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.


I"m not Shirley, but to my eyes, a correct answer does not imply comprehension.
Were I a DE (and I"m not), I would see it as my duty to establish, to my
satisfaction, that the comprehension is there, at least to minimum standards.
This does not mean "the right answer to a fixed set of questions". It means
the understanding behind these answers.

If other DEs are not doing this, this is their failing (and our problem).


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.


It's all well and good to have high standards. But when are standards "too
high"? (and why are THOSE not the miniumu standards?)

But this is all besides the point. It may be that the accelerated programs
produce acceptable pilots (to minimum standards) and we have become used to
superior pilots (trained the standard way to better standards). Is this what
you are saying?

Jose





--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)