Full and free controls check

[Maoraigh1]

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]

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]

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]

Cessna singles, unlike Pipers, have a spring in the rudder/nose wheel steering circuit

Indeed, 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]

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]

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.

NDB work was ropey.

Altimeter work was quite often forgotten.

RT was utter !!!!e.

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

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

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

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

[peterh337]

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 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]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

That's bollox, bose-x.

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

[S-Works]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.