new instrument PTS

On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 23:30:24 -0500, "Brad Zeigler"
wrote:

Why don't you be proactive and call the FSDO now with your question? I'm
sure an inspector can answer your question and cite justification pro or
con. That way if your student busts a checkride due to a failed GPS, you
can quote the inspector. Otherwise, you can sort through the documents on
the following link and get your answer:
http://av-info.faa.gov/default.asp?PG=Designee


Thanks for the link.

To answer your question, it's because usually 3 calls to the FSDO
results in 3 different answers to the same question.

Besides, discussion forums usually result in more information (such as
the link you provided), and usually is much more interesting.




wrote in message
.. .


A GPS is not, I don't believe, a "primary flight instrument". It is a
navigational instrument.

The examiner can have all the philosophies he wants, but he is, in the
final analysis, bound by the PTS. He isn't there to create his own
personal practical test standards. In fact this wording is in the
PTS: "Adherence to the provisions of the regulations and the
practical test standards is mandatory for evaluation of instrument
pilot applicants."

Therefore, an applicant would have grounds to challenge the results of
a test if he were failed for nonperformance of a task not conducted in
accordance with the PTS. If one of my students were failed for a task
not conducted according to the PTS, I would be knocking at the door of
the local FSDO the same day, and I wager I would prevail.

As far as I know, the test is supposed to be conducted with any
instrumentation installed in the aircraft, except for the partial
panel task, which specifies loss of "primary flight instruments",
which are defined as the attitude indicator and dg, or "electronic
flight instruments". ( the electronic equivalent, presumably. )

Everything else shoule be available to the applicant, as far as I
know. If there is an examiner lurking with contrary information, I
would love to know the source which says that the examiner if free to
fail instruments at his pleasure, not in accordance with the PTS.






On Sun, 14 Nov 2004 19:43:50 -0500, "Brad Zeigler"
wrote:

Under PTS section VII Area of Operation: Emergency Operation Task D,
objective #3 states that the applicant: "Demonstrates a nonprecision
instrument approach withoutthe use of the primary flight instrument using
the objectives of the nonprecision approach TASK (AREA OF OPERATION VI,
TASK
A)."

If you read Area of Operation VI, Task A, it states that the applicant
"Selects, tunes, identifies, and confirms the operationals tatus of
navigation equipment to be used for the approach procedure." Sure the
examiner could fail a nav/com. If the aircraft has two radios, the
applicant should be prepared to fly the approach and identify
intersections
with a single radio, unless the approach specifically requires the
aircraft
to be equipted with two NAV radios.

The reality is that this is a discussion you should have with the local
examiner. Presuming you are a CFII, you should have a relationship with
the
examiner that allows you to confirm these situations. Different
examiners
have different philiosphies on such manners, and as we established, it
isn't
well clarified in the PTS.

Hope that Helps,

Brad Z.

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 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.

-cwk.

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.

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

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


I completely agree.

z

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 21:10:57 GMT, zatatime wrote:

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

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.

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.