Compass turns revisited

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.

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...

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.

Perhaps I am missing that, but that's not quite my issue (which is more
of a puzzled question). In the case of "failing the engine", the
examiner typically pulls the power lever back and says "your engine
failed". The equivalent response seems to be to smack him one, put the
power lever back, and say "no it didn't". Does the PTS in fact say that
the examiner may play with the power lever?

In an exam, there's a certain amount of make-believe problem that is
accepted for the purpose of showing that one can deal successfully with
a real problem.

Jose
--
Get high on gasoline: fly an airplane.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.