Assessments on Flight Tests

[swords2]

If a Rec student fails to use the appropriate checklists on a flight test what would the assessment be on this one, I am guessing a 1?

[Right Seat Captain]

I would agree with a 1, since the student failed to meet the standard.

[cyyz]

No more Zero's?

Or is 1 the official "zero" but people didn't like seeing tho 0????

so it's 1-4?

No more 0-5?

[costermonger]

Yeah, it's 1 through 4 now.

[Airtids]

...and 4 is ability above and beyond the standard. I'm still struggling with why as an examiner we should care whether the candidate outperforms the standard.

[TC Guy]

...and 4 is ability above and beyond the standard. I'm still struggling with why as an examiner we should care whether the candidate outperforms the standard.

This has been an ongoing discussion with many PE's ("Pilot Examiners", former DFTE's) since April 1st, 2005.

My basic answer is... if you can have a basic standard of a "2" and the student can fail if they get too many, then you better recognize if they do better than the standard (an above standard) "4".

Once you start using the scale on a regular basis (as I have on at least 50 flight tests since it was implemented) you will find it is a MUCH better standard than the 0-5 scale was.

-Guy

[Right Seat Captain]

...and 4 is ability above and beyond the standard. I'm still struggling with why as an examiner we should care whether the candidate outperforms the standard.

This has been an ongoing discussion with many PE's ("Pilot Examiners", former DFTE's) since April 1st, 2005.

My basic answer is... if you can have a basic standard of a "2" and the student can fail if they get too many, then you better recognize if they do better than the standard (an above standard) "4".

Once you start using the scale on a regular basis (as I have on at least 50 flight tests since it was implemented) you will find it is a MUCH better standard than the 0-5 scale was.

-Guy

For the RPP and the PPL, a student can get all 2s and pass. In fact as I'm sure you know, the pass mark is exactly the same as if you were to get a 2 on every exercise.

I have to agree that the 1-4 scale is easier to use once we're used to it. It used to be, above standard, get a 4 maybe a 5, standard was a 3 maybe a 4, below standard but not a fail was a 1 or a 2, and a fail was 0. Well who really cares if you get a 4 or 5. Theres no difference. It's much better to lump it into one mark.

The think I like about the new standard, is the mark doesn't really matter anymore. Just whether you meet the standard or not. It's a smart way of having a pass/fail system, without making it too subjective.

[Airtids]

I will certainly agree that the new system is much easier to use. Correct me if I'm wrong, though- with the old system, was a 5 not meant to reflect "met the standard with no deviations"? Is this not the standard, not 'better than' Standard?

[TC Guy]

For the RPP and the PPL, a student can get all 2s and pass. In fact as I'm sure you know, the pass mark is exactly the same as if you were to get a 2 on every exercise.

My friend, you are absolutely right!

I am sorry... most of the tests I have done have been multi/instrument/instructor rides (and a handfull of private) so... I did not put that together.

The PPL/RPP has always been a 50% pass standard... I must admit, I may not be completely comfortable if a candidate should score a "2" on every exercise.

Good food for thought.

-Guy

[Airtids]

As someone once said to me (in Highschool, not aviation where I've always been VERY serious ): 60% pass still means there's 40% you don't know. Strive for perefection.

[happy_flyer]

I was told once ( at the school that I did my PPL at ) by one instructor that if the pass mark is 60% then anything you score over that was a waste of effort !

[Hedley]

How sad. As a pilot, you should strive every day, every flight, to fly more precisely and accurately. Make that big pig do exactly what you want it to do.

For example, holding altitude. I had no idea what precision was in IFR flying until I flew with an Irish guy who put the altimeter needle precisely in the center of the zero, and kept it there, all the time. Humbling.

Here's a joke for you:

Heathrow Tower: "speedbird 376, you were slightly to the left of the localizer on that approach"

Speedbird 376: "Yes tower, I was slightly to the left of the localizer, and my co-pilot was slightly to the right of the localizer".

