PPL skill test -where do you request the radnav fix?
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 899
Likes: 42
From: Slowly decaying (disgracefully)
PPL skill test -where do you request the radnav fix?
During my recent FE reval we spotted an inconsistency between the FEH and SD19. The FEH says that the radnav fix is requested after the first turn point but before the diversion, whereas SD19 says that it's done during the diversion. It isn't a hugely important point but does anyone know which one is correct?
HFD
HFD
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
The information provided in SD 19 matches the information given in SD 20 guidance for examiners dated 1998. SD 20 was replaced by the FEH which has been updated a number of times so is the most up to date reference.
Following the 180 degree turn, I ask the candidate to turn again so that they are tracking roughly towards the second turning point but off track, this is an ideal opportunity for fixing their position before initiating the diversion.
Following the 180 degree turn, I ask the candidate to turn again so that they are tracking roughly towards the second turning point but off track, this is an ideal opportunity for fixing their position before initiating the diversion.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 899
Likes: 42
From: Slowly decaying (disgracefully)
Interesting. My FE examiner was adamant that SD19 was right and that the fix should be during the diversion; but hopefully the CFE will sort out the inconsistency.
BTW, I know we need to manage the sequence to fit with local airspace and available navaids but I do the 180 turn after the tracking, which is after the diversion.
Another issue which came-up was the need to treat a MATZ as controlled airspace during the test. Any views on this?
HFD
BTW, I know we need to manage the sequence to fit with local airspace and available navaids but I do the 180 turn after the tracking, which is after the diversion.
Another issue which came-up was the need to treat a MATZ as controlled airspace during the test. Any views on this?
HFD
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 6,626
Likes: 12
From: UK
The guidance for examiners is the FEH not SD19 which is labeled guidance for candidates.
The Test is meant to be a practical flight; simulating bad weather after you have diverted may be a little impractical. By simulating bad weather somewhere on the second leg (usually after 10 - 15 minutes) you can introduce the turn in a sensible sequence, get the candidate to a position where getting a radio fix is relevant, then simulate worsening weather leading to a diversion. Any tracking will depend upon the route and location of aids. That is what was briefed by DHH at the various JAA seminars some years ago and is consistent with the current FEH.
I think in the absence of any suitable controlled airspace a MATZ makes a reasonable substitute, if you can find one!
The Test is meant to be a practical flight; simulating bad weather after you have diverted may be a little impractical. By simulating bad weather somewhere on the second leg (usually after 10 - 15 minutes) you can introduce the turn in a sensible sequence, get the candidate to a position where getting a radio fix is relevant, then simulate worsening weather leading to a diversion. Any tracking will depend upon the route and location of aids. That is what was briefed by DHH at the various JAA seminars some years ago and is consistent with the current FEH.
I think in the absence of any suitable controlled airspace a MATZ makes a reasonable substitute, if you can find one!
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 636
Likes: 0
From: notts
PPL Skill Test
The FEH guidance is purely that.
Although what has been outlined is thoughtful and is justified there could be, in my mind, a danger, that the test scenario be too predetermined. That is creating a rigid format that will be rehearsed during training, as in the main it is for the CPL test.
We shouldn't forget that our PPL candidate has only 10 hours of solo and maybe 5 hours solo cross country. I would be concerned that an onslaught of navigation skills, lumped together as outlined, is unfair.
I consider that the skill elements; instrument flying and the use of radio aids can be kept seperate from the dead reckoning. Once the candidate has given me their final heading and eta for the diversion point only then do I introduce the radio navigation elements to be assessed. I also treat the instrument flying element as a stand alone skill. I consider the test to be an assesment of the candidates skills/knowledge gained from their training. I do not expect them to be able to keep too many plates spinning.
The PPL candidates ability to stitch all the elements together will come from experience. For the CPL skill test they must demonstrate that they have achieved that complexity of skill but for the PPL less so.
Although what has been outlined is thoughtful and is justified there could be, in my mind, a danger, that the test scenario be too predetermined. That is creating a rigid format that will be rehearsed during training, as in the main it is for the CPL test.
We shouldn't forget that our PPL candidate has only 10 hours of solo and maybe 5 hours solo cross country. I would be concerned that an onslaught of navigation skills, lumped together as outlined, is unfair.
I consider that the skill elements; instrument flying and the use of radio aids can be kept seperate from the dead reckoning. Once the candidate has given me their final heading and eta for the diversion point only then do I introduce the radio navigation elements to be assessed. I also treat the instrument flying element as a stand alone skill. I consider the test to be an assesment of the candidates skills/knowledge gained from their training. I do not expect them to be able to keep too many plates spinning.
The PPL candidates ability to stitch all the elements together will come from experience. For the CPL skill test they must demonstrate that they have achieved that complexity of skill but for the PPL less so.
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,397
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
homeguard, I agree with you.
I introduce the radionav fix as a break from the GH element - to simulate someone going off into the local area, rather than on a pre-planned navex, then getting uncertain of position. "Using navaids of your choice except for ground radar and GPS, I want you to tell me where we are".
Later, I do the simulated entry into cloud, then the 5 min course tracking on the way back to the aerodrome to let the applicant relax as it's so easy. When we finish, he/she will know where he/she is and will then take his/her 'passenger' back to the aerodrome and fly a normal approach and touchdown.
