![]() |
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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
The DE's point was, don't use
private airfields as waypoints. That's not what I'd take away from it. I'd take away "don't use waypoints you can't identify". You in fact did not correctly identify the waypoint. I bet you'd've passed had you pointed to the grassy area rather than the paved strip. Jose (r.a.student retained, but I don't read that group; I replied from r.a.piloting) -- Freedom. It seemed like a good idea at the time. for Email, make the obvious change in the address. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
I'll have a go. I've flunked two; my multi/commercial and my initial
CFI. They are both kind of funny, and both made me a better pilot, even tho they were both 'borderline' bogus. My Multi-Comm was weird. I went to an excellent 'flat-rate' program, had a great MEI and did fine in the training. I went up with the crusty, old, and brusque DE. Everything went OK (not great...I certainly could have done better, but within the specs of the PTS), until the engine-out localizer approach. I flew the approach reasonably well (again not great), but when we got down, he said he'd have to fail me because I didn't drop my gear at the outer marker. Now, I've since added quite a bit of multi time, and talked to a few MEIs and experienced multi pilots. All have said they wouldn't drop the gear in a light twin if they had an engine out until they had the airport in sight; certainly not at the outer marker. It wasn't in the checklist. What *was* in the checklist was was he *should* have failed me for...I forgot to turn on the fuel boost pumps (but he didn't even notice, or say anything about it). So I didn't complain...just went back for another lesson, did some time in the mockup and passed the ride the next day. I later found out that this DE seems to have an interesting pattern. He does most of the checkrides for this company; when I looked at their checkride log sheet, I noticed that at the beginning of the month (when money isn't too tight?) he had a first time pass rate of about 85%, and a second time pass rate of an additional 10%. In the last week of the month (when I took my ride, and when presumably money is tight) he seemed to have a first time pass rate of about 45% and a second time pass rate of about 35% additionally (totalling 80%), Did I mention he charged 1/2 of his full checkride fee for a 10 minute retest of the failed component? I'm sure it was all a coincidence..... I took my initial CFI ride with DE who is reputed to be *very* tough. After I passed the retest, he told me that he 'thought' the failure rate for initial CFI should be over 50%...as it was in the 1960s, when he said it was up near 90%; he told me he failed his initial CFI ride (as did the above guy). This DE is very experienced, and had a *great* knowledge of flying...even thought it was pretty grueling, I really got a lot out of the 8 hour oral, even though it got kind of heated when we were diuscussing the general relationship between power/altitude/pitch/airspeed. I quoted Langeweishe and told him I believe the throttle was the primary altitude control in normal cruise, and that I liked the acronym "PAYS" Power-altitute Yoke-speed. He said that was totally wrong and displayed a total lack of understanding of how an airplane flys. I told him that that that was based on direct quotes from 'Aerodynamics for Naval Aviatiors', which is a hugely respected aerodynamics book. As I said, it got kind of heated...at one point I offered to go outside into my 172RG with him right now...we'd go out and establish level flight and trim it out...I'd add in power. If power doesn't control altitude (yes, of course I *do* know it's a balance with the relationship between lift and airspeed), then the plane shouldn't climb...it should just speed up. And then when I chopped the power, the plane shouldn't descend...it should just slow down. I told him if we went and did that and the plane didn't descend and climb, then I'd fail myself and just go home. This was after it started getting heated. I know I probably could have passed by just agreeing with what he said, but as an instcutor, if I'm *really* wrong, I want to know about it...and if I'm not wrong, I'm not going to pretend I am. We ended up basically leaving it with 'well, they are clearly interrelated controls and concepts'...which didn't resolve anything, but let us move on ![]() *Then* I failed. The DE failed me on my lesson plans. LOL. I have never met *any* CFI who was failed on his lesson plans. Specifically, he failed me because I was presenting a lesson on '8's on Pylons' to a putative commercial student. One of the concepts I explained was how to estimate initial pivotal altitude, using the FAA's method published in 8083-3. He got visably angry and said that was BS. That nobody needed to know how to calculate pivotal altitude...that you couldn't calculate 'true' pivotal altitude anyway, as that was a function of groundspeed, which is of course a function of the specific winds wherever you are. I agreed, but said that you use the initial pivotal altitude to calculate your initial entry, then modify your altutide visually once in the maneuver. At that point he told me that I had failed. I told him that my Commercial DE asked me to calculate pivotal altitude. He said that DE was wrong. So I asked him how he'd judge a commercial applicant doing a pylon 8. He said the applicant *should* start out at a reasonable altitude, and then judge pivotal altitude from the maneuver itself....you find 'true' pivotal altitude by being able to perform the maneuver