April 2005 flight test guide

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

testpilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:46 pm

April 2005 flight test guide

Post by testpilot » Sat Apr 02, 2005 12:17 pm

any comments on the new guides.
the engine fail. in the circuit, makes you think about whether a c-150 will make it bak to the rwy.
commercial candidates are supposed to prepare the X-country planning in 45 minutes or less.
forced is broken down into 2 exercises.
you can fail if your not looking out properly.
will the changes enhance safety?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Snagmaster E
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:45 am

Post by Snagmaster E » Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:18 pm

Not looking out was always a fail.
If you can't make it back to the runway in a 150, then you're too far away.
Forced has the highest failure rate, and a commercial student should be able to do a full forced, not just make the field.

Look at the notes at the bottom. Before, if you did note #2, an examiner might fail you for choosing a bad field. Now you can still pass.

Remember: This is for commercial students. Professionals should be able to do these things.

Just my opinion...
---------- ADS -----------
  
Money, wish I had it...

. ._
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7374
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
Contact:

Post by . ._ » Sat Apr 02, 2005 1:40 pm

Snagmaster E,

What do you mean by "full forced"? Just wondering. I'm assuming you mean all of the proper briefing, checks, radio calls, etc..

-istp
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Snagmaster E
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:45 am

Post by Snagmaster E » Sat Apr 02, 2005 2:01 pm

Yeah that's exactly what I mean istp.

I figure a private student should just have to make the field. If he/she can do all of the other items then good.

A commercial student should be able to do all of the items. I feel that if they're getting paid by pax to fly, it's their responsibility to make sure they're safe (I know a private pilot should as well, but you know what I mean).


P.S. Just in case somebody hasn't heard, the Pope has died. Poor guy has been going through a lot lately.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Money, wish I had it...

User avatar
Miss Mae
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 352
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 6:45 pm
Location: Ontario

Post by Miss Mae » Sat Apr 02, 2005 4:34 pm

The new standards are really putting a focus on situational awareness and PDM, that's why the 2 part marking scale came about on the forced. I think that for the most part the new standards are going in the right direction....anything that puts emphasis on pilots thinking through a problem is a good thing.
---------- ADS -----------
  

peeelot
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 285
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Mississauga

Post by peeelot » Sat Apr 02, 2005 5:56 pm

I am just glad I only have to teach it not go through it
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Right Seat Captain
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Various/based CYOW

Post by Right Seat Captain » Sat Apr 02, 2005 6:43 pm

I agree on the most part with the new standards. However the new marking scheme is something else.

It requires a very close read. Read the page indicating what the 1, 2, 3, and 4 mean, and the little line on the top of table. The score is based on the lowest standard. Now I think this is good in principle, but in practice, this may be a mess. A single small thing missed could end your flight test very quickly, especially in the hands of certain examiners.

I was hoping the new marking scheme would move towards eliminating the major differences between PE (Pilot Examiners, previously DFTEs). But now I only think it will increase it. I will be looking more into these new standards and marking scheme with some TC personnel, I'll keep you folks posted of what I learn from them.
---------- ADS -----------
  

testpilot
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 33
Joined: Tue Mar 09, 2004 2:46 pm

Post by testpilot » Sat Apr 02, 2005 8:24 pm

in the old guide if you had a 1 you still passed that ex. now a 1 means fail. they've eliminated the 0 and the 5 in the marking scale. that leaves you with above average, average , below average and fail. i think it is easier to mark.
---------- ADS -----------
  

duplicate2
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 307
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 10:54 am
Location: Limbo

Post by duplicate2 » Sun Apr 03, 2005 12:14 am

The 2 part breakdown in the forced approach is also in the new standards for PPL.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Right Seat Captain
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Various/based CYOW

Post by Right Seat Captain » Sun Apr 03, 2005 3:20 am

testpilot wrote:in the old guide if you had a 1 you still passed that ex. now a 1 means fail. they've eliminated the 0 and the 5 in the marking scale. that leaves you with above average, average , below average and fail. i think it is easier to mark.
But his time its not just about the mark. Thats why you have to read the marking scale closely. here's a link:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/civilaviation/gener ... /scale.htm
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
BTD
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1130
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:53 pm

Post by BTD » Tue Apr 05, 2005 7:48 am

I just did my MIFR on the new standards a couple of days ago. There isn't any differences with that aside from the marking scheme.

