silly CPL or IR exam mistakes
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: rugby
Age: 56
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silly CPL or IR exam mistakes
hello
anyone has a story or examples of mistakes in IR/CPL/PPL tests.
like in my text I forgot to open cowl flaps and almost overheated the engine. I spotted it eventually but examiner thought I should have done it earlier
.
On my CPL, I turned onto the base too soon and final app was too quick. Landing was good but examiner said I didn't consider the wind enough and speed was too high.
Don't we love partials.
anyone has a story or examples of mistakes in IR/CPL/PPL tests.
like in my text I forgot to open cowl flaps and almost overheated the engine. I spotted it eventually but examiner thought I should have done it earlier
.On my CPL, I turned onto the base too soon and final app was too quick. Landing was good but examiner said I didn't consider the wind enough and speed was too high.
Don't we love partials.
Love partials? you s!!!ting me?
So, you practice the IR test route a few times, always arriving at 2000' to take up the hold, and the day of the test, you arrive then at the beacon, told to climb to 3000'! Uh OH!! Hadn't practiced that eventuality and it's those little kinds of things that throw you, in a helicopter! (it did me anyway)
Ok, so this is what failed me. You're on an NDB approach at Southend, the needle swinging freely in the breeze(x-wind then)
and you fly down to minima, ie something like 390' (or whatever it was), upon reaching which, you say nothing seen, going around! Spot the (un) deliberate mistake?
yes, I could have quite happily flown to the MaPt (doh!!) at said 390' but unfortunately was about 1/4 mile from it I guess!
My retest was a departure, back to the beacon, outbound, got radar vectors this time from London, no problem, for non precision app, turned inbound, airspeed 90kts, gs 40kts. x-wind 40 degrees off and avoiding a thunderstorm passing nearby.
Flew to minima, (told myself i'd stab myself in the leg if I got it wrong (costing £1000/hr remember )) and flew level to the MaPt whereupon I said to the examiner, nothing seen going around. immediately he took control and said "wasn't that hard was it?" 15 bl**dy minutes!!!
The retest only cost me an extra £6k with repositioning and test fee etc!
It doesn't take much to ruin your day really.
have fun! I hated every second of it.
So, you practice the IR test route a few times, always arriving at 2000' to take up the hold, and the day of the test, you arrive then at the beacon, told to climb to 3000'! Uh OH!! Hadn't practiced that eventuality and it's those little kinds of things that throw you, in a helicopter! (it did me anyway)
Ok, so this is what failed me. You're on an NDB approach at Southend, the needle swinging freely in the breeze(x-wind then)
and you fly down to minima, ie something like 390' (or whatever it was), upon reaching which, you say nothing seen, going around! Spot the (un) deliberate mistake?yes, I could have quite happily flown to the MaPt (doh!!) at said 390' but unfortunately was about 1/4 mile from it I guess!
My retest was a departure, back to the beacon, outbound, got radar vectors this time from London, no problem, for non precision app, turned inbound, airspeed 90kts, gs 40kts. x-wind 40 degrees off and avoiding a thunderstorm passing nearby.
Flew to minima, (told myself i'd stab myself in the leg if I got it wrong (costing £1000/hr remember )) and flew level to the MaPt whereupon I said to the examiner, nothing seen going around. immediately he took control and said "wasn't that hard was it?" 15 bl**dy minutes!!!
The retest only cost me an extra £6k with repositioning and test fee etc!
It doesn't take much to ruin your day really.
have fun! I hated every second of it.
Don't get me started...Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Europe
Posts: 651
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aaaah my IR checkride!!! 
Flew a preperation hop of about 1,5hrs with my instructor about 2hrs before the flight test to be comfortable, everything went well, we didn't refuel (done in a Piper twin, so no need to), started my IR checkride, first a no-gyro NDB approach, flying the published missed into the holding, then a simple ILS approach at another field followed by a single engine VOR DME arc.
Everything goes reasonably well, we land at said last airport and taxi off the runway for backtaxiing to the holding point, so the examiner says something along the lines of "as long as we don't crash on the flight back to our airport you passed, but do we have enough fuel remaining for the (mere 15min) flight back?"
