new instrument PTS

A prospective
instrument pilot ought to be able to pass his or her checkride without the
assistance of a moving map.


I completely agree.




I'll bet back in the days of NDB and Lorenz 33 MHz Radio Range,
pilots were saying the same thing about VOR's.


Thanks for that!

--
Thomas Borchert (EDDH)

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

Ok, let me throw another bone at the group. Where I often train we
have a VOR and NDB approach to the same runway as the ILS. The courses
are identical. In an aircraft with 2 VOR recievers is is appropriate
for the examiner to require the applicate to turn off or disable the
VOR Tracking the ILS? Or even the Marker Beacons.

If the examiner can not require this, then how does the the Examiner
know if the applicant is actually flying the VOR approach as if it
were the only approach available as is the case at many other
airports? Or is the applicant simply using the LOC aids to make a
really good VOR Approach?

If the PTS requires the applicant to demonstrate a Non-precision
approach and a NDB approach is selected. I think it is very
appropriate for the examiner to disable any instrument that the
applicant might use in lew of the required instruments. Otherwise how
does the examiner know if the applicant really knows how to shoot that
approach properly or if you are just good at faking it using other
instruments (GPS)(LOC)(VOR).

On the other hand as a CFII I tend to look for how many of these aids
the applicant uses. The more he uses to verify he is doing the
approach properly the better situational awareness he will have. But I
also want to ensure that when the GPS screen goes blank (I have had
that happen with a panel mounted IFR GPS) that they can still safely
get back on the ground.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



wrote in message . ..
I went back and re-read the PTS.

I don't see anything that says the examiner must (or even can) turn
off the moving map.

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. Therefore I don't see where an
examiner gets to turn it off any more than he gets to turn a VOR radio
of during a partial panel approach. It is not a part of partial panel
testing, as near as I can see.

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



On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:33:04 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Is there an examiner on board that can summarize the significant
changes in the new PTS?

For example, is the GPS required to be turned off during one of the
approaches?

No. However, the examiner may turn it off as part of a partial panel
approach. One approach must be flown with glass cockpit displays or moving
map displays turned off, if possible, but that does not necessarily mean
that the GPS must be turned off.

If the aircraft is equipped with GPS, one approach must be a GPS approach.
If the aircraft has an autopilot, at least one approach must be flown with
the autopilot coupled. I know one examiner who expects candidates to use the
GPS and autopilot on every approach unless the examiner has specifically
told them not to.

These are good points.

My question is, is this stated somewhere, such as in the examiner's
manual?

If not, then presumably we all (applicants and examiners alike) are
bound by the PTS, which makes no mention of turning off any
navigational instruments.

We can all make cases for pros and cons of the nuances of testing.
However, there should be no surprises about what the applicant is
expected to do on a test. Otherwise it becomes a guessing game.

What we train for is a separate question. Presumably we are training
safe pilots, and train beyond the PTS requirements. Pitot/static
failures come immediately to mind, as well as total navigation and/or
communication radio failure (employing backup handheld communication
or GPS systems to save one's ass, for example).

Nevertheless, our personal feelings notwithstanding about what a
competent pilot ought to be able to do, there are standards which
exist for the issuance of a rating or certificate.

Personal feelings should not be allowed to override them. Examiners
can't do what they "like" any more than an applicant can be excused
from something he "doesn't like".





On 16 Nov 2004 10:57:12 -0800, (Brian Case) wrote:

Ok, let me throw another bone at the group. Where I often train we
have a VOR and NDB approach to the same runway as the ILS. The courses
are identical. In an aircraft with 2 VOR recievers is is appropriate
for the examiner to require the applicate to turn off or disable the
VOR Tracking the ILS? Or even the Marker Beacons.

If the examiner can not require this, then how does the the Examiner
know if the applicant is actually flying the VOR approach as if it
were the only approach available as is the case at many other
airports? Or is the applicant simply using the LOC aids to make a
really good VOR Approach?

If the PTS requires the applicant to demonstrate a Non-precision
approach and a NDB approach is selected. I think it is very
appropriate for the examiner to disable any instrument that the
applicant might use in lew of the required instruments. Otherwise how
does the examiner know if the applicant really knows how to shoot that
approach properly or if you are just good at faking it using other
instruments (GPS)(LOC)(VOR).

On the other hand as a CFII I tend to look for how many of these aids
the applicant uses. The more he uses to verify he is doing the
approach properly the better situational awareness he will have. But I
also want to ensure that when the GPS screen goes blank (I have had
that happen with a panel mounted IFR GPS) that they can still safely
get back on the ground.

Brian
CFIIG/ASEL



wrote in message . ..
I went back and re-read the PTS.

I don't see anything that says the examiner must (or even can) turn
off the moving map.

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. Therefore I don't see where an
examiner gets to turn it off any more than he gets to turn a VOR radio
of during a partial panel approach. It is not a part of partial panel
testing, as near as I can see.

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



On Sat, 13 Nov 2004 20:33:04 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Is there an examiner on board that can summarize the significant
changes in the new PTS?

For example, is the GPS required to be turned off during one of the
approaches?

