IFR Checkride WX Questions

[kevmor]

So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?

[Jim Macklin]

Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
[verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
allow the operation.

You are not becoming a weather briefer or a professional
chart maker.



"kevmor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the
most sketchy
| on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF,
METAR, and other
| textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the
exact same
| graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam
(prognostic
| charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly
differently. How
| much is this going to be asked about on the checkride?
Should I know
| every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting
a general
| idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?
|

[tscottme]

"kevmor" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
> on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
> textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
> graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
> charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
> much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?

Our flight school CFIIs strongly suggested you bring your FAR/AIM to the
oral and the ride. Look up any of the "trivia" you aren't sure about.

--

Scott

[Roy Smith]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
> allow the operation.

When I was doing my training (early 90's), I found studying the chart
material very difficult, for two reasons. First, the charts they showed
you in the study guides were badly reproduced, sometimes to the point of
being almost unreadable. More importantly, I never saw those charts in
real life. The days of walking into your local FSS were already gone, and
the days of universal internet access wasn't here yet. As a result,
weather for me was whatever you got on DUATs and/or by calling
1-800-WX-BRIEF, and the charts in the test prep book were completely alien.

Today, it's different. Almost any airport or FBO has computer access to
weather charts (in full color, on a high-resolution screen), as does every
pilot from their home or office (not to mention things like The Weather
Channel on TV).

I usually go to http://www.weatherunderground.com/Aviation_Maps/. I
couldn't tell you the official names of the various charts. I assume one
of them is a "prog chart", but I couldn't tell you which, nor could I tell
you how many hours in advance a prog chart is good for, or exactly what
combination of data is on a prog chart. But, I can go to that web page and
instantly see where the lows and fronts are, how they're going to move,
what the icing situation is, what the winds are like, where there's going
to be VFR weather so I know where to be thinking about alternates, etc,
etc. That's what's really important.

I also don't have all the little symbols memorized. If I'm not sure of
something, I just click on the "Learn More About Aviation Weather Maps"
link and get to the key.

I second whoever it was that suggested you bring your FAR/AIM to the
checkride. But, make sure you're already familiar with it. For many
things, the examiner will be happy with an answer like, "I don't remember
the exact details, but I know where to find it", as long as you come up
quickly find the correct section in the book. If you give him a blank
stare and start wandering aimlessly through the book, that won't work.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

tscottme wrote:
>
> Our flight school CFIIs strongly suggested you bring your FAR/AIM to the
> oral and the ride. Look up any of the "trivia" you aren't sure about.
>

That's always been suggested to me as well.

On my PP oral, I couldn't answer one question, but I stated I could find
the answer in the AIM. The DE liked that answer, and as a question not
related to what we were doing (scuba diver flying), didn't actually have
me look it up.

However, if the answer to more than couple of questions, especially
related to the plan at hand, is "I can look that up", things may not go
so well. <G>

On another note, during a flight test I've been asked for information
that could be easily found in the AF/D (he actually stated that it would
be in the AF/D to obfuscate). "I'll look it up right now" was actually
a less correct answer on two occasions.

On the first, it was something directly related to our actual flight,
which I had noted on the planning information on my kneeboard. (good on
that!) On the second, the DE wanted info that we didn't need at all,
but he asked while #2 on long final to a towered airport. The correct
answer this time was that I could get it for him AFTER we land. (check!
<G>)

I also had my AF/D clipped so it automatically opened to the pages that
would be applicable to our trip. I still do that, it wasn't for show.

[A Lieberma]

"kevmor" > wrote in oups.com:

> Should I know
> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?

Important thing to know from my experiences is to know where the freezing level will be for
icing conditions and ceilings and what kind of weather you will be flying through.
(I.E. identify conditions not condusive for your plane, such as icing or T'storms)
Knowing every bitty detail isn't necessary.

From your Duat's text briefing, you can extract ceilings, tops, and pireps.

