Tricky examiners

On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 19:18:43 -0500, "Mortimer Schnerd, RN"
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:

If I step away for a few moments, how can I possibly not notice the airplane is
tied down again or that a chock has found its way in front of a tire again?
You'd have to be pretty unconscious or distracted beyond your tolerance.


Right.

The whole time you're approaching the plane you're looking at it, and
lots of folks are taught to go the long way around just for the look
over. The ol' circle check!

If the examiner got out after the pilot had gotten in (before engine
start), and put the tie down back on then, that would be dirty pool.

Mxsmanic wrote:
Gig601XLBuilder writes:

Most people when put in a position of public trust will do what they can
to live up to that trust.

Unless, of course, they are being paid to be "not too tough."

Bingo, Gig601XLBuilder was right, he didn't understand it.

Though would we really expect an asocial misfit to understand things
like ethics and a sense of responsibility?

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Mortimer Schnerd, RN mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com wrote:
Peter Clark wrote:
Just playing devil's advocate, how about II.A - Preflight Inspection?
Tiedowns are on the checklists for the aircraft I fly, and I was
always taught to re-check things if I had to go away from the aircraft
for any length of time just because some nice line guy might chock or
tie it back up.


If I step away for a few moments, how can I possibly not notice the airplane is
tied down again or that a chock has found its way in front of a tire again?
You'd have to be pretty unconscious or distracted beyond your tolerance.

Human nature is to see what you expect to see unless you are specifically
looking for the unexpected.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

Dallas wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jan 2008 22:17:32 GMT, JGalban via AviationKB.com wrote:

While I was inside, the examiner reattached the tail tiedown.

That's completely rotten and unfair! That would never happen in real life
and pretty much serves no purpose during a checkride, except to un-nerve
the poor student who is already in a pretty frazzled state already.

I call foul!


Actually Dal, I've used the same approach many times when giving
checkouts as well as drilling it into my own student's heads. Believe
me, it's completely legitimate. Here's the reason and it's a simple one.

Henriques rule #12 for living a long and fruitful life as a pilot
postulates as follows;
"Under NO circumstances....NO EXCEPTIONS....EVER...EVER....do a
preflight on an airplane involving an interruption that takes you away
from the airplane so that the aircraft is out of your sight without
re-performing the preflight if you are the PIC of that aircraft "

The bottom line on preflights is that doing one as the PIC, YOU are, at
the end of that preflight inspection, accepting the airplane as being
ready to fly. You can only do this realistically if the aircraft is
totally under your control starting at the beginning of the inspection
and ending with you getting into the aircraft.

If your attention is diverted from the inspection to the point where you
are physically out of sight of the airplane you are inspecting even for
a minute, you have the choice of accepting that absolutely nothing has
occurred while your eyes were not on the airplane that has changed your
preflight inspection, or you can do as I suggest and re-perform the
inspection. This doesn't mean you have to recheck the fuel and the oil,
but it does mean you should visually reinspect the exterior of the
aircraft for damage or any change that might have occurred in your absence.

This is exactly why that examiner re-tied down the tail. A sitting
airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)





--
Dudley Henriques

It's called "Distraction"... the DPE is required to try and distract you to
see how you prioritize and handle the distraction.

BT

"Dallas" wrote in message
. ..
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 14:46:30 GMT, Steve Foley wrote:

I'll disagree with you. It shows how the student reacts when something
unexpected happens.

But if the student didn't react well to the trick, would that be grounds
to
bust the checkride?

Asking a candidate to come up with a ground frequency while in a stressful
situation falls under "Cockpit Management" and is a DPE checklist item.

Looking through the PTS, I don't see anything on the examiner's test
checklist that requires the student to be tested or pass something like
this.

Most candidates don't get a lot of sleep before exam day and to start off
the flight with a sneaky trick like this could have the poor fellow
completely distracted waiting for the next trick. This one just seems
outside the boundaries of fairness and it could jeopardize the candidate's
checkride over an issue that is not required by the PTS.


--
Dallas

On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

A sitting
airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)

I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

In article ,
Peter Clark wrote:

I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

How many times has massport bagged people for that stupid open door
rule?

Have you seen how well some prop locks have been "installed" at KBED?

--
Bob Noel
(goodness, please trim replies!!!)

Peter Clark wrote:
On Fri, 04 Jan 2008 21:42:43 -0500, Dudley Henriques
wrote:

A sitting
airplane unattended could very easily have been seen by a line boy and
tied down. (A stretch of course, but it made the examiner's point)

I guess it depends on the airport. At Hanscom there are prop-lock and
must-be-attended whilst doors open rules which Massport has been
pretty draconian in their enforcement, so the line people 'save'
pilots and the FBOs from being fined pretty regularly when they leave
an aircraft to go back inside for some reason.

Try this one;

Airplane out of sight; someone parks next to it or passes it taxiing and
puts a nice dent in the elevator.
It happened!

You go get a coke. Some kid comes along and stuffs his Teddy Bear inside
your carb air scoop.
It happened!

Reinspect the airplane!!!!! Trust me on this one :-))

--
Dudley Henriques

and you have shown poor judgement in
allowing your "passenger" to goad you into low flying.

Tough but real worldish.

Nope! The examiner failed right then and there... He is not just a
'passenger' and has certificate authority...
I would tell him that I am filing a formal complaint with the local
FSDO... I would also inform him that I would make sure that the entire
local pilot community knows about him and they might just be reluctant
to hire him in the future...

But then, I am older, self employed, and used to making my own
decisions, so I don't take kindly to crap...

denny

Peter Clark wrote in
:

unattended (heck, I parked at HPN for 10 minutes to go inside the FBO,
grab some paperwork, and came back out to find their line guys had
towed me to remote parking and chained me down), and if you're not
used to that kind of 'service' you may miss it if you're not really
looking when you come back out.

So which line on the preflight checklist is:

"Plane still there... Check"