No more partial checkrides. :(

[Robert M. Gary]

I just called a local examiner to ask what will happen if the weather
isn't good enough to fly with my student tomorrow. He said that the
Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
probability of finishing the entire exam. The result is that if the
weather is bad he CANNOT do the oral and save the flying for another
day. This sounds like a crappy policy to me. I always thought breaking
the checkride up was a great idea anyway.

-Robert, CFI

[Roy Smith]

In article . com>,
"Robert M. Gary" > wrote:

> I just called a local examiner to ask what will happen if the weather
> isn't good enough to fly with my student tomorrow. He said that the
> Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
> checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
> probability of finishing the entire exam.

What on earth is the point of that?

[Charlie Derk]

I think that's a bunch of crap. It must be up to the DE.
I took my instrument practical back in january. for some reason (its too
involved to get into now) I wound up without enough hours (part 141
requires 35 hours). My instructor and the chief flight instructor
didn't catch it. i did the oral, and the next weekend after i made up
the 5 hours i was missing, finished the flight portion.

Robert M. Gary wrote:
> I just called a local examiner to ask what will happen if the weather
> isn't good enough to fly with my student tomorrow. He said that the
> Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
> checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
> probability of finishing the entire exam. The result is that if the
> weather is bad he CANNOT do the oral and save the flying for another
> day. This sounds like a crappy policy to me. I always thought breaking
> the checkride up was a great idea anyway.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

[Michael]

>> Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
>> checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
>> probability of finishing the entire exam.

> What on earth is the point of that?

Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
might improve and he's already halfway there.

Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
in one shot.

Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
as much sense.
Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 4/8/2005 10:08, Michael wrote:

>>> Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
>>> checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
>>> probability of finishing the entire exam.
>
>> What on earth is the point of that?
>
> Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
> flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
> as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
> his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
> his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
> tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
> always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
> really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
> when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
> bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
> might improve and he's already halfway there.

Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,
but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
until later.

>
> Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
> in one shot.
>
> Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
> as much sense.
> Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...
>
> Michael
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL
Sacramento, CA

[Victor J. Osborne, Jr.]

My DE said she would count it as plus if an applicant cancelled the ride
after the oral. Good 'Decision making' at its best.

--

Thx, {|;-)

Victor J. (Jim) Osborne, Jr.

VOsborne2 at charter dot net
"Michael" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>> Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
>>> checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
>>> probability of finishing the entire exam.
>
>> What on earth is the point of that?
>
> Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight. And one should not begin a
> flight unless one believes there is a high probability of completing it
> as planned. After all, you wouldn't suggest to a student that he get
> his briefing and plan his flight when the weather was crappy halfway to
> his destination, right? Because once he planned it, he might be
> tempted to launch and take a look, figuring it might improve, or he can
> always land and wait it out, completing the trip later - because
> really, what's the point? It's when you get there that counts, not
> when you leave. And then when he got halfway there and the weather was
> bad, he might be tempted to press on a little longer because hey, it
> might improve and he's already halfway there.
>
> Better he not launch unless he can count on making it all the way there
> in one shot.
>
> Why shouldn't the same philosophy apply to checkrides? It makes just
> as much sense.
> Of course maybe the whole concept is wrong...
>
> Michael
>

[John]

AOPA's Flight Training magazine for May 2005 has an article concerning
the new "Designated Pilot and Flight Engineer Examiners' Handbook.
http://afs600.faa.gov/ look on the right side for "Pilot examiner's
handbook."

p. 60 from the magazine
In the past, " FSDOs had instructed DPEs that unless it was reasonable
to expect to complete the test on the appointed day, the test was to be
rescheduled."
"better guidance appears now with the examiner authorized to elect,
with the applicant's concurrence, to begin the test anyway with the
intention of finishing on another day. However, when the test is
discontinued, the applicant must be issued a letter of discontinuance.

[Michael]

> Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,

> but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
> the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
> portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
> until later.

But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
weather is never a mistake, right?

All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

Michael

[Mark Hansen]

On 4/8/2005 13:37, Michael wrote:

>> Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,
>
>> but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
>> the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
>> portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
>> until later.
>
> But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
> be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
> already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
> to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
> iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
> respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
> situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
> weather is never a mistake, right?

If the student would push for a flight test in weather that shouldn't
be flown in, the test should be failed. If I were a D.E. (which I am
not) I would think this a great opportunity to see how the pilot
evaluates the situation.

After all, after the test is passed, the pilot will begin making
these decisions on his own.

>
> All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
> to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
> there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

I think one of the tasks the examiner should be doing is evaluating
the decision making processes of the pilot.

