Message-ID: <361BE1A5.4BD4@explornet.org>
Date: Wed, 07 Oct 1998 17:48:21 -0400
From: Victoria Deaton <vdeaton@explornet.org>
Reply-To: vdeaton@explornet.org
Organization: ExplorNet
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.01 (WinNT; I)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: rec.aviation.student
Subject: Re: The best checkride secret I ever heard...
References: <1tvS1.63$013.240029@newsfeed.slurp.net> <01bdf19b$98beade0$65a756d1@default> <3CC4D1C3599F9F5D.4371D7C9165F6DDB.F4070446067CD7FF@library-proxy.airnews.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.134.14.12
X-Trace: 7 Oct 1998 17:54:24 GMT, 208.134.14.12
Lines: 106
Path: news.jprc.com!dca1-feed2.news.digex.net!dca1-hub1.news.digex.net!digex!tor-nx1.netcom.ca!news.maxwell.syr.edu!newsfeed.cwix.com!206.30.182.5!news.tico.com!208.134.14.12
Xref: news.jprc.com rec.aviation.student:34743

JStricker wrote:
> 
> Victoria,
> 
> This kind of thing is a common problem and that is of DE's and Inspectors
> "adjusting" the rules as they see fit.  They're really not supposed to do
> that and  can lose their authorization for it.
> 
> From my multi-engine PTS it says:
> 
> Unsatisfactory Performance
> 
<snip re: PTS>

I think the my DE was giving me this option because of how a person
conceivably could perform poorly on the rest of the checkride after
being informed they just busted, particularly with PP applicants who
have not been under checkride pressure before.

I agree that DE consistency is important. There was a hotly debated
thread a few weeks back where, based upon the description of a checkride
from a pilot where DE intervention happened several times on the ride,
some folks on the list felt that the DE was too lenient and therefore
there was a possibility of inconsistent checkride standards. A lot was
based on the poster's description of the ride, so certainly there was
some latitude. However, the point of checkride standard consistency was
at or near the center of the debate.

My DE read from the PTS before the oral and practical prior to the
session; matter of fact, I think we ate up 10 minutes as he read (my
stomach getting tighter and tighter). Afterwards he put the book down,
said you have two choices (yadda yadda as described) and under the
coaching of my CFI, I went for the "do the whole thing" with the
surprise answer at the end. Of course, knowing this was coming, I
thought it normal.

If I had porpoised my way down the runway after a short field landing, I
bet I would've known I busted. <g> I also bet he would've cut short the
ride right there regardless of the pre-ride option chosen, based on
safety.

> Now, with the above paragraph in mind, if you aren't informed at the time
> you busted the ride that you indeed were disqualified, how can you elect to
> continue or not?

I guess I made my decision before we got in the plane. It seems to me
you really have a problem with the way this DE performed, and I suppose
I can understand since an unusual option would send up red flags
regarding consistency for rest of the ride. 

Regarding the oral and practical methods he uses, I have not heard one
complaint from students and CFI's in the 10 years I've been hanging
around FBO's; there have been complaints about another DE. "Tough, but
fair" is what I always heard, and IMHO that's exactly what I got: I was
quizzed thoroughly on the oral, and he went right down the PTS on the
practical. With only that to go on, I saw nothing unfair about the
choice to stop immediately after busting, or do the whole thing. That's
just my opinion. If this was his interpretation and he should be busted,
well, he's retired. All I have to go on is that I know I did nail my
procedures and I did okay in the oral. If I had busted the emergency
landing, or landed downwind on the short field landings, or done a snap
roll during the GRM's, and he had said, hey, let's give you another
chance or hey, that was nice...I'd say something fishy was up.

> If you talk to this DE again, I'd
> really like to hear his/her reasoning.  What possible benefit do they have
> in mind over just going for the ride and if you fail an area then saying
> "hey, you busted the ride, but we can continue if you like".  Don't forget,
> it's at THEIR discretion as well whether or not to continue. 

Now, bear in mind that my ears were ringing, I was sweating like a hog,
and had the thought processes of a carrot at this point...all I wanted
to do was take the oral and get out to the airplane where I might be
able to prove I had slightly more brain capacity than a pinecone--so my
memory is vague. BUT I do remember him saying that if I took it and
busted 1/2 way through, he could stop, send me home, and I'd come back
and finish the second half. If I did the "whole checkride" option, and
busted maybe one maneuver, I'd get down, he'd tell me what I busted, and
then I could come back for just that one maneuver. 

> If a student
> is obviously not prepared or just having a really lousy day, the DE may also
> just want to say "hey, it's over, you really should wait for another day".
> Or words to that effect.

I'm sure he would have. This guy may have had a reputation as an ogre
among students, but not to pilots he had signed off. I'm not being corny
when I say I feel it's an honor to have his endorsement.

> For my part, if the DE tells me ahead of time that they are going to
> "modify" or "adjust" procedures like this, I'd have to have a darn good
> reason for using them.  (Like, the only one around to give the ride you
> needed, or you know them well and have a high regard for them otherwise,
> etc.)

Given the fact that this guy was a living legend around here <g> I think
that the options beforehand fall into the second category you mention.
I'm a bit surprised to find that his "options" aren't kosher, but I sure
as heck know the oral and practical were by the book.

> John Stricker

Valid points, John, and well taken. 

cheers,
victoria