Being relieved I made it I just mindlessly said "ah yea yea I think so, my instructor said it's gonna be fine" without doing the math myself
That didn't fail me, but he gave me a pretty good lecture along the lines that my instructor isn't there when I run out of fuel and crash land somewhere, so I better do the f*+%# calculations myself
Lesson learnt
Flew a preperation hop of about 1,5hrs with my instructor about 2hrs before the flight test to be comfortable, everything went well, we didn't refuel (done in a Piper twin, so no need to), started my IR checkride, first a no-gyro NDB approach, flying the published missed into the holding, then a simple ILS approach at another field followed by a single engine VOR DME arc.
Everything goes reasonably well, we land at said last airport and taxi off the runway for backtaxiing to the holding point, so the examiner says something along the lines of "as long as we don't crash on the flight back to our airport you passed, but do we have enough fuel remaining for the (mere 15min) flight back?"
Being relieved I made it I just mindlessly said "ah yea yea I think so, my instructor said it's gonna be fine" without doing the math myself
That didn't fail me, but he gave me a pretty good lecture along the lines that my instructor isn't there when I run out of fuel and crash land somewhere, so I better do the f*+%# calculations myself
Lesson learnt
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: South
Posts: 171
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is really really upsetting.
Out of interest (and please don't take this the wrong way - I know nothing about the plane or whatever), is there a checklist or something where you could tell during pre-flight checks whether it was track up or true north.
I'm just asking as maybe it was legitamately set to the other before your flight. The fact that you didn't know about it could be worth noting in a new edition of a POH where it explicitly mentions to check this instrument.
Out of interest (and please don't take this the wrong way - I know nothing about the plane or whatever), is there a checklist or something where you could tell during pre-flight checks whether it was track up or true north.
I'm just asking as maybe it was legitamately set to the other before your flight. The fact that you didn't know about it could be worth noting in a new edition of a POH where it explicitly mentions to check this instrument.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's not really anything in the check-lists re: TK up or true north, as your not strictly meant to be using it. They just sort of turn a blind eye to it. The best thing to do is set the MFD to the page which shows wind direction in degrees, true TK, ground speed etc
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Telford
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My tale of silliness - In a hurry to prepare for my ILS approach at EGTE RWY 26, I dialled in 280' on the CDI and not 260' during my set up (going south along N864 it looked right, especially if you don't look at the numbers to closely). I then sat back on the way to EX and composed myself for the perfect approach that must surely follow (with it's little step downs and quirky localizer intercept) - couldn't work out why after I'd applied drift when established on the localizer it was shooting off to one side. I'd correct it, then apply the drift again and "zooooom" off it went .... (I did this several times - perhaps hoping persistence would pay off??).
Managed to *just* partial that test as I had no idea what I'd done wrong and consequently I was triple checking and questioning every simple thing. Not my best moment, but an important lesson learnt.
Can't be too many people that fudge up their two engined ILS approach, so I suppose that makes me "Special".
Managed to *just* partial that test as I had no idea what I'd done wrong and consequently I was triple checking and questioning every simple thing. Not my best moment, but an important lesson learnt.
Can't be too many people that fudge up their two engined ILS approach, so I suppose that makes me "Special".
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CPL
Hi,
I don't know you say silly or not.I was doing my navex.I synchronized DI with M compass when i did FREDA checks.Examiner wasn't happy and said best of luck for next time.
Cessna310
I don't know you say silly or not.I was doing my navex.I synchronized DI with M compass when i did FREDA checks.Examiner wasn't happy and said best of luck for next time.
Cessna310
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Northern Hemisphere
Posts: 117
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
You haven't missed anything.Examiner said you have failed your navex because you aligned DI with compass on FREDA.Sorry,would you like to continue your test?This is 100% true.I told this to another examiner he told me that you should appeal for this but,it was too late.i think they already decided to fail before having test.anyway i passed and i am on first ladder of my dream job and will be there very soon.
cessna310
You haven't missed anything.Examiner said you have failed your navex because you aligned DI with compass on FREDA.Sorry,would you like to continue your test?This is 100% true.I told this to another examiner he told me that you should appeal for this but,it was too late.i think they already decided to fail before having test.anyway i passed and i am on first ladder of my dream job and will be there very soon.
cessna310
Moderator
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Age: 68
Posts: 2,586
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna - Section 3, the navex, is (usually) the second part of the flight profile. The first part, Section 1, being the "Departure".
