepps) meant you cannot go below it. I have discussed this with the IR instructor as it happens and neither of us was aware of such an implicit rule. I have just looked at a load of Jepp plates for NP approaches with a base turn and they seem to always write the figure at that point immediately above the base turn line, so it could be interpreted as being underlined, but that line is really the side view of the base turn.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 14:20

As regards the suggestion to file a complaint, only an idiot is going to do that in this rather small business. You would want to have all the papers you ever want securely in your pocket before even thinking of something like that. I appealed several questions in the written exams, but that's different (a friend of mine appealed 5 in just one exam alone) because it seems to get ignored anyway

Peter, that is only in your mind I am afraid. The appeal process is clearly defined and well proven. If you have a genuine case for an appeal then go for it. But selevtivly posting about the bits that upset you specifically rather than the whole test is not the way to go about it.

It just smacks of sour grapes from a candidate unable to make the grade and complaining the examiner was unprofessional and the reason they failed but are not prepared to actually back it up.

It is one of the reasons when we are trained to be examiners so much focus is given to ensuring the conduct is carried out by the book. it protects us and it protects the candidate.

proudprivate

15th Dec 2011, 14:32

The appeal process is clearly defined and well proven.

That is not so. Many CAA's across Europe are known to be pretty vindictive against complaining individuals.

It just smacks of sour grapes from a candidate unable to make the grade and complaining the examiner was unprofessional and the reason they failed but are not prepared to actually back it up.

yet more unhelpful patronising. Peter never asserted that that he should have passed the 170A. He just sketched some circumstances that I see as detrimental. They might be grounds for a complaint, but only to get your exam fee back, not to get a pass. If the environment were less small and less vindictive - quod non, such feed back would be useful to regulate the system.

One thing that got lost in the discussion is your examiner qualifications. What exactly are you authorised by the CAA to examine ?

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 14:38

One thing that got lost in the discussion is your examiner qualifications. What exactly are you authorised by the CAA to examine ?

Write to them and ask....... ;) I am sure Peter will have an educated 'opinion' to share on that front..... :p

There was no patronising going on. You are really into your conspiricy theories arent you?

As I said the gorunds for appeal are simple. If a candidate accepts that the whole test was a failure then why make such an issue over non fail items?

The 170A is a checkpoint test, it ensures the candidate is ready for the real test and in reality is probably harder than the actual flight test. if nothing else Peter should now know what is expected of him when I takes the final test.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 14:51

Can we stop the willy waving about the test and the examinor being a Knob.

Which if he was late and buggered off where nobody can find him seals the deal in my book. He's a knob.

But getting back to the pratical aspects of JAR IR flying.

Pete have you got a copy of this?

http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/SRG_FCL_01.PDF

in appendix 3 there is an entry "Not below minima (from FAF altitude down to MDA/H) -0ft"

So using Genghis example plate that would mean you couldn't go below 2500ft even if its not underlined. If you had intermediate step down altitudes higher than the FAF platform height they would be the normal - 100ft unless underlined but you would be more likely to get them on a DME arc than a outbound from a beacon and decend procedure. . But once you get to the last platform alt its -0.

And if you start to climb again above +50ft thats counted as if you have now gone around and if your not at the MAPt thats a fail. Your alot better any way not doing a dive and drive, set up a constant decent most plates will have a chart giving you the rate of decent then either add 50ft on and go-around from there or go slightly low on the last check height so you only get a few seconds of flying level. Its alot easier anyway because you are stabilised right the way down.

Just remember though that if you go-around for what ever reason before you get down to you MDA or your DA (from MDH +50ft) you still need to track to your missed approach point before heading off on your missed approach track profile. The missed approach target altitude remains the same and is +-100ft

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 15:00

OK thanks MJ I see that, but this is not the published minima on the approach plate.

What you refer to is the CAA initial IR test requirement for flying it.

They could have added 123ft if they wanted to :)

Incidentally, where is the requirement to add 50ft to the precision approach DA? The above doc words it as +50ft -0, which is not the same thing.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 15:05

The plus 50ft is the PEC unless the AFM states a different figure or has calibrated altimeters.

Its in another document that I don't have to hand on the train.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 15:21

The -0 is for NPA for a PA you can of course go under that as long as you have started the go-around between +50ft and -0

I think things are getting confused here about adding the 50ft on.

The 50ft is normally added for NPA approaches and is used for turning a dive and drive approach into a constant decent profile. So it turns a MDA into a DA.

