Failed PPL Flight Test twice

[Tbayer2021]

I never saw that either. Turning stall with full power - yes, but turning stall with full power and 30 degree flaps?! extremely unrealistic. There is simply no scenario where this is happening. You either take off with full power, turn and stall or base to final turn and stall with full flaps and little to no power, but not both.
That is not even accelerated stall (which in complex/multi engine does require gear down, but NEVER flaps down)
Even YouTube doesn't have any demo on that because it simply doesn't exist.

I could definitely see a scenario where this could very easily happen. You're on short final with 30 degrees of flap and have to perform a last minute go-around. You add power and pitch up but forget the flaps because you're busy since tower is giving you a new heading and level off altitude. You get fixated on the heading and altitude and don't notice your speed decaying.

That is your problem right there, and if you ever encounter a real emergency, you wouldn't be making it with this attitude. Why? AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNITE. If you are doing a GA, be the reason that it may, you must always FINISH THE GO AROUND, nothing else. Than you navigate to whatever you are told, than readback to the tower.

This scenario shouldn't even be possible. 20 degree? HARDLY, but MAYBE. 30 degree notch is automatically going up the moment you introduce full power. Those made up scenario can be even worse - lets do it under the hood, in case you go missed and it happens. There is only so much one can remember. In the military there is a saying - We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training", so why don't we focus on realism and less about "whataboutism" that are hardly a reality. Just my 2 cents

Wow, thanks for the lesson on if you do things properly then you won't crash. I don't know how I've gotten this far without you.

The scenario I proposed however rare and unlikely, has happened before and it has killed people.

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-cir ... june-2016/

Anyways, thanks for letting me know what they say in the military.



"A point that the NTSB does not mention is that a go-around from a full-flap approach is a delicate maneuver that pilots are seldom called upon to perform. A pilot making an instrument approach to minimums avoids using full flap, until landing is assured, for that very reason. It is quite possible that since her training, the pilot of the Cirrus had never had to perform such a go-around, and now, suddenly, she was given not one but three chances to fail."

[aviran9111]

I could definitely see a scenario where this could very easily happen. You're on short final with 30 degrees of flap and have to perform a last minute go-around. You add power and pitch up but forget the flaps because you're busy since tower is giving you a new heading and level off altitude. You get fixated on the heading and altitude and don't notice your speed decaying.

That is your problem right there, and if you ever encounter a real emergency, you wouldn't be making it with this attitude. Why? AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNITE. If you are doing a GA, be the reason that it may, you must always FINISH THE GO AROUND, nothing else. Than you navigate to whatever you are told, than readback to the tower.

This scenario shouldn't even be possible. 20 degree? HARDLY, but MAYBE. 30 degree notch is automatically going up the moment you introduce full power. Those made up scenario can be even worse - lets do it under the hood, in case you go missed and it happens. There is only so much one can remember. In the military there is a saying - We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training", so why don't we focus on realism and less about "whataboutism" that are hardly a reality. Just my 2 cents

Wow, thanks for the lesson on if you do things properly then you won't crash. I don't know how I've gotten this far without you.

The scenario I proposed however rare and unlikely, has happened before and it has killed people.

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-cir ... june-2016/

Anyways, thanks for letting me know what they say in the military.



"A point that the NTSB does not mention is that a go-around from a full-flap approach is a delicate maneuver that pilots are seldom called upon to perform. A pilot making an instrument approach to minimums avoids using full flap, until landing is assured, for that very reason. It is quite possible that since her training, the pilot of the Cirrus had never had to perform such a go-around, and now, suddenly, she was given not one but three chances to fail."

When I did my instrument checkride, I put 30 degree flaps (under the hood) just upon intercepting the glideslope, and flow the entire approach like that. The DPE was totally ok with that and I passed. I also did it under IMC, and was perfectly fine. My point is - I don't know why he mention the not getting full flaps until landing is assured. If you don't think you can make it - don't. Only in real NPA (and honestly I don't consider LPV as such as they have the same ILS cat 1 minima) I wouldn't be in a full flaps. So this first point is incorrect, to me anyway. I completely understand the notion of making the missed that much easier by not having the full flaps, but when you follow the glide slope, to me it's much easier not to mess with the flaps 200 AGL.

Secondly, and even more importantly, you found the only mishap to match such a scenario, which goes further to prove my point - a training, and even worst - an exam, that is more about the 1 in a million, rather than the 1 in a 100, is a BAD BAD training.