However, I'll agree that if you never take any risks, you'll improve
your chance of survival. I don't want to survive that way, but that's
my personal opinion.

>
> Michael
>


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

I'm not sure what you mean by "launch". In this case, we're just
talking about sitting in the office doing the oral. It is such a HUGE
task for me as a CFI to get DE, student and airplane in one place at
the same time, it would be helpful to at least get the oral done while
the student and DE have the schedule available to do so, even if the wx
prevents flight. The DE can always issue a notice of discountinuance if
the checkride cannot be finished that day. It's too bad the FSDO sees
it this way.
Many DE's are scheduled 30+ days out. Having to reschedule an entire
ride (vs a 1.5 hr flight) can push the student out a month or more.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

That is a slippery argument. You could also say that getting your
private is dangerous because you're more likely to make safe decisions
when you are a student and need to have a CFI review your cross
country. Perhaps everyone should have a CFI review their cross
countries. I just don't see a DE feeling pressure to fly in bad weather
because he gave an applicant an oral evaluation.

-Robert, CFI

[Highflyer]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That is a slippery argument. You could also say that getting your
> private is dangerous because you're more likely to make safe decisions
> when you are a student and need to have a CFI review your cross
> country. Perhaps everyone should have a CFI review their cross
> countries. I just don't see a DE feeling pressure to fly in bad weather
> because he gave an applicant an oral evaluation.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

Hey guys. I think Michael had his tongue so far out in his cheek that he
bit it on that last post. If you guys don't think Michael firmly believes
that pertinent decisions should be made at the lowest possible level you
don't read his posts very carefully! :-)

Clearly he thinks it is criminal for the FSDO to take such basic decisions
away from their examiners. Personally, I happen to agree with him. In
SPADES. If my FSDO starts making rules restricting my ability to make the
decisions that I am paid to make we WILL have words. Fortunately for all of
us, they do NOT do that. Instead we work quite well together to get done
what needs to be done in a way that is safe and effective. Of course, there
IS some extra irrelevant paperwork that needs to be generated to give all of
the filing mavens in administration in the FAA something to file, but they
have to justify their jobs in this time of tight government budgets also.
:-/

Highflyer

[Javier Henderson]

"Michael" > writes:

> > Well, perhaps you understood the original question better than I did,
>
> > but I didn't see anyone suggesting that the flight be started when
> > the weather was threatening an early termination; only that the oral
> > portion be allowed to be done even if the flight had to be postponed
> > until later.
>
> But starting the oral portion makes it more likely that a flight will
> be made. If the ride is cancelled, there's no pressure. If it's
> already started, there will be some pressure to finish it - analogous
> to get-home-itis. Therefore, it's safer to just cancel if it's at all
> iffy. Why rely on the judgment of the pilots to make a good call with
> respect to weather when it actually happens - safer to avoid the whole
> situation by cancelling if there is doubt. After all, cancelling for
> weather is never a mistake, right?

Why rely on the judgement of the pilots? Oh, because we're supposed to
do it every single time we fly?

> All the FSDO is doing here is reducing the opportunity for the examiner
> to exercise his judgment and thus possibly make a mistake. Surely
> there can't be anything wrong with that? Can there?

You're reaching too far. This is a boneheaded policy, period.

And, why are you suggesting that the FSDO should second guess (in advance!)
the DE? That's the last thing we need, more intromision. There's plenty
as it is.

-jav

[Peter Duniho]

"Javier Henderson" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> You're reaching too far. This is a boneheaded policy, period.
>
> And, why are you suggesting that the FSDO should second guess (in
> advance!)
> the DE? That's the last thing we need, more intromision. There's plenty
> as it is

Wow. Even after Highflyer's post, people still think Michael's being
completely serious.

IMHO, it's pretty obvious he's taking the FSDO's side for the sake of making
obvious the problems with their position. Anyone who'd read any of
Michael's other posts would not make the mistake of thinking he's actually
in favor of the FSDO wielding such broad control over the judgments of
others.

Pete

[Ron Natalie]

Michael wrote:
>>>Sacramento FSDO recently told him that he is not allowed to begin a
>>>checkride (i.e. do the oral) unless he believes there is a high
>>>probability of finishing the entire exam.
>
>
>>What on earth is the point of that?
>
>
> Well, a checkride is, after all, a flight.

No it's not a flight. It's a series of demonstrations both
oral and practical. The only "flight" element is the requirement
to plan one out to the range of the aircraft. The PTS otherwise
could do each required element in a different "flight."