Each aircraft also has an error some are zero and some are upto 50ft its in the POH. And you add that on to everything when your in the landing configuration not just the DA and MDA but also not below alts as per the quote I gave you.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 15:26

The 50ft is supposed (AIUI) to be added for an ILS, but not for a NP approach. That was my JAA IR training.

So in effect the ILS DA goes up by 50ft above the published approach plate figure.

The published MDA for a NP approach is a "not below" figure, but you don't add anything to it.

In the USA, the published minima are used directly, which kind of makes sense :)

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 15:34

You are correct Peter.

The plus fifty is a broad rule but as mentioned before is overridden by the AFM figure or by calibrated altimeters. So in my aircraft for example we have calibrated altimeters and thus dont add 50ft.

Are your TB ones calibrated?

goldeneaglepilot

15th Dec 2011, 15:37

Peter - I have just read the thread in its entirety. Sadly you seem to become a little prickly if anyone dares to challenge you. I don't understand why. You have written some great articles on your website, but surely you must realise that in aviation there are a great number of ways at arriving to the same end result?

With regards exam's to me the hardest thing is learning what the examiner wants you to do in order to grant a pass. Its not about arguing that your viewpoint is better than someone else’s and your own opinion should be bowed to.

My gut feeling is that if you applied the same attitude to the exam as you have done to anyone on here that challenges your opinion then you have probably set yourself up for an ultra strict exam that will make no tolerances for you being a human being. Its all about being safe and having the attitude to demonstrate that your are safe.

One last point - Bose-x is indeed an examiner and a very respected one at that....

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 15:42

Bose why wouldn't you add it to the NPA minima as well?

Surely if they uncalibrated it would effect all minimas including not belows.

Must admit my first reaction is what a load of ****e but then again I fly Public CAT aircraft.

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 15:53

The NPA has the tolerances built into because it's just that, non precision with higher minima. So being 50ft low on a much higher minima us not a problem. But on a precision approach 50ft low at DH is more of a problem. Take that a step further with lower cat approaches and you could find yourself hitting the deck. Figuratively speaking as rad alt etc comes into the equation.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 15:58

That makes sense thanks.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 16:01

Every altimeter in an N-reg plane is calibrated.

Initially, it could not be offered for sale as a TSOd product otherwise.

An N-reg plane has to have the altimeters (and any altitude encoders) checked every 2 years, by an FAA Part 145 Repair Station.

If one does not trust one's altimeter then why add just 50ft? Why not add 500ft?

The approach design procedures (TERPS or PANS-RAC) allow for certain instrument errors.

Sadly you seem to become a little prickly if anyone dares to challenge you.

Only if somebody is having a go to score points off me :) Otherwise I write pretty straight (not necessarily politely but hey you can't have both at the same time - I reserve that extra effort for my customers because they pay for my flying :) ).

JW411

15th Dec 2011, 16:56

I had a long chat with Peter at lunchtime today and we discussed his unsuccessful 170a.

He freely admits to failing several points in the parts of the test that really matter for a pre-IR test such as his hold entry procedure.

I have avoided getting involved in this discussion up until now but I do feel that I need to make some comment.

First of all; my credentials; I went solo in a glider in 1957. I did my PPL on Tiger Moths in 1958. I flew in the RAF for 18 years (Piston Provost to Short Belfast) and then had a very successful career in civil aviation finally retiring when I reached my 65th birthday. I then continued teaching and examining in the simulator until I was 68.

I did my first instructors course in 1963 and taught people and examined them to fly most things from gliders to DC-10s until 2008.

I was qualified as a Check Airman on the DC-10 by the FAA and the CAA first qualified me as an examiner on the BAe146 in 1988.

Having got all of that garbage out of the way (mainly for the benefit of Bose-X) I would like to comment upon Peter's so-called examiner.

Now the CAA taught me (among other things) that I had to turn up in very good time to conduct a test. The candidate is under a great deal of pressure and sufficient time must be allowed for me to check his plan and, if necessary, modify it and then go flying. The brief always was that I should be treated as a passenger.

Do none of you out there think it a bit off-putting that the so-called examiner turns up 10 minutes before departure, which leaves little time for a good "bull****" briefing? As I taxy out, he pushes at full leg strength the rudder pedals against what they are designed to do and then throws a wobbly about not doing a run-up whilst not into wind.

This is not really what "just being a passenger" is all about and, had he done it to me, I would have taxied straight back in and called the CAA.

