These are good points.

My question is, is this stated somewhere, such as in the examiner's
manual?

If not, then presumably we all (applicants and examiners alike) are
bound by the PTS, which makes no mention of turning off any
navigational instruments.

We can all make cases for pros and cons of the nuances of testing.
However, there should be no surprises about what the applicant is
expected to do on a test. Otherwise it becomes a guessing game.

What we train for is a separate question. Presumably we are training
safe pilots, and train beyond the PTS requirements. Pitot/static
failures come immediately to mind, as well as total navigation and/or
communication radio failure (employing backup handheld communication
or GPS systems to save one's ass, for example).

Nevertheless, our personal feelings notwithstanding about what a
competent pilot ought to be able to do, there are standards which
exist for the issuance of a rating or certificate.

Personal feelings should not be allowed to override them. Examiners
can't do what they "like" any more than an applicant can be excused
from something he "doesn't like".





On 16 Nov 2004 10:57:12 -0800, (Brian Case) wrote:

Ok, let me throw another bone at the group. Where I often train we
have a VOR and NDB approach to the same runway as the ILS. The courses
are identical. In an aircraft with 2 VOR recievers is is appropriate
for the examiner to require the applicate to turn off or disable the
VOR Tracking the ILS? Or even the Marker Beacons.

If the examiner can not require this, then how does the the Examiner
know if the applicant is actually flying the VOR approach as if it
were the only approach available as is the case at many other
airports? Or is the applicant simply using the LOC aids to make a
really good VOR Approach?

If the PTS requires the applicant to demonstrate a Non-precision
approach and a NDB approach is selected. I think it is very
appropriate for the examiner to disable any instrument that the
applicant might use in lew of the required instruments. Otherwise how
does the examiner know if the applicant really knows how to shoot that
approach properly or if you are just good at faking it using other
instruments (GPS)(LOC)(VOR).

On the other hand as a CFII I tend to look for how many of these aids
the applicant uses. The more he uses to verify he is doing the
approach properly the better situational awareness he will have. But I
also want to ensure that when the GPS screen goes blank (I have had
that happen with a panel mounted IFR GPS) that they can still safely
get back on the ground.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



wrote in message . ..
I went back and re-read the PTS.

I don't see anything that says the examiner must (or even can) turn
off the moving map.

It says that one approach must be foown without the primary electronic
flight instruments if they are installed. The GPS is a navigation
system, not a flight instrument. Therefore I don't see where an
examiner gets to turn it off any more than he gets to turn a VOR radio
of during a partial panel approach. It is not a part of partial panel
testing, as near as I can see.

Any agreement/disagreement with this from any examiners out there?



On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:33:04 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Is there an examiner on board that can summarize the significant
changes in the new PTS?

For example, is the GPS required to be turned off during one of the
approaches?

No. However, the examiner may turn it off as part of a partial panel
approach. One approach must be flown with glass cockpit displays or moving
map displays turned off, if possible, but that does not necessarily mean
that the GPS must be turned off.

If the aircraft is equipped with GPS, one approach must be a GPS approach.
If the aircraft has an autopilot, at least one approach must be flown with
the autopilot coupled. I know one examiner who expects candidates to use the
GPS and autopilot on every approach unless the examiner has specifically
told them not to.