Checkride Checklist Question

when I got to the U I said "down and welded".

Actually there is a check that should be performed in the pattern (other
than going outside and making sure the welds will hold) and that is to
ensure that the parking brake is not set. I can't think of why it might
end up set while you're crusing at six thousand feet, but a stuck brake
upon landing will add excitement to your day. It also gets you in the
habit of doing -something- besides entertaining your CFI.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

Mark Hansen wrote:
In general, things get easier as you have more time to think about them.
The DE probably wanted to see how you would handle the emergency with
the added pressure of the limited time factor.

There really wasn't limited time *in this instance*. I was in a C-152 at
1000 feet AGL and was close to and flying parallel to the dirt strip. I
was already a licensed glider pilot, I knew the 180 to the runway w/o
power from 1000 feet was do-able, and there WAS time to show him I knew
the emergency flow. But *he* was the DE so ... his call about whether he
wanted to hear it or not.

Again, the only point I was making was that sometimes the DEs don't have
you do things the way you were taught to expect they would ... but the
unexpected is a test, too.

However, if you're engine failure checklist (mental or otherwise)
doesn't consider the time you have available, it should be updated.

Agreed.

Often? I can safely state that is categorically false. Often would imply
that some significant number of newsreaders don't do cross-posting
correctly, and/or that a significant number people are using such
newsreaders. Name two such commonly used newsreaders, please.

For many years I used AOL as my newsreader, for reasons that don't
belong here (and I won't defend here, but I will point out that at the
time an AOL account could not access any other newsreader). AOL has
over twenty million subscribers, and for many years was the absolute
biggest ISP there was. It's still pretty big. Its newsreader did not
permit crossposts. It did not permit multple posts. (you do know the
difference, right?) It presented crossposts to you again and again as
if they were new, once for every group, and if you replied to such a
post it would appear only in the group you were "in" when replying. For
a while it would honor the followups line but wouldn't tell you, so you
could reply to a post in rec.aviation, and your reply would go to
alt.humor without you having any control over it.

AOL recently stopped doing newsgroups entirely, sending members to
google. Google has its own problems which have also been discussed
here, though they are primarily related to quoting and such.

I am now using Netscape 7.2 (Mozilla based) and I'm not going to defend
that choice here either. It doesn't even matter what =I= use, since
many other people use it too, and that's the point. Netscape does
permit replies to crossposts, and appears to handle them ok, although I
have not followed through to see whether any of my crossposted replies
that include non-subscribed groups actually made it there. Netscape
also presents crossposted messages as "new" even if I've already seen
them in another group. I don't know (technically) how it sends out a
post, but it may be that it sends it out as a multple rather than a
cross, which by itself is a good reason to trim.

When I'm travelling, I use whatever is available where I'm staying.
This could be Outlook, Google, Firefox, or even some Mac thing I have to
figure out, and whose posting rules I don't know. I'm sure I'm not
unique (at least in that respect!)

Some newsreaders can be set to send replies to places other than the
originating newsgroup, and other newsreaders are unable to detect this and
defend against it.
"Defend against it"? You say that like it's some sort of attack or
something.

It was an attack, primarily aimed at AOL members, to get their postings
to appear to be spam. Members thought they were doing one thing, and in
fact were doing something else. The newsreader did not permit editing
of any headers, and the account did not permit any other newsreader.

I don't know what newsreader any individual will be using.
So what? The point isn't what other people's newsreaders do, it's whether
it makes any sense whatsoever for you to prune the Newsgroups: field. The
only valid reason to do so is when one or more of the cross-posted
newsgroups is off-topic for the post. Doing so just because you don't read
the other newsgroup(s) makes no sense at all.

So, I don't know whether replies to my reply will be handled the way my
newsreader wants to expect it. There are more reasons to do something
than the ones you have thought up (or agree with). It is often rude to
post to a newsgroup without the intent of reading the replies, and
that's exactly what would happen if I leave in the full crossposting
list. OTOH sometimes it's quite reasonable to do so. Which I choose
depends on whether it is on-topic for the group, topic drift, whether it
is a question or an answer or a comment, and other factors. In either
case, I state which it is so that those who would reply will know to do
so elsewhere or from if appropriate.

The same kind of thing comes up with line length, HTML, quote marks,
signatures...

While I'm on this topic... the "proper" way to do a sig line is to
separate it from the message by a line that consists of two dashes and a
space, and nothing else. Compliant readers will recognize what follows
as a signature, and will apply some formatting (such as grey type) to
indicate this and allow the message to retain prominence over the sig
line that will be seen again and again. Noncompliant readers will
ignore it, so it's harmless.

If all newsreaders were identical, none of this would be an issue. But
where there are ten ways to do something, there will be twelve
standards, and fifteen of them will be "generally accepted".

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Jose" wrote in message
. ..
[nothing of real import]

I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly relevant
to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't subscribe. I
guess you didn't care to try to explain why it is you think that emulating
bad behavior is the proper response to bad behavior.

