Takeoff/Landing same direction?

[Willie]

Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to weigh in on.

A student pilot on his checkride, was not passed for his private for
the following reason. He landed in the opposite direction that he took
off from.

A little background, the entire days operation was operating from
runway 18. His two previous flights
with this DPE went without a hitch. On the third flight as the student
was entering the pattern, the DPE instructed the student to cross the
IP and as he did so he instructed the student to open the dive brakes
(SGS-233) fully and then announced to the student "Stuck Spoilers".

The student at this point made the decision to enter the pattern for
runway 36. He told us later that it was because he was already going in
that direction as he entered the IP and losing altitude fast and didn't
feel he had enough altitude to make a 180 and enter the pattern in the
opposite direction.

He felt that the stuck spoilers created an extraordinary situation and
therefore a downwind landing was the safer option.

This was followed by much discussion concerning whether he violated any
rules.

So, here is the question for you knowledable fellows.
Is there anything in the Private Pilot flight test or in the FAR's that
this pilot violated, or was this a justifiable reason for the DPE to
fail this student?
_____________

As an aside and much to everyone at the field's amusement, about 20
minutes later this DPE then proceeded to taxi his personal aircraft out
and take off "downwind" the same direction he just busted the student
for.

Willie G.

[Terry[_2_]]

What area(s) of operation is/are noted on the disapproval form? Are
there any other notes?

Directed versus instructed: DPEs are specifically prohibited from
engaging in any instruction during a check. From the rest of the
context, I see that did not happen, but I wanted to make clear that the
examiner is to be a mere passenger for the flight. One that may only
make requests and evaluate the applicant.

You did not note any traffic or weather in your description either. Was
the applicant's landing downwind? By combining tasks an examiner could
ask to see such a landing. Was the approach unsafe in some other way?
Then the examiner could fault airport operations.

If this is an uncontrolled field, anyone may land in any direction so
long as the right of way rules are followed, traffic scan is maintained
and situational awareness is not compromised.

Since I wasn't the examiner here, I am only groping at possibilities.

Terry Claussen
DPE Estrella

[Shawn Curry]

Willie wrote:
> Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to weigh in on.
>
> A student pilot on his checkride, was not passed for his private for
> the following reason. He landed in the opposite direction that he took
> off from.
>
> A little background, the entire days operation was operating from
> runway 18. His two previous flights
> with this DPE went without a hitch. On the third flight as the student
> was entering the pattern, the DPE instructed the student to cross the
> IP and as he did so he instructed the student to open the dive brakes
> (SGS-233) fully and then announced to the student "Stuck Spoilers".
>
> The student at this point made the decision to enter the pattern for
> runway 36. He told us later that it was because he was already going in
> that direction as he entered the IP and losing altitude fast and didn't
> feel he had enough altitude to make a 180 and enter the pattern in the
> opposite direction.
>
> He felt that the stuck spoilers created an extraordinary situation and
> therefore a downwind landing was the safer option.
>
> This was followed by much discussion concerning whether he violated any
> rules.
>
> So, here is the question for you knowledable fellows.
> Is there anything in the Private Pilot flight test or in the FAR's that
> this pilot violated, or was this a justifiable reason for the DPE to
> fail this student?

I'm no instructor or DPE, but here is a thought: Maybe the examiner
felt the examinee should have set up his pattern to accommodate such a
contingency?
However, IMHO the ability to adapt a landing pattern to the current
situation, shows more nimble thinking than forcing the situation to fit
the routine pattern.

Shawn

P.S. I suspect you left out a number of details about the exam that only
the DPE could provide.

[[email protected]]

I'll betcha since the D.E. couldn't see the sun he figured they'd
landed after sunset. Therefor violating a FAR. Oops wrong forum!!

[Willie]

Shawn Curry wrote:
> P.S. I suspect you left out a number of details about the exam that only
> the DPE could provide.

I probably did, but the DPE left before discussing his view, so I don't
know.

Thanks for your responses fellows, I guess I didn't word my question as
well as I could have.
This was not an attack on the DPE, just trying to get an idea on
whether there is any rule or reg that says you have to land in the same
direction as you took off from.

The consensus was that you can land either way so long as you can do it
safely. Sure there are mitigating circumstances, but in this particular
case (uncontrolled field, no other traffic, wind sock
barely moving) a 10 minute flight at the end of the day, the group
think is that it really didn't matter which way he landed.

