PE issues

This forum has been developed to discuss flight instruction/University and College programs.

Moderators: ahramin, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, Right Seat Captain, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
User avatar
Bede
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3071
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 5:52 am

PE issues

Post by Bede » Wed Aug 07, 2019 10:43 am

Has any one else had issues with their local PE's?

All of our PE's are associated with the local flying college. They seem to be interested in only doing college flight tests, and aren't that available for outside flight tests. When they are available, at least one is now charging $400. When they do do the flight tests, they seem to apply their puppy mill flying school techniques as a method of evaluation.

A couple examples:
1) Candidate checks carb heat in downwind and puts carb heat cold as per manufacturer's AFM (it's not a Cessna). Examiner gives a 2.
2) Candidate forgets map on briefing room table. Realizes it after take-off and wants to return to get map. Examiner fails candidate on ex 23. They go back and get the map after the remainder of the exercises are complete. Examiner charges another full flight test fee.
3) Examiner won't do flight test on tailwheel aircraft.

TC doesn't seem interested in giving out any more delegated authority as we have "enough" PE's for the number of licenses awarded locally.
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: PE issues

Post by digits_ » Wed Aug 07, 2019 11:54 am

Something similar once, regarding the use of the mixture. Examiner wanted student to go full rich at 5000 ft when he started his descent to circuit altitude. Manufacturer says to not enrichen mixture in the descent, but once when power is required. It was just a smalll point of discussion, so nothing serious. And the fee was still fair.

1) If it is written down like that on the exam sheet, and you have the AFM to prove the examiner wrong, it should be fairly easy to file a complaint with transport. Downside is, it might become even harder to find an examiner after that.
2) I guess a fail is applicable for that? Then the question is: is a full flight test fee for a partial retest fair? Usually not I'd say. Unless long travel distances are involved?
3) Can't blame them for that. If they can't fly tailwheel themselves, why would they have to do a flight test on a tailwheel aircraft?

The core of the issue is that examiners are linked to flight schools. They shouldn't be. They should report directly to transport.

Regarding the fees: I've seen 350 for a while, that included 2 hours of driving (one way each) from the examiner's home base.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Squaretail
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 91
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: PE issues

Post by Squaretail » Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:29 pm

I gave up a while ago on trying to get my PE status. Part of the problem is that TC primarily surveys the examiners themselves to determine if more are needed, all of whom always a) over estimate their own availability, and b) never tell TC of the requests to do examinations they turn down. Most of them have to keep up the illusion that they are doing the perfect amount of exams o warrant having PE status, yet not so much as they have to turn away bookings. Most seem to be exceedingly jealous of what they view as their “territory”.

TC also doesn’t seem to see a problem with the aging population of most of their PE pool, in that many seem to be on the edge of, or are semi-retired.

Couple this with the whole conflict of interest with many PEs only serving specific schools, it’s merely another symptom of how Canada’s flight training industry is no longer here to serve Canadian interests.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Good people drink beer. - Hunter S. Thompson

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: PE issues

Post by C.W.E. » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:13 pm

3) Can't blame them for that. If they can't fly tailwheel themselves, why would they have to do a flight test on a tailwheel aircraft?
Interesting comment.

I have a question.

Considering flying a tail wheel airplane is not all that difficult why don't they get checked out in one?

Is it because T.C.'s flying skills requirements are so low ?
---------- ADS -----------
  

digits_
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: PE issues

Post by digits_ » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:27 pm

C.W.E. wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:13 pm
3) Can't blame them for that. If they can't fly tailwheel themselves, why would they have to do a flight test on a tailwheel aircraft?
Interesting comment.

I have a question.

Considering flying a tail wheel airplane is not all that difficult why don't they get checked out in one?
Because the demand isn't there to justify the cost.
---------- ADS -----------
  

C.W.E.
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1075
Joined: Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:22 pm

Re: PE issues

Post by C.W.E. » Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:43 pm

Because the demand isn't there to justify the cost.
I get it, why bother to learn a simple basic machine when the flight school industry does not think basic flying skills are all that important.

Fortunately there are lots of competent pilots outside of the puppy mill system who can check people out on tail wheel machines.

I just have a problem with someone being a flight test examiner that is unable to fly simple basic airplanes .

:smt082
---------- ADS -----------
  

ahramin
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 5752
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:21 pm
Location: Vancouver

Re: PE issues

Post by ahramin » Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:29 pm

I just lined up a PE last week for an IFR ride and was surprised to find that there is only 1/2 an IFR PE for all of CZBB airport. I haven't found out the rate yet but there didn't seem to be any mickey mouse flight school horseshit. PE seemed comfortable with his ability to perform the exam in a homebuilt aircraft with advanced avionics as long as we gave him time to do his homework. All in all it sounds good and availability doesn't appear to be a problem but the idea that there is only one PE covering two very busy airports seems crazy. If only Peter were still with us.
---------- ADS -----------
  

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7121
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Making aviation exhausting, everywhere

Re: PE issues

Post by photofly » Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:45 pm

PEs do have a “boss” inside TC. Item 1 should induce a word with the responsible CASI or the team lead, which (one hopes) gets it fixed, and it shouldn’t happen again. Don’t forget a written reason has to be given for a mark less than 3, so there should be no controversy. Marking a 2 for correctly following the POH requires follow-up from the student’s instructor.

I would refer item 3 to TC as well. TC should have the responsibility to provide a suitably skilled examiner in the form of an inspector, for more “unusual” tests.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Kirk: This is a dangerous mission. Likely, one of us will die. The landing party will be me, Spock, McCoy, and Ensign Ricky.
Ensign Ricky: Aw, crap.

User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2930
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: PE issues

Post by PilotDAR » Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:15 pm

Marking a 2 for correctly following the POH requires follow-up from the student’s instructor.
Though I'm not qualified to comment on the role of an examiner, I am qualified to comment about following the procedures of a flight manual, or FMS. If an examiner would like an airplane flown wit a procedure which differs/conflicts with the content of the approved section of a flight manual (Limitations/Emergency Procedures/Normal Procedures/Performance, they should be seeking an STC for an approved flight manual supplement for that operation. I cannot imagine a TC standard for examinations which allows for a conflict with FM procedures, or why are these procedures being approved.

So compliant candidate follows the examiner's instruction to conflict with the FM procedures, and something goes snap. Isn't the examiner PIC? Why was the PIC allowing the aircraft to be flown contrary to the FM procedures?

I went through this on my multi ride a bunch of decades back. The examiner took points off because during rollout, I said "flaps identified" paused, checked my hand was on the flap control and raised the flaps. He politely said that this was not acceptable, and took off a couple of points. I opened the POH, and drew to his attention that it said for a short landings, retract the flaps after touchdown, and it was a reasonably short runway. He agreed, and returned the points.

Whether an examiner agrees or not, the points should be being awarded for flying the aircraft in accordance with the approved procedures - or even for knowing the approved procedures! It is commendable when a candidate has actually bothered to read and retain the content from the flight manual, we sure should not be docking points for following the instructions!
---------- ADS -----------
  

Scuderia
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 16
Joined: Sun Dec 06, 2015 3:27 pm

Re: PE issues

Post by Scuderia » Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:40 pm

Each of my multi, IFR, and CPL were $400 each. Two different examiners, CZBB
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”