All of which has happened before we get airborne. Wonderful CRM isn't it?

I have spent half a century teaching instructors and examiners that there is only one four-lettered word in our trade and that is "F-A-I-R".

Bose-X makes a perfectly valid point in that the "full and free" and the "run up" points are discussion items only and cannot be fail items and are fanciful at best.

I am not an idiot and I have heard just about every excuse known to man as to why someone has failed something or other. I do not have a close relationship with Peter but he is a colleague in the sky and he does take everything that he does very seriously. Perhaps he is too enthusiastic for his own good but I doubt that he will ever break anything.

Now to Bose-X; I have absolutely no idea who you are or what you do but you obviously have a problem with Peter (which he has never discussed with me). You are coming over as a very over-bearing examiner who has probably only had the qualification for about 10 minutes.

When I did my original CAA IRE course in Tony Angel's old HS125 simulator at Gatwick, my partner (who came from Air UK Leisure - 737s) and I had a totally horrific first week with a CAA prat who was the resident CAFU guy at Kidlington. He was the sort of bloke who sat in his hotel room pulling the wings off butterflies.

On the Friday night, Tony and I decided in the pub that if we had the same guy for the second week, we were going to walk out.

As luck would have it, we had a wonderful guy for the second week called Spud Murphy who taught us what we REALLY had to know.

So, where does that leave us?

1. Peter knows that he f*cked up enough in the air to deserve a fail.

2. The Prat who was masquerading as an FTO CAA qualified examiner covered himself in glory by turned up late and then acting "not as a passenger".

3. Bose-X is obviously relishing Peter's situation, for whatever reason. He is doing himself absolutely no favours as far as being an objective spectator on Pprune is concerned. It is my guess that he became a CAA Examiner approximately 10.5 minutes ago and he would do well by keeping quiet.

4. Peter would do well by discussing his disasters with people (dare I say like me) who know how to fix them instead of launching forth on Pprune. Sit on your fingers, say nothing, don't leave yourself open to abuse by the likes of Bose-X because he is never going to solve your problems.

That's it; I'm out of this.

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 17:04

Well seems like you have matters in hand then Peter :D

Personally I would report the test to [email protected]

They don't have sense of humour about this sort of thing.

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 17:21

Bring back Di Heather Hayes!

S-Works

15th Dec 2011, 17:25

That's it; I'm out of this.

Good. Self indulgent old prat. If you want to insult me than do it by PM.

I might have pulled Peters leg a few times but I have not been any of the other insults you have just waged at me. I pointed out that if he had a genuine gripe then he should complain about the examiner. I also clearly pointed out that the examiner should have been there in plenty of time to conduct the test properly and and to the correct standards.

Yes, I will admit to a certain amount of schadenfreud at such an experienced IFR pilot struggling with the JAA system... :p

But hey what would I know with my 10.5 minutes experience of being an examiner.... :ok::ok::ok:

BackPacker

15th Dec 2011, 17:25

As I taxy out, he pushes at full leg strength the rudder pedals against what they are designed to do

And this was in Peters TB20? Ouch.:ugh:

mad_jock

15th Dec 2011, 17:42

Aye 500 I would pay to watch that.

And what do you mean bring back? I thought he was still in fine fettle showing anyone that dared to show stupidity in vicinity of an aircraft the error of there ways.

As for the miss handling of the aircraft send the sod a bill for getting the linkages sorted ;)

goldeneaglepilot

15th Dec 2011, 18:00

I must admit I have read this thread several times to see if I have missed something.

The latest post in Peters defence seems a simple rant at Bose-x. I fail to see why that was needed or warranted.

I agree that if the examiner acted in the way Peter has outlined then a complaint should be made, rather than trial by public forum.

I have ready many of Peters previous posts and his website much of which is excellent and well written. However I read in disbelief Peters thoughts on winter flying and airframes covered in frost. That was okay because Peter said it was - against all the written advice. I'm sorry but that demonstrated that Peter can be strong minded and not always for the right reasons. Peter has told us his side of the story, however the examiner has not. Peter has an interest in painting a picture that looks good for him and follows his ideas.

I think in the interests of fairness its not right for any of us to judge this matter, after all only the examiner and Peter know the full story, and one of those two is not posting.

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 18:00

Aye 500 I would pay to watch that.

:ok::ok:

Think he only flys proper aircraft now like the Pitts, not the Renault of the skies! :)

I agree that if the examiner acted in the way Peter has outlined then a complaint should be made, rather than trial by public forum.