What I found best, since the DE is going to look at what you considered using in your flight planning
is to print out the charts that assisted you in your planning. I used AOPA weather charts (for members only)
as well as http://aviationweather.gov/products/nws/tafs/graphics/ (free public access)

By providing your own charts, the DE probably won't bring up the issues of old charts since he is
looking for what you do now in your planning.

As Jim said in another post, you are not taking a test for meteorology (though it sure feels like it sometimes!)

See http://groups.google.com/group/rec.aviation.student/tree/browse_frm/thread/a6cfb6289fb14c61/cd333babf41ea2ec?rnum=1&q=preparing+IFR+checkride+lieberma&_done=%2Fgroup%2Frec.aviation.student%2Fbrowse_frm %2Fthread%2Fa6cfb6289fb14c61%2Fd7b99f1d660c850b%3F lnk%3Dst%26q%3Dpreparing%2BIFR%2Bcheckride%2Bliebe rma%26rnum%3D1%26#doc_6fa56cf54d9ad314

for my experiences.

Allen

[bdl]

On Feb 1, 10:41 pm, "kevmor" > wrote:
> So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
> on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
> textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
> graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
> charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
> much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?


My DE had several charts, TAF printouts, etc (well worn) that showed
"iffy" weather for the route of flight. That allowed a more realistic
discussion of weather go/no-go decisions than the severe clear weather
the day of my checkride.

Your biggest goal should be to be able to describe the weather picture
(celings, winds, turbulence, icing, sigmets, etc) for a potential
route of flight. If you don't know what a symbol means when asked,
I'd volunteer that you've seen it before, but aren't sure of its
meaning, and that you would want to look it up or call the FSS.

That's what you'd do in a "real-world" situation, right? You wouldn't
just launch into a great grey mass without some sort of weather
picture. Since its a pre-flight decision, knowing where to get the
information is more important than having it memorized.

Conversely, if you get asked questions about a symbol on an approach
chart or enroute chart, its a good idea to know what those are. The
real-world example would have you thumbing through the AIM looking up
if the T symbol on an approach chart meant something for your
approach.

bdl

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/01/07 20:41, kevmor wrote:
> So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
> on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
> textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
> graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
> charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
> much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?
>

I was very worried about this for my check ride as well. I found that even
some of the charts referenced in Rod Machado's 'The Instrument Pilot's Survival
Manual' weren't still available.

In my case, the issue of weather was touched far less that I expected it
would be. I needed to be able to get a weather briefing and understand the
importance of things like thunderstorms, freezing levels, etc.

By the way, there are a lot of really good weather charts and other tools
available at the ADDS web site:

<http://adds.aviationweather.gov/>

There you will find prog charts, Icing charts, Turbulence, etc. All in
a nice, easy to locate format.

Also, Ed Williams' web site includes a great deal of information:

<http://williams.best.vwh.net/>

Have a look at the link to his favorite weather briefing links:

<http://williams.best.vwh.net/weather/weather.html>

Lots of great stuff there.

I look forward to hearing how you do on your check ride!


--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 1, 8:41 pm, "kevmor" > wrote:
> So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
> on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
> textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
> graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
> charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
> much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?


For your checkride, your DE will likely require you to show him the
"classic" charts. Radar Summary, Surface Analysis, Constant Pressure,
Weather Depiction). Since pilots only use these charts on checkrides,
there are somewhat hidden on aviationweather.gov. Try
http://aviationweather.gov/std_brief/


-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
> allow the operation.

Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the applicant to
show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of the symbols
(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few pilots every use
these old style charts.

-Robert, CFII

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 2, 1:39 am, "tscottme" > wrote:
> "kevmor" > wrote in message
>
> oups.com...
>

> Our flight school CFIIs strongly suggested you bring your FAR/AIM to the
> oral and the ride. Look up any of the "trivia" you aren't sure about.

When my applicants show up for a checkride, I have them bring a moving
box full of all the books they used in training. However for
interpreting the classic charts you really should have the coder
sheets printed out and ready.

