See my inserts, and then I'm going to pass on further dialog with you on
this matter.

"Shirley" wrote in message
...
Andrew Gideon wrote:

Actually, I'm just trying to keep the thread honest
with the post to which you've just replied. You
claimed that Shirley had not followed the thread

I claimed nothing of the kind.

I admit I didn't read *every* post, I read the majority of them, and I
wasn't
going to argue, but the oral exam certainly WAS discussed. I realize,
Dudley,
that you were addressing the competency and comprehension levels of
already-licensed private pilots. My point was simply that even BEFORE
a person
gets there, an examiner, during the oral exam, makes an evaluation of
comprehension. Whether or not a "rote answer" by itself is acceptable
is, as
you said, left to the discretion of the examiner. One would HOPE that
rote
answers for areas where the examiner can clearly perceive little or no
comprehension would not fit into the category of having met minimum
standards.
I am sure, depending on the DE, that sometimes they unfortunately do.

The depth to which an examiner takes an applicant taking a Private
flight test is strictly at the discretion of the examiner if the
applicant meets the minimum standards. It's important to realize that if
something comes up in the oral that produces the correct answer, it is
NOT...and I repeat NOT the responsibility of the examiner to go deeper
into the discussion until a discrepency is noted. In fact, a very strong
argument can be made for examiners not going very deep into a subject if
the right answer is showing up front.
A good DE will indeed go beyond the simple answer as you have correctly
stated, and at some point will make a decision on the comprehension. The
main thing to remember her Shirley, is that there is a specific minimum
requirement for comprehension, and if that minimum has been satisfied,
the examiner isn't duty bound to explore any deeper. This dosen't mean
the applicant isn't safe. In fact, if the applicant has met the minimum
standard, he/she IS safe, and the examiner is duty bound to pass the
applicant.
All I've been saying from the very beginning is that in my opinion,
based on my experience over time, the comprehension levels of pilots I
was checking out after having gone through this minimum standard process
after being trained in accelerated programs, could have been better. I
was also finding pilots coming through traditional training programs
that I felt could use some additional comprehension. The common factor
in all this was that I wasn't satisfied with ANY of the accelerated
trained pilots. To fully understand how my "findings" on this would fit
into an overall picture one has to realize that my training standards
are MUCH higher than the legal minimum standard.
None of what I found would indicate that these pilots were not safe
simply because I believed they needed remedial work. All that means is
that SOME of the pilots we were checking out of traditional training
were less than our desired levels, but ALL of the pilots we tested
coming out of accelerated training were less than our expected standard.
This thread is suffering greatly from thread creep. Most people,
especially competent CFI's answered immediately and knew exactly what I
was addressing. A few here, are innocently responding to the thread
creep as it wanders more and more away from the base issue and into
tangent mode :-)

I don't see, though, how you can evaluate "comprehension" and NOT be
talking
about how a person responds verbally, whether still an applicant OR an
already
licensed private pilot. Like it or not, comprehension (on the ground)
and
mechanical skill (in the air) do overlap each other or go
hand-in-hand, if you
will.

This is a valid way to deal with some forms of comprehension. I have no
problem with it.

One last thought about discussion having relevance to comprehension as
you have presented it to me as though I don't understand it :-)
I have no problem with this; it's 101........IF the issue is
discussion. Actually, I can make your point here even more relevant by
telling you that it was in part, discussion, coupled with performance,
that revealed to us as check pilots the necessity for an even HIGHER
comprehension level than we were finding in the pilots being checked.
Am I getting through here at last Shirley? I hope so.
The bottom line is that all of what you are saying is relevant. You're
just assuming all through this that my test standard was revealing a sub
safe level. That simply wasn't the case. We just found that these pilots
could have, in our opinion, and based on our flight check
methods.........a bit better, so we made them better. That's what good
instructors do.....make pilots better!!! :-)))
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot/ CFI Retired
For personal email, please replace
the z's with e's.
dhenriquesATzarthlinkDOTnzt