Full and free controls check

[Genghis the Engineer]

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.

G

[S-Works]

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]

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]

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]

Jock:

http://www.ead.eurocontrol.int/eadba...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]

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

[mad_jock]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Originally Posted by mad_jock

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.

Originally Posted by peterh337

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]

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]

Exceeding MDA is and should be instant fail, since you bust the approach minimum

If 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 well

Are 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]

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]

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]

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.....

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.