No. However, the examiner may turn it off as part of a partial panel
approach. One approach must be flown with glass cockpit displays or moving
map displays turned off, if possible, but that does not necessarily mean
that the GPS must be turned off.

If the aircraft is equipped with GPS, one approach must be a GPS approach.
If the aircraft has an autopilot, at least one approach must be flown with
the autopilot coupled. I know one examiner who expects candidates to use the
GPS and autopilot on every approach unless the examiner has specifically
told them not to.

wrote
However, there should be no surprises about what the applicant is
expected to do on a test. Otherwise it becomes a guessing game.

I think this is at the core of the dispute. I also don't agree with
your position, though I certainly understand where it comes from.

In aviation testing, we are used to the "no-surprises" testing
paradigm. We take written tests where all the questions are given in
advance. We take practical tests where all the tasks are spelled out
in advance. As a result, it is possible (and actually quite common)
for someone to get a certificate or rating without actually knowing
much (or anything) about how to use it, knowing only what is going to
be on the test. I think this is a huge problem, and unfortunately I
don't know how to resolve it.

There is a classic question that every teacher hears early in his
career, and keeps hearing. "Is this going to be on the test?"

I will say this - no teacher wants to hear it, and no real student
ever asks it. By real student I mean someone who is actually
interested in learning the material, rather than someone who just
wants a piece of paper. Unfortunately real students are a very small
minority in most schools. I would wager that isn't the case when it
comes to flight training - at least I never heard it from a flight or
skydiving student. Perhaps this is because I only train older,
professionally established students who aspire to use their airplanes
for travel and understand that the real test is not the checkride but
the real-life flying that follows.

So why this insistence on no-surprises testing? Well, it makes a
statement, and the statement is "I don't trust you to test fairly and
reasonably." Unfortunately, when it comes to the FAA the distrust is
reasonable and earned. I would be the first to object to the FAA not
publishing the written test questions - and not because I think that
the training/testing paradigm of having all specific questions known
in advance is a good one. It is not. It makes it impossible to test
at a level higher than rote memorization. It is possible to study for
the tests at a higher level - and many do - but those who are most
successful study largely at the rote level. That's because a huge
percentage of the questions is downright bad. There are math
questions where the 'correct' answer is based on an approximation and
an exact solution lands halfway between a correct and an incorrect
answer, there are regulatory questions where no answer is really
correct and the best answer is a matter of opinion, and there are
absolutely irrelevant questions that would never be an issue for any
pilot, any time, anywhere.

Thus because I don't trust the FAA to do a good job of testing, I also
want no surprises. But it's important to remember that this is
inherently a bad situation. The no-surprises model is NOT a good
testing model.

Designated examiners are generally experienced pilots, but the fact is
that becoming one has more to do with having an "in" at the FSDO than
it has with being good at teaching or testing. Some good examiners do
slip through the process, but the process is such that I have only
ever sent a student to an examiner I did not know personally once, and
my experience was such that I will never do it again for any reason.
I can certainly understand the desire for a no-surprises practical
test process when going to an unknown examiner - it expresses a lack
of trust, but once again I believe the lack of trust is reasonable and
earned.

However, this kind of no-surprises testing process is very difficult
to enforce (since the examiner does have fairly broad discretion) and
is in any case not in the best interest of the aviation community for
it breeds inferior pilots.

A pilot who can only do what he has previously practiced, and has no
ability to handle the unexpected is an inferior pilot, and given that
the unexpected DOES happen, he is not long for this world. Thus I
believe that effective testing requires that at some point the
applicant be surprised.

If you insist on treating the PTS as a restrictive document, thus
limiting the authority of the examiner to what he is specifically
permitted to do, then you eliminate the possibility of any surprise.
Of course that also means that the student can practice every possible
thing the examiner could possibly do. On the other hand, if you treat
the PTS as a permissive document, allowing the examiner the authority
to test in any way that does not explicitly conflict with the PTS,
then practicing every possible variation of what the examiner could do
is impossible. On the other hand, for this to work the examiner has
to be reasonable. Otherwise, he could always flunk your student by
asking him to perform a maneuver in a manner that no mewly rated pilot
could reasonably be expected to do. That sounds bad, but in reality
he can fail your student anyway - all he needs to say is that a
maneuver was out of tolerance, and who will question him?

I certainly believe it is reasonable to fail equipment (like a moving
map) not actually required for the task at hand. Since it is not
required, and is thus providing only supplemental information, its
failure can be considered a realistic distraction. It is realistic
because such failures do happen, and it is a distraction (rather than
a true emergency) because the equipment actually required for the
procedure is still available and functioning. On the other hand, is
it reasonable to fail the GPS, LORAN, autopilot, and VSI on a partial
panel approach, and make the student perform an off-field NDB partial
panel approach with hold in lieu of PT in a slick retract like a
Mooney or Bonanza? In my opinion, it is not - not because the skill
can't be learned (it can) and not because it's impossible (it's not -
multiple point failures can happen) but because this is simply beyond
what it reasonable to require at the intial instrument pilot skill
level. I might feel differently at the CFII level - but on paper, the
maneuvers and standards are the same. That's not reasonable either.

