Sneakier tricks pulled by examiners during P.P.C.'s

Dominic220 · Post by **Dominic220** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 10:57 am

Cat Driver wrote:
By showing him/her your license you proved you know how to do a W&B.

They can not make you demonstrate you can do one.

That may be true, but what happens when you get some... Turd Furgeson that demands to see it done by the book, and demands to see a W+B done on the spot? Does that mean I can say "well, I have my lisence so I must know how to do one. Please leave me alone so I may continue my next leg of my flight?" This is keeping in mind, I'd be under the GA, not 'for revenue' umbrella.

Cat Driver · Post by **Cat Driver** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 11:30 am

Dominic 220:

Are you saying that TC can detain you on a ramp check and demand you demonstrate you can do a W&B calculation?

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:32 pm

Quit hijacking the thread.

Doc · Post by **Doc** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 12:39 pm

JC, I've got a really "dirty" trick you can play on some poor pilot's next PPC. Don't say anything. Not a word. Don't ask any questions. Don't fail any engines. Just sit there, and nod. Oh, and spend lots of time writing things down on paper. Lots of paper! Poor bastard will be a mental case after the "ride"!

leftcoaster · Post by **leftcoaster** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:30 pm

I don't care whether you are an instructor or examiner, I personally feel that failing a system prior to flight (ie tape over the pitot tube) is dead wrong and unprofessional. What if you forget it?
Trickery at any level is unimaginative for a ride situation anyways. Just shows a lack of real forethought and experience on the examiners part.
Theres enough realistic stuff you can show a candidate without resorting to childplay.
My effin opinion

KG

A Regulator · Post by **A Regulator** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 7:43 pm

endless wrote:I thought that the regs had changed so you didn't need to carry intercept orders or a weight and balance on the plane anymore. I think they were both removed from the CARs. Can anyone actually find a link saying that they are required anymore?

This is for WT & Bal. 703 Operations Only as I am not going to look up the 704./05 requirements.
Weight and Balance Control
703.37 (1) No person shall operate an aircraft unless, during every phase of the flight, the load restrictions, weight and centre of gravity of the aircraft conform to the limitations specified in the aircraft flight manual.
(2) An air operator shall have a weight and balance system that meets the Commercial Air Service Standards.
(3) An air operator shall specify in its company operations manual its weight and balance system and instructions to employees regarding the preparation and accuracy of weight and balance forms.
723.37 Weight and Balance Control
The weight and balance system required by Section 703.37 of the Canadian Aviation Regulations shall specify for each flight how the air operator will establish and be responsible for the accuracy of:
(amended 1998/06/01; previous version)
(1) aeroplane basic empty weight and centre of gravity determined in accordance with the Airplane Flight Manual;
(2) aeroplane operational empty weight and centre of gravity. The aeroplane operational empty weight is the actual weight of the aeroplane before loading for dispatch consisting of the aeroplane basic empty weight and may include removable equipment, flight crew members and crew members (including baggage), oil, unusable fuel and emergency equipment and shall be defined by the air operator;
(3) weight of passengers, carry-on baggage and checked baggage, determined either by actual weight, by using approved standard weights or by using approved survey weights, and the actual weight of cargo;
(4) weight of the fuel load determined by using either the actual specific gravity or a standard specific gravity;
(5) aeroplane loading including, but not limited to, compartment weight and bulk cargo limits, floor loading limits, cargo restraint and loading considering weight and centre of gravity limits;
(6) aeroplane zero fuel weight, (as applicable);
(7) location of the centre of gravity to include the longitudinal position and where required, lateral and vertical positions;
(8) preparation and disposition of all required documentation whether by the air operator or other qualified personnel authorized by the air operator; and
(9) the training, both initial and recurrent, of all air operator personnel and other qualified personnel authorized by the air operator with duties and responsibilities in this system. The training shall be in the appropriate parts of the Company Operations Manual.
The weight and balance computation may be incorporated in the operational flight plan or be a separate form.

INTERCEPTION ORDER
Interception Signals, Interception of Aircraft and Instructions to Land

602.144 (1) No person shall give an interception signal or an instruction to land except

(a) a peace officer, an officer of a police authority or an officer of the Canadian Forces acting within the scope of their duties; or

(b) a person authorized to do so by the Minister pursuant to subsection (2).

(2) The Minister may authorize a person to give an interception signal or an instruction to land if such authorization is in the public interest and is not likely to affect aviation safety.

(3) The pilot-in-command of an aircraft who receives an instruction to land from a person referred to in subsection (1) shall, subject to any direction received from an air traffic control unit, comply with the instruction.

(4) The pilot-in-command of an intercepting aircraft and the pilot-in-command of an intercepted aircraft shall comply with the rules of interception set out in the Canada Flight Supplement.

Dash-Ate · Post by **Dash-Ate** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 8:51 pm

Activating the stall horn.

just curious · Post by **just curious** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:23 pm

Thanks Regulator,
Now what am I gonna ask Endless on his next ride?
We have no secrets left...

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:31 pm

A checkride is not a "game", it is not a process to demonstrate an examiners prowess, it is not a process to see if the candidate can deal with trivia, it is not designed to fail a candidate or humiliate a candidate or scare the living shit out of a candidate, all a checkride is designed to do is to verify the training recieved.
There is one hell of a big difference between training and a checkride.
Maybe we shoud title this thread as "Dumb, dirty tricks played upon innocent student pilots by some dumb asshole instructor who does not have a clue what he is doing"

sidestick stirrer · Post by **sidestick stirrer** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:42 pm

When I was getting my Instructor's Rating this past spring it was mentioned to me that interception signal information was only required to be on board if one planned to enter an ADIZ, but I can't find that anywhere.

The sneakiest thing ever pulled on me was in throwing the airplane around in preparation for an unusual attitude recovery on partial-panel: somehow, the TC inspector managed to gyrate it around then give me control when it was in straight and level flight.
Some disorienting for the first few moments, I can tell you.
But good experience, what with my senses telling me we were doing something completely different.
Not to mention my final command sim ride many years ago: an emergency descent due to a heart attack in the cabin, cutting the corners and breaking the speed limits that it was safe to do, a non-precision approach with weather right at minimums with maximum-demonstrated crosswind, the upwind engine failed and the upwind main landing gear stuck retracted.
Great fun, rolling down the runway on one gear while the F/O secured the good engine and fired the bottles, then differential braking, rudder and steering to stop on the centerline.
Although the inspector got his hands slapped shortly thereafter when another crew complained he wasn't following the script.....

Airtids · Post by **Airtids** » Mon Sep 17, 2007 9:47 pm

leftcoaster wrote:I don't care whether you are an instructor or examiner, I personally feel that failing a system prior to flight (ie tape over the pitot tube) is dead wrong and unprofessional. What if you forget it?
Trickery at any level is unimaginative for a ride situation anyways. Just shows a lack of real forethought and experience on the examiners part.
Theres enough realistic stuff you can show a candidate without resorting to childplay.
My effin opinion

KG

I agree 1000%, and I'll even take it a step further- intentionally failing a system during flight is a big mistake and the potential for problems is immense. More than one experienced pilot has shut off systems they never knew were interconnected by pulling breakers, and these lapses can be catastrophic. As has been mentioned, that's what the sim is for.

Let's try and remember that this business is all about reducing our risk.

Some of these other 'tricks' are interesting. I had one examiner whose breath was so bad, I thought it had to be his little game. Unfortunately for him, apparently it was personal hygiene that was the game

.