You should not "fail" a test - and certainly not be told so in flight (with the question "would you like to continue") - unless you had already failed Section 1 prior to/or during, the departure.
You have to fail at least one item in each of two sections before test terminate and option to continue.
Whilst I grant you that, as you said yourself, the decision is made before departure that some tests are likely failed for administrative and/or financial purposes, you may have a valid case of appeal especially if the examiner did not clearly inform you of Regulation 6.
Was this a staff examiner, or freelance? Want to PM with some details?
You should not "fail" a test - and certainly not be told so in flight (with the question "would you like to continue") - unless you had already failed Section 1 prior to/or during, the departure.
You have to fail at least one item in each of two sections before test terminate and option to continue.
Whilst I grant you that, as you said yourself, the decision is made before departure that some tests are likely failed for administrative and/or financial purposes, you may have a valid case of appeal especially if the examiner did not clearly inform you of Regulation 6.
Was this a staff examiner, or freelance? Want to PM with some details?
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whilst I grant you that, as you said yourself, the decision is made before departure that some tests are likely failed for administrative and/or financial purposes, you may have a valid case of appeal especially if the examiner did not clearly inform you of Regulation 6.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: London
Posts: 238
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I thought this was pretty much common knowledge?
How on earth can it be common knowledge? If you're up to the standard you pass if you're not then you don't. If some FTO's do this then they should be named and shamed! 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The examiner usually asks you what page you want on the MFD (as long as its not map) when you first start so you should select Aux 1 then. Even so its still pretty crap of someone to go changing settings but remember assume makes an ass out of u and me
Superpilot, I'm sorry to hear that the track-up / North-up problem caught you out as well. You most certainly are not the first, and more importantly, you most ceretainly will not be the last...
I took a long time to reply to Wannabe24 when he posted about his partial IR last year. He was so convinced that the moving map could only be showing information exactly in the same format that he had ever seen, he was convinced that the examiner was wrong, that the wind had swung all over the place, that the forecast was wrong, that the G1000 wind arrow was too erratic to use, etc, etc etc. In fact everything had to be wrong to fit the single erroneous bit of the equation - that he had failed to notice a change in presentation of the map orientation, and therefore the presentation of the wind vector.
I took a long time to compose a reply to point out how all the indications he was seeing added up to an un-noticed switch from track-up to North-up, but his pride obviously wouldn't allow him to accept any blame for error on his part. He demonstrated perfectly the insidious and dangerous mental trick our mind plays, especially when under pressure, where we find it very difficult to get away from the very first mental picture we draw, and then we have to bend every other 'opposing' fact around it to make them fit our wrong mental picture. As in Wannabe24's case, this often needs to be done to extremes, where the absurdity of what we are now forcing ourselves to believe as true is lost on us as we cling on to a spurious and completely flawed belief. And all because we are so convinced that we are right. He even had to make himself believe that his highly experienced examiner was wrong, when the examiner was visual with his home airfield and could see the drift out of the windows with his own eyes. Yet he felt compelled to believe that somehow he was right, despite being under pressure of an exam, under the hood, the novice pilot, running out of mental capacity by his own admission, who became massively disorientated by a wind vector which was being presented in a different format - a piece of information that he schouldn't even have been using for the test at that!
For whatever reason, Wannabe24 chose to delete his thread, along with my carefully thought through analysis of where he went wrong, with detailed explanations of how what he recalled seeing fitted perfectly with the simple error of assuming that the map would present the wind vector in a track-up format that he was accustomed to.