Totally agree. Perhaps informally at first if you are to remain with the school Peter? Via the H o T maybe?

JW411

15th Dec 2011, 18:03

500 Above:

Dai Heather-Hayes.

Now there is a name to conjure with. I was in Aden with Dai. Even in the horrendous climate, he always wore a pin-striped shirt with a bow tie. He was always in the ****. He was always in the ****.

But he was great at his job which was flying Hunter FGA 9s.

If you or anyone else is interested, I could tell you some stories about Dai.

The one that I remember best was when the Irish Guards were up country in Aden (around Habilayn). The great unwashed had got themselves established on the Jebel (mountain) above and they were causing casualties. People were dying.

The Colonel set up this major operation to go up the mountain and reclaim it. The plan involved helicopters and top-cover etc etc. The Colonel made it clear that this was HIS battle and that no one else was to interfere unless he said so.

So Dai was flying top cover in his Hunter when the fun started. He saw the dissidents run into a cave and decided, typically Dai, that he was going to do something.

Apparently, his first rocket went into the cave and the second one brought the cave mouth down!

Anyway, I knew Dai for many years and I could tell you stories hat you would not believe.

In 1974, I was a Belfast captain at Brize Norton and decide that I needed to spend a lot of money to convert my RAF Master Green instrument rating into one of the CAA variety.

I was pointed towards Kidlington and so I found myself in Dai's office. He had a sub-unit there with three Senecas for the purpose of converting ex-military pilots.

However, the thing that really got my attention was this wonderful poster that Dai had behind him on the wall in his office. It was a photograph of the cockpit of a twin taken from behind showing just the instrument panels.

The caption was:

"Instrument flying is an unnatural act, probably punishable by God".

I have never forgotten that and I would love to have a copy of that poster.

PS I passed everything first time and the bill came to £3,500 which was a hell of a lot of money in those days.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 18:08

However I read in disbelief Peters thoughts on winter flying and airframes covered in frost. That was okay because Peter said it was - against all the written adviceCome on - I never said that.

My recollection of that debate is that I basically said that what really matters is that the flying surfaces (wings, elevator, vertical stabiliser) need to be clear of frost, but the hull is less important since frost on that won't affect parameters such as Vs.

Technically that remains correct, AFAICS.

One cannot criticise somebody for getting every tiny piece of frost off the hull as well but it is important to understand that a plane flies because of lift provided by the wings (etc) :) And I am sure pilots do know that.

I am really careful when it comes to icing, having had plenty enough encounters with ice. Every high altitude (Eurocontrol IFR) flight I do is at "potential icing" levels - even in the summer in Spain one might be at -10C at FL180, and if one spends any time in IMC one is likely to pick up structural ice. It is quite normal to pick up a trace of rime when going up or down through layers, too, on the way to/from the enroute section in sunshine.

I fly very differently from most "IFR" pilots I know, in that I carefully avoid spending time in IMC below 0C, and I do that at all costs even if it means flying at FL180, using up a lot of oxygen. Up there you are safe and you can see a few hundred nm and you can play a long game. Most IFR pilots I know will drill through most frontal weather; usually they get away with it because weather is very "statistical". I have just the TKS prop to give me an extra chance so I don't take risks. In ~1400hrs I have never had an "eventful" flight and some of the stories I hear (of icing and turbulence encounters) are unbelievable (though unsuprising). A lot of pilots disagree with my cautious approach to icing (which does result in an IFR despatch rate of only about 75%) but I am sticking to it.

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 18:18

JW411

I remember years ago hearing a Dai Heather-Hayes story of a Hunter, said Hunters cannon and a sheiks prize camel...

I also seem to recall a certain CAAFU examiner at Perth, Scotland with a moped, a shotgun and a rather nice blonde bumbling down the runway after dark... :ok:

Peter, the main thing here is to resolve this issue. Is there nobody at the FTO that you can approach to voice you're concerns? The IRI you fly with may be a good start. I would personally try to resolve this in house as much as possible.

A lot of pilots disagree with my cautious approach to icing (which does result in an IFR despatch rate of only about 75%) but I am sticking to it.

Peter - I think that the poster concerned (Bose-X?) was just trying to say that no ice/frost is the only policy pre takeoff. I'd go with that.

