No more partial checkrides. :(

I just called a local examiner to ask what will happen if the weather
isn't good enough to fly with my student tomorrow. He said that the
Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam. The result is that if the
weather is bad he CANNOT do the oral and save the flying for another
day. This sounds like a crappy policy to me. I always thought breaking
the checkride up was a great idea anyway.

-Robert, CFI

In article .com,
"Robert M. Gary" wrote:

I just called a local examiner to ask what will happen if the weather
isn't good enough to fly with my student tomorrow. He said that the
Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam.

What on earth is the point of that?

Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam.

What on earth is the point of that?

Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
might improve and he's already halfway there.

Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
in one shot.

Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
as much sense.
Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...

Michael

On 4/8/2005 10:08, Michael wrote:

Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam.

What on earth is the point of that?

Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
might improve and he's already halfway there.

Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,
but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
until later.


Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
in one shot.

Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
as much sense.
Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...

Michael



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL
Sacramento, CA

Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,

but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
until later.

But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
weather is never a mistake, right?

All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

Michael

On 4/8/2005 13:37, Michael wrote:

Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,

but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
until later.

But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
weather is never a mistake, right?

If the student would push for a flight test in weather that shouldn't
be flown in, the test should be failed. If I were a D.E. (which I am
not) I would think this a great opportunity to see how the pilot
evaluates the situation.

After all, after the test is passed, the pilot will begin making
these decisions on his own.


All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

I think one of the tasks the examiner should be doing is evaluating
the decision making processes of the pilot.

However, I'll agree that if you never take any risks, you'll improve
your chance of survival. I don't want to survive that way, but that's
my personal opinion.


Michael



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL
Sacramento, CA

That is a slippery argument. You could also say that getting your
private is dangerous because you're more likely to make safe decisions
when you are a student and need to have a CFI review your cross
country. Perhaps everyone should have a CFI review their cross
countries. I just don't see a DE feeling pressure to fly in bad weather
because he gave an applicant an oral evaluation.

-Robert, CFI

"Michael" writes:

Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,

but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
until later.

But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
weather is never a mistake, right?

Why rely on the judgement of the pilots? Oh, because we're supposed to
do it every single time we fly?

All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

You're reaching too far. This is a boneheaded policy, period.

And, why are you suggesting that the FSDO should second guess (in advance!)
the DE? That's the last thing we need, more intromision. There's plenty
as it is.

-jav

My DE said she would count it as plus if an applicant cancelled the ride
after the oral. Good 'Decision making' at its best.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Michael" wrote in message
oups.com...
Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam.

What on earth is the point of that?

Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
might improve and he's already halfway there.

Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
in one shot.

Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
as much sense.
Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...

Michael

I'm not sure what you mean by "launch". In this case, we're just
talking about sitting in the office doing the oral. It is such a HUGE
task for me as a CFI to get DE, student and airplane in one place at
the same time, it would be helpful to at least get the oral done while
the student and DE have the schedule available to do so, even if the wx
prevents flight. The DE can always issue a notice of discountinuance if
the checkride cannot be finished that day. It's too bad the FSDO sees
it this way.
Many DE's are scheduled 30+ days out. Having to reschedule an entire
ride (vs a 1.5 hr flight) can push the student out a month or more.

-Robert