new instrument PTS

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:52:55 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

It says that one approach must be foown without the primary electronic
flight instruments if they are installed. The GPS is a navigation
system, not a flight instrument... snip snip

Any agreement/disagreement with this from any examiners out there?

I guess I don't fully understand what the controversy is here. A prospective
instrument pilot ought to be able to pass his or her checkride without the
assistance of a moving map.


What "ought to be" is not the question.

The student is required only to pass a practical test as defined by
the PTS. Examiners are not allowed to create their own PTS by asking
applicants to perform tasks according to what he thinks an app;icant
"out to be able" to do.



-cwk.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 18:20:26 GMT, wrote:

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 16:52:55 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

It says that one approach must be foown without the primary electronic
flight instruments if they are installed. The GPS is a navigation
system, not a flight instrument... snip snip

Any agreement/disagreement with this from any examiners out there?

I guess I don't fully understand what the controversy is here. A prospective
instrument pilot ought to be able to pass his or her checkride without the
assistance of a moving map.


What "ought to be" is not the question.

The student is required only to pass a practical test as defined by
the PTS. Examiners are not allowed to create their own PTS by asking
applicants to perform tasks according to what he thinks an app;icant
"out to be able" to do.

I understand your question and this, admittedly, is not a direct
answer to it. We, unfortunately, do not live in a perfect world and
everything is not black and white. To put it another way, being right
isn't always enough to solve the problem. I think most of us are
aware of the problems getting consistent interpretations from the
FSDOs. Bearing all this in mind, I question the wisdom of trying to
"prove" to the examiner or the FSDO that you are right, thereby
subjecting yourself and/or your student to the potential backlash of
this probably hollow victory.

I'm generally not one to back down when I think I'm right, but I think
we all put up with the different demands and pet peeves of the various
examiners. I hope that if you win this argument that it was
ultimately worth the cost.
Rich Russell

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:52:07 -0500, Richard Russell
wrote:




I'm generally not one to back down when I think I'm right, but I think
we all put up with the different demands and pet peeves of the various
examiners. I hope that if you win this argument that it was
ultimately worth the cost.
Rich Russell


With all due respect, the PTS exists so that we do not have to "put up
with the pet peeves of the various examiners".

It also exists so that training can be uniform.

If applicants can be held to the strictures of the PTS, there is no
reason that examiners should not also.

When we sit back and allow government representatives to impose their
personal wishes on applicants that are contrary to the standards, we
all lose.

The cost of asserting your rights is usually worth whatever it turns
out to be.

Just my personal opinion.

wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 14:52:07 -0500, Richard Russell

With all due respect, the PTS exists so that we do not have to "put up
with the pet peeves of the various examiners".

It also exists so that training can be uniform.


We're not talking about an examiner who's requiring applicants to shoot a
partial-panel localizer backcourse then execute the missed to an ADF hold
ten miles away. We're talking about testing to see whether the applicant can
navigate on instruments without the assistance of a moving map. If the
applicant cannot do this then he or she has not really learned how these
other systems work and is not qualified.

If applicants can be held to the strictures of the PTS, there is no
reason that examiners should not also.

At best you have a minor legalistic point here that if the PTS do not
specifically allow a certain kind of test, then it is forbidden. So what?

When we sit back and allow government representatives to impose their
personal wishes on applicants that are contrary to the standards, we
all lose.

"contrary to the standards?" That's a mighty thin limb you're climbing out
on there.

My suggestion: save your sense of injustice for a cause worth fighting for.

Best,
-cwk.

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:52:51 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:



My suggestion: save your sense of injustice for a cause worth fighting for.

Best,
-cwk.


Thanks for the advice.

I'll give it due consideration.

Examiners are not allowed to create their own PTS by asking
applicants to perform tasks according to what he thinks an app;icant
"out to be able" to do.

Emphatically agree.

Examiners are expressly forbidden from making up their own checkrides.
A FSDO should enforce this; if they don't, go to OK City.

On Tue, 16 Nov 2004 04:13:03 GMT, Greg Esres
wrote:

Examiners are not allowed to create their own PTS by asking
applicants to perform tasks according to what he thinks an app;icant
"out to be able" to do.

Emphatically agree.

Examiners are expressly forbidden from making up their own checkrides.
A FSDO should enforce this; if they don't, go to OK City.





Exactly. And any pilot and/or instructor who allows the practice
without objection becomes part of the problem