Thirdly, as well, it prove my very first point - extremely uncommon and unrealistic (and even the author admits it)

[Tbayer2021]

That is your problem right there, and if you ever encounter a real emergency, you wouldn't be making it with this attitude. Why? AVIATE, NAVIGATE, COMMUNITE. If you are doing a GA, be the reason that it may, you must always FINISH THE GO AROUND, nothing else. Than you navigate to whatever you are told, than readback to the tower.

This scenario shouldn't even be possible. 20 degree? HARDLY, but MAYBE. 30 degree notch is automatically going up the moment you introduce full power. Those made up scenario can be even worse - lets do it under the hood, in case you go missed and it happens. There is only so much one can remember. In the military there is a saying - We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training", so why don't we focus on realism and less about "whataboutism" that are hardly a reality. Just my 2 cents

Wow, thanks for the lesson on if you do things properly then you won't crash. I don't know how I've gotten this far without you.

The scenario I proposed however rare and unlikely, has happened before and it has killed people.

https://www.flyingmag.com/aftermath-cir ... june-2016/

Anyways, thanks for letting me know what they say in the military.



"A point that the NTSB does not mention is that a go-around from a full-flap approach is a delicate maneuver that pilots are seldom called upon to perform. A pilot making an instrument approach to minimums avoids using full flap, until landing is assured, for that very reason. It is quite possible that since her training, the pilot of the Cirrus had never had to perform such a go-around, and now, suddenly, she was given not one but three chances to fail."

When I did my instrument checkride, I put 30 degree flaps (under the hood) just upon intercepting the glideslope, and flow the entire approach like that. The DPE was totally ok with that and I passed. I also did it under IMC, and was perfectly fine. My point is - I don't know why he mention the not getting full flaps until landing is assured. If you don't think you can make it - don't. Only in real NPA (and honestly I don't consider LPV as such as they have the same ILS cat 1 minima) I wouldn't be in a full flaps. So this first point is incorrect, to me anyway. I completely understand the notion of making the missed that much easier by not having the full flaps, but when you follow the glide slope, to me it's much easier not to mess with the flaps 200 AGL.

Secondly, and even more importantly, you found the only mishap to match such a scenario, which goes further to prove my point - a training, and even worst - an exam, that is more about the 1 in a million, rather than the 1 in a 100, is a BAD BAD training.

Thirdly, as well, it prove my very first point - extremely uncommon and unrealistic (and even the author admits it)

Since you like quotes so much.

“It ain’t what you don’t know that gets you into trouble. It’s what you know for sure that just ain’t so. “ – Mark Twain

Good luck with your career.

[rookiepilot]

Can’t find a job ANYWHERE in Canada.

Gee I wonder why.

So lets instruct others!

Perfect.

viewtopic.php?t=224189

The guy you’re talking to I am guessing has at least 10 x your TT, (and Five times mine, BTW). Maybe much more.

Maybe you (and I) could learn something.

[digits_]

Secondly, and even more importantly, you found the only mishap to match such a scenario, which goes further to prove my point - a training, and even worst - an exam, that is more about the 1 in a million, rather than the 1 in a 100, is a BAD BAD training.

Thirdly, as well, it prove my very first point - extremely uncommon and unrealistic (and even the author admits it)

Assuming you're genuine and not just pulling our legs...

Post CPL the majority of your training will be in how to deal with those 1 in a million type of emergencies... And the checkrides on which you will have to demonstrate them might determine if you'll still be employed the day after...

When starting out these things might seem silly, and you could have some valid questions qbout them, but if any of these views seep through during your initial interview, I don't think you'll find employment as a pilot anywhere. Especially not if you express them the way you are now. And definitely not at a North American or European airline.

Also:

You are mistaking me for the OP. I only failed once - my PPL. I passed my CPL, IR, MULTI and everything else the first time

While it shouldn't hinder your career, and it's good you don't lie about these things, you likely don't want to flaunt this around either.

[aviran9111]

Can’t find a job ANYWHERE in Canada.

Gee I wonder why.

So lets instruct others!

Perfect.

viewtopic.php?t=224189

The guy you’re talking to I am guessing has at least 10 x your TT, (and Five times mine, BTW). Maybe much more.

Maybe you (and I) could learn something.

The guy who crushed the airplane in Azerbaijan had more TT than any of us combined (pass the 30,000 TT according to the airline logs), yet he still made a ego ROOKIE mistake, killing everyone (over 70 passengers) on board. Hoover covered it on his channel, as a lesson for people like you thinking the TT is everything.

