in the context C421 provides, I would guess the argument for Southampton could be

This is particularly true if the TAFS and general weather picture don't show both airports in the same system of persistent low cloud and fog!

You tell us...you were at the de-brief! Didnt you ask?

What I'm still missing is a legal reference, applicable to JAA (or UK CAA) flight under Instrument Rules, that would disqualify putting Lydd as an alternate, or make it a "fail item" on a check ride. I have not seen this and it probably doesn't exist.

- you mustn't arrive late for a check ride appointment
- you'd better give more plausible scientific explanations when you make a statement about an action necessary for safety reasons (such as claiming that wind can blow back stones or debris back into a propellor)
- you must be capable of properly debriefing a candidate, so that regardless of the result, he walks away with a worthwile learning experience
- especially if you are operating regularly as a check pilot or an examiner in the area, you need to familiarize yourself with the training operation so that you know what you can expect from a candidate.

would also be legitimate items of feed back about this particular event.

Even the debriefing item
which I have been taught to do appears not to be a legally challengeable issue, as pointed out accurately by Billiebob. Indeed, the ICAO definition of "localiser established" appears to be a half-scale deflection and just that (at least in the context of a VOR or ILS). A proper check pilot or examiner would have told Peter : "Legally speaking you're in the clear, but I would seriously recommend you to wait with the call until you're stabilized on the inbound heading".

Overarching here is a false sense of superiority of - especially UK CAA - JAA instructors and examiners. As a result, they focus on trivialities like whether a gyro is spinning to the right or to the left, and forget about the essence and practicalities of safe private operation. While apparently innocent, this chip on their shoulder has stood in the way of many a proper and useful European Aviation integration project and has contributed to skyrocketing cost inefficiencies in the European Aviation scene. Believe me, it is frustrating to witness this from abroad.

But a lot of you don't care, because you make a (poor) living out of these cost inefficiencies.

The PPL/IR quote is quite telling. Referring to beginning IR students as "cadets". :yuk: Next thing we have to wear eagles with swastika's ?

Strange.

I always thought when you do a debrief you run through the issues that arose during the flight, why you think they were issues and what you would have done differently. You then ask if the explanations you have given were clear and whether the "candidate" wishes to ask anything.

Then again you could just fail the "candidate" and leave the reasons as a complete mystery - sounds about how things go these days.

;)

It's referring to the 95% of persons at an UK FTO who are young, ab-initio attendees of a full-time "frozen ATPL" course with the intention of becoming professional pilots. Perhaps "Cadet" was merely a shorter way of saying that, which wouldn't make the typical reader vomit or think of WW2 uniforms.

A flight test is not an exercise in barrack-room lawyering. No-one is saying that Peter was failed because of these items. Maybe they were emphasised as "fail points" because the examiner thought he might be reluctant to accept them as input without this sort of emphasis. How they were positioned is quite a different topic from their legitimacy as debrief points.
Perhaps. Generally in the flight test environment, a candidate's main priority is to focus on the feedback to him, so he may improve and meet the test standard. It seems to me the more fruitful discussion.

On the issue of failing for something that's not actually against the rules - surely that's possible in just about any skill test?

All skill tests will be assessing somebody's observance of what is considered (by the examiner) to be best practice.

A well known example in the UK is flight through a MATZ - we all know that to do so without permission is perfectly legal so long as you stay out of the ATZ itself. However, it is not very clever and even at PPL level you'd almost certainly fail for flying through a MATZ without achieving 2-way and obtaining a MATZ penetration clearance.

Similarly, Peter mentioned earlier that he'd been pulled up for not having his aircraft into wind for run-ups. This is not illegal, not downright dangerous, but most times, places and aircraft it would be regarded as best practice that you point an aeroplane into any significant wind for run-ups, and that if you don't, you do so deliberately and are able to explain and defend what you just did.

So in both cases, I suspect that Peter's "sin" may not have been doing what he did - but in not explicitly stating to the examiner "I'm doing things this way, here are my reasons for doing so."

G

Cadet is military jargon for a person in officers' training. It is quite misplaced in a civil environment. My point being that far too many FTO's confuse themselves with the Air Force. Also, the organisation PPL/IR shouldn't endorse this confusion, as they are not serving the wannabee ATPL community.

Nobody said that. But the 170A check pilot Peter encountered clearly didn't have sufficient back ground knowledge to support his claims in the de-brief. The discussion in this (and similar threads) revolves around
- the debrief items Peter encountered
- the appalling quality of the check pilot

What utter nonsense. Either they are grounds for failure or just points of attention worth mentioning. Any decent examiner should be able to distinguish between the two.

But I give you the benefit of the doubt : I needn't have been a knob, it could have been an knob with a communication problem. But definitely one the CAA should look into.

It's a full service, CAS, IFR airport sensibly close to Shoreham and on the route from Bournemouth. It is used as an alternate from Bournemouth for IR tests, which was the main south coast IR test location until the recent changes. Any examiner is likely to be comfortable with Southampton as an alternate.

Lydd looks a good possibility also, but it is further, off-route, outside CAS, no radar and (perhaps most critically) the DHs and RVRs are minima are much higher (ie. 480' and 1500m). Southampton a better bet, given the relatively high minima at Shoreham.