It is a great shame that he chose to delete the thread, which might very well have saved you and others from making the same unfortunate, yet very-easy-to-make mistake. I guess his pride never did let him accept that he could be wrong, and you have now paid the price of his pride. But please don't copy his mistake, as you seem tempted to do when you speak of 'finding the person to blame'. Accept it squarely on the shoulders - you were to blame, for not fully understanding a useful and powerful piece of equipment. Believe me, the planes that you hope ultimately to fly will have far more complex and easily-misunderstood systems and equipment. It is excellent training at this stage to put your hands up, just as 2098 has suggested, and accept full responsibility for your lack of familiarity with the systems which you used; systems in which you put far too much faith given your shaky understanding of them.
If you can accept your mistake and learn from it, then you will make a better pilot than someone who simply does not accept that they were wrong. As he never accepted his error, the previous poster probably still finds himself having to bend everything around his mistakes and misjudgements, to try to make the facts fit his misinterpretation of them. A good pilot will accept that he makes mistakes, he will learn from them and continually improve. A bad pilot will always blame sombody else, blame some equipment, and therefore deprives himself of the chance to learn just what a potential liability he is.
Here is Wannabe24's original post, which probably bears a remarkable resemblance to your own situation. What a shame that you were not allowed the opportunity to learn from his mistake by him deleting the post with the helpful and informative replies (which I can re-post if required). In reading it, you must remember that the writer was UTTERLY CONVINCED that the wind vector was being presented as he expected it to be, ie almost 180 degrees reversed:
This has been re-posted purely to help prevent anyone else from falling into this easily made trap.
PM
I took a long time to reply to Wannabe24 when he posted about his partial IR last year. He was so convinced that the moving map could only be showing information exactly in the same format that he had ever seen, he was convinced that the examiner was wrong, that the wind had swung all over the place, that the forecast was wrong, that the G1000 wind arrow was too erratic to use, etc, etc etc. In fact everything had to be wrong to fit the single erroneous bit of the equation - that he had failed to notice a change in presentation of the map orientation, and therefore the presentation of the wind vector.
I took a long time to compose a reply to point out how all the indications he was seeing added up to an un-noticed switch from track-up to North-up, but his pride obviously wouldn't allow him to accept any blame for error on his part. He demonstrated perfectly the insidious and dangerous mental trick our mind plays, especially when under pressure, where we find it very difficult to get away from the very first mental picture we draw, and then we have to bend every other 'opposing' fact around it to make them fit our wrong mental picture. As in Wannabe24's case, this often needs to be done to extremes, where the absurdity of what we are now forcing ourselves to believe as true is lost on us as we cling on to a spurious and completely flawed belief. And all because we are so convinced that we are right. He even had to make himself believe that his highly experienced examiner was wrong, when the examiner was visual with his home airfield and could see the drift out of the windows with his own eyes. Yet he felt compelled to believe that somehow he was right, despite being under pressure of an exam, under the hood, the novice pilot, running out of mental capacity by his own admission, who became massively disorientated by a wind vector which was being presented in a different format - a piece of information that he schouldn't even have been using for the test at that!
For whatever reason, Wannabe24 chose to delete his thread, along with my carefully thought through analysis of where he went wrong, with detailed explanations of how what he recalled seeing fitted perfectly with the simple error of assuming that the map would present the wind vector in a track-up format that he was accustomed to.
It is a great shame that he chose to delete the thread, which might very well have saved you and others from making the same unfortunate, yet very-easy-to-make mistake. I guess his pride never did let him accept that he could be wrong, and you have now paid the price of his pride. But please don't copy his mistake, as you seem tempted to do when you speak of 'finding the person to blame'. Accept it squarely on the shoulders - you were to blame, for not fully understanding a useful and powerful piece of equipment. Believe me, the planes that you hope ultimately to fly will have far more complex and easily-misunderstood systems and equipment. It is excellent training at this stage to put your hands up, just as 2098 has suggested, and accept full responsibility for your lack of familiarity with the systems which you used; systems in which you put far too much faith given your shaky understanding of them.
If you can accept your mistake and learn from it, then you will make a better pilot than someone who simply does not accept that they were wrong. As he never accepted his error, the previous poster probably still finds himself having to bend everything around his mistakes and misjudgements, to try to make the facts fit his misinterpretation of them. A good pilot will accept that he makes mistakes, he will learn from them and continually improve. A bad pilot will always blame sombody else, blame some equipment, and therefore deprives himself of the chance to learn just what a potential liability he is.