-Robert

[Bob Gardner]

Those black-and-white charts, beloved of the test writers in OKC, are slowly
going away. They are hard to find on the ADDS page as it is. Good riddance.
The color charts are much easier to read.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 1, 8:41 pm, "kevmor" > wrote:
>> So my IR checkride is approaching, and the thing I'm the most sketchy
>> on I think is the weather charts. I'm fine with TAF, METAR, and other
>> textual, but I guess it's because I can't find all the exact same
>> graphics on DUATS/DUAT that they use on the FAA exam (prognostic
>> charts, etc). Even DUAT/DUATS show things slightly differently. How
>> much is this going to be asked about on the checkride? Should I know
>> every possible symbol for all those charts, or is getting a general
>> idea and then calling 800-WX-BRIEF good enough?
>
>
> For your checkride, your DE will likely require you to show him the
> "classic" charts. Radar Summary, Surface Analysis, Constant Pressure,
> Weather Depiction). Since pilots only use these charts on checkrides,
> there are somewhat hidden on aviationweather.gov. Try
> http://aviationweather.gov/std_brief/
>
>
> -Robert, CFII
>

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 9:36 am, "Robert M. Gary" > wrote:
> On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
>
Once rated, few pilots every use
> these old style charts.
>
> -Robert, CFII


The few, the proud, the...

I use the weather depiction and radar summary, among numerous other
weather products, every day.

They are fantastic!

http://aviationweather.gov/std_brief/

ak.

[[email protected]]

On Feb 2, 10:55 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Those black-and-white charts, beloved of the test writers in OKC, are slowly
> going away. They are hard to find on the ADDS page as it is. Good riddance.
> The color charts are much easier to read.
>
> Bob Gardner

Here 'ya go Bob!

http://aviationweather.gov/std_brief/

I, for one, hope they don't go away!
ak.

[Jim Macklin]

Most of the DEs I know have their own collection of old
charts that they "know" and that do show some weather. Most
students today will have a full text and graphics print of
the on-line briefing in all formats.




"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
| On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| > Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
| > The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
| > [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the
FAR
| > as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
| > allow the operation.
|
| Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the
applicant to
| show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of
the symbols
| (i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few pilots
every use
| these old style charts.
|
| -Robert, CFII
|

[Bob Gardner]

I know how to find them, I just think that they aren't as good as the
color/interactive charts.

Bob

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 2, 10:55 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Those black-and-white charts, beloved of the test writers in OKC, are
>> slowly
>> going away. They are hard to find on the ADDS page as it is. Good
>> riddance.
>> The color charts are much easier to read.
>>
>> Bob Gardner
>
> Here 'ya go Bob!
>
> http://aviationweather.gov/std_brief/
>
> I, for one, hope they don't go away!
> ak.
>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 2, 10:55 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
> Those black-and-white charts, beloved of the test writers in OKC, are slowly
> going away. They are hard to find on the ADDS page as it is. Good riddance.
> The color charts are much easier to read.

Those charts probably made sense in the days of walking into the FSS
and looking at B&W printouts. Nowadays with computers we have less
official products that are so much better.

-Robert

[Sam Spade]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
> allow the operation.
>
> You are not becoming a weather briefer or a professional
> chart maker.

Nor a meterologists.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:55:21 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:

>"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
>> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
>> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
>> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
>> allow the operation.
>
>When I was doing my training (early 90's), I found studying the chart
>material very difficult, for two reasons. First, the charts they showed
>you in the study guides were badly reproduced, sometimes to the point of

When I took the written (on computer) they used low res *EGA*
monitors. I could not read the charts as presented or even the text
identifiers on those screens. Those were the only questions I missed.

Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Mark Hansen]

On 02/02/07 19:15, Roger wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Feb 2007 07:55:21 -0500, Roy Smith > wrote:
>
>>"Jim Macklin" > wrote:
>>> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
>>> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
>>> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
>>> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
>>> allow the operation.
>>
>>When I was doing my training (early 90's), I found studying the chart
>>material very difficult, for two reasons. First, the charts they showed
>>you in the study guides were badly reproduced, sometimes to the point of
>
> When I took the written (on computer) they used low res *EGA*
> monitors. I could not read the charts as presented or even the text
> identifiers on those screens. Those were the only questions I missed.

