But this wasn't a lesson, this was a test. Are you saying that this examiner sets the level of the challenge based on his perceived ability of the candidate?

I do hope not. There is obviously a level any student must achieve, but this should always be consistent.

Test Standards
 

Quite often it would seem to me the purpose of a test is forgotten. Why can't we just get a friend to show us how and when we think we are ok, leave it at that?

In all walks of life we are now required to demonstrate a MINIMUM standard of ability in order to protect the SAFETY of others. That minimum standard is normally demonstrated within a practical test and the knowledge required - in the most part - within a written and oral examination. However, it is so easy to create a science of it all and for the test to become, unwittingly, an event sustained only for itself. A 'challenge'. This became a desease within the old CAFU regime and hasn't entirely been cured. Not every one but some see the GFT/Skill Test as a hurdle or a performance for which a rehearsal is required, much like an actor rehearses for a performance. The CPL course sadly is no more than a rehearsal for the big day because of the dominance of the test at the end. The sequence and routes being practiced extensively. Too much imput from the examiner (such like a heckler in the audience) and the candidate may appeal against the conduct of the test.

BEagle is absolutely correct in his analysis. The job of us as Examiners is not to impose some sought of barrier to an applicant applying to join a club. They are not joining a private club of like minded individuals. The Skill Test is no more than a safety check. The question should only be; Does this individual have the ability and the knowledge not to cause others and themselves harm? If yes they should be allowed their right to exercise their freedom. In our case FLY an aeroplane or Helicopter! They will only get better.

Having said that the late Ron Campbell told a story of a PPL he was checking out for his local flying club. Apparently the PPL was dreadful. He asked the individual who had taught him to fly. "you did sir, some fifteen years ago", the PPL replied.

I haven't been examined by him, so I have no clear view as to how he conducts his tests.

RIS on a nice day?
 

I'll quit on the test standards issue, but I would like to pick up on one point made earlier, which is something of a hobby horse of mine.

The probability of having a mid-air collision is dependent on both the traffic density and the probability of not spotting a conflicting aircraft before it is too late. I would contend that fair weather has a huge influence in increasing the former, and only a minor influence in reducing the latter.

The latest AAIB bulletin contains a report on a fatal mid-air collision between an R22 and a microlight. Despite the 30 km visibility, and airspeeds of the order of just 70 knots each, they didn't see each other in time. The incident is not unusual in that most if not all mid-air collisions occur in good VMC.

A RIS would not have saved these aircraft, but the incident does put yet another nail in the coffin of the myth that assistance in collision avoidance, whether from ATC or electronics, is only necessary or useful in poor visibility.

Sorry, I disagree completely. VFR means 'see and avoid'; on a nice weather day there will be more a/c out and about generally, and ATC will neither be able to cope nor provide any worthwhile RIS. Ever tried flying in France?

About the only time I use a RIS when flying GA is under IMC when self-navigating as I can then make my own decisions on separation standards rather than having them imposed by a third party which would be the case under a RAS*. Similarly with RAS - I'll use that only when under radar vectors in IMC when flying GA.

LOOK OUT!!

*amended for clarity.

The law of averages suggests that for any given number of good answers and comments, at least one other of them will be garbage.

In my opinion the last response from BEagle falls into the latter - with the obvious exception of the comments that VFR is "see and avoid" - and his 'out' line of LOOK OUT.

Fortunately, we are all entitled to our own opinion - and BEagle can continue doing it his way, whilst bookworm does it his.

A RIS doesn't set any standards of separation at all, you still have the authority to set your own.

Read my post again - where did I imply that RIS 'provided' separation? It's in IMC in the GA environment where I prefer a RIS to a RAS so that I can decide my own separation based upon information provided by ATC rather than necessarily being given the separation standards provided by a RAS. Unless I'm following radar vectors, in which case I'll do as requested.

Have amended my earlier post for clarification on this point.

The endless yack on RT on good weather days from the "Err, good morning, sir, this is Golf Alfa Blah Blah Blah, err, I'm an AB34R turbo in a fetching shade of red routing from Little Piddle on the Gusset to err, Stupidville, err via the, err, ABC to the DEF to the FGH, sir, err, request Radar Information Service, sir, err, over" brigade who really do annoy me though!