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 18:30

500 above - despite impression perhaps given, I have no intention in using this forum to seek a solution to this, which I can do perfectly well myself, and indeed I am on the case. One more thing I will say on this: a solution cannot be found using that original FTO because the examiner owns the company :) So I am looking at other routes and currently this appears promising. There are plenty of options, including some highly recommended by people I know and trust, but I didn't choose them in the first place because I placed a high value on doing the IR (a) in my own plane and (b) from my local airport. Once one throws away (a) then most of the benefit of the training is lost (the value of banging NDB holds in an old PA28 is close to nil, for me) and if one throws away both (a) and (b) then one may as well s0d off to Spain and knock the whole thing on the head in one week - which I dare say is exactly what the great majority of FAA IR pilots will be doing if this EASA thing comes to pass in one of the worse case scenarios. Also I had a quote from Greece to do a SE/ME PPL/IR in 2 weeks in a DA42 for 6k euros, in a most satisfactory location (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/keramoti.jpg) near LGKV :) It's not hard to guess where most of Europe's FAA IR community will be going if they are forced to... it sure as hell won't be banging NDBs in the UK, Germany and France. (It won't be in France anyway because the DGAC is going to issue their new IR to all FAA IR holders anyway :) :) )

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 18:35

Well in that case Peter, good luck. Perhaps one of my ex FIC course students will be teaching you at Egnatia in the DA42, a few of them work there. No holiday at the moment weather wise though, it's bloody cold. I'm just 'down the road' tomorrow infact, at LGBL.

JW411

15th Dec 2011, 19:00

Well, there were many stories like that.

One of my next door neighbours in Aden was a Shackleton captain on 37 Sqn and they were very proud of the fact that they were "37 (Bomber) Squadron" although their main purpose in life was anti-submarine and search and rescue duties.

So, maybe one of the stories needs to be told. (For the moderators, this has absolutely nothing to do with the original thread).

There was an up-country strip called Dhala. Dhala was right on the Yemeni border. The strip was about 3,000 ft above sea level and it had a bloody great mountain at the western end. It was a one way strip. Land towards the hill and take off the other way.

Well, the opposition (who were Yemenis, supported by the Egyptians and, at a lower level, the Russians) decided to build a concrete blockhouse just over the border. In the blockhouse they installed a 155 mm howitzer.

So it was that the opposition started to lob the occasional major projectile at Dhala.

People were getting killed.

The Labour government of the time were into "minimum force". And so it was that 8 and 43 Squadron Hunters were given clearance to attack the blockhouse which was over the border and the concrete was about three foot thick.

The chances of a Hunter getting a rocket through a slot measuring 3 foot by 2 inches was not good.

People were still getting killed and so it was that 37 Squadron were given the task of getting rid of the blockhouse with 1,000 lb bombs.

Now 37 (Bomber) Squadron had not used 1,000 lb bombs in living memory being a coastal squadron. However, being given the chance to use them required at least a squadron raffle.

My mate won the raffle. He got up to Dhala and missed on the first two runs. Then they obliterated the problem. They still had two bombs left.

On the way back to Aden at very low level going down Wadi Habilayn they passed a chap on his donkey.

Sadly ( a bit like Bose-X) the guy on the donkey took a pot shot at the Shackleton. The sergeant signaller on the port beam called the captain and told him that they had an entry and exit bullet hole going through the fuselage but, he didn't think that any serious damage had been done.

My mate did a racetrack on the man/donkey combination and dropped a 1,000 lb bomb on them.

He could never tell anyone (apart from the aircrew) where the bomb went.

Personally, I wish I had been in that situation.

It's similar to the "Crocodile Dundee" movie where the PR kid tries to mug your man and he says "That's not a knife - this is a knife"!

500 above

15th Dec 2011, 19:16

That's a fantastic story JW! Keep em' coming!

peterh337

15th Dec 2011, 19:20

You cannot beat JW411s stories - and I am sure they are all true :) I hear one of them every time I go down to the airport for a soup.

Well in that case Peter, good luck. Perhaps one of my ex FIC course students will be teaching you at Egnatia in the DA42, a few of them work there. No holiday at the moment weather wise though, it's bloody cold. I'm just 'down the road' tomorrow infact, at LGBL.

LGBL.... you are not flying "GA" down there, surely? I've looked it up - it's military only.

I am not going to Egnatia myself... sorting this out much closer to home. And yes I do compare the metars occassionally
EGKK 151950Z 17005KT 120V220 9999 FEW044 07/01 Q0998
LGBL 151950Z 30003KT 9999 FEW025 SCT180 08/05 Q1017 NOSIG RMK
Greece is not the place to be in the winter. Pretty bleak. It was nice in September (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/kithira/).

