Tricky examiners

"RST Engineering" wrote

Sorry Jim, I should have prefaced my post with "In Australia".


Well, your premise is incorrect. As the PIC you are allowed to fly from
California to Maine with your wheels an inch above the terrain so long as
you 91.119(c) stay 500' away from any person, vessel, vehicle, or
structure.

As mentioned in another part of the discussion, here in the Land of Oz we
have a rule (CAR 157) that you can't fly below 500' AGL unless:
- Landing, taking off etc.
- Stress of weather
- Undertaking training with an approved instructor
- You poses a low flight endorsement
- You're a crop duster pilot
- You're crashing

Btw, over populated area's it's 1000' ...... Australia, the land that
legislates the bleeding obvious!


And they aren't a "Test Officer". They are a Designated Examiner.

Down here they are a "(CASA) Approved Testing Officer" or ATO. CASA is the
Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
http://ioa.casa.gov.au/scripts/ATO.asp


Somehow I think this is a troll thread.

Nope, just a pilot with an opinion. Trolls try to stir up trouble and
"typically" morph their email address to make it hard to kill file them.


Name the guy. Name the FSDO from which he operates.

Nope, not gunna happen. Especially since I don't know what a FSDO is!


As a retired examiner, I can tell you that you cannot ask or require the
examinee to do anything illegal. Now he can ASK would you fly below xxx
altitude around here? And if the answer was yes and clearly illegal, then
you are correct, exam over.

Here in Oz it is illegal. I think we are in violent agreement!


Cheers,

David

--
Experience is something you don't get until just after you need it.

Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I missed it.
In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well within his bounds to
ask you if you would do something illegal, and if you agree, you lose.
That's true on this side of the pond as well.

Jim

--
"If you think you can, or think you can't, you're right."
--Henry Ford

"dVaridel" wrote in message
u...
"RST Engineering" wrote

Sorry Jim, I should have prefaced my post with "In Australia".

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:

Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if
you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as well.

Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is like,
but I have been involved in certification in a few different countries and
while the general idea is the same, the specific rules can be very
different indeed.
The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on the
Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my company bribe
the officials. No check ride, no written on the local rules. nothing.

You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
brign you fuel on time and so on.



Bertie

Thank God our country is nothing like this. We call it a tip, not a bribe.

{;-0

Jim


You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
brign you fuel on time and so on.



Bertie

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:

Thank God our country is nothing like this. We call it a tip, not a
bribe.




You cant be too sure I wasn't talking about the US!

Well, I wasn't, but it's always dangerous to assume around me.

The bribing was no real problem. jsut rthe way it was, and yu couldn't
blame them. they had nothing. Actually, the ones you tipped had a little
the rest had, quite literally, nothing.

Bertie

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:

Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if
you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as well.

Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is like,
but I have been involved in certification in a few different countries and
while the general idea is the same, the specific rules can be very
different indeed.
The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on the
Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my company bribe
the officials. No check ride, no written on the local rules. nothing.

You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your breakfast,
customs and immigration to get in and out of the country, the fueler to
brign you fuel on time and so on.

I went to an "Ethics" training meeting at one company I worked for.
They dealt with both US and "foreign" ethics. The gist of the meeting
was "If you have a problem doing business like this" we suggest you
either plan on staying in your present state side position or seek
employment elsewhere". IOW the emphasis was on the "elsewhere" as
most would be going to other countries within their first 10 years of
so.

These "Ethics" are a nightmare for companies doing business abroad as
you play by their rules, but you can't let the folks "over here" know
that.

Roger (K8RI)



Bertie

"Roger (K8RI)" wrote in
:

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:47:15 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

"RST Engineering" wrote in
:

Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I
missed it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well
within his bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and
if you agree, you lose. That's true on this side of the pond as
well.

Actually, the rules could be very different ndeed. No idea what Oz is
like, but I have been involved in certification in a few different
countries and while the general idea is the same, the specific rules
can be very different indeed.
The Brits, for instance, are downright bizarre. Don't even start me on
the Germans, and I had one licence that merely required that my
company bribe the officials. No check ride, no written on the local
rules. nothing.

You also had to bribe the waiter in this place to get you your
breakfast, customs and immigration to get in and out of the country,
the fueler to brign you fuel on time and so on.

I went to an "Ethics" training meeting at one company I worked for.
They dealt with both US and "foreign" ethics. The gist of the meeting
was "If you have a problem doing business like this" we suggest you
either plan on staying in your present state side position or seek
employment elsewhere". IOW the emphasis was on the "elsewhere" as
most would be going to other countries within their first 10 years of
so.

These "Ethics" are a nightmare for companies doing business abroad as
you play by their rules, but you can't let the folks "over here" know
that.

Well, the division I was working for at that place did nothing but
overseas stuff and were well able for all that. In many ways it wasn't
all that much different fromthe way it worked elsewhere. Just think of
it as "taxes" And since we paid none anywhere while working for these
guys we dind't mind.


Bertie

"Martin Hotze" wrote in message
...

RST Engineering schrieb:
Sorry old chap, if you mentioned this somewhere in this thread, I missed
it. In that case, you are correct and the examiner is well within his
bounds to ask you if you would do something illegal, and if you agree,
you lose.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


even when it saves your life?


Most every nation's set of rules has the catchall that goes something like
(US FAR 91.3) "In the case of an emergency the pilot in command may deviate
from any rule in the book that saves his worthless ass."

Obviously the OP said the examiner said "Lets go down low and look at that"
or words to that effect. Absent an emergency, this paragraph is inoperative
and the operative paragraph is the prohibition about flying below 500AGL in
Oz.

Jim

"RST Engineering" wrote
Most every nation's set of rules has the catchall that goes something like
(US FAR 91.3) "In the case of an emergency the pilot in command may
deviate from any rule in the book that saves his worthless ass."

Yeah, same down here, you may be asked to justify your decision - if you
live! More likely you end up having a LLOONNGG chat to the CASA folk about
how you ended up in the position that you needed to break a rule.


David