I introduce the radionav fix as a break from the GH element - to simulate someone going off into the local area, rather than on a pre-planned navex, then getting uncertain of position. "Using navaids of your choice except for ground radar and GPS, I want you to tell me where we are".
Later, I do the simulated entry into cloud, then the 5 min course tracking on the way back to the aerodrome to let the applicant relax as it's so easy. When we finish, he/she will know where he/she is and will then take his/her 'passenger' back to the aerodrome and fly a normal approach and touchdown.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 899
Likes: 42
From: Slowly decaying (disgracefully)
The problem with doing it in the sequence suggested by Whopity is that the diversion is started after a 180 turn on instruments and after a delay whilst the radnav fix is sorted out - all potentially disorientating. Although possibly more realistic I think it's a step too far under test conditions.
In future I think I'll move the radnav fix to the diversion leg but keep everything else unchanged (roughly as per Homeguard and Beagle's approach).
This was my second renewal test and it all seems OTT for renewing an active PPL FE. It's bl**dy expensive (FIE+aircraft+lost time+CAA fee) and all the points could be adequately covered by discussion or seminar.
HFD
In future I think I'll move the radnav fix to the diversion leg but keep everything else unchanged (roughly as per Homeguard and Beagle's approach).
This was my second renewal test and it all seems OTT for renewing an active PPL FE. It's bl**dy expensive (FIE+aircraft+lost time+CAA fee) and all the points could be adequately covered by discussion or seminar.
HFD
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,397
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
hfd - I agree about the absurdity of the 'dummy skill test' observed by the FIE!
My last one cost £200 to the Examiner, the hire of the aircraft and £300 to the CAA.... I really don't think that can be justified at PPL level.
The 180 turn and radnav fix should not, in my opinion, form part of the diversion. Novice PPLs should divert before entering cloud, ideally from an obvious ground fix from which to draw their route on the map. The diversion should initially be entirely visual; however, once the applicant has come up with an estimated time and heading, I will let them use radnav to continue with the diversion if they wish. This is a good time also (if your aircraft has GPS) to allow them to prove they can use it - and if the applicant's estimnates have been reasonably accurate, it gives them a huge confidence boost to show the same dtk and eta on the GPS!
My last one cost £200 to the Examiner, the hire of the aircraft and £300 to the CAA.... I really don't think that can be justified at PPL level.
The 180 turn and radnav fix should not, in my opinion, form part of the diversion. Novice PPLs should divert before entering cloud, ideally from an obvious ground fix from which to draw their route on the map. The diversion should initially be entirely visual; however, once the applicant has come up with an estimated time and heading, I will let them use radnav to continue with the diversion if they wish. This is a good time also (if your aircraft has GPS) to allow them to prove they can use it - and if the applicant's estimnates have been reasonably accurate, it gives them a huge confidence boost to show the same dtk and eta on the GPS!
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 1999
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 899
Likes: 42
From: Slowly decaying (disgracefully)
BEagle - I'll drop a not to the CFE about the renewal requirement for PPL FEs, but (and I haven't checked) I assume that this is regulated by JAR so I doubt that he will have the freedom to make changes, even if he agrees.
Ref the test sequence - what's your objection to a radnav fix during the diversion? Surely this is a sensible way for them to verify the tracking and demonstrates that they can use the kit.
HFD
Ref the test sequence - what's your objection to a radnav fix during the diversion? Surely this is a sensible way for them to verify the tracking and demonstrates that they can use the kit.
HFD
Joined: May 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 27,397
Likes: 857
From: Quite near 'An aerodrome somewhere in England'
hfd - the original wording under JAR-FCL was that a test conducted by an examiner 'should' be observed. However, the CAA read it incorrectly as 'shall' be observed. I pointed this out at the pre-JAR roadshow; however Des P wouldn't accept he was wrong....
Since then, JAR-FCL has been amended and now also says 'shall' be observed.
Nevertheless, I think that it is OTT and we should challenge it when EAS part FCL NPAs are released.
I have no objection to the radnav fix during the diversion once the initial visual estimate has been made. Being a bit of a softie (honest!), in the past I have directed a Skill Test candidate to do precisely that, knowing he was a few miles off his planned diversion track. He then fixed accurately and corrected to fly an excellent diversion after resetting the DI which was the initial cause of his error!
Since then, JAR-FCL has been amended and now also says 'shall' be observed.
Nevertheless, I think that it is OTT and we should challenge it when EAS part FCL NPAs are released.
I have no objection to the radnav fix during the diversion once the initial visual estimate has been made. Being a bit of a softie (honest!), in the past I have directed a Skill Test candidate to do precisely that, knowing he was a few miles off his planned diversion track. He then fixed accurately and corrected to fly an excellent diversion after resetting the DI which was the initial cause of his error!
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,092
Likes: 10
From: uk
Would have thought any time after the first turning point.
Had a chap once get a bit unsure of position second leg used vor to fix position, can't see anything wrong in that.
But usually do it after the diversion and i/f turn.
Had a chap once get a bit unsure of position second leg used vor to fix position, can't see anything wrong in that.
But usually do it after the diversion and i/f turn.