Egnatia would make a lot of sense for an ME IR. But they do make everybody wear the full Col Gaddafi uniform.

goldeneaglepilot

15th Dec 2011, 19:23

Excellent story - a little bit like the story on the Military forum where a local crook stole a laptop from a toy store and ran out to be confronted by four Marines, he stabbed the first one and according to the Police report stumbled off the kerb, breaking both arms, his leg, ankle and jaw plus numerous ribs

Big Pistons Forever

15th Dec 2011, 19:24

I think this is a worthwhile thread for pilots facing any flight test, and especially an advanced flight test like the IR
Examiners are human and range from complete w@nkers to great guy/gals. Get one of the later and you will not only pass but pick up a ton of great information/tips/procedures etc. Get one of the former and you day will be pure misery.

BUT the aim of the flight test, especially a CAA/JAA flight test is not to actually use skills which you will practice every day in real world flying, it is to demonstrate the manoevers specified in the test guide to the standards set out, even though some are patently stupid. Therefore you have to go with the flow. The point of the exercise is to pass the ride.

For commercial pilots changing operators will result in the same situation. It doesn't matter that your old operator did things "this" way, the standard is to do them the way the new operator specifies, even if you don't agree with the procedure and think your way is better.

There are not that many examiners around and they all have reputations. I see no reason to do some research on your examiner and find out what their personal likes and dislikes are. Arguing with an examiner is completely pointless. Everything he/she says is right as far as you are concerned. When asked a question, answer the exact question, with the minimum of explanation and then shut up. Over explaining will likely take you down rabbit holes which gives the examiner a legitimate excuse to pursue with further questions.

madlandrover

15th Dec 2011, 21:47

Peter: feel free to PM for an unbiased (I'm not based down south, east or west!) chat about IR training - good and bad. Current IRI, FE, etc.

S-Works

16th Dec 2011, 07:49

I am curious, why change schools when you are at 170a point? Your training is pretty much finished other than rectifying the 179a failure shortcomings. Moving schools will just result on more hassle and expense.

Genghis the Engineer

16th Dec 2011, 08:53

A valid point Bose. Hands up here, I failed my CPL 170a quite spectacularly, with similar hours to Peter. So, I took the hit. Dealt with the issues in-house, and went on to a first time full pass. As an approach, it required me to swallow my ego a bit, and not be too vocal about what I felt were some significant deficiencies of the school I'd used, but worked out.

G

mad_jock

16th Dec 2011, 09:54

The 170a for CPL is a paper work check there is no flight check involved unless your school wants the extra cash.

Genghis the Engineer

16th Dec 2011, 10:32

The 170a for CPL is a paper work check there is no flight check involved unless your school wants the extra cash.

Interesting, they didn't mention that! They also didn't mention that they were charging £7.50 a throw more for approaches than the school next door I switched to afterwards for my IMC.

Ho hum, can't say you surprise me - a bit late to worry about it now; got the licence, use it, life's too short to start whingeing stuff like this several years later. And to be fair, they did teach me well and deliver me to the examiner fit to pass the test - which is what matters most.

G

mad_jock

16th Dec 2011, 10:42

Its quite a common one.

Bit of sting when its 2.2 hours in a complex plus what ever the 170a boy charges.

With me it was 10 mins looking at my training file and then he signed it.

CookPassBabtridge

16th Dec 2011, 20:46

Wow, I thought my IR was complicated. It's just a game after all, play it, get your ticket, then go back to doing things the way you've always done them! As I'm sure you fully intend to do...

mad_jock

16th Dec 2011, 20:57

cook just as any other instrument pilot has since the test came in.

Even commercially we don't do under half the crap thats "required" in the test.

Pull what

17th Dec 2011, 22:32

There has never been any need to add 50 feet to a precison approach because the 50 feet is already built into the usual OCH of 150 feet which would give a Cat 1 DH of 200 feet if the OCH is 150 ft as it is in most UK airfields

A NPA has never had the 50 feet built in as it was originally a dive and drive approach. When the airlines changed to continuous descent approaches after a few dive and 'loose control approaches' the 50 feet was required to be added on, that is what we were told by the CAA ops inspectorate at the time.

Somebody mentioned altimeters-the 50 feet has nothing to do with altimeters its purely to stop infringement of the approach OCH during a GA

S-Works

17th Dec 2011, 22:57

PEC=50ft.