However since the 0 and 5 are gone. It makes it easier to get the overall minimum mark since you're still getting marks when you fail. But harder at the top end. If you do something just slightly wrong instead of getting a 4(80%) now you get a 3(75%). I think its going to help the guys who don't usually do a good job. But hurt the marks of the people who do.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Post by Shiny Side Up » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:11 am

The only thing that gets me on the nw standards is the 45 min time limit to do the preflight planning in. First of all not a single one of the DFTEs I've talked to are going to sit around and watch a candidate flight plan for 45 min. Secondly what private pilot doesn't know where he's going the next day? That's commercial stuff.
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

just another pilot
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1069
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:05 pm
Location: Edmonton

Post by just another pilot » Tue Apr 05, 2005 8:45 am

I see that Transport has been busy. Curious, how much for a flight test now?
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Right Seat Captain
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Various/based CYOW

Post by Right Seat Captain » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:07 am

Shiny Side Up wrote:The only thing that gets me on the nw standards is the 45 min time limit to do the preflight planning in. First of all not a single one of the DFTEs I've talked to are going to sit around and watch a candidate flight plan for 45 min. Secondly what private pilot doesn't know where he's going the next day? That's commercial stuff.
My understanding is that examiners have been advised that they need not make a private candidate plan the X-country in 45 minutes, they can give it to them say, the night before. HOWEVER, where they used to have the same latitude for the Commercial in the past, they now have to make the candidate plan in the 45 minutes aloted.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Shiny Side Up
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5335
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 5:02 pm
Location: Group W bench

Post by Shiny Side Up » Tue Apr 05, 2005 11:49 am

just another pilot wrote:I see that Transport has been busy. Curious, how much for a flight test now?
$200, but they're nice and don't charge you the GST. ;)
---------- ADS -----------
  
We can't stop here! This is BAT country!

Ralliart
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 897
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:32 pm

Post by Ralliart » Thu Apr 07, 2005 12:01 pm

I believe most of the Pilot Examiners around Vancouver area, Boundary Bay, charge $250 for the test and a little extra if they have to travel to another location............TC still does $200.
---------- ADS -----------
  

ready2move
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 41
Joined: Thu Oct 14, 2004 12:47 am
Location: Winnipeg

Post by ready2move » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:29 pm

The Private Forced is pretty harsh, if you shit the bed thats 2 failed ex. not just one like in the past.
---------- ADS -----------
  
No longer ready2move, doin just fine right here.

User avatar
Right Seat Captain
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Various/based CYOW

Post by Right Seat Captain » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:50 pm

ready2move wrote:The Private Forced is pretty harsh, if you shit the bed thats 2 failed ex. not just one like in the past.
True. However if you miss the field, and still get the procedures in, you still only fail one item. Likewise if you make the field, but do nothing else, you fail an item.

The thing that really irks me about the whole forced thing is that you can no longer change fields if you cannot make the original chosen field. I do see where they are coming from, in that you should have the skill to make the field you chose in the first place. But in practice, this is just asking for trouble. Just the other day I heard of a student doing a flight test, who made a dangerously steep turn very close to the ground to ensure they could get into the original field they chose, rather than just switching fields because he had a perfectly good field he could have made safely without the steep turn.

Needless he still failed due to an unsafe maneuvre.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:56 pm

" Just the other day I heard of a student doing a flight test, who made a dangerously steep turn very close to the ground to ensure they could get into the original field they chose, rather than just switching fields because he had a perfectly good field he could have made safely without the steep turn. "

This is nothing short of criminally stupid, where do you guys get these morons who make such idiotic policies for flight tests?