So to be clear:

Is there any rule or reg that specifies you have to land in the same
direction you took off from at the same airport?

Thanks in advance,
Willie G.

[Martin Eiler]

First you should understand that in order for any examiner
or instructor to be knowledgeable enough to fairly
form an educated opinion as to the appropriateness
of an applicants failure, they first would need to
have all the facts associated with the complete flight
test. To provide
this information, the applicant and the examiner would
have both had to agree to sit down separately with
you and give you a complete debrief of the flight test.
Hopefully you would have obtained their permission
to post some of this information on RAS for a public
review.

However by the overall tone of your post and the omission
of any reference to the area of operation and task
the examiner listed on the applicants disapproval notice
and a vague reference to some possible FAR violation,
some of us might have the impression that you have
little first hand information regarding this flight
test, and maybe even a bit of bias in general against
this Examiner.

Prior to giving our educated opinions, I’m sure at
least some of us would like far more information.
Maybe even some basics like, are you an instructor
or perhaps even this applicants instructor? Are you
a family member, friend or even acquaintance of the
applicant? Did you debrief
the applicant and or examiner shortly after the test?
Did you witness the flight in question? Prior to
this test did you have any negative attitude toward
this examiner or examiners in general?

Unfortunately your original post is so vague that it
is impossible to be sure of the actual landing path
as planned and as eventually executed. Clearly describing
the landing in detail would leave far less room for
conjecture. When you say IP, at some locations this
means the point where you start your 45 entry to down
wind, while at other
locations they mean the point where you turn from the
45 onto the down wind.

So that is why you need to be quite specific, such
as describing an entry as: the applicant was 1/3 of
a mile East of mid field over the IP facing West and
about to turn right for the standard left down wind
pattern for runway 18, which was currently the active
runway considering the winds were from 170 degrees
at 8 knots gusting to 12.
At this point the examiner instructed the applicant
to open the dive brakes fully and then announced to
the applicant “Spoilers are now stuck full open”.
Also don’t forget to include other issues such as other
traffic on the ground and in the air. Get the idea
here?

If you are willing to put the effort into it, I’m sure
some examiners and instructors will give you an informed
opinion. However if you’re just looking for some rants
about examiners failing applicants unjustifiably, then
you can probably just sit back and relax.

M Eiler
DPE gliders


At 14:06 11 September 2006, Willie wrote:
>Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to
>weigh in on.
>
>A student pilot on his checkride, was not passed for
>his private for

[kirk.stant]

Martin Eiler wrote:

(snip) Get the idea here?

Oh yeah! Actually, the question was simple and direct - is there
anything that specifies which way you have to land on an uncontrolled
airfield, given no wind or traffic. Some of the pilots hanging around
were sure that you had to land the same way you took off, etc. Others
disagreed. Argument (friendly) ensued.

But thanks for your helpful (if somewhat defensive - touch a nerve
there?) comments...

Update: The following day, the applicant and DPE successfully
completed the checkride, and we now have a new member to our sport.
Which is a good thing, since he is young and has a cute wife, who is
still willing to hang out at the gliderport while he flies.

Watched the whole thing, didn't understand the reasoning for all of it,
but the outcome was good in the end.

Kirk
66

[Chuck Griswold]

At 19:01 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>Martin Eiler wrote:
>
>(snip) Get the idea here?
>
>Oh yeah! Actually, the question was simple and direct
>- is there
>anything that specifies which way you have to land
>on an uncontrolled
>airfield, given no wind or traffic. Some of the pilots
>hanging around
>were sure that you had to land the same way you took
>off, etc. Others
>disagreed. Argument (friendly) ensued.
>
>Kirk
>66


Kirk.
Really now, if you must ask that question then you
should not be flying
anything.
Chuck
















>

[kirk.stant]

Chuck Griswold wrote:
> At 19:01 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:

> Kirk.
> Really now, if you must ask that question then you
> should not be flying
> anything.

Chuck, I totally agree - I was amazed by the answers to the question!

I've flown from a German glider field located on the side of a hill -
took off (winch) one way (downhill) and landed the other (uphill),
regardless of wind. And of course, a rope break will require you to
land opposite your takeoff direction, normally. And out west, late in
the evening you may have to land down-Sun/down wind or you are blind;
the list goes on. You do what makes sense and is safest.