I can't "prove" it "must" be Southampton. Lydd would be fine too if the TAF were suitable. It's obviously not an actual item someone would fail on.

brgds
421C

Cadet is in common English usage in reference to formal airline training programmes. The article wasn't "endorsing" that. It was using common English.

We must both be having a quiet day to debate a subject of such vital importance....

The examiner made a point forcefully that "convenience" is completely irrelevant to the choice of an alternate.

That said, I fail to see what is wrong with Lydd or Southend or Biggin - or indeed Bournemouth where you have just shot some approaches so you know which way round the NDB hold is ;) and its weather is going to be exactly the same as Southampton's.
Clearly so :ugh:

It would be helpful if they were written down somewhere. Otherwise, the appropriate level of immersion will be hard to achieve.

Anybody who can fly IFR can get 99% of a flight right. It is the last 1% which gets you.

Which is 99% of aviation in general....?!

To comment on recent rhetoric, I'm not bothered for the reasons for creating debates on all the aforementioned topics. These are intrinsic to all types of flying. Those of us with the intention of going CPL/IR in the future I'm sure find this very useful. That said, as well as providing he who posts with others' opinions, I like to think we all take something away from these debates... even if we don't admit it most of the time. It's all food for thought which, actually, is what we need sometimes.

How many of us will now really think about our planned alternate? Maybe none, but I'd guess that most will have more justification for using the alternates that we always use, or think about using different ones. :cool:

Fair enough. You then have 2 choices. Do it your way or do it the way suggested by your school. I'd advise the latter.

...BTW, the wx at Bournemouth is not exactly the same as Southampton, you can have zero-zero fog at Bournemouth and CAVOK at Southampton.

Have a look at the IR manual here: http://www.pplir.org/images/stories/...al%20v1.53.pdf
Ulitmately though, we are discussing some very secondary debriefing points (into wind power checks, choice of alternate). Despite all the efforts at standardisation, you are never going to avoid someone who flies with you for the first time as 170A or Test examiner having some such points to debrief on. If that is all he picks you up on, you are laughing, because you will have passed (IMHO).

It is true of any exam - do it your way and risk failure, do it the prescribed way and you should pass. I suspect whatever the discipline we pursue we all feel in later life exams could be better prepared, and, importantly more relevant to the "real" world. I often wonder why this should be so and yet it is a criticism all too commonly voiced.

That said I dont think I have ever taken a "flying test" in which I was satisfied with my performance but I managed to pass everyone first time. That isnt a boast, simply a reflection that I did feel that by the time I took the test I was safe enough to get the job done and while the examiner had plenty of debrief points I did enough to convince him I was safe. That has always installed some confidence in me that the system works well most of the time because their were enough pendatic points to justify a fail.

BTW 421C - I dont know you, but might I ask please if you are from Germany or that region, or from India or that region?

I was never briefed on the examiner's preferences. The choice of alternates, the "downwind" power checks, etc were made on previous training flights and was accepted fine. So it's not a case of me doing it "my way" against some advice. Having gone through the virtually total charade of the JAA IR ground school I am well used to going along with the flow :)

My point is take the 170A examiner's advice as an extension of the training, that has picked up a few more points. This is normal, and the ones discussed are mostly very minor. Ignore the fact they were presented as "fail items". If they'd merely been suggestions, we'd probably never be discussing them.

Inevitably, of course, none of these issues will ever come up again! Your next 170A guy will be satisfied with whichever alternate you choose and however you want to do power and rudder checks....

No, that's the reason why the "availability of train services", and other factors relevant to the purpose of the flight, should be high on the list of desirable qualities. The way to avoid "pressonitis" is not to assume that you have superhuman willpower, but to create contingency plans that make it easier to take the right decision when it is required.

When the decision to divert sits on the margin, you'll make a better decision knowing that your diversion has a train connection to that business meeting you were going to, or perhaps a scheduled flight home to your bed, rather than requiring a night spent sleeping in the aircraft.

Clearly it has been a while since you were correctly immersed (or perhaps I should say immersed to the correct depth) in the JAA IR training environment, bookworm :)

So after 3 pages,Peter, can you perhaps put us all out of our misery and actually tell us what the examiner said in his debrief that concluded your choice of alternate was wrong?? Is it just me or is this the question that we're all waiting for an answer to?:) This would presumably go some way to concluding this thread.

He wasn't specific; he just said that Lydd or Southend were bad choices, with some other things spoken too fast for me to follow and remember. I wasn't going to argue, because there is always a chance that, at the last moment, he will say "damn ... I will sign your form" :)

What I understand from the foregoing discussion is that any alternate for which the numbers add up should be acceptable, and there seems to be a consensus that it being further away is not a bad thing.

Well I hate to say it then but you should have pushed him for a full explanation as to why Lydd or Southend were bad choices. Presumably there must have been some sort of issue he wasnt happy with. He/She should have explained this in the debrief.

I would also clarify next time what condition the test is being conducted under - i.e. public transport or private. If its public transport(as per the typical IR test) then apply the EU Ops criteria and you cant go worng.

The pre test brief from the examiner should cover all areas. Its also your opportunity to ask any questions regarding the conduct of the test. I would probably go next time with a list of things written down that I wanted to ask, that way everything should hopefuly be covered.

You dont want to labour the IR test, its too bloody expensive!!:}