Suggestion: put the nosewheel precisely in the center of the painted stripes. 4 on the left of the nosewheel, and 4 to the right of the nosewheel. If you can't fly that precisely, it's time to practice some more.

[happy_flyer]

I should also mention that this is the same flight instructor who somehow managed to get me through my training and recommend me for a flight test without actually showing me what a steep turn was. Come to think of it, I didn't do a short field landing until my flight test either.

[Right Seat Captain]

As someone once said to me (in Highschool, not aviation where I've always been VERY serious ): 60% pass still means there's 40% you don't know. Strive for perefection.

I see it as even if you pass something in aviation with 100%, there's still at least 99% you don't know.

[BTD]

Happy Flyer. You're instructor was certainly less than ideal. But props to you if you still did well without that other instruction. Its not your fault he didn't teach you

People who think that you just need to get the pass mark are going to scrape through life. Especially if they are still doing it while in an actual profession (instead of high school or something) My opinion, if anyone cares, is that you should always take as much information as you can get, to learn about everything in life and not just aviation. It makes you a more well rounded person.

BTD

[scubasteve]

I agree that you should try to do your best but in a different context I can see the instructors point. Once the test is passed, no one looks at your score. The student that gets all 2's can apply for the same job as someone who aces everything. In that sense, it doesnt matter what your score was as the person doing the hiring only sees that you hold the licence.

[Cat Driver]

" In that sense, it doesnt matter what your score was as the person doing the hiring only sees that you hold the licence. "

There is a bit more to it than that.

When you decide you want to fly for a living you must strive to perform to 100% of your capabilities. When you are being examined for employment that attitude will pay off.

Like in every other endeavour in life some are more talented in certain areas than in others. When you reach the maximum of your potential for perfect in flying an airplane your progress or lack thereof in finding and holding a job will to some extent depend on how talented you really are in flying an aircraft.

The flight test like every other test is generally shaded with subjectivity on the part of the person marking the test paper, however it would be unusual for some one with limited flying skills to get top marks in the test.

Where flying training gets to be really f.cked up is in the written exams and the manner in which the questions are structured and the deliberate attempt by the idiots who write these things to give answers that are designed to not only be very close to right but are frustrating to try and figure out which is closest.

If you poor souls could be given ground school based on the things you really need to know and not have to try and wrap your minds around mumbo jumbo psedo sientific jargon drempt up by bureaucrats lost in a time warp with nothing to do but pump out paper you would make better pilots. ( there is another long f.ckin sentece )

Generally I believe you will be marked fairly as to your performance in a given time during your flight test. However we must remember that ones performance in any test does not reflect how you would perform by yourself and most good flight test examiners understand this.

Last summer I was giving a very talented and skillful pilot a flight test and he failed to take the obvious action to deal with an engine failure, rather than allow him to continue to not choose the easiest action I just said why not do .... immediately he reverted to his normal self and did a splendid job.

To have failed him without helping him would have been wrong if for no other reason than it was a two crew operation.

So do not make the mistake of not trying to be the best you can be because your marks in a flight test do mean something...to you...

...now in the written exams thats another matter.

Cat

[TC Guy]

Last summer I was giving a very talented and skillful pilot a flight test and he failed to take the obvious action to deal with an engine failure, rather than allow him to continue to not choose the easiest action I just said why not do .... immediately he reverted to his normal self and did a splendid job.

To have failed him without helping him would have been wrong if for no other reason than it was a two crew operation.

And that is why some discretion is given to Pilot Examiners. In my opinion, it would be a waste of resources... and just wrong.

Any flight test is subjective. Yes, their are very clear "pass" and "fail" candidates. When you earn your money (and get the ulcers) is when you get one that is... unclear. It is no longer a numbers game in these cases. You have to make a decision.

Testing flight instructors is a nightmare...

-Guy

[TAIL SLIDE]

Teaching people to make "descions" will always get them a pass (my opinon). Teaching to standard but no descion making skills will always end in closes passes or partials. If you can't fly with them at flight test review time and they can't say why they are doing what they are doing then they need more review. Without the the "whys" a perfect manuver is just just that .............a manuver.