properly. So I asked him what was reasonable. Would he be OK with a student spiriling down from 12,000 feet in a 172RG to find the proper altitude? He said I was just being silly. Anyway, I was pretty furious at all this BS, so I told him I was going, and he told me to call and reschedule. I told him that I was going to call somebody...the FSDO and ask to have a checkride from a FSDO representative..and that this was BS. So I flew home, and calmed down. I talked with my training CFI and a couple other CFIs who told me that yeah, it was BS...but I really needed to go back to this guy and get it done. *Then* I could file a complaint with the FSDO, and they'd support me. So I swallowed my pride, and called the guy...rescheduled (no extra charge). When I went back up, it was a *totally* different guy. He was super-nice. He explained to me why he failed me...that he thought I'd be a good instructor, but that I needed to get away from so much 'book' stuff. I presented a fairly trivial lesson on turns-about-a-point for a private student (which he didn't even seem to care about much...he didn't comment at all, except to say 'good job' at the end.) Then we went flying, and here is where he could have failed me. My flying that day was lousy. I don't know if it was because I was upset, but at least one of my maneuvers was not up to commercial standards, and none were up to my personal standards. He showed me how to do a few things differently (he was one *hell* of a pilot...the guy had the best touch with an airplane I've ever seen). When we got down, he told me I passed. I told him I could fly better than I did, and he said that the CFI isn't about flying. He knows I can fly...otherwise I wouldn't have gotten that far. He wasn't worried about my flying at all...he wanted to see my teaching. Very odd...he told me he thought I'd be a fine instructor, and that he failed his initial CFI, as had almost all the other CFIs he knew and to use this experience with my students, etc...and wrote me out my temporary ticket. I ended up leaving with a pretty positive feeling, and didn't even really consider making a complaint (altho my training CFI wanted to...he was pretty angry). To this day I don't know what exactly happened...was that all pre-planned as his 'CFI Initiation'? Did I get him on a *really* bad day, and he turned into everyone's favourite uncle when he thought I really would try to burn him with the FAA (doubtful...I later found out he has some serious juice at both the FSDO and the national level, with the FAA)? DId he really believe all the stuff he told me? Did he just feel guilty about overreacting? Who knows.... But when one of my students tanks a checkride someday, I'll certainly be able to say "Yeah...I know how that feels...let me tell you a story..." Cheers, Cap Jon Kraus wrote: Just curious as to how many of us are in the "Flunked a Checkride" club. It seems that the fail rate for the IFR checkride is more prevalent than the Private. So swallow that false pride and speak up. I'll be first. I flunked my IFR checkride by busting on holding pattern entry. Anyone else? Cecil? Jeff? :-) Jon Kraus PP-ASEL-IA Student Mooney Owner |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 08:09:22 -0500, Corky Scott
wrote: On Mon, 20 Dec 2004 20:16:43 GMT, Bob Moore wrote: "gatt" wrote I failed my Private because I used a private field as a waypoint in my cross-country plan. WHATTT.... No way! You can use a tree as a waypoint as long as it can be identified from the airplane in flight. Maybe you failed because you could not identify the "grass" field as a waypoint, not because it was a "private" field. Bob Moore My feelings exactly. I used private fields for my waypoints on several cross countries WITH the CFI in the right seat. The only point he made is that sometimes the private fields are hard to spot. Hard to spot? I took my check ride the morning after we had a couple inches of snow. Almost all of my check points were invisible. I never did find most of them, but by pointing to the map and finding other references I was able to show I was where I thought I was. The only reason I could find the Pinconing airstrip was two airplanes parked outside and it took a relatively low pass to identify those. The examiner was happy. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Corky Scott |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"gatt" wrote
I failed my Private because I used a private field as a waypoint in my cross-country plan. "Private" does not necessarily mean "Grass". Just north of my location in Tarpon Springs, FL, there were two private airports, both with 3-4,000' of paved runway. Hidden Lake and TampaBay Exec which has just recently closed. Bob Moore |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Wed, 22 Dec 2004 19:55:46 GMT, Bob Moore
wrote: "gatt" wrote I failed my Private because I used a private field as a waypoint in my cross-country plan. "Private" does not necessarily mean "Grass". Just north of my location in Tarpon Springs, FL, there were two private airports, both with 3-4,000' of paved runway. Hidden Lake and TampaBay Exec which has just recently closed. What'd they do with all the planes out at the Exec? That place was really handy when the weather turned to crap when we were heading home between Christmas and New years a few years ago. Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member) (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair) www.rogerhalstead.com Bob Moore |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Roger wrote