The point is, many "casual" pilots really do not understand all this.
So the discussion (BS session, of course) goes: " well, he busted
because he landed in the opposite direction that he took off from..."
accompanied by nodding of heads by some of the local pilots (both
experienced and inexperienced). Other pilots jump in: "WTF are you
talking about, there isn't anything in the FARs or AIM or (pick your
source) that says that!". Much arm waving and spirited discussion
ensues, more adult beverages are consumed, and everybody goes home
thinking the other pilots are clueless dorks!

Classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous think, I think. A
problem which I fear is endemic in american soaring due to the somewhat
inconsistent skills of our instructors, god bless them.

Kirk
66

[Bill Daniels]

"kirk.stant" > wrote in message
ups.com...
>
> Chuck Griswold wrote:
>> At 19:01 11 September 2006, Kirk.Stant wrote:
>
>> Kirk.
>> Really now, if you must ask that question then you
>> should not be flying
>> anything.
>
> Chuck, I totally agree - I was amazed by the answers to the question!
>
> I've flown from a German glider field located on the side of a hill -
> took off (winch) one way (downhill) and landed the other (uphill),
> regardless of wind. And of course, a rope break will require you to
> land opposite your takeoff direction, normally. And out west, late in
> the evening you may have to land down-Sun/down wind or you are blind;
> the list goes on. You do what makes sense and is safest.
>
> The point is, many "casual" pilots really do not understand all this.
> So the discussion (BS session, of course) goes: " well, he busted
> because he landed in the opposite direction that he took off from..."
> accompanied by nodding of heads by some of the local pilots (both
> experienced and inexperienced). Other pilots jump in: "WTF are you
> talking about, there isn't anything in the FARs or AIM or (pick your
> source) that says that!". Much arm waving and spirited discussion
> ensues, more adult beverages are consumed, and everybody goes home
> thinking the other pilots are clueless dorks!
>
> Classic case of a little knowledge being a dangerous think, I think. A
> problem which I fear is endemic in american soaring due to the somewhat
> inconsistent skills of our instructors, god bless them.
>
> Kirk
> 66
>

We don't know the facts that might apply to the situation between the
examiner and the applicant so we can't comment. I would assume the DPE had
a very good reason for his decision.

But, to address the situation of stuck-open spoilers, I would exercise my
authority under FAR 91.3(b) and "land the damn aircraft the safest way I
could" regardless of landing direction. Spoilers are a primary flight
control and stuck-open spoilers is a full fledged emergency requiring
decisive action. FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the regs
needed to achieve a safe landing. This is not to suggest any FARs were
broken.

Bill Daniels

[Andy[_1_]]

Willie wrote:
> Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to weigh in on.
>
>the DPE instructed the student to cross the
IP and as he did so he instructed the student to open the dive brakes
(SGS-233) fully and then announced to the student "Stuck Spoilers".


I say the check ride went wrong right there. In my opinion the
airbrake stuck open emergency should only be introduced at the time the
student/applicant conducts the airbrake check. I teach the airbrake
check to happen on down wind at which time the runway is selected and
the landing should be assured with any amount of airbrake. If you use
"IP" to mean the point at which the 45 deg to downwind leg begins that
is far too early to introduce a simulated stuck open airbrake failure.

The is no requirement to land on the same runway you took off from with
or without an emergency. The only requirement with an control failure
is to get down safe.

Andy (CFI not DPE)

[Eric Greenwell]

kirk.stant wrote:

>
> The point is, many "casual" pilots really do not understand all this.
> So the discussion (BS session, of course) goes: " well, he busted
> because he landed in the opposite direction that he took off from..."
> accompanied by nodding of heads by some of the local pilots (both
> experienced and inexperienced).

I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[Martin Eiler]

At 21:12 11 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
> Spoilers are a primary flight control and stuck-open
>spoilers
> is a full fledged emergency requiring decisive action.
> FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the
>regs
> needed to achieve a safe landing.
>Bill Daniels

What reference materials are you using that list
spoilers as a primary flight control?

M Eiler

[kirk.stant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
>
> I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
> allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
> to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
> opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
> adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
> there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?

Erik,

I think we have our conversations garbled, but anyway - When I was
flying out of Turf, we usually took off on 23 due to prevailing winds.
If returning late in the day, landing on 23 could be challenging due to
looking directly into the setting sun, through dust, etc and it was
common to land on 5 (or even 14, which was a better runway anyway).