Unlike 99% of you, I also taught paramedicine, and there is a med saying - "when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras". Those scenarios are desperately looking for zebras". I would much rather a student spend a full hour doing a GA than this. Why? Because this is how you build the muscle memory and avoid those kind of issues! And yes, my students always said, "well what if that happens", and it always pop up when I instructed self defense for police units. I always said - deal with it when you get there, and if it happens during the exam (underling happens, not instructed to do), than do your best, but wasting time, and in aviation case, student's money on it? Is it even in the FIG or FTG?

Bottom line - it's in the NICE TO KNOW items, not in the NEED TO KNOW items. In the US, every CPL student must show Chandelle and Lazy Eights (by far harder than any Canadian CPL maneuver) and steep spiral. You will rarely ever do those maneuver IRL either, but guess what? they are CPL, not PPL, and my comment went for PPL training.

[Bede]

Unlike 99% of you, I also taught paramedicine, and there is a med saying - "when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras". Those scenarios are desperately looking for zebras".

You're completely misinterpreting the idiom and the idiom isn't applicable in this context. If we were to apply the idiom, it would be, "I'm pitched nose up, at full power, the stall horn is blaring, but it's unlikely we're stalling because stalls at full power are rare."

Bottom line - it's in the NICE TO KNOW items, not in the NEED TO KNOW items. In the US, every CPL student must show Chandelle and Lazy Eights (by far harder than any Canadian CPL maneuver) and steep spiral. You will rarely ever do those maneuver IRL either, but guess what? they are CPL, not PPL, and my comment went for PPL training.

May I suggest that this quote encapsulates the learning theory of a certain culture? Knowing how to control an aircraft in all possible configurations is not a "nice to know" item. Piloting an airplane is not divided into nice to know and need to know items: it's the ability to fly an aircraft in all configurations and all phases of flight. A stall is a stall. You should be able to recover from a stall regardless of where the power is, flaps setting, etc. It's not like you know how to do a stall recovery at idle, 1700 RPM, 2000 RPM, but a full power stall is foreign and not necessary to know.

Aviation is full of situations that aren't "in the book". You're expected to have enough intelligence and common sense to deal with them, even if your instructor didn't provide you with a precise 8 steps to deal with it. Think soft fields with an obstacle, dealing with a runway with a tailwind, but obstacle on the other end (do you take the tailwind or the obstacle?), etc.

The fact is, the Flight Test Guide states that stalls should be evaluated in all possible configurations. If you struggle with that, then your flight instructor should not be recommending you.

[aviran9111]

Unlike 99% of you, I also taught paramedicine, and there is a med saying - "when you hear hoofbeats think horses not zebras". Those scenarios are desperately looking for zebras".

You're completely misinterpreting the idiom and the idiom isn't applicable in this context. If we were to apply the idiom, it would be, "I'm pitched nose up, at full power, the stall horn is blaring, but it's unlikely we're stalling because stalls at full power are rare."

Bottom line - it's in the NICE TO KNOW items, not in the NEED TO KNOW items. In the US, every CPL student must show Chandelle and Lazy Eights (by far harder than any Canadian CPL maneuver) and steep spiral. You will rarely ever do those maneuver IRL either, but guess what? they are CPL, not PPL, and my comment went for PPL training.

May I suggest that this quote encapsulates the learning theory of a certain culture? Knowing how to control an aircraft in all possible configurations is not a "nice to know" item. Piloting an airplane is not divided into nice to know and need to know items: it's the ability to fly an aircraft in all configurations and all phases of flight. A stall is a stall. You should be able to recover from a stall regardless of where the power is, flaps setting, etc. It's not like you know how to do a stall recovery at idle, 1700 RPM, 2000 RPM, but a full power stall is foreign and not necessary to know.

Aviation is full of situations that aren't "in the book". You're expected to have enough intelligence and common sense to deal with them, even if your instructor didn't provide you with a precise 8 steps to deal with it. Think soft fields with an obstacle, dealing with a runway with a tailwind, but obstacle on the other end (do you take the tailwind or the obstacle?), etc.

The fact is, the Flight Test Guide states that stalls should be evaluated in all possible configurations. If you struggle with that, then your flight instructor should not be recommending you.

Agree to disagree on the first part.

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

Runway with a tailwind? Well, obstacle is always better than tailwind (assuming it's 5 kts or above tailwinds), because unless it's not a manmade obstacle, it will adhere to the regulations.