Keep the blue side up.....

Slide

edited for my lack of english

[Airtids]

Which is exactly why we, as instructors, should NOT teach to the standard. We should simply teach to make each and every student the best damn pilot we possibly can. If that goal is met, then the standard is certainly met. There is no way in hell the best pilot I can create is not going to be able to maintain altitude +/- 100' in a steep turn; they are going to nail their altitude/bank/airspeed/etc. every time. That is in a perfect world. In reality, time, money, and individual ability factor in, and we, as instructors, use the standard to determine when a candidate is ready to be tested, that is all.

[TAIL SLIDE]

agreed ........but ..........thats the problem (among others) we can't teach descions so much as what you need to pass. The issue as to what is "acceptiable" vs. what gets them though the flight test is the problem with training standards now. Good instructors alloways leave because of the situation with the trainng environment. It works but industry then has to train to company standard (hopefully). What then was our job.......? Flight training (at least on a CPL level) is not meeting industry standard (realisticlly) and needs a much broader scope in which to work. All this being relitive but.... if they leave with a CPL shouldn't they realistically be good to go? Industry and the regulators need to talk.......

Keep the blue side up eh.......

SLIDE

[Right Seat Captain]

If as an instructor you look as the training as preparing a student to fly and make decisions on their own, and they just happen to have a flight test along the way, you will be doing that student a favour. However, sometimes the standards come in handy when needing to provide some sort of motivation for the student when nothing else will work.

[TC Guy]

If as an instructor you look as the training as preparing a student to fly and make decisions on their own, and they just happen to have a flight test along the way, you will be doing that student a favour. However, sometimes the standards come in handy when needing to provide some sort of motivation for the student when nothing else will work.

The standards exist because they have to... I think we all can agree on that. That does no mean that if the student meets them, they are prepared for what they will encounter unless the instructor does their job.

Scenario based training is the most effective way to prepare your students for the "real world". Have them make decisions (and justify them) in simulated scenarios. Use real-life situations when they present themselves.

For your Commercial students, put everything you can on a time limit. Push them.

The new flight tests standards are a step in the right direction (they have different standards for PPL and CPL now).

Just some food for thought.

Actually, does anyone here have some ideas to help instructors with some scenarios you have used in the past?

If there is some interest, I will post some I used in my former life.

-Guy

[Cat Driver]

" Scenario based training is the most effective way to prepare your students for the "real world". Have them make decisions (and justify them) in simulated scenarios. Use real-life situations when they present themselves. "

Maybe the time has come when "Senario based training " should moved up one more notch.

What do you think of commercial pilots having to spend xxx amount of time in the right seat of two pilot aircraft flying with approved commercial operations the same as doctors do as residents? And Lawyers article?

This program can be subsidized by the insurance companies as it is in their best intrest to have well trained pilots driving the stuff they insure.

By requiring an apprenticeship the industry would then have some assurance that the new PIC they hire has had some real world "Senario based training"".

Requiring the training to be subsidized will allow for the apprentice to earn a living wage and not be victimized by unscrupulous operators as these types of operations would never be on the approved list.

And last but not least the approval process would be selected by and approved by members of the industry in tandem with TC to best assure the quality of the training.

After the pilot finishes the apprenticeship time they are then free to look for work in whatever sector of aviation turns their crank.

Cat

[just curious]

We do that at our place Cat, but we refer to these candidates as co-pilots.

As far as living wages go, they averaged 36K a year, and worked 3 weeks on, 3 weeks off.

As far as scenarios went, pretty much everything you did up here (though less time at the Riding Academy ), plus floats in the Maldives, survey around the world, and usually at least one 'round the world ferry flight. Often all in a year.

Over the last decade when they reached that 'free to go' part, they went to Cathay, AC WJ and Nova. About 60 or so, looking at my reference letter files.