I took my tests on computer as well, but was provided with the associated
booklet which contained all the graphics. This was in 2004/5.

>
> Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> www.rogerhalstead.com



--
Mark Hansen, PP-ASEL, Instrument Airplane
Cal Aggie Flying Farmers
Sacramento, CA

[Bob Gardner]

I consider the ADDS graphics to be official, and so does the FAA. Gotta
admit that I look at Unisys and a lot of similar sources.

Bob Gardner

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> On Feb 2, 10:55 am, "Bob Gardner" > wrote:
>> Those black-and-white charts, beloved of the test writers in OKC, are
>> slowly
>> going away. They are hard to find on the ADDS page as it is. Good
>> riddance.
>> The color charts are much easier to read.
>
> Those charts probably made sense in the days of walking into the FSS
> and looking at B&W printouts. Nowadays with computers we have less
> official products that are so much better.
>
> -Robert
>

[Roger[_4_]]

On 2 Feb 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
wrote:

>On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> wrote:
>> Know how to interpret the material from on-line sources.
>> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
>> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the FAR
>> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
>> allow the operation.
>
>Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the applicant to
>show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of the symbols
>(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few pilots every use
>these old style charts.

They didn't even have me look at weather charts or even the old style
codes and this was a few years back. Of course the weather was so bad
it bout beat the snot out of me flying up there to take the test. I
told him I almost canceled, but decided to head up and see "how it
went". He asked me about the forecast and if it was deteriorating,
getting better or as forecast. I also had everything he asked for, in
a note book and _in_order_. After he asked for the second document and
I just flipped a page, he said, "let me see that". Looked through it,
asked me a few questions on weather, flight planning, aircraft
performance, and a few other things I've now forgotten and he sent me
out to preflight the Deb.

It's been a while, but "as I recall" the whole oral part of the exam
was on the order of a half hour, give or take a bit. Thing is, being
*thoroughly* organized at least made it look like I knew what I was
doing. <:-)) He told me later that he usually expects to take at least
twice as long on that part and it was rare to have any one come in
with the *stuff* in a binder, let alone organized.

Most of it was done as casual conversation, but I knew what he was
after with each question. If I didn't know the answer I was able to
tell him right where it was and could find it in the FARs or AIM.
When it came to the requirements to be able to drop below DH on an ILS
I proudly rattled them right off only to be greeted by a blank stare
as if he were waiting for something. Then he said, there's one more.
I went through them three times but always came up short. Finally I
looked at him, held out my hand and asked if "I could use the book".
<:-))

The conversation seems casual, but make a mistake and you can expect
more questions on the same subject. Miss another one or two on the
same subject and you may spend quite a while covering that particular
segment and you WILL know (and remember) the answer afterwards, or the
test will be over.

>
>-Robert, CFII
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Jim Macklin]

I would agree on that, organization. When I was training at
Spartan [Tulsa] for my CFI ratings, the "word" was that the
FSDO was very tough on CFII applicants.
I showed up with my own, name embossed Jep bag with a full
set of IFR charts and the J-AID. After a few questions,
maybe an hour or so, we went flying.
But students who showed up with the school supplied charts
were being grilled half a day or even longer, because the
inspectors wanted to know that the student really knew the
material.

It did not hurt that I usually began an answer to a question
with, "That's FAR 91.85, paragraph 2, ..."



