If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
David Brooks wrote:
On my instrument ride, the day was very windy giving moderate turbulence down low and probably a 40K wind higher up. It took me about 3 circuits to get the holding pattern nailed on both wind correction angle and timing, but the DE saw that I was getting it closer each time and that was all he cared about. I think demonstrating good judgement and good situational awareness is much more important than holding the needle centered all the time. Me similar. I got blown right across the inbound track on the first outbound. Luckily I caught it and my SA recovered enough that I was quickly back on the inbound course. The only thing he dinged me for was not using the localizer for added SA on an NDB hold (I was trying to do the NDB hold without "cheating", I guess). Yes, it is hard to know what any given DE wants to see. My DE is a corporate pilot at the company I work for. He was very open while on the ground about what he wanted to see and told me that he needed to see each PTS item performed using only the navaids appropriate to each item, however, he would also ask questions during the ride about what I would do if an approach like an NDB had an ILS to the same runway also. I told him I'd use the localizer and marker beacons as additional confirmations of the NDB and time, and that seemed to be what he wanted to hear. I felt at ease with him right from the oral part of the test on through, so if I wasn't sure what he wanted to see, I just outright asked him. I didn't try to read his mind. And if something didn't go the way I wanted it to go, I talked out loud about what was wrong and what I was doing to correct. He seemed to have no problem with that at all. I talked my way through all three circuits of the hold and kept saying what I was doing each time and why so that he also didn't have to try to read my mind. However, I've heard tales of examiners that really didn't care for pilots who did that. I guess you just have to try to understand your DE, just like you had to figure out what any given college professor wanted to see on tests and papers. Matt |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Matt Whiting wrote in message ...
Dave Jacobowitz wrote: I did make some mistakes on the checkride. One of which was flying on a vector right through the FAC on a partial-panel VOR-A approach to TCY. I was behind the plane, had not dialed in the OBS as quickly as I should have, when I did, the needle was already on the wrong side. I'm just refreshing myself on the regs getting ready to re-enter flying after several years off, but I seem to recall that you could have something like 2/3 or so needle deflection before you are out of tolerances on VOR tracking. Unless you had FS deflection, I don't see why the DE would have or should have failed you. I think it's a judgement call. Yes, it was within the deflection allowed on the PTS during an approach. However, I didn't even know where I was relative to the FAC prior to twisting the OBS appropriately, and then it took me, maybe five seconds to mentally accept the fact that I was past where I wanted to be. So, it was a short loss of situational awareness, which he could have failed me for. On my instrument ride, the day was very windy giving moderate turbulence down low and probably a 40K wind higher up. It took me about 3 circuits to get the holding pattern nailed on both wind correction angle and timing, but the DE saw that I was getting it closer each time and that was all he cared about. I think demonstrating good judgement and good situational awareness is much more important than holding the needle centered all the time. Ah, I've heard several people say that a windy day is better for a checkride because it's hard for a DE to know the difference between pilot-induced and weather-induced sloppiness. I think there might be something to this, but only people who have tried it both ways can know for sure. -- dave j |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Dave Jacobowitz wrote:
I did make some mistakes on the checkride. One of which was flying on a vector right through the FAC on a partial-panel VOR-A approach to TCY. I was behind the plane, had not dialed in the OBS as quickly as I should have, when I did, the needle was already on the wrong side. I caught the problem right away, correcting right away, and said so out loud. The rest of the approach was sloppy by my standards, but within PTS limits. Still, the DE could have failed me right then and there. He elected not to. Luck. Not luck. In my experience, most examiners give you one mulligan, unless they think you're otherwise marginal. Despite this, IME, most people crash and burn (not literally, I hope!) on at least one checkride in their lives. I failed the IFR checkride first time around despite getting my mulligan. Went back, did a bit more practice, then passed. It builds character. There's just something about checkrides. There sure is. Morris (oh, no, not another character-building experience) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
IFR Checkride Checklist | BTIZ | Instrument Flight Rules | 0 | April 18th 04 12:06 AM |
IFR Checkride Scheduled | Jon Kraus | Instrument Flight Rules | 15 | April 6th 04 05:30 AM |
Passed my IFR checkride today. | [email protected] | Instrument Flight Rules | 5 | February 8th 04 07:04 AM |
IR checkride story! | Guy Elden Jr. | Instrument Flight Rules | 16 | August 1st 03 09:03 PM |
CFI-I Checkride stories? | Jim | Instrument Flight Rules | 11 | July 18th 03 01:04 AM |