And some FIs are teaching RT yack to the detriment of basic VFR navigation skills. A point which we are currently investigating.

Suitably amended message does make more sense. But - can't read it again because it's changed.

Fully agree with the comment about instructors teaching too much 'Yap'.

Am curious to know who is the "WE" in the phrase, "A point which we are currently investigating".

Well, the meaning was the same before the amendment - I just tried to clarify it further by subsequently adding the items in italics.

'We' are a small unofficial group looking, on behalf of a safety organisation, at possible reasons behind poor navigation standards shown by some private pilots in the UK.

Yappity Yap
 

I whole heartedly agree with BEagle on this whole issue.

A RIS service in a PPL Skill Test is put simply; over the top and would probably have been a distraction for the candidate and therefore a hindrance for everyone. In many cases it could hinder the conduct of the test.

Whatever the arguments, if all VFR flights request an RIS it will not happen for the majority. The ATC Unit would, due to needs must decline the service to all other than the most in need. The Controller is limited to a specific maximum number of recipients that they are allowed to handle.

Im on BEagle's side here.

It does nark me that people use the radar services of LARS units a little too much at times. Unfortunately it does seem to me that a lot of people use the limited and underfunded services of a LARS unit at the expense of someone who perhaps really needs the radar cover. It appears most of the RIS/RAS provided is to a VMC condition pilot just asking for it cos its nice. Then the Navajo or whatever flying IFR, paying airways charges calls up in iMC and told, negative due workload only a FIS is possible. Arrghh.

If I need it to get on top of cloud for training, I cancel the RIS once 'ontop' and keep a bloody good look out. Then ask for it again on descent. Quite often my local LARS unit seem to appreciate this and always give me a RIS on return as best they can!

Mind you controllers really need to remember that when offering a FIS and then being kind and pointing out traffic on radar, is forcing Joe Public GA into thinking they have something more than a FIS or indeed a FIS entitles them to have a running commentary on anything airbourne. Quite often I hear a pilot bitching to the controller that an aircraft got 'awfully' close whilst under a FIS and blaming the controller! Oh please!

Anyway, back to the topic!

Hi fellows flyers!

I've been reading this thread with some interest! I am the poor culprit at the heart of the article!

In clarification of the many observations made in the thread I'd like to firmly state that the document you all read was a "condensed version" of a much longer document, and the intent of it was to celebrate the succesfull completion of training, rather than to scare-monger potential skills-test candidates!

My examiner couldn't have been a nicer chap! The angle that he is a Chief Test Pilot was a self imposed pressure, as a result of spending a couple of years scurrying past his office on the way to the pilots or briefing rooms! He has throughout my training and beyond been a pillar of excellence, continually motivating and supporting his fellow colleagues as well as us trainee private pilots!

The test was not a "pressure" environment induced by the examiner. The pressure "was self induced" by my own pressure to perform. I didn't want to fail!

Anecdotes, like the "only time you shouldn't be doing a FREDA check is when you're busy doing a FREDA check" carried me through my training, help to re-inforce the process of managing cockpit time effectively. We all know flying is a matter of doing 3000 simple things in the right order at the right time. The slightest bit of additional worry can blow your ability to aviate effectively! Words of advise like that didn't do me any harm at all. I'd rather do too many FREDA's than too few!

For those of us that have hundreds of hours under our belts, maybe the routine is more normalised, but for me, snippets of advise like that did burn home, to the extent that I can still clearly remember them and I carry them with me today every time I fly.

I'm delighted that the article spurned a few debates. I was immensely proud of my achievement on passing my test, and as some have pointed out, it represents the beginning of the learning curve, not the end of it!

Happy landings to you all, and best wishes from our new home in Canada!

All the best

Dave Tidwell

I always had my candidates cross country go through or close to a matz/lars so that they had the option of asking for FIS or RIS.
Usually RIS was asked for. This in no way was detrimental to the progress of the test. This is used to check correct use of procedures, r/t, transponder.

There have been very few who couldn't cope, otherwise they wouldn't have been put in for the test.