Time between landing and takeoff could be six hours (XC to the Grand
Canyon) or sixteen minutes (last commercial acro ride of the day).

BTW - big hats are uncool looking and incredibly unsafe in the air -
they block a huge part of the sky. Need to wear those goofy european
gliding hats...plus they make the groupies giggle...

If you reread the thread, you will catch which side of the argument I'm
on, BTW ;>).

Ok, your turn again!

Kirk
66

[COLIN LAMB]

I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
renew - and that came from the FAA.

Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?

Colin

[Frank Whiteley]

T o d d P a t t i s t wrote:
> "Bill Daniels" <bildan@comcast-dot-net> wrote:
>
> >But, to address the situation of stuck-open spoilers, I would exercise my
> >authority under FAR 91.3(b) and "land the damn aircraft the safest way I
> >could" regardless of landing direction. Spoilers are a primary flight
> >control and stuck-open spoilers is a full fledged emergency requiring
> >decisive action. FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the regs
> >needed to achieve a safe landing. This is not to suggest any FARs were
> >broken.
>
> 1. As you point out, he didn't need to break any FARs to
> land downwind - no FAR prohibited it.
>
> 2. The spoilers were not in fact stuck and there was no true
> emergency. He didn't get the right to deviate from the FARs
> in the pretend emergency.
>
> 3. I agree he had the right to land in whatever way he felt
> was safe.
>
> --
> T o d d P a t t i s t - "WH" Ventus C
> (Remove DONTSPAMME from address to email reply.)

Sadly sometimes simulations go wrong
http://tinyurl.com/fdmqr

Frank Whiteley

[Graeme Cant]

Martin Eiler wrote:
> First you should understand that in order for any examiner
> or instructor to be knowledgeable enough to fairly
> form an educated opinion as to the appropriateness...yada,..

You seem to have some pretty big issues yourself, Marty. I didn't read
any of what you did. And you wrote 300 words and still didn't give an
answer!

He was told that somebody failed because they landed opposite to the
direction they took off in when presented with a non-normal landing. He
asked if there was some rule that covered this.

I don't need to know if he's an instructor, or red-haired or if the test
was on a wet Wednesday to give a simple answer.

No. There is no such rule. The DPE made it up IF that is what he said.

See, Marty, it's easy. Just answer the question. :)

GC


> the applicant and the examiner would
> have both had to agree to sit down separately with
> you and give you a complete debrief of the flight test.
> Hopefully you would have obtained their permission
> to post some of this information on RAS for a public
> review.
>
> However by the overall tone of your post and the omission
> of any reference to the area of operation and task
> the examiner listed on the applicants disapproval notice
> and a vague reference to some possible FAR violation,
> some of us might have the impression that you have
> little first hand information regarding this flight
> test, and maybe even a bit of bias in general against
> this Examiner.
>
> Prior to giving our educated opinions, I’m sure at
> least some of us would like far more information.
> Maybe even some basics like, are you an instructor
> or perhaps even this applicants instructor? Are you
> a family member, friend or even acquaintance of the
> applicant? Did you debrief
> the applicant and or examiner shortly after the test?
> Did you witness the flight in question? Prior to
> this test did you have any negative attitude toward
> this examiner or examiners in general?
>
> Unfortunately your original post is so vague that it
> is impossible to be sure of the actual landing path
> as planned and as eventually executed. Clearly describing
> the landing in detail would leave far less room for
> conjecture. When you say IP, at some locations this
> means the point where you start your 45 entry to down
> wind, while at other
> locations they mean the point where you turn from the
> 45 onto the down wind.
>
> So that is why you need to be quite specific, such
> as describing an entry as: the applicant was 1/3 of
> a mile East of mid field over the IP facing West and
> about to turn right for the standard left down wind
> pattern for runway 18, which was currently the active
> runway considering the winds were from 170 degrees
> at 8 knots gusting to 12.
> At this point the examiner instructed the applicant
> to open the dive brakes fully and then announced to
> the applicant “Spoilers are now stuck full open”.
> Also don’t forget to include other issues such as other
> traffic on the ground and in the air. Get the idea
> here?
>
> If you are willing to put the effort into it, I’m sure
> some examiners and instructors will give you an informed
> opinion. However if you’re just looking for some rants
> about examiners failing applicants unjustifiably, then
> you can probably just sit back and relax.
>
> M Eiler
> DPE gliders
>
>
> At 14:06 11 September 2006, Willie wrote:
>> Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to
>> weigh in on.
>>
>> A student pilot on his checkride, was not passed for
>> his private for
>
>
>

[Terry[_2_]]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
> through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
> renew - and that came from the FAA.
>
> Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?
>
> Colin
================================================== =========

That is easy.