PEC is pressure error correction.....

Pom pom

18th Dec 2011, 07:15

PEC is pressure error correction.....

Shouldn't that be "position error correction"?

S-Works

18th Dec 2011, 08:44

Position errors on an altimeter? The actually opens up a whole technical argument.

PEC is used as an arbitrary figure where no other figure in the AFM overrides it.

Pom pom

18th Dec 2011, 09:11

Position errors on an altimeter?

Well, yes? I understand it to mean errors due to position of pitot/static - airflow etc. So altimeter associated.

Must confess though to being motivated by wanting an exchange with the Bose! Been reading your posts for a couple of years now, and I'm a big fan! Sycophancy over, box ticked. Keep up the good work. Off flying now.

Regards, PP.

blagger

18th Dec 2011, 13:20

It is pressure - see AIP AD 1.1.2

Cobalt

18th Dec 2011, 18:23

On a more pragmatic point - adding 50ft to the DA on the ILS means you can go around at slightly below 300ft on a ILS with a "normal" 200ft DA and still pass the IR skill test - a welcome option if the needles start to move towards half-scale around that point... hey, that is almost as easy as in the the IMC rating skill test...

:}

Pom pom

18th Dec 2011, 19:29

Thank you for that reference; I can see I have previously been misinformed.:(

Contacttower

21st Mar 2012, 19:46

Bring back Di Heather Hayes!

Bit of a thread drift and I doubt anyone is reading this thread any more anyway but I couldn't help notice the reference to Dia; I've just finished my FAA to JAR conversion course and for my flight test I was fortunate enough to have him. Somewhat intimidating considering he is probably the most experienced pilot I'm ever likely to fly with but what an extraordinary chap, he's been at Perth since the year I was born!

Passed me with a 'few bollockings' as it were...I guess every flight test is a learning experience to an extent and I certainly didn't come away empty handed.

As for all the FAA vs. JAA stuff on reflection I actually don't know what all the fuss was about, the two flight tests were pretty much the same profile, i.e. departure, en-route, ILS, non-precision approach plus partial panel, UAs etc. There were only minor differences but stuff that came up on the FAA one like DME arcs could easily have come up on the JAR one and similarly stuff on the JAR one that didn't feature on the FAA one could have. The local training environment has more of an impact on what will be emphasised than the regulatory regime one is under.

What I will say though is that the CAA in the UK has a tighter grip on national examining standards than other authorities for the IR.

The JAA IR just felt harder because I was doing it on a multi rather than a single and was in an aircraft that I only had about 10 hours in even by the end of the course. Piper Seneca...:yuk:

peterh337

21st Mar 2012, 20:29

Having also done both myself I tend to agree, but don't forget you are comparing the FAA system with the JAA system as the latter is now.

There have been many changes in the UK in the last year or two. I don't know the background (other than many snippets from ex insiders etc) but would imagine that the torrent of people doing their IRs and ATPs in places like Spain (where a "carefully chosen" FTO doesn't test NDB procedures, thus removing a vast swathe of required expertise at a stroke) might have something to do with it.

And that was before EASA :)

piperboy84

21st Mar 2012, 22:29

Speaking as a taildragger pilot, you are gonna found out if you rudder is working (and has full movement) long before you arrive at the holding point and get to the "controls free and correct" item on your checklist.

peterh337

21st Mar 2012, 23:26

Same for a tricycle undercarriage, though to a perhaps lesser extent.

It's somewhat amusing to read this thread again, several months later. Today, the 170A is an institution which is ostensibly used to ensure uniform standards (but then what is the purpose of the IRT? - anybody being put forward for the 170A is by definition ready for the IRT) but in reality is often used to bend students over a barrel to extract a few grand extra, especially on an MEIR, and this is considerably easier to do at FTOs where the owner is also the sole authorised 170A examiner ;) (and there is a number of such FTOs about).

Cobalt

22nd Mar 2012, 00:29

Having also done both myself I tend to agree, but don't forget you are comparing the FAA system with the JAA system as the latter is now.

There have been many changes in the UK in the last year or two.

Probably longer. I remember that my IR examiner asking me after the test why on earth I did not use the Autopilot en-route; and use of GPS was definitely permitted [but it was failed at some point]. That was 6 years ago. But news travels slowly.