Here is Wannabe24's original post, which probably bears a remarkable resemblance to your own situation. What a shame that you were not allowed the opportunity to learn from his mistake by him deleting the post with the helpful and informative replies (which I can re-post if required). In reading it, you must remember that the writer was UTTERLY CONVINCED that the wind vector was being presented as he expected it to be, ie almost 180 degrees reversed:
Wannabe24
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Age: 26
Posts: 53 IR partial pass - bad experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently I tested for my IR and received a partial pass. I failed the non-precision approach section which for me involved an off the field NDB approach at CFD. I wanted to share my experience with you to get some opinions. I believe I was doomed to failure by the examiner’s actions and very quickly got caught up in a no win situation.
This particular approach was a procedural one and involved an alternate procedure following a single hold. Whilst beacon outbound (i.e. on the extended outbound leg of the approach procedure) the wind was quite literally all over the place and far from my planned wind of 270/15. This particular a/c had a moving map GPS displaying a wind arrow. However this wind arrow was far too erratic for me to use for any kind interpretation so I decided to stick to using my planned wind. This resulted in a 10 deg overshoot when it came to intercepting the final approach QDM of 214 degs back to the beacon (proof that the wind was a northerly one).
No problems I thought, let’s get back on track which I attempted to. However the wind arrow become even more erratic now (moving through almost 120 degs) and I knew I just had to concentrate on tracking the NDB and not worry about flying any drift adjusted headings because I was running out of mental capacity to work out what the hell the wind was doing from one second to the next and the fact that I was asymmetric! According to this wind arrow, the wind changed from a Northerly to a South Easterly-Southern wind once I became established on the FAT! It was at this point that the examiner remarked that I should be flying into wind. To which I replied that I agreed, but the beacon was nearly 10 degs to my right and I needed to “Get it” first as I needed to descend soon! I attempted to turn further right to re-intercept my final approach track and maintained this intercept heading. The examiner became agitated that I was ignoring his advice and had another go at getting me to turn into wind. I could not believe what I was hearing. Yes, if I had the right QDM I too would be flying into this wind (roughly from the South according to the wind arrow) but what’s the point if the gap is getting bigger to the right? I debated very quickly whether or not I was being stupid or this guy was having a brain fart. Still unsure at this stage, but logic spelt it out for me. If I did what he was asking me to do I would never get back on track! I maintained the new heading knowing that I would be making him cringe by now. Even though I turned 10 degs past (greater than) my intended QDM and even with a wind from the left (allegedly, according to the wind arrow and the examiner) it was obvious that my final approach track was never going to be re-intercepted and in the face of all this evidence the examiner wanted me to fly further to the left!
Anyway, at this point it occurred to me if this guy has already said it twice and is edging to say it for the third time then he must be right. Further more if I don't listen to him am I running the risk of pissing him of and thus guaranteeing a failure? so I decided to please him by flying a heading that was less than the inbound QDM (into wind allegedly) even though the needle was moving to my right. As I saw the needle falling further to the right it proved to me that the wind arrow was outputting pure garbage and the examiner was not only believing it but making comments that I should be flying into this wind (left of the inbound QDM). As it happens, the needle finally fell behind at a painfully slow rate to the right and I knew I was well out of limits by then. Just imagine how much slower it would’ve fallen if I had maintained a heading into the alleged wind much earlier on as advised. Beacon inbound I could no longer let the now 20 degs diff get any bigger, I drasticaly increased my intercept to the right to win back the now QDR. Incidently, by this point the runway would've become visual and I heard no more from the examiner. Covers went down and the runway was right in front of me. Further proof that the wind arrow could not be trusted during the descent.
After sleeping on it, I cannot believe what has happened here and am deeply saddened. The examiner (pleasant and nice in every other conceivable way) got it wrong (plain and simple) but who in the world is going to believe me?