"Roger" > wrote in message
...
| On 2 Feb 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
>
| wrote:
|
| >On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
| > wrote:
| >> Know how to interpret the material from on-line
sources.
| >> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
| >> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the
FAR
| >> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
| >> allow the operation.
| >
| >Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the
applicant to
| >show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of
the symbols
| >(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few
pilots every use
| >these old style charts.
|
| They didn't even have me look at weather charts or even
the old style
| codes and this was a few years back. Of course the
weather was so bad
| it bout beat the snot out of me flying up there to take
the test. I
| told him I almost canceled, but decided to head up and see
"how it
| went". He asked me about the forecast and if it was
deteriorating,
| getting better or as forecast. I also had everything he
asked for, in
| a note book and _in_order_. After he asked for the second
document and
| I just flipped a page, he said, "let me see that". Looked
through it,
| asked me a few questions on weather, flight planning,
aircraft
| performance, and a few other things I've now forgotten and
he sent me
| out to preflight the Deb.
|
| It's been a while, but "as I recall" the whole oral part
of the exam
| was on the order of a half hour, give or take a bit.
Thing is, being
| *thoroughly* organized at least made it look like I knew
what I was
| doing. <:-)) He told me later that he usually expects to
take at least
| twice as long on that part and it was rare to have any one
come in
| with the *stuff* in a binder, let alone organized.
|
| Most of it was done as casual conversation, but I knew
what he was
| after with each question. If I didn't know the answer I
was able to
| tell him right where it was and could find it in the FARs
or AIM.
| When it came to the requirements to be able to drop below
DH on an ILS
| I proudly rattled them right off only to be greeted by a
blank stare
| as if he were waiting for something. Then he said,
there's one more.
| I went through them three times but always came up short.
Finally I
| looked at him, held out my hand and asked if "I could use
the book".
| <:-))
|
| The conversation seems casual, but make a mistake and you
can expect
| more questions on the same subject. Miss another one or
two on the
| same subject and you may spend quite a while covering that
particular
| segment and you WILL know (and remember) the answer
afterwards, or the
| test will be over.
|
| >
| >-Robert, CFII
| Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| www.rogerhalstead.com

[andrew m. boardman]

Robert M. Gary > wrote:
>Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the applicant to
>show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of the symbols
>(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring).

Wow. The FAA written exams love them to death, but during some fairly
large number of checkride orals I've never been asked a word about them;
it's all been practical stuff.

>Once rated, few pilots every use these old style charts.

I started flight training at a time (early 90's) when the
walk-into-FSS-and-eyeball-charts routine was just ending, but I still
like some of the classic products (particularly the SA map and the new
colorized prog charts), even if I have to nose around the backside of
aviationweather.gov to find them. I don't particularly mind that the
written exam covers the entire gamut; people at least get exposed to all
of them, and afterwards can keep using whichever form made the most sense.

[Robert M. Gary]

On Feb 3, 9:33 pm, Roger > wrote:
> On 2 Feb 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Robert M. Gary" >
> wrote:

> It's been a while, but "as I recall" the whole oral part of the exam
> was on the order of a half hour, give or take a bit. Thing is, being
> *thoroughly* organized at least made it look like I knew what I was
> doing. <:-)) He told me later that he usually expects to take at least
> twice as long on that part and it was rare to have any one come in
> with the *stuff* in a binder, let alone organized.

The length of time of the oral is always interesting to me. I've had 7
checkrides with DE's and aside from the initial CFI none were more
than 30 minutes of oral. I had one checkride where the entire oral was
done while we flew out to the practice area, not a word spoken on the
ground. I'm not sure exactly what determines the length but I know
these DE's have given good students more than 2 hours too. Of course
my CFI oral was a good 6 hours, although I've heard 8 hours is
standard.

-Robert

[virtuPIC]

First problem with weather data is to collect reliable sources and to
display them understandably. At http://www.airspace-v.com we are
collecting online data sources and display them on Google Maps including
METAR, TAF, Yahoo! Weather, winds and temepratures aloft.

Okay, there are two problems with this site. Data is mostly VFR-oriented
and this is no official source and may at most be used for navigation
planning or entertainment. But you can get a first impression.


virtuPIC

[Jim Carter[_1_]]

Jim,
When were you at Spartan? I used to teach at Ross down on Riverside and
Spartan was the only other real school there at the time.

I busted my II oral at TUL FSDO because I didn't know what a High
Altitude Teardrop Penetration approach was. There was a pub'd one for TUL at
the time - the old F100s used it.

The inspectors reasoning was that I could hop in the right seat of a
Citation and give instrument training and that aircraft was capable of
executing the approach. I reasoned he was just ****ed off and having a bad
day.

One of my previous CFI students had swallowed a valve on takeoff with
him about two weeks earlier.


