No more partial checkrides. :(

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

"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
oups.com...
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


Hey guys. I think Michael had his tongue so far out in his cheek that he
bit it on that last post. If you guys don't think Michael firmly believes
that pertinent decisions should be made at the lowest possible level you
don't read his posts very carefully! :-)

Clearly he thinks it is criminal for the FSDO to take such basic decisions
away from their examiners. Personally, I happen to agree with him. In
SPADES. If my FSDO starts making rules restricting my ability to make the
decisions that I am paid to make we WILL have words. Fortunately for all of
us, they do NOT do that. Instead we work quite well together to get done
what needs to be done in a way that is safe and effective. Of course, there
IS some extra irrelevant paperwork that needs to be generated to give all of
the filing mavens in administration in the FAA something to file, but they
have to justify their jobs in this time of tight government budgets also.
:-/

Highflyer

"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

"Javier Henderson" wrote in message
...
[...]
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

Wow. Even after Highflyer's post, people still think Michael's being
completely serious.

IMHO, it's pretty obvious he's taking the FSDO's side for the sake of making
obvious the problems with their position. Anyone who'd read any of
Michael's other posts would not make the mistake of thinking he's actually
in favor of the FSDO wielding such broad control over the judgments of
others.

Pete