I feel if he didn't speak at this crucial and final moment I would've not hesitated to increase my intercept to get back on track. Instead he created a doubt in my mind that turning right was the wrong thing to do when it obviously wasn't. I genuinely feel that he thought he was trying to help me (probably already pissed of at the no. of candidates who partial on the NDB) but something was not right with his understanding on that day. He gave too much attention to the wind arrow and not what was actually happening to my track. I sound like a cretin for accusing a CAA examiner of such a thing especially when he's probably got thousands of examinations under his belt but what else is there for me to say?
The partial I can live with, but it’s a day out that costs £1,500. That I can’t live with. I promise you my vivid account is as accurate and truthful as possible. Would be grateful for your advice and in particular past experiences and appeal outcomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Wannabe24 : Yesterday at 21:13.
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: London
Age: 26
Posts: 53 IR partial pass - bad experience
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Recently I tested for my IR and received a partial pass. I failed the non-precision approach section which for me involved an off the field NDB approach at CFD. I wanted to share my experience with you to get some opinions. I believe I was doomed to failure by the examiner’s actions and very quickly got caught up in a no win situation.
This particular approach was a procedural one and involved an alternate procedure following a single hold. Whilst beacon outbound (i.e. on the extended outbound leg of the approach procedure) the wind was quite literally all over the place and far from my planned wind of 270/15. This particular a/c had a moving map GPS displaying a wind arrow. However this wind arrow was far too erratic for me to use for any kind interpretation so I decided to stick to using my planned wind. This resulted in a 10 deg overshoot when it came to intercepting the final approach QDM of 214 degs back to the beacon (proof that the wind was a northerly one).
No problems I thought, let’s get back on track which I attempted to. However the wind arrow become even more erratic now (moving through almost 120 degs) and I knew I just had to concentrate on tracking the NDB and not worry about flying any drift adjusted headings because I was running out of mental capacity to work out what the hell the wind was doing from one second to the next and the fact that I was asymmetric! According to this wind arrow, the wind changed from a Northerly to a South Easterly-Southern wind once I became established on the FAT! It was at this point that the examiner remarked that I should be flying into wind. To which I replied that I agreed, but the beacon was nearly 10 degs to my right and I needed to “Get it” first as I needed to descend soon! I attempted to turn further right to re-intercept my final approach track and maintained this intercept heading. The examiner became agitated that I was ignoring his advice and had another go at getting me to turn into wind. I could not believe what I was hearing. Yes, if I had the right QDM I too would be flying into this wind (roughly from the South according to the wind arrow) but what’s the point if the gap is getting bigger to the right? I debated very quickly whether or not I was being stupid or this guy was having a brain fart. Still unsure at this stage, but logic spelt it out for me. If I did what he was asking me to do I would never get back on track! I maintained the new heading knowing that I would be making him cringe by now. Even though I turned 10 degs past (greater than) my intended QDM and even with a wind from the left (allegedly, according to the wind arrow and the examiner) it was obvious that my final approach track was never going to be re-intercepted and in the face of all this evidence the examiner wanted me to fly further to the left!
Anyway, at this point it occurred to me if this guy has already said it twice and is edging to say it for the third time then he must be right. Further more if I don't listen to him am I running the risk of pissing him of and thus guaranteeing a failure? so I decided to please him by flying a heading that was less than the inbound QDM (into wind allegedly) even though the needle was moving to my right. As I saw the needle falling further to the right it proved to me that the wind arrow was outputting pure garbage and the examiner was not only believing it but making comments that I should be flying into this wind (left of the inbound QDM). As it happens, the needle finally fell behind at a painfully slow rate to the right and I knew I was well out of limits by then. Just imagine how much slower it would’ve fallen if I had maintained a heading into the alleged wind much earlier on as advised. Beacon inbound I could no longer let the now 20 degs diff get any bigger, I drasticaly increased my intercept to the right to win back the now QDR. Incidently, by this point the runway would've become visual and I heard no more from the examiner. Covers went down and the runway was right in front of me. Further proof that the wind arrow could not be trusted during the descent.
After sleeping on it, I cannot believe what has happened here and am deeply saddened. The examiner (pleasant and nice in every other conceivable way) got it wrong (plain and simple) but who in the world is going to believe me?