--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas
"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
...
>I would agree on that, organization. When I was training at
> Spartan [Tulsa] for my CFI ratings, the "word" was that the
> FSDO was very tough on CFII applicants.
> I showed up with my own, name embossed Jep bag with a full
> set of IFR charts and the J-AID. After a few questions,
> maybe an hour or so, we went flying.
> But students who showed up with the school supplied charts
> were being grilled half a day or even longer, because the
> inspectors wanted to know that the student really knew the
> material.
>
> It did not hurt that I usually began an answer to a question
> with, "That's FAR 91.85, paragraph 2, ..."
>
>
>
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
> | On 2 Feb 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
> >
> | wrote:
> |
> | >On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
> | > wrote:
> | >> Know how to interpret the material from on-line
> sources.
> | >> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the weather
> | >> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to the
> FAR
> | >> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast, will
> | >> allow the operation.
> | >
> | >Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required the
> applicant to
> | >show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge of
> the symbols
> | >(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few
> pilots every use
> | >these old style charts.
> |
> | They didn't even have me look at weather charts or even
> the old style
> | codes and this was a few years back. Of course the
> weather was so bad
> | it bout beat the snot out of me flying up there to take
> the test. I
> | told him I almost canceled, but decided to head up and see
> "how it
> | went". He asked me about the forecast and if it was
> deteriorating,
> | getting better or as forecast. I also had everything he
> asked for, in
> | a note book and _in_order_. After he asked for the second
> document and
> | I just flipped a page, he said, "let me see that". Looked
> through it,
> | asked me a few questions on weather, flight planning,
> aircraft
> | performance, and a few other things I've now forgotten and
> he sent me
> | out to preflight the Deb.
> |
> | It's been a while, but "as I recall" the whole oral part
> of the exam
> | was on the order of a half hour, give or take a bit.
> Thing is, being
> | *thoroughly* organized at least made it look like I knew
> what I was
> | doing. <:-)) He told me later that he usually expects to
> take at least
> | twice as long on that part and it was rare to have any one
> come in
> | with the *stuff* in a binder, let alone organized.
> |
> | Most of it was done as casual conversation, but I knew
> what he was
> | after with each question. If I didn't know the answer I
> was able to
> | tell him right where it was and could find it in the FARs
> or AIM.
> | When it came to the requirements to be able to drop below
> DH on an ILS
> | I proudly rattled them right off only to be greeted by a
> blank stare
> | as if he were waiting for something. Then he said,
> there's one more.
> | I went through them three times but always came up short.
> Finally I
> | looked at him, held out my hand and asked if "I could use
> the book".
> | <:-))
> |
> | The conversation seems casual, but make a mistake and you
> can expect
> | more questions on the same subject. Miss another one or
> two on the
> | same subject and you may spend quite a while covering that
> particular
> | segment and you WILL know (and remember) the answer
> afterwards, or the
> | test will be over.
> |
> | >
> | >-Robert, CFII
> | Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
> | (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
> | www.rogerhalstead.com
>
>

[Jim Macklin]

I was in the A&P school in 1972 because I could get student
loans to help. I said to the school financial people that
it seemed strange that I could borrow money to become a
mechanic while I already had a commercial ticket and held a
ground instructor advanced and instrument. His reply was
that Spartan would loan me the money.

I finished up the instrument, CFI, CFII, MEL and SES and the
powerplant too. Was out of school a year or so and went
back to finish the airframe. I trained when Elmo Mauer was
the guy in charge. Flew with Auggie and Norm Penick.

Finished up at Spartan in 75 and got a job in OKC at PWA.
After some strange jobs, ended up at Wichita in 78.