ZERO CHANCE.

The applicant passes or fails based upon the PTS. Otherwise the DPE
would not be a DPE very long.

Terry

[Graeme Cant]

Martin Eiler wrote:
> At 21:12 11 September 2006, Bill Daniels wrote:
>> Spoilers are a primary flight control and stuck-open
>> spoilers
>> is a full fledged emergency requiring decisive action.
>> FAR 91.3b allows any reasonable deviation from the
>> regs
>> needed to achieve a safe landing.
>> Bill Daniels
>
> What reference materials are you using that list
> spoilers as a primary flight control?
>
> M Eiler

He seems to me to be using commonsense. I've found it to be a very good
reference.

You DO have issues, don't you. Are you a DPE?

GC

[Michael[_1_]]

COLIN LAMB wrote:
> I have been told that if a DPE passes 100% of his examinees the first time
> through he will have a lot of explaining to do to the FAA when it is time to
> renew - and that came from the FAA.
>
> Wonder how much this played in the decision to flunk the examinee?

That depends on whether you ask a DPE - or someone who isn't.

I actually know an examiner who has something like a 95% pass rate.
There are various reasons for this - but the main one is that he is
known in the CFI community, and instructors generally know better than
to send him someone who is marginal - meaning he will pass if he has a
good day. The particular DPE has an uncanny knack for finding the
applicant's weak area - and setting him up to fail because of it, and
CFI's know to send the marginal ones to someone else, who might miss
the weak area and pass the student. On the flip side, he also doesn't
make up his own rules or standards, doesn't throw curveballs, doesn't
make private pilot applicants go through five hour orals, and does his
level best to put the applicant at ease - including telling jokes. So
as long as the student is merely nervous rather than weak, and knows
his stuff to a level appropriate to the certificate/rating sought,
there's no issue sending him to this DPE. I send him my students
whenever possible, and I've never had a bust with him - ALL of my busts
have come from sending the student to a different, unknown examiner
when this one was not, for whatever reason, available. He has a core
group of FBO's and independents who send him students that should pass,
and he stays busy passing them.

I've seen him bust students - and in every case, it was because the
student did something really wrong (slammed the airplane into the
ground flat to make a touchdown point, failed to shut down the
operating engine with an engine failure on the takeoff roll in a twin,
failed to divert properly, started descent to MDA well short of the
FAF, could not turn to a heading of 320 in a glider, even
approximately, because 320 wasn't marked on the compass, that sort of
thing) and usually the instructor's at fault for not training the
student properly in the first place.

But one of the reasons he is not always available is because he is
PERPETUALLY in trouble with the FSDO - because of his pass rate. They
take every possible opportunity to investigate him - and always suspend
his DPE while they do. Every time it comes out the same - turns out
that he is not at fault, and his DPE is reinstated - but it is a huge
hassle and damages his business. The DPE's who maintain the
FAA-recommended 85% pass rate don't get hassled that way and make more
money.

The reality is that most people go to their checkrides prepared - the
days of sending a student for the checkride just because he has the
minimum hours are mostly gone - and busting 15% means a DPE has to bust
some people for minor or imagined infractions to keep his pass rate
down and stay out of trouble with the FAA. That's especially true in
glider instruction, where the instructors tend to be more experienced
and the incremental cost of additional training flights tends to be
lower. Those DPE's who have the strength of character to stand up to
the FAA and do what's right get in trouble for it. The ones who don't
make their 15% fail rate.

That's the reality. Many DPE's will tell you different, because it's
not a terribly palatable reality.

Michael
CFI-ASME-IA-G, ATP, A&P, and other good alphabet soup

[Eric Greenwell]

kirk.stant wrote:
> Eric Greenwell wrote:
>> I gotta know - how long do you have to fly that day before you are
>> allowed to land in the opposite direction from your takeoff? It's hard
>> to imagine anyone becoming a glider pilot without landing in the
>> opposite direction a few times shortly after takeoff. Perhaps too many
>> adult beverages preceded the discussion, or is it still reaallly hot out
>> there in Arizona and some pilots hats aren't big enough?
>
> Erik,
>
> I think we have our conversations garbled, but anyway - When I was
> flying out of Turf, we usually took off on 23 due to prevailing winds.
> If returning late in the day, landing on 23 could be challenging due to
> looking directly into the setting sun, through dust, etc and it was
> common to land on 5 (or even 14, which was a better runway anyway).