What'd they do with all the planes out at the Exec? Many went over to Zephyrhills and a few (me) to Pilot Country. I thought that a lot would wind-up at Tampa North, but they don't seem to have the necessary facilities. The State appropriated funds to provide facilities at the surrounding airports to accommodate the relocation. I don't hold much hope for Tampa North and Clearwater Exec due to residential development surrounding them. Bob Moore |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Jon Kraus" wrote in message ... Wow!! There are really some distinguished names appearing in this club. I guess it really isn't a big deal after all... Well, if there is anything I have learned about check rides: don't try to take three check rides in as many days while running a temperature of 103. Unfortunately, when you are that sick your judgment is the first thing that goes out the window. Given some scheduling pressure and peer pressure to get it done and you can do all kinds of crazy things. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Peter Duniho wrote:
"gatt" wrote in message ... [...] Because I misidentified the airport by thinking the strip across the street was [whatever the private field was called], he busted me. Well, to be fair, that's different than you first described it. You failed your checkride because you misidentified a waypoint. Not "because [you] used a private field as a waypoint". Hmm. I don't see it quite this way. He called the waypoint the wrong thing, but that's not a lot different than the "onion fields" north of CDW that might in fact be tomatoe, grapes, or who knows what else. He should have called it "road across street from farm with transient runway", I suppose, but if he did spot the road, does it matter what it was called? - Andrew |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
gonline.com... Hmm. I don't see it quite this way. He called the waypoint the wrong thing, but that's not a lot different than the "onion fields" north of CDW that might in fact be tomatoe, grapes, or who knows what else. Huh? No...seems you misunderstood what he said. He picked airport A for his waypoint, and then identified airport B as airport A. It's kind of like if I'd picked Boeing Field in Seattle as my waypoint, and then pointed out SeaTac (the Class B airport a few miles away), claiming it was Boeing Field. Had he selected a private airport, and then upon flying over it, correctly identified the waypoint, but called it a public airport, that would be akin to what you describe with respect to "onion fields" versus "tomatoes, grapes, or who knows what else". He should have called it "road across street from farm with transient runway", I suppose, but if he did spot the road, does it matter what it was called? He wasn't using the "road" as his checkpoint (which was actually another airport, not a road). He was using an airport that he did not actually find, even though he claimed to have to the examiner. It's an unfortunate way to bust a checkride, as in this particular case it would have had no significant effect on the outcome of the flight. But as a technicality, it's perfectly valid, and had the other airport not been there, a pilot trying to use the private airport as a waypoint may have flown right past it without EVER having seen it. And it's not like he picked the private airport knowing that there was a paved airport for him to misidentify as the private airport. As I said before, it's a very good example of why one needs to learn at least some basic things about an airport to be used as a waypoint. In this case, it's debatable whether the private airport is really all that suitable as a waypoint anyway (since it sounds like it's hard to distinguish from all the other rural property in the area), but for sure, a person using that or any other airport as a waypoint needs to know whether the airport they are looking for is paved or not. Since from the air, many airports very similar to many others, it would be much better to know not only whether the airport is paved, but also the runway direction, location of any windsocks, location relative to any major roads in the area, among the many distinguishing characteristics an airport might have. Even knowing just "paved" versus "unpaved" might not be enough, but for sure one ought to know THAT. Pete |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Peter Duniho" wrote in message Well, to be fair, that's different than you first described it. You failed your checkride because you misidentified a waypoint. Not "because [you] used a private field as a waypoint". Sort of. Specifically, he told me not to use a private field as a waypoint. Whether it or the other is what he based the failure on, I don't really know. Went I went back for the retest, I used a VOR intersection and that settled it. In fact, we didn't even go all the way to the waypoint. Sounds like a fair bust to me. I agree. My instructor didn't. That's when I discovered I was his first student since he graduated from flight school, so I think it hurt his pride a little, and embarrassed him because he approved of a checkpoint that the examiner didn't. -c |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
TSA rule 49 CFR Part 1552 (or its misinterpretation) is already preventing people from flying (even renters) (long) | Bay Aviator | Piloting | 15 | October 21st 04 10:29 PM |
Northern NJ Flying Club Accepting New Members | Andrew Gideon | Owning | 0 | June 12th 04 02:14 AM |
Ultralight Club Bylaws - Warning Long Post | MrHabilis | Home Built | 0 | June 11th 04 05:07 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Owning | 150 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |
Club Management Issue | Geoffrey Barnes | Piloting | 149 | March 30th 04 06:36 PM |