|
| manatee wrote:
quote:
> bOb ... it can be, or it can't be... example, my AMEL checkride today
> was really educational... and I knew that my DE would throw tons of
> diversions my way, and he did, and I just did what he asked.
>
> What I'm talking about is not positive, though... It is one thing to
> teach your examinee during the exam how to be a more adept pilot, how
> to really be professional. If he sees you doing something that you
> could do better that you are obviously doing badly (not talking
> something dangerous here) he can point that out and explain why it is
> important to be professional about everything (my confession, I left
> the alternators on after the aircraft was shut down tonight)... I did
> learn a lot from this DE and he is definitely someone to listen to, and
> I respected and was greedy to hear everything he could lay on me during
> the ride..
>
When I gave checkrides to line pilots it took me less than an hour to be
sure to myself that this pilot knows what he's doing. There are minimum
tasks required for the type evaluation (tactical, annual. etc.) and once
those are done I tell them that we are departing the evaluation and
we're on our time. I did 100's of autorotations, (well some were by the
pilot as I sat waiting for something to go wrong) but the line pilots
only had their annual evaluation to do autos. So at that point it's an
hour worth of low level high speed autos and 180 degree autos from
downwind and power recovery autos out in the training area. I always
reviewed something on the rides.
quote:
> however, I'm talking about basically telling you you're doing something
> wrong when you're still doing it to specs and it just happens to be
> another procedure to perform the technique..
That is totally wrong. In the Army the GOD pilots from Ft Rucker visit
many units a year and will give all the IP's evals. On one eval at Ft
Eustis we came in for the de-brief and he said "well, you failed the
ride. You might imagine I wondered why. It was the standard
autorotations. He said "you weren't into the decel at 50 feet AGL. I
responded that the deceleration was STARTED at 50 ft AGL. Right out of
the book. It didn't matter, he failed me anyway. Luckily the Ft Eustis
Standardization instructors were sitting at desks nearby and heard our
little scuffle. Needles to say before the Rucker Gods even left I had
already flown with one of the standardization guys who let me do ONE
standard Auto then we started the low level high speeds. Those were just
purely exciting maneuvers.
The other time I failed a ride was in an OH-13 flying IFR when I was a
student. I just had a bad day, couldn't do anything right.
I imagine this probably
quote:
> happens more often in small FBO situations where there is not solidly
> defined procedure for every maneuver across the instructor line-up.
> For me, my primary instructor taught me a very specific (and easy) way
> to come in to the pattern, a programmatic way of handling
> airspeed/approach configuration/descent/radio calls.. everything you do
> on a NORMAL approach.. (I emphasize that to make it clear that
> obviously you don't always have a normal situation, so being
> programmatic to the point of killing yourself is inappropriate)...
> well, the chief pilot there (also my PPL DE) absolutely abhored the way
> I'd been taught to approach.
I haven't read more than this but have to say the the evaluator needs to
chat with your IP, not you. There are many ways to do maneuvers and
still remain inside the perimeters. I learned to crab all the way to
the flare and then align the aircraft with the runway heading.
So two days before my checkride when I
quote:
> did a stage check with him just to make sure I wasn't wasting his time
> (ha) he retaught me yet another way to approach... the thing is, it was
> basically the same thing, he just hated "that way" and wanted me to do
> it "this way."
>
> "that way" was not wrong... "this way" was like splitting hairs over
> the differences, but I had to make some quick adjustments.. I guess it
> wasn't that big of a deal, but it was kind of silly to have to get to
> that point anyway. After that many hours of instruction, it is more
> the chief pilot's fault for not making sure that his CFI's are teaching
> to his particular method/spec than mine, that's for sure... and in the
> end it wasn't like he was going to fail me on it anyway, but he was
> just happier hearing me make slightly different calls and point out
> slightly different things at different times.. whatever.
I agree, that's just not right. He and I would have words.
You seem to have a good grip on procedures, just keep doing what you are
doing, and remember, there are some people, sometimes, who might just
fail a checkride (or 2) sometimes. 
--
boB
U.S. Army Aviation (retired)
Central Texas - 5NM West of Gray Army Airfield (KGRK)
|
|