wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:52:07 -0500, Richard Russell

With all due respect, the PTS exists so that we do not have to "put up
with the pet peeves of the various examiners".

It also exists so that training can be uniform.


We're not talking about an examiner who's requiring applicants to shoot a
partial-panel localizer backcourse then execute the missed to an ADF hold
ten miles away. We're talking about testing to see whether the applicant can
navigate on instruments without the assistance of a moving map. If the
applicant cannot do this then he or she has not really learned how these
other systems work and is not qualified.

If applicants can be held to the strictures of the PTS, there is no
reason that examiners should not also.

At best you have a minor legalistic point here that if the PTS do not
specifically allow a certain kind of test, then it is forbidden. So what?

When we sit back and allow government representatives to impose their
personal wishes on applicants that are contrary to the standards, we
all lose.

"contrary to the standards?" That's a mighty thin limb you're climbing out
on there.

My suggestion: save your sense of injustice for a cause worth fighting for.

Best,
-cwk.