"The final challenge" - examining standards
 

A question for the examiners out there ...
In the recent "Where to fly" freebie from Pilot mag there's an article called "The final challenge" that describes a PPL skill test from the candidates viewpoint - compared to the way I test people it seems rather OTT.
Is it me that's a soft touch or the reported examiner that's being a bit tough? How does this compare with the way the rest of you run PPL skill tests?

And why scare the chap by including the bit about the man being Marshall's Chief Test Pilot? Relevance?

Btw, seen the picture in the same mag of the BA 'Boeing' all us professional pilots want to fly?

I have no connection with the school in question and have never flown with them but I've seen their students on dual and solo 'land aways' at other airfields. They're all very disciplined and methodical and give the impression that high standards are expected of them. Omitting to put the pitot cover on during even a short turnaround is a cardinal sin apparently.

>Omitting to put the pitot cover on during even a short turnaround is a cardinal sin apparently.<

An even bigger one is omitting to remove it prior to the next flight!! LOL

I haven't seen the article in question but i know people whove had similar experiences with tests. I've always believed that when i conduct a PPL test/renewal, my primary concern should be whether or not the guy can safely operate the a/c!

My 2cents

Who made up the article title "The final challenge"? No it isn't, it's merely a point along the learning process.

Grumble, grumble.....

Very true- a good "test" is actually more of a lesson.
Food for thought.

As a non instructor I agree foxbat.

I don't "feel" I have ever been "tested", but I know I have recieved some pretty good instruction during those "points along the way" that SAS so rightly refers too. :ok:

SS

Also bear in mind that although you cannot complain about the result of a test you CAN complain about the conduct of the test.

In my opinion examiners dont have to be holier than thou to conduct a test properly and can achieve far more by taking steps to put the candidate at ease. This does not mean compromising on the required standard but is, I feel, just common sense.

In the States, this is actively discouraged. It's just a test. At some level I sort of agree with it, but it still seems to me to be a great lost opportunity. In any event, there's usually some knowledge imparted anyway.

Have to say the examiner is there to examine you NOT teach you. Yes he can do it in a friendly and relaxed manner to help reduce mistakes made from too many nerves but he is not there to give you advice or teach.

If you are not up to standard then you should not be going forward for a test and last minute cramming advice and help from your examiner is only cheating you from having a true impartial opinion as to your ability. something that may well save your life one day, or that of your passengers.

Too often I have seen incestuous test carried out and it is a practice that needs to be stopped. That may seem harsh to some but so is crashing.

IR Renewal

Yes haven't you seen all the hype surrounding the launch of the New Boeing "Toulouse" :ok: :)

jsf

Onan the Clumsy said: - it's actively discouraged in the UK too; Examiners are forbidden from teaching or commenting during the test. In practise, if everything else is going well, I would normally give them a hint if they mess something up before giving them a chance to repeat the exercise ("now Bloggs, how do you maintain height and speed in a steep turn? that's right, did you do that just now? aha! show me another turn at 50-60 degrees of bank and this time maintain height and speed").

Banjo, I agree totally. It's still legit to test your own IMC and aeros studes but it's far better for stude and examiner if training/examining are done by different people.

I think it's important to try to put Bloggs at his/her ease and not to make life harder than it has to be. People need to be safe but they don't need to be the ace of the base (at PPL level).

...but, HFD, how do you know thew ground below is perfectly level?

Would it not be more accurate/professional to ask them to maintain "altitude"? They probably have a QNH set anyway.

:O err, that's what I said, you must have misheard
;)

Gotta admit HFD I agree with your start post.

If my chap has passed with flying colours I tend to use the opportunity to throw in some possible words and themes of sound advice. As generally you have their attention. If a doubtful pass, I shut up but still give the odd helpful prod. But still play by the rules. If a definate cocked up test and I have made up my mind during that test, I use the rest of the test as a lesson to give the guy/girl a positive building block to learn from before they go off and do their recommended retraining then retest.

Well personally I thought that the test seemed rather on the harsh side...

Take-off straight into a best angle-of-climb departure? I'd let the chap settle down into a totally normal departure.
Was all that RT yack really needed? Personally I'd expect the chap to tell, not ask, Wyton that he'd be routing through the overhead, not to have bothered with Conington as he was going to be well clear of their ATZ, then a quick call to Cottesmore to cross the Wittering MATZ stub. But to ask for a RIS on such a nice day - vis. at least 15 miles with a 3000 ft cloudbase? On the second leg I'd have expected a courtesy call to Fenland as he was routing directly overhead, then FIS from Marham for MATZ penetration en-route to East Dereham..

Descend to min. level? Where is that in the PPL Skill Test? It used to be in the old NFT, but has been out for over 5 years now. I presume the 180 deg turn was done with foggles? Then a diversion straight afterwards? Hmmm... The div itself should be prefixed "When you are ready, I want you to divert...." Again, screw ATC, fly the a/c and think ahead about the Chatteris site. A bit of a rotten trick to spring a diversion which would track right through a parachuting site - but why oh why waste time with Marham when a call to Chatteris Radio would have clarified things?

Fix position - fine. But "Track the CAM NDB to depart the overhead on a heading of East?" - that's a bit OTT, in my view. "Fix position, now track towards Cambridge until I tell you" would have been more reasonable.

A 20 min break for the FE to feed his face doesn't give the applicant much of a break if he's expected to dip the tanks and check the fuel as well - probably worse than just 'diverting' somewhere further away during the nav section, then to have done the GH on the way home, then the circuits?

And as for keeping the poor sod dangling for so long before telling him he'd passed......

I see that the whole thing took 7 hours!! The guidance in the PPL Skill Test guide is 4 1/2.. Which is about what I find it usually takes; 2 hours to brief and plan, 2 1/2-ish for the test, then the debrief.

BEagle, precisely.

That profile reminded me of my commercial flight test.

I can think of many a prospective student that what faulter at the mere prospect of such a test.

And another point - who on earth teaches "..the only time you shouldn't be busy doing a FREDA check is when you're busy doing a FREDA check"? Utter twaddle - about every 15 minutes is fine. Nor should FREDA checks be done at turning points, that's the time for Heading/Airspeed/Altitude/Time checks - FREDA should wait until a low activity point e.g shortly after an ETA revision at a visual fix point.

I'm sure that the conduct of this Skill Test has raised an eyebrow or two!

The candidate's account of his recollection of this Skill Test seems to have raised eyebrows. While I don't doubt for a moment that the account is related in good faith, it seems unlikely that the candidate had the spare capacity to take detailed notes for the purpose of the article. You might find that the examiner paints a different picture.

I haven't flown with the examiner in question, but my impressions from conversations with him are that there are are few as able as he is to align the level of both teaching and challenge to the abilities of the student.