On the other hand, I still was taken aback when trying to discuss a G1000 scenario with an IR instructor yesterday - he had no idea what I was talking about because - you've guessed it - they only ever use it with the traditional navaids or a simple DCT to a waypoint, and all the route and approach loading, approach activation logic, fuel management etc. DOES NOT GET TAUGHT! So after 55 hours training, the student is sitting in front of expensive and very capable avionics, and can't use half of it.

I wonder what would happen if one turned up to an IR skill test in a G1000 equipped aircraft and used it as intended by Garmin, i.e., as a flight management system, and used it to - shock horror - manage the flight... maybe the examiner will exclaim "Finally! Someone who knows how to do this properly" and, of course, deactivate most of it halfway into the test, but somhow I doubt it, so we are not there yet... let's give it another decade, Peter!

peterh337

22nd Mar 2012, 08:25

:ok:

However, rather than news travelling slowly (I am sure every IRT candidate would grab any chance to fly the thing with the autopilot coupled to the GPS in NAV mode :) ) it is more a case of the FTO business having little incentive to spread the word, because of the low level of aircraft equipment, and low instructor knowledge of the stuff that some of them do have.

The vast majority of punters working through the ATPL sausage machine have zero flying experience and will accept whatever they are told, or not told. In fact I believe most of them really do regard the 14-exam "90% bollox" TK as relevant to flying :) :)

It's only the very few owners who pitch up with their own well equipped plane who cause all the trouble :) The system as a whole is simply not geared up for them. And, while these have always been rare as rockinghorse ***t in the JAA days (most went N-reg), they are currently even more rare because most of them are waiting to see what comes out of the EASA wash before they chuck away a piece of their life doing what I did...

Interestingly, this doc (http://www.peter2000.co.uk/aviation/jaa-ir/2011-12-Use-of-GPS.pdf) is dated Oct 2011 so the CAA felt it necessary to remind IR examiners of it so recently.

Looking at the total JAA IR workload, I would say that use of GPS and autopilot is most welcome because it gives you a breather during the enroute sections (during which you can do the ATIS, the approach briefs, etc) but given that the 2hr-max IRT "objective" the IRT will be done to an airport no more than about 50nm away so those sections are quite short anyway, and as long as NDB procedures are theoretically in the IRT, you will still sink perhaps 50% of the training hours into them. Hence the attraction of a certain non-UK-run FTO in Spain where NDB is not tested in the IRT. A couple of people I know of did their conversions there in 1 week.

You don't need a G1000 to fly the entire IRT using GPS, autopilot, and NAV. All holds and NP approaches can be thus flown with the 1990s kit I have; only the ILS would be flown using the ILS receiver and that would be on autopilot too :) Or you could reach a compromise with the examiner and fly the whole IRT manually using the flight director :)

Congrats to Contacttower for joining the "EASA insurance policy" club :ok: He can now move smugly in any circle of aviation regulators where he will be taken seriously :)

Contacttower

22nd Mar 2012, 16:56

Congrats to Contacttower for joining the "EASA insurance policy" club He can now move smugly in any circle of aviation regulators where he will be taken seriously

Thanks Peter. :)

To be honest in the end I looked at it in quite a positive light from the point of view of the actual flying, I had a very good instructor who did teach me a number of useful things that were either not emphasised to me in the past or I had forgotten about since doing my FAA IR in 2008. In general my flying improved throughout the course. The ILS I flew on the test was probably one of the best I've ever flown for example.

The conclusion to draw from this though is that wherever you go (FAA, CAA or whatever...) one gets good instructors/schools and bad ones; having flown with instructors from at least six different flight schools in this country, plus ones in South Africa, Florida, California and New York, probably more than 30-40 in only 500 hours or so. I've seen everyone from newly qualified hour builders to 15,000hrs + former test pilots. Some have been significantly better than others, although on the whole they have been pretty good from all parts of the world.

Now I think the CAA in this country has a very tight grip on IR standards for the exam; which can only be a good thing. But considering the relatively poor first time pass rate though for the IR nationally in this country I think there must be significant room for improvement in instructor standards. This is also reflected in all courses, not just the IR but the basic PPL, IMC etc...I mean some of the posts on here about basic things that a PPL should know kind of give this away. On reflection I was rather messed around during my PPL not so much by bad instructors but more by lots of different ones with the result that crucial knowledge ended up falling between cracks.

My point about all that is that rather than focusing on written exams and what may or may not be in flight tests EASA should be looking more in depth at the training and experience of instructors...now I don't know how from a regulatory point of view exactly this is done but I feel that it is a crucial thing that is not been given enough emphasis at the moment.