I feel if he didn't speak at this crucial and final moment I would've not hesitated to increase my intercept to get back on track. Instead he created a doubt in my mind that turning right was the wrong thing to do when it obviously wasn't. I genuinely feel that he thought he was trying to help me (probably already pissed of at the no. of candidates who partial on the NDB) but something was not right with his understanding on that day. He gave too much attention to the wind arrow and not what was actually happening to my track. I sound like a cretin for accusing a CAA examiner of such a thing especially when he's probably got thousands of examinations under his belt but what else is there for me to say?
The partial I can live with, but it’s a day out that costs £1,500. That I can’t live with. I promise you my vivid account is as accurate and truthful as possible. Would be grateful for your advice and in particular past experiences and appeal outcomes.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Last edited by Wannabe24 : Yesterday at 21:13.
PM
Last edited by pilotmike; 17th Mar 2009 at 13:50.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
I had a IR test booked last week that was cancelled due to weather. My second was booked for yesterday.
Arrived at the test centre after repositioning. When I took off with the examiner and put the gear up I had a gear unsafe light. So had to turn back otherwise I would have failed the departure section
. What I would say is the examiner was very fair and it was bad luck on the day. On a good note I avoided loosing any money regarding test fees or a/c hire. My training school were very good at sorting things and rearranging.
Hopefully will have another go next week as everything is booked rest of this week
I had a IR test booked last week that was cancelled due to weather. My second was booked for yesterday.
Arrived at the test centre after repositioning. When I took off with the examiner and put the gear up I had a gear unsafe light. So had to turn back otherwise I would have failed the departure section
. What I would say is the examiner was very fair and it was bad luck on the day. On a good note I avoided loosing any money regarding test fees or a/c hire. My training school were very good at sorting things and rearranging.Hopefully will have another go next week as everything is booked rest of this week
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: earth
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Superpilot, please don't take this the wrong way. I have no hours on a DA-42 or for that matter any on a Garmin 1000.
I did my IR in a old fashioned steam driven gauge aircraft.
Now if I was to get in a Twinstar, i would bloody well know how the systems work, you are pilot in command and therefore are expected to know how every bit of kit works, otherwise you should not be there in the first place. It is easy to blame someone else, or time constraints.
Lets say you were flying the aircraft I fly, Boeing 737-800, and the Captain keels over, you have to decide what to do, if you want to go to an alternate airport how the hell do you tell the FMC???? then if you need to build some waypoints to get you there you need to be able to do it.
Being a Professional Pilot brings responsibilities, you have to know what you are doing, otherwise you do not belong in the air in the first place, end of, no room for arguments here. If you mess up in the air, you could have a mid air, with devastating results......
Complaining that you have only had 15 hours flight time is not an excuse and don't even try to talk to me about high workload....
Wait until you try to depart a noise sensitive airport, using conventional naviation, dealing with flaps and speeds and ATC for the Pilot Flying, without infringing any of the regs, its bloody hard work.
Anyway I get to do that most days, along with thousands of others, Learn from your experience and you may join us up there.
Best of luck
FC
I did my IR in a old fashioned steam driven gauge aircraft.
Now if I was to get in a Twinstar, i would bloody well know how the systems work, you are pilot in command and therefore are expected to know how every bit of kit works, otherwise you should not be there in the first place. It is easy to blame someone else, or time constraints.
Lets say you were flying the aircraft I fly, Boeing 737-800, and the Captain keels over, you have to decide what to do, if you want to go to an alternate airport how the hell do you tell the FMC???? then if you need to build some waypoints to get you there you need to be able to do it.
Being a Professional Pilot brings responsibilities, you have to know what you are doing, otherwise you do not belong in the air in the first place, end of, no room for arguments here. If you mess up in the air, you could have a mid air, with devastating results......
Complaining that you have only had 15 hours flight time is not an excuse and don't even try to talk to me about high workload....
Wait until you try to depart a noise sensitive airport, using conventional naviation, dealing with flaps and speeds and ATC for the Pilot Flying, without infringing any of the regs, its bloody hard work.
Anyway I get to do that most days, along with thousands of others, Learn from your experience and you may join us up there.
Best of luck
FC