I have been duly corrected regarding the prevalence of various cross-posting
behavior, but as I already noted that really isn't relevant to the question
at hand. As far as your comments about AOL go, AOL has been the bane of
Usenet...there is *nothing* about AOL that one could use to justify how one
uses Usenet.

I clearly am talking to a brick wall here. You have decided what you're
going to do, and by gum it doesn't matter how illogical it is. It is
apparent to me that you simply don't want to switch newsreaders to one that
doesn't force you to do something that makes no sense, or for some bizarre
reason you actually think the Mozilla paradigm is sensible. Either way,
it's a waste of my time to try to explain it to you.

Good luck with that. Maybe when the only person who would know the answer
to your question has failed to read your question for the umpteenth time,
you'll figure it out. Until then, your loss.

Pete

Pretty close to my experience. I had my "engine failure" on what turned out
to be my last landing of the ride. I was high in the pattern and just
getting ready to turn to base when "it happened". I called a short
approach, pitched for best glide (and to slow) then told him that if I
wasn't in the pattern I'd have a landing spot in mind to head for, and try
to restart if time permitted, then called mayday on 121.5. I did some
s-turns while losing altitude, touched down longer down the runway than I
hoped but got it down. He had me stop when we taxied clear of the active
and had some questions. Why didn't you use a checklist and try to restart?
My answer was because I was in the pattern at the airport where I knew I
could make a landing (and did). My first responsibility was to fly the
airplane and get myself and passenger back on the ground, safely. He
nodded. Then he asked "Why S-turns instead of a slip?" I answered that I
was in coordinated flight with the turns in and airplane with a failed
engine and was more in control than in a slip. I then got a big grin,
handshake and "Congratulations on becoming a private pilot."

All the examiners are different but are looking for a safe pilot. If using
a checklist would compromise safety, you should be able to get away with not
using it.
--
Chris Ehlbeck, PP-ASEL
"It's a license to learn, have fun and buy really expensive hamburgers."

wrote in message
...
"Rob" wrote:
I didn't hear any complaints from the D. E.
about my using the printed checklists in this way.

When my D.E. did the engine failure in the checkride, I pitched for best
glide, pointed out where I planned to land, and began the
emergency/restart flow (that my CFI had insisted I have committed to
memory vs. having to use the checklist). He interrupted me, pushed my
hand away from the panel and said, "I don't want to hear all that sh*t
... you have more important things to do, like *fly the plane*!"
raising eyebrow!

W P Dixon wrote:
Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with
no radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me
curious as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good
ones!?

Patrick, i don't understand your question.
I fly a '45 Champ. What are you asking?

Hi John,
I was just wondering if any of you guys had any special checklist "words"
for the older planes. Most people use the same ones but "I am just guessing
here" that some fellows that have been flying longer, or flying older
aircraft may have some special "words" for checklist that maybe are not used
anymore.

Patrick
student SPL
aircraft structural mech

"john smith" wrote in message
. ..
W P Dixon wrote:
Speaking of checklist, what words do any of you use for airplanes with no
radios /electrical, and emergencies in same type? Thread just got me
curious as to different ones. How bout ya Cub Driver you have any good
ones!?

Patrick, i don't understand your question.
I fly a '45 Champ. What are you asking?

I note that you trimmed the one part of my post that was directly relevant
to your choice to remove the newsgroup to which you don't subscribe.

I answered that in a previous post.

It is
apparent to me that you simply don't want to switch newsreaders to one that
doesn't force you to do something that makes no sense, or for some bizarre
reason you actually think the Mozilla paradigm is sensible.

It's none of usenet's business why I choose a particular newsreader (or
why it is chosen for me). I am not going to let usenet participants
choose my software. I am not going to choose software for the rest of
usenet.

Jose
--
Quantum Mechanics is like this: God =does= play dice with the universe,
except there's no God, and there's no dice. And maybe there's no universe.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

"Mark Hansen" wrote

the DE can't really check you out in
every possible circumstance, so he has to pick. He picked this one.

I've heard it said, that the DE knows if you are going to pass or not, by
the way you taxi out to the runway, and run-up. Kinda true?
--
Jim in NC

I have had one total engine failure, at less than 1000 ft.
At that condition, I would never consider spending any time
doing any in-cockpit process other than switching tanks.
No diagnosing. No restart procedures. In two minutes
or possibly less you will be on the ground. Where you
land, or what you won't hit, will be the most important
thing that you can decide.

One other suggestion is to have a conversation before
you take any checkride. Let the CFI or examiner know that
if he reduces the throttle, you will not advance it. You will
land. Then do what you say. It works. Go through whatever
checklist you want, but INTEND on landing. Often the
conversation will put a floor on the exercise, but really,
really intend on landing.

Again, I agree, and if you're at 1000 feet when you lose the engine *for
real* and you're adjacent to a landing strip, fly the "glider" and land.
But my CFI had never specified, "If he pulls the power at 1000 feet or
below, don't bother with the engine restart procedures" (how would he
know I knew them then?). I admit I was surprised when he basically told
me to "just shut up and fly," but I'd still rather have him do that than
bust me for appearing to space on the emergency flow.