So what's the answer? In an ideal world examiners would be highly
experienced and respected instructors, and we could trust their
judgment. Of course then we would not need a PTS at all - we would
simply train our students for the real world, and count on examiners
to effectively test their readiness to exercise the priveleges of the
certificate or rating.

In the real world, the solution is to send your students to DE's you
know and respect who will in fact test that way. Then you can forget
about the PTS and train students based on your knowledge of what is
really important in flying, and it will be OK - they will both pass
the checkride and become competent pilots. Works for me.

And forget about trying to fight it out with bad DE's - they have it
all their way.

Michael

On 17 Nov 2004 14:07:06 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:


And forget about trying to fight it out with bad DE's - they have it
all their way.

Michael


Actually, they don't.

They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.

wrote
Actually, they don't.
They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

Because nothing positive ever happens when you do.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.

So what happened? Was the student issued the rating without further
testing, or did he have to fly another checkride? If the latter, then
what was gained?

Michael

On 18 Nov 2004 07:10:39 -0800,
(Michael) wrote:

wrote
Actually, they don't.
They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

Because nothing positive ever happens when you do.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.

So what happened? Was the student issued the rating without further
testing, or did he have to fly another checkride? If the latter, then
what was gained?

Michael


The examiner had agreed that the applicant had "remained in holding
airspace" as called for by the PTS.

He was forced by the FSDO to pass the applicant since the examiner had
essentially agreed that the applicant had met the requirements of the
PTS.

So I must with all due respect reject your statement that "nothing
positive ever happens".

In this case, the applicant was spared the time and expense of another
checkride.

Secondly, the examiner was reminded that the requirements of the PTS
supersede his personal wishes. Other applicants probably benefitted
from this as well.

I would suggest that, for the most part, standing up for your rights
is seldom a bad thing. If nothing else, it makes sleeping at night
easier. At least it does for me. Perhaps not for you, but then it's
your life, after all, and everyone is free to give up whatever rights
he feels are unimportant.

And suffer the consequences, I might add...

wrote in message
...

Actually, they don't.

They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.


This is quite a different situation. Dropping the requirement to use
specific holding pattern entries is not at all ambiguous and leaves no doubt
as to the intent of the PTS authors. Failing someone simply because they
didn't do a teardrop entry clearly contradicts both the spirit and the
letter of the law.

Most laws and I suspect the PTS are written largely in response to
challenges. It may be that the PTS are not specific with regards to moving
maps simply because no one has forced the question yet. As for which way OK
City would rule on the matter, flip a coin. It's certainly going to get more
complicated as we move beyond aircraft with one little GPS in the panel to
172s with G1000s.

Edmund Burke said, "We must bear with infirmities until they fester into
crimes." I have a hard time seeing too much evil in this topic since I don't
find it at all unreasonable for a student to execute non-GPS approaches
without a moving map. Maybe that's silly in an SR-22 where the only way you
lose a moving map is to lose all your radios, but it's not in my 172, which
features 2 NAV/COMs, an ADF, and a Loran. A pilot who flew IFR only in the
SR-22 would likely feel a little lonely at first in my 172 and I'd certainly
need some time to learn how all those doodads worked in the Cirrus. In the
big-plane world they handle this by making everyone get a type rating, and
with FITS and the insurance companies it seems this is the direction we're
headed in GA as well.

-cwk.

On Thu, 18 Nov 2004 16:50:27 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

Actually, they don't.

They seem to, because so few are willing to challenge their authority.

I remember back a few years ago soon after the PTS was changed and
specific holding pattern entries were dropped.

An examiner insisted on the "proper" entry, and failed the task.

He was forced to reverse himself when it was challenged with the FSDO.


This is quite a different situation. Dropping the requirement to use
specific holding pattern entries is not at all ambiguous and leaves no doubt
as to the intent of the PTS authors. Failing someone simply because they
didn't do a teardrop entry clearly contradicts both the spirit and the
letter of the law.

Most laws and I suspect the PTS are written largely in response to
challenges. It may be that the PTS are not specific with regards to moving
maps simply because no one has forced the question yet. As for which way OK
City would rule on the matter, flip a coin. It's certainly going to get more
complicated as we move beyond aircraft with one little GPS in the panel to
172s with G1000s.

I suspect that if the FAA wished to have any applicant tested without
a moving map, they could have simply stated so in the PTS.

Your position opens all kinds of doors that were meant to be closed
by publishing standards in the first place.



Edmund Burke said, "We must bear with infirmities until they fester into
crimes." I have a hard time seeing too much evil in this topic since I don't
find it at all unreasonable for a student to execute non-GPS approaches
without a moving map. Maybe that's silly in an SR-22 where the only way you
lose a moving map is to lose all your radios, but it's not in my 172, which
features 2 NAV/COMs, an ADF, and a Loran. A pilot who flew IFR only in the
SR-22 would likely feel a little lonely at first in my 172 and I'd certainly
need some time to learn how all those doodads worked in the Cirrus. In the
big-plane world they handle this by making everyone get a type rating, and
with FITS and the insurance companies it seems this is the direction we're
headed in GA as well.

-cwk.