PPL Flight Test failure

[Bede]

A friend of mine (not my recommend, although I did a couple training flights with him) just failed his PPL flight test. On his power-on stall, he raised the flaps (10 degrees) too late and exceed the flap speed. Not only did he fail the item, the examiner ended the flight test and ordered a complete re-test. This was the only failure to that point of the flight test, and from his assessment, the flight test was almost finished and was proceeding well.

Personally, I'd probably have awarded a 2 as the error was promptly recognized. The closest the PE Manual comes to possibly justifying this is "displaying unsafe or dangerous flying". I would be open to a 1 on the item and a partial re-test, but a complete re-test is out to lunch IMO.

For you PE's and instructors: what are your thoughts on this?

[rookiepilot]

Not either, sounds Harsh.

[photofly]

exceed the flap speed

Exceeding an operational limitation is a obvious critical error, under “Safety margins are compromised or clearly reduced.”

To the extent that this exceedance should be noted as an unusual occurence in the journey log, and the airframe inspected for damage by an AME, a partial re-test doesn’t seem appropriate. In theory the flight should be terminated as soon as practical, in case of damage.

[Big Pistons Forever]

/\ What he said

[photofly]

https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-repo ... O0209.html

Here’s an accident in a similar airplane possibly caused by flap failure (in this case likely due to corrosion). Over stressing the flap mechanism by exceeding the limiting airspeed is unfair to the next and subsequent pilots of the aircraft, who shouldn’t have to deal with the risk of accident due to prematurely weakened parts. It’s appropriate to treat it as a big deal.

[Bede]

Photo fly, BPF,
So you'd classify it under "unsafe or dangerous flying?"

BTW the flaps will be inspected.

[photofly]

Were you the candidate, I would suggest that if your take-away from the experience was all about how the opportunity for a partial re-test was stolen from you, instead of how you flew so badly you risked serious damage to a sixty year old aircraft with no less than a person delegated by the minister on board and when you should be flying to the peak of your ability and concentration, then you learned the wrong lesson

[Bede]

Were you the candidate, I would suggest that if your take-away from the experience was all about how the opportunity for a partial re-test was stolen from you, instead of how you flew so badly you risked serious damage to a sixty year old aircraft with no less than a person delegated by the minister on board and when you should be flying to the peak of your ability and concentration, then you learned the wrong lesson

Come on with the hyperbole. A few knots over Vfe at flap 10 isn't going to risk serious damage. And the plane isn't 60 years old.

It's not the student who feels that the "opportunity" for a re-test was "stolen", it's 3 instructors, including me who has held delegation authority in the past (ACP, not PE) who can't find a justification within the PE Manual for the decision.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think that it's all OK, but that's why there's a marking scale and criteria for complete re-test. I am quite confident that whoever wrote the PE manual did not envision this scenario as falling under "unsafe and dangerous flying."

[photofly]

Sorry - 46 years old.

This is the bit that's worth discussing:

A few knots over Vfe at flap 10 isn't going to risk serious damage.

Well. What's your qualification for making that statement of fact?

The aviation industry - certainly the part that orbits close to Transport Canada, doesn't have any ha-ha about breaking limits. Cessna put a limit on the speed at which flaps can be extended for a reason, and they didn't pick the limit by rolling a die. It's not in your or my competence to decide the limit should be something else. And if you exceed a manufacturer's limit, I think you absolutely have to take it seriously. (Which you do, because you said the aircraft was being inspected.)

I don't see how you can demonstrate to a future pilot that they should also take it seriously if you also say, it's no big deal, just show me that manoeuvre again, and you can pass, just like if you'd lost 250 feet during slow flight. Exceeding a manufacturer's operational limitation is much more serious than that.

And, frankly, failing a flight test completely, vs. qualifying for a partial re-test isn't such a big deal, either. I suggest the candidate appeals. I would love to hear the TATC's decision. In about three years’ time.

[PilotDAR]

I've got to agree with Bede here. I rate this error by the candidate as "important", but not critical. This should be the subject of a debrief, and retest of that element, and renewed understanding of the importance of operating within limiting speeds. If there is doubt that the candidate has the skill to keep the plane within limiting speeds, or care to do so, that's a different topic. If the candidate recognized the error, and acted as best as possible to correct, that's the more important thing. That should make the debrief and retest that element fit right in.

As for the plane... If the exceedance was small, report it, check the plane, and move on lesson learned. If the exceedance was large, what was the examiner also missing? How did that happen??

I had a check flying (my flying skills) in a 172 a few years back. As I extended the first 10 turning base, the instructor snapped them back up with a "TOO FAST!!!". I was slowing through 95 KIAS. I pointed out that the first ten flaps on this 172 are permitted to 110 KIAS, and 85 KIAS for the rest. He harumphed me, and repeated "still too fast", but realized that I had not exceeded any limitations.

Overspeeding the flaps is not great. Overspeeding and pulling G is where you're going to be hard on the airframe! Cessna does not relate these factors to each other, the flap limiting speed would be at the flap limiting G - though that's getting a little too far into the weeds for a PPL flight test. Examiners who can convey appropriate degrees of criticality help candidates do better. Blind fear without moderation nor understanding doesn't really help learning. A whole retest for missing one element? 'Sounds un teamlike to me, if it was an isolated error, with acknowledgement and understanding.