"Jim Carter" > wrote in message
t...
| Jim,
| When were you at Spartan? I used to teach at Ross down
on Riverside and
| Spartan was the only other real school there at the time.
|
| I busted my II oral at TUL FSDO because I didn't know
what a High
| Altitude Teardrop Penetration approach was. There was a
pub'd one for TUL at
| the time - the old F100s used it.
|
| The inspectors reasoning was that I could hop in the
right seat of a
| Citation and give instrument training and that aircraft
was capable of
| executing the approach. I reasoned he was just ****ed off
and having a bad
| day.
|
| One of my previous CFI students had swallowed a valve
on takeoff with
| him about two weeks earlier.
|
|
| --
| Jim Carter
| Rogers, Arkansas
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| ...
| >I would agree on that, organization. When I was training
at
| > Spartan [Tulsa] for my CFI ratings, the "word" was that
the
| > FSDO was very tough on CFII applicants.
| > I showed up with my own, name embossed Jep bag with a
full
| > set of IFR charts and the J-AID. After a few questions,
| > maybe an hour or so, we went flying.
| > But students who showed up with the school supplied
charts
| > were being grilled half a day or even longer, because
the
| > inspectors wanted to know that the student really knew
the
| > material.
| >
| > It did not hurt that I usually began an answer to a
question
| > with, "That's FAR 91.85, paragraph 2, ..."
| >
| >
| >
| > "Roger" > wrote in message
| > ...
| > | On 2 Feb 2007 09:36:48 -0800, "Robert M. Gary"
| > >
| > | wrote:
| > |
| > | >On Feb 1, 10:37 pm, "Jim Macklin"
| > | > wrote:
| > | >> Know how to interpret the material from on-line
| > sources.
| > | >> The key is, can you draw a crude picture of the
weather
| > | >> [verbally or with a pencil] and then apply that to
the
| > FAR
| > | >> as to whether the weather, currently and forecast,
will
| > | >> allow the operation.
| > | >
| > | >Partly, but every DE I've ever worked with required
the
| > applicant to
| > | >show up with the classic charts and exhibit knowledge
of
| > the symbols
| > | >(i.e. carry a secret decoder ring). Once rated, few
| > pilots every use
| > | >these old style charts.
| > |
| > | They didn't even have me look at weather charts or
even
| > the old style
| > | codes and this was a few years back. Of course the
| > weather was so bad
| > | it bout beat the snot out of me flying up there to
take
| > the test. I
| > | told him I almost canceled, but decided to head up and
see
| > "how it
| > | went". He asked me about the forecast and if it was
| > deteriorating,
| > | getting better or as forecast. I also had everything
he
| > asked for, in
| > | a note book and _in_order_. After he asked for the
second
| > document and
| > | I just flipped a page, he said, "let me see that".
Looked
| > through it,
| > | asked me a few questions on weather, flight planning,
| > aircraft
| > | performance, and a few other things I've now forgotten
and
| > he sent me
| > | out to preflight the Deb.
| > |
| > | It's been a while, but "as I recall" the whole oral
part
| > of the exam
| > | was on the order of a half hour, give or take a bit.
| > Thing is, being
| > | *thoroughly* organized at least made it look like I
knew
| > what I was
| > | doing. <:-)) He told me later that he usually expects
to
| > take at least
| > | twice as long on that part and it was rare to have any
one
| > come in
| > | with the *stuff* in a binder, let alone organized.
| > |
| > | Most of it was done as casual conversation, but I knew
| > what he was
| > | after with each question. If I didn't know the answer
I
| > was able to
| > | tell him right where it was and could find it in the
FARs
| > or AIM.
| > | When it came to the requirements to be able to drop
below
| > DH on an ILS
| > | I proudly rattled them right off only to be greeted by
a
| > blank stare
| > | as if he were waiting for something. Then he said,
| > there's one more.
| > | I went through them three times but always came up
short.
| > Finally I
| > | looked at him, held out my hand and asked if "I could
use
| > the book".
| > | <:-))
| > |
| > | The conversation seems casual, but make a mistake and
you
| > can expect
| > | more questions on the same subject. Miss another one
or
| > two on the
| > | same subject and you may spend quite a while covering
that
| > particular
| > | segment and you WILL know (and remember) the answer
| > afterwards, or the
| > | test will be over.
| > |
| > | >
| > | >-Robert, CFII
| > | Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
| > | (N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
| > | www.rogerhalstead.com
| >
| >
|
|