I understand this notion of teaching, but what baffle me is an examiner seeking unrealistic scenarios (and the proof is in the pudding - there is maybe, one mishap with this scenario) just because the can. And if you know how to control an aircraft in all configs you will NEVER end up in this scenario. Muscle memory lives FOREVER. Case in point - I fell from a transport truck and my over 15 years of self defense training kick in in a split second and I only damaged my foot. and it wasn't the only case, and I haven't practice it fully for the last 5-4 years. I would much rather see an examiner doing realistic stalls, not those rabbit out of the hat ones.

[digits_]

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

This might not be professional, but... duuuuuuude... The accelerated stall with full flaps is the most common one that kills/killed people. It's the famous base to final stall.

You're descending on base -perhaps a bit steeper than usual because you think you were high-, with flaps, ready for landing. You turn final, and all of a sudden you realize 'holy crap I'm too low'. You didn't notice your lower speed, and in a reflex you yank on the yoke and bam, accelerated stall with a wing drop and not enough altitude to recover.

Runway with a tailwind? Well, obstacle is always better than tailwind (assuming it's 5 kts or above tailwinds), because unless it's not a manmade obstacle, it will adhere to the regulations.

What regulations?

I understand this notion of teaching, but what baffle me is an examiner seeking unrealistic scenarios (and the proof is in the pudding - there is maybe, one mishap with this scenario) just because the can. And if you know how to control an aircraft in all configs you will NEVER end up in this scenario.

The least common stall is a level stall in cruise. Everything else is more common.
If you know how to control your aircraft in all configs, then what the examiner asked should not be an issue, at all!

If you truly feel this way, please do your future students a big favor and do not get your instructor rating. You won't like teaching these 1 in a million emergencies, and your students will notice you don't like it and underestimate its importance.

Muscle memory lives FOREVER. Case in point - I fell from a transport truck and my over 15 years of self defense training kick in in a split second and I only damaged my foot. and it wasn't the only case, and I haven't practice it fully for the last 5-4 years. I would much rather see an examiner doing realistic stalls, not those rabbit out of the hat ones.

Flying an airplane is different. The first few years or flying, this will definitely *not* be the case.

[aviran9111]

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

This might not be professional, but... duuuuuuude... The accelerated stall with full flaps is the most common one that kills/killed people. It's the famous base to final stall.

You're descending on base -perhaps a bit steeper than usual because you think you were high-, with flaps, ready for landing. You turn final, and all of a sudden you realize 'holy crap I'm too low'. You didn't notice your lower speed, and in a reflex you yank on the yoke and bam, accelerated stall with a wing drop and not enough altitude to recover.

Runway with a tailwind? Well, obstacle is always better than tailwind (assuming it's 5 kts or above tailwinds), because unless it's not a manmade obstacle, it will adhere to the regulations.

What regulations?

I understand this notion of teaching, but what baffle me is an examiner seeking unrealistic scenarios (and the proof is in the pudding - there is maybe, one mishap with this scenario) just because the can. And if you know how to control an aircraft in all configs you will NEVER end up in this scenario.

The least common stall is a level stall in cruise. Everything else is more common.
If you know how to control your aircraft in all configs, then what the examiner asked should not be an issue, at all!

If you truly feel this way, please do your future students a big favor and do not get your instructor rating. You won't like teaching these 1 in a million emergencies, and your students will notice you don't like it and underestimate its importance.

Muscle memory lives FOREVER. Case in point - I fell from a transport truck and my over 15 years of self defense training kick in in a split second and I only damaged my foot. and it wasn't the only case, and I haven't practice it fully for the last 5-4 years. I would much rather see an examiner doing realistic stalls, not those rabbit out of the hat ones.

Flying an airplane is different. The first few years or flying, this will definitely *not* be the case.

I didn't say I won't teach it, I said it's the least important one IMO. I have a gut feeling the FTG will, at some point, change to force the examiner to a specific stalls. Harv's Air have examiner that said that as time goes, there is less and less leeway for examiners. In the past, he said it used to be free for all - do whatever you want, but as time goes, that is shrinking in a rapid pace. Same used to happened in the US, the FAA really narrowed down leeway DPEs had, from choosing a random maneuver to forcing all the maneuvers in the category and so forth. So the way I see it - it's only a matter of time before a certain stalls are not only the permitted ones - but will be required to be demonstrated (i.e. the examiner won't be able to pick and choose). Can I be wrong? yes, but I hardly doubt it as we didn't go backwards in the last 20-25 years.
How is that relevant? How much you want to bet that such an extremely rare scenario such as this will be part of their reasons?

