![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Fri, 08 Apr 2005 01:20:34 GMT, Jose
wrote: Ok, so in my earlier example, the examiner simulates a failure by changing the frequency. This is not discovered by the applicant, and although the approach is completed successfully, the examiner fails the applicant on task V.A.9 just like your example. The applicant appeals, claiming that the examiner did not have the right to "dictate what frequency the radio would be set to". How does this materially differ from simulating GPS failure (could be signal failure, antenna failure, etc) by insisting that the GPS be turned to a non-useful page? If the applicant failed to discover that the GPS wasn't working, I'd say you have a case. For example, he fails to see that the GPS does not go into "ACTV" mode (or the equivalent) 2 miles before the FAF, and continues the approach, he fails V.A.9 If he discovers the anomoly, on the other hand, the applicant would be expected to take remedial action as soon as it was discovered, i.e., change the frequency back to the proper one, fly a missed approach if appropriate, reload the GPS approach, etc., and he would have satisfied the requirements of the task. He would pass. In your scenario, likewise, once he discovered the anomoly, he would set the GPS back to the proper page. If he discovers it right away, the requirements of V.A.9 are then satisfied. He passes. But what you are missing, I thnk, is that there is no provision for testing the applicant's ability to perform procedures with less than all equipment on board, except for failing the "primary instruments". i.e., AI and DG, or the equivalent on a glass panel, and simulating loss of communication equipment. There is no task set up to fly procedures with failed navigational equipment. For example, it is possible to fly an intersection hold with one VOR. and no DME. If an applicant were failed on the holding task because an examiner insisted he turn off the second VOR and DME, and do an intersection hold, I would say the examiner has overstepped his bounds, regardless of how much he or you or I feel this is something "every instrument pilot should be able to do." The PTS doesn't require it. Likewise with all other navigational equipment, GPS included. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Experience with SIRS compass? | Ross Oliver | Owning | 2 | March 18th 05 06:21 PM |
Vertical Card Compass Mystery | Rosspilot | Owning | 3 | November 3rd 04 06:01 PM |
Do you use your magnetic compass? | Roger Long | Piloting | 42 | May 25th 04 12:08 PM |
Strange compass behavior | me | Owning | 10 | February 14th 04 04:24 AM |
Compass turning error | Marty Ross | Piloting | 3 | August 21st 03 02:53 PM |