Or are you just joking about this?

If something like that happened to a son of mine on a flight test I would sue the c.c.s.cker for endangering his life for making him do such a life threatening manouver when there was a safe place to go. I just can't believe there can be such abysmally stupid people doing flight tests....f.ckin incredible.

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
Last edited by Cat Driver on Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

User avatar
Right Seat Captain
Rank Moderator
Rank Moderator
Posts: 1237
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:51 pm
Location: Various/based CYOW

Post by Right Seat Captain » Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:59 pm

I really wish I was joking. Before April 1st, one could switch fields, but now they are restricted by the following line in the Flight Test Standards:

Note 2: A change of field is acceptable from an altitude or point in the approach where a landing could still have been made on the original landing site.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Cat Driver
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 18921
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm

Post by Cat Driver » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:31 pm

But that does not make any sense R.S.C. what moron thought that one up?

The time has come when we must have some of these people examined by a psychiatrist to determine what mental difficiency they are suffering from, then have them instiutionalized so they cannot endanger others with their stupid rules.

But unfortunately R.S.C I do beleive you because I have had the missfortune of trying to reason with the guy in Ottawa that is in charge of flight training and I found him to be totally brain dead and unable to even discuss something on a level that made any sense. They get so insulated in their make believe world that they may as well be on another planet when it comes to understanding the industry they are supposed to be in charge of.

Oh well, maybe some of you younger types will be able to bring some sanity back into flight training. :smt003

And remember if you ever need any advice on how to do things in a safe and professional manner that works, I'm more than happy to help out. :D

Cat
---------- ADS -----------
  
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no


After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.

. ._
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7374
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50 pm
Location: Cowering in my little room because the Water Cooler is locked.
Contact:

Post by . ._ » Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:45 pm

This sounds like a classic case of, "Get your licence, THEN learn how to fly."

I make it a point not to learn anything right now. That way, when I get out of school, I won't have the bad habits to break. :P

-istp
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 925
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Post by Flying Low » Wed Apr 13, 2005 9:17 pm

Sounds like this should now be two seperate exercises.

1. Standard forced approach - voice your plan, cause checks and simulated radio calls while making an approach to the field of your choice. This field can be changed at any time with an appropriate reason (didn't see all the cows from way up there, nicer field next door, cuter farmers daughter two fields over, etc.).

2. Glide accuracy - upon engine failure examiner picks field and direction of landing. Student is required to make the field (within certain restrictions on bank angle etc.).

If the pilot succeeds in making the original field in the first exercise then the second one would not be required. This is likely a better way to test the both the pilots accuracy and PDM. No pilot in their right mind will commit themself to a field just because it was their original choice and this should be part of the test (we shouldn't be training drones). In the same token, a pilot should be able to make a designated field with two chances at it.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."

User avatar
Snagmaster E
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 306
Joined: Sun Feb 29, 2004 7:45 am

Post by Snagmaster E » Sun Apr 24, 2005 10:35 pm

Take a look at the standards for the Rec license flight test....

In one part it says a retest will be required if there's 2 ground or 3 overall failures of items.

In the part on failing, it says that any ground excersise failed constitutes a full retest.

Think these were proof read?

Also, on the pre-course assignment for the next refresher course, it says it's updated as of the first, but the questions are the same as the ones from before (old guides).
---------- ADS -----------
  
Money, wish I had it...

sakism
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 398
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2004 7:32 am

Post by sakism » Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:24 am

As unreasonable as it is in a practical sense, there has to be some restriction on changing fields. Otherwise, no one training east of Calgary or west of Winnipeg would ever miss a forced approach - or even have any clue how to do one with limited fields to select.

However, the examiner should assess the exercise as a fail before any unsafe flying is attempted. It's not hard to tell when the field is unattainable.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Flight Training”