I was just curious if the folks that supported the landing and takeoff
in the same direction had thought about how long this "rule" was good
for! I suspect it might be 10 minutes, say, rather than at the end of a
long flight. A fun argument, I bet, and funner with each adult beverage
that leaves the cooler. I wish I'd been there - at least some flying
went on.

--
Note: email address new as of 9/4/2006
Change "netto" to "net" to email me directly

Eric Greenwell - Washington State, USA

"Transponders in Sailplanes" on the Soaring Safety Foundation website
www.soaringsafety.org/prevention/articles.html

"A Guide to Self-launching Sailplane Operation" at www.motorglider.org

[kirk.stant]

Eric Greenwell wrote:
> I was just curious if the folks that supported the landing and takeoff
> in the same direction had thought about how long this "rule" was good
> for! I suspect it might be 10 minutes, say, rather than at the end of a
> long flight. A fun argument, I bet, and funner with each adult beverage
> that leaves the cooler. I wish I'd been there - at least some flying
> went on.

Oh, I got it now. Yeah, it was a fun discussion at the clubhouse - we
were having a cookout so there was adult beverage consumption going on!

Actually the flying that day was pretty good, lots of Cu's and some
nice cloudstreets. We've got a couple of flights posted on OLC for
that day - I managed to beat my buddies back in AZ which is a bit
amazing!

66

[Slick]

Sounds like a DPE needed a failure to make his 80% pass rate for the month.
"Willie" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Here is a question for you DPE's and Instructors to weigh in on.
>
> A student pilot on his checkride, was not passed for his private for
> the following reason. He landed in the opposite direction that he took
> off from.
>
> A little background, the entire days operation was operating from
> runway 18. His two previous flights
> with this DPE went without a hitch. On the third flight as the student
> was entering the pattern, the DPE instructed the student to cross the
> IP and as he did so he instructed the student to open the dive brakes
> (SGS-233) fully and then announced to the student "Stuck Spoilers".
>
> The student at this point made the decision to enter the pattern for
> runway 36. He told us later that it was because he was already going in
> that direction as he entered the IP and losing altitude fast and didn't
> feel he had enough altitude to make a 180 and enter the pattern in the
> opposite direction.
>
> He felt that the stuck spoilers created an extraordinary situation and
> therefore a downwind landing was the safer option.
>
> This was followed by much discussion concerning whether he violated any
> rules.
>
> So, here is the question for you knowledable fellows.
> Is there anything in the Private Pilot flight test or in the FAR's that
> this pilot violated, or was this a justifiable reason for the DPE to
> fail this student?
> _____________
>
> As an aside and much to everyone at the field's amusement, about 20
> minutes later this DPE then proceeded to taxi his personal aircraft out
> and take off "downwind" the same direction he just busted the student
> for.
>
> Willie G.
>
>



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

[COLIN LAMB]

When I took my PPL checkride, the DPE wanted me to fly into some limited
visibility stuff. It seemed to be better than minimums, but I had never
flown to the airport and was not comfortable with the limited visibility. I
figured it was part of the test to see if I would push the envelope. I told
the DPE that I was not going there because it was pushing my limits.

He then proceeded to tell me that this was well within the limits and I was
too safe. I will never forget those words.

The next weekend he was flying a charter into Cranbrook, BC and misread an
approach plate during bad weather. He hit a mountain and killed himself and
3 passengers.

Colin

[COLIN LAMB]

When I took my PPL checkride, the DPE wanted me to fly into some limited
visibility stuff. It seemed to be better than minimums, but I had never
flown to the airport and was not comfortable with the limited visibility. I
figured it was part of the test to see if I would push the envelope. I told
the DPE that I was not going there because it was pushing my limits.

He then proceeded to tell me that this was well within the limits and I was
too safe. I will never forget those words.

The next weekend he was flying a charter into Cranbrook, BC and misread an
approach plate during bad weather. He hit a mountain and killed himself and
3 passengers.

Colin