[Bede]

Well. What's your qualification for making that statement of fact?

A PEng. And 20 years dealing with airplanes.

I also never said it wasn't a big deal. No one said the student shouldn't learn from the mistake. No one said the plane shouldn't be inspected.
What I said was that the failure was not justified in the PE manual.

[photofly]

A PEng. And 20 years dealing with airplanes.

In which case, you're well qualified enough to know that when Cessna sets a limiting speed, they have a good reason for doing so, and data to back that up. And to know better than to reject the manufacturer's recommendations in favour of your own hunches.

I also never said it wasn't a big deal. No one said the student shouldn't learn from the mistake. No one said the plane shouldn't be inspected.

I know. But if you want to let the student off with a "2", I don't think you're demonstrating that you think it's a big deal. Re-doing a flight test is a great way to reinforce the lesson that it's a big mistake.

Is it justified in the PE manual? It may or may not be. It's certainly an equitable outcome.

[AuxBatOn]

To me, any bust of an aircraft limit would be a reason for a full re-test.

[youhavecontrol]

It's an obvious termination of the test as an excedence has occurred... you cannot safely finish any more exercises until it is inspected as the plane is no longer air worthy after that occurs. A complete fail might be harsh or justified depending on what exactly happened. Examiners should leave the candidate with little doubt as to the reasoning for their assessment in the debrief.

If I recall correctly, the test guide says a grade of 1 (fail) is given for any excedence of a published limitation. A grade of 2 on the stall would be dangerously generous for exceeding a structural limitation.

Having said that, flap speeds being exceeded happens A LOT in flight training, and must be snagged and inspected and usually results in nothing damaged. It must be taken seriously even if most of the time its nothing at all.

[rookiepilot]

Having said that, flap speeds being exceeded happens A LOT in flight training, and must be snagged and inspected and usually results in nothing damaged. It must be taken seriously even if most of the time its nothing at all.

Do you immediately terminate a lesson if a flap limitation is exceeded by a small amount?

If not, why would the test need to be terminated?

In both questions, if a large variance, why did the instructor / examiner even allow a large over speed to occur?

Maybe they were surfing Instagram. (yes, I've seen that)

Anyone? Hello?

[Skittles32]

What’s the point of having limits if no one sticks to them?! By passing the candidate, he/she would then go out into the real world with the idea that exceeding limits ONLY A LITTLE BIT is ok, and won’t hurt anything or anyone... as long as it’s only a little.

Nah uh. That’s not how it works, folks. This was the right call. The chances of them making the same mistake again is far less now than had they been passed for it. You make exceptions for one flight test, well then they will expect the same thing with everyone else. Gotta stick to the standard that’s set.

[photofly]

Of relevance is this comment in the PE manual, referring to one of the grounds for immediate failure:

An intervention, during a manoeuvre where the examiner has to take control to maintain safety of flight does not necessarily constitute, “displaying unsafe or dangerous flying” as stated in (e) above. It may constitute a failure of the specific flight test item. Subparagraph (e) above, would apply when a candidate displays an outright disregard for rules of the air and/or causes a serious safety breach that is not linked to a lack of skill or knowledge for the performance of a specific manoeuvre or task.

This was clearly linked to a lack of skill, so on that basis doesn't fall under the "unsafe" or "dangerous" clause.

[Big Pistons Forever]

The examiner was there, all the commentators in this thread were not so if it is a he said she said issue my first instinct is to go with the examiner over the students version of events.

Based on the situation as described the following is fact

- An aircraft limitation was exceeded. Exceeding this limitation should trigger an airframe inspection by a AME

The following is opinion

- The flaps limitation speed for most C172’s for flap 10 is IAS 110 kts. The power on stall speed is in the low 40’s IAS. To exceed the flap limitation seems to me to a pretty badly handles stall recovery, which in itself warrants a 1

- The examiner is PIC and should ideally take control before a a limitation is exceeded. That taking of control makes the manoeuvre an automatic 1.

If the examiner prevents the limitation exceedence then I could see continuing with the flight test with a result as unsuccessful, eligible for a partial retest.

- Once the exceedence occurred the aircraft should return to as soon as practicable landing at the home airport (assuming no obvious signs of airframe damage) for a flaps up landing
and inspection. At this point I see no way to continue the flight test and so a full fail seems appropriate

[rookiepilot]

- The flaps limitation speed for most C172’s for flap 10 is IAS 110 kts. The power on stall speed is in the low 40’s IAS. To exceed the flap limitation seems to me to a pretty badly handles stall recovery, which in itself warrants a 1

- The examiner is PIC and should ideally take control before a a limitation is exceeded. That taking of control makes the manoeuvre an automatic 1.

Why didn't he / she take control then?

[CpnCrunch]

I'm somewhat struggling to imagine how a stall recovery could reach 110kt. Perhaps it's an older 172 with 85kt limitation? Even so, that's still a pretty bad stall recovery and the instructor should perhaps have taken control before it got to that point.