[Tbayer2021]

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

This might not be professional, but... duuuuuuude... The accelerated stall with full flaps is the most common one that kills/killed people. It's the famous base to final stall.

You're descending on base -perhaps a bit steeper than usual because you think you were high-, with flaps, ready for landing. You turn final, and all of a sudden you realize 'holy crap I'm too low'. You didn't notice your lower speed, and in a reflex you yank on the yoke and bam, accelerated stall with a wing drop and not enough altitude to recover.

Another classic one along similar lines. You're turning base to final and realize you may overshoot the centreline with your current bank. You increase your bank angle and pull back just enough that bam! Your wing drops and you're a burning wreck 5 seconds later.

[digits_]

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

This might not be professional, but... duuuuuuude... The accelerated stall with full flaps is the most common one that kills/killed people. It's the famous base to final stall.

You're descending on base -perhaps a bit steeper than usual because you think you were high-, with flaps, ready for landing. You turn final, and all of a sudden you realize 'holy crap I'm too low'. You didn't notice your lower speed, and in a reflex you yank on the yoke and bam, accelerated stall with a wing drop and not enough altitude to recover.

Another classic one along similar lines. You're turning base to final and realize you may overshoot the centreline with your current bank. You increase your bank angle and pull back just enough that bam! Your wing drops and you're a burning wreck 5 seconds later.

Yup. You can't fully appreciate that until you've experienced it (at altitude) in a non-172 trainer. A piper or other low wing trainer would drive this effect home way more.

[digits_]

I didn't say I won't teach it, I said it's the least important one IMO.

Ok, which stall is 'more important' or 'more common' in your opinion?

How is that relevant? How much you want to bet that such an extremely rare scenario such as this will be part of their reasons?

Very, as it helps to make sure those scenarios stay rare!

[yhz41]

As for the second part - Since you are limited to how many stalls you can ask to see as an examiner, you should focus on realism. Might as well as for accelerated stall with full flaps, because it can happens even if you compromise the integrity of the flaps - it can happen.

This might not be professional, but... duuuuuuude... The accelerated stall with full flaps is the most common one that kills/killed people. It's the famous base to final stall.

You're descending on base -perhaps a bit steeper than usual because you think you were high-, with flaps, ready for landing. You turn final, and all of a sudden you realize 'holy crap I'm too low'. You didn't notice your lower speed, and in a reflex you yank on the yoke and bam, accelerated stall with a wing drop and not enough altitude to recover.

Runway with a tailwind? Well, obstacle is always better than tailwind (assuming it's 5 kts or above tailwinds), because unless it's not a manmade obstacle, it will adhere to the regulations.

What regulations?

I understand this notion of teaching, but what baffle me is an examiner seeking unrealistic scenarios (and the proof is in the pudding - there is maybe, one mishap with this scenario) just because the can. And if you know how to control an aircraft in all configs you will NEVER end up in this scenario.

The least common stall is a level stall in cruise. Everything else is more common.
If you know how to control your aircraft in all configs, then what the examiner asked should not be an issue, at all!

If you truly feel this way, please do your future students a big favor and do not get your instructor rating. You won't like teaching these 1 in a million emergencies, and your students will notice you don't like it and underestimate its importance.

Muscle memory lives FOREVER. Case in point - I fell from a transport truck and my over 15 years of self defense training kick in in a split second and I only damaged my foot. and it wasn't the only case, and I haven't practice it fully for the last 5-4 years. I would much rather see an examiner doing realistic stalls, not those rabbit out of the hat ones.

Flying an airplane is different. The first few years or flying, this will definitely *not* be the case.

I didn't say I won't teach it, I said it's the least important one IMO. I have a gut feeling the FTG will, at some point, change to force the examiner to a specific stalls. Harv's Air have examiner that said that as time goes, there is less and less leeway for examiners. In the past, he said it used to be free for all - do whatever you want, but as time goes, that is shrinking in a rapid pace. Same used to happened in the US, the FAA really narrowed down leeway DPEs had, from choosing a random maneuver to forcing all the maneuvers in the category and so forth. So the way I see it - it's only a matter of time before a certain stalls are not only the permitted ones - but will be required to be demonstrated (i.e. the examiner won't be able to pick and choose). Can I be wrong? yes, but I hardly doubt it as we didn't go backwards in the last 20-25 years.
How is that relevant? How much you want to bet that such an extremely rare scenario such as this will be part of their reasons?

Good luck finding a class 1 who wants to train you. Sounds like you know absolutely everything there is to know about flying, we should probably just sign you off. No wonder you can't find a job buddy. Try some introspection.