Jim Fisher wrote:


Many CFIs here in the group have stated over and over again "Don't worry
about the checkride or your written grade. What matters is that you
passed." But wait, that doesn't count if your an AC student according to
you, Dudley.

So, either the written test & checkride is a joke and jillions of "pilots"
unworthy of the privilege are swarming over our heads or the test and Ride
are effective enough to weed out the worst of us and send them back to the
drawing board.

It can't be either, can it?

Dudley has some good opinions, but he also has a tendency to draw
conclusions from limited data and then assume them to be true.
Unfortunately, most people untrained in statistics are guilty of this type
of error in one form or another.

What he didn't write - and may not even have considered - is how many pilots
out of a unaccelerated program would pass his test. He'd not be the only
one here to point out the flaws in much flight training.

Lack of depth of understanding is something I find all too frequency, in
many different areas. Yes, I believe that a rushed education is biased
towards this. However, I've seen plenty of people with conventional
educations in a subject that still lack real depth.

On that theme, I have to admit that I'm towards the "test & checkride is a
joke" side of your argument. It is too easy for someone that I'd not want
to see flying to pass. The two sets of aviation tests I've taken - IR and
PPL - tested some, but not all, of what was required.

During my PPL, for example, the DE asked some question about flying into
weather where the obvious answer was "don't go". Asking that question is
fine, in that it would be Very Bad if a pilot didn't know the answer. But
having the candidate state "I'd not go" on a test is quite different from
seeing how he or she would react in the get-there-itis world.

No, the checkride isn't really a joke per se. But it does leave untested
too much of what I think a pilot needs to carry. Having said that, though,
I don't know how so short a test can test for handling pressure, judgement,
and such.

Someone on this thread mentioned physicians. One difference - among many -
is that a physician operates (pun mostly unintended {8^) under supervision
for an extensive period of time. In the case of a checkride, it's one test
and then *zoom*.

I'd opine that the CFI's role should be more than just instructor. A CFI
should act as a filter for those characteristics different to spot in a
single test. Someone that is too willing to fly beyond his or her envelope
should, in my perfect world, never be sent to a DE.

But, real world, I doubt that many are willing to do this. I'd guess that
the more exprienced CFIs - those that recognize the cost of failing to
filter in this way - do. But the time-builders have their attention
elsewhere too often, I believe.

Back to Dudley's message, and your question about flight tests: This depth
of which he speaks is *not* one of these difficult-to-test qualities. I
specifically recall the weather part of my IR oral, as it was a very
in-depth conversation (and damned interesting!). If a pilot cannot discuss
a required topic in depth, the DE should catch this.

Someone used the phrase "Santa Claus DE" here recently. I hate to think
that these exist...but perhaps they do.

- Andrew