Proposed rule change to require additional training after passing a flight test

[photofly]

CARAC has a present consultation for what it calls "low impact" amendments to the regulations (https://wwwapps.tc.gc.ca/Saf-Sec-Sur/2/ ... x?id=12378) which includes the following:

• Standards 421.22(5), 421.26(5), 421.27(5), 421.30(5), 421.31(5), 421.38(3)(a), 421.46(c) and
421.55(3) - Amend these provisions to require candidates to receive supplementary training
to competency on all flight test exercises assessed with a major error or deviation.
Supplementary training will be provided by a person qualified in accordance with section
425.21.

So any score of 2 on a flight test - any flight test - will require additional training after passing the test and before a licence or permit can be issued.

This is one of a number of changes TC wants to push through "on the nod" with very little discussion or comment. If you do want to comment, email TC.CARConsultations-RACConsultations.TC@tc.gc.ca before 13 November this year.

Comments?

[PilotDAR]

Generally speaking, I think that we can all benefit from extra training from time to time. If one of those times has been formally documented as following a non ideal flight test outcome, it doesn't sound bad to me!

[digits_]

Silly and pointless. A candidate can already pass or fail or partial fail. How many more options do you need. At one point an examiner has to decide whether a candidate should pass or fail. Not avoid that responsibility by conditionally passing the candidate.

Let's say a candidate scores a 2 on a stall recovery. The judgement of the examiner at this poitn is apprently not valid enough to let a candidate pass?
Instead a class 4 instructor will give additional training. To what standard? A 2? A 3? A 4? How will a class 4 instructor accurately judge this? Is there a judging component required, or is it 'just some training'. If so, how much?

Extra costs for the candidate is going to be the only consequence of this change. It will have zero effect on safety.

[photofly]

There does appear to be a certain amount of arbitrariness.

For example, if a candidate scores a '1' on an exercise, they have to receive extra training and then demonstrate (only) that manoeuvre to an examiner. If they get a '2' then they have to receive extra training and demonstrate (only) that manoeuvre to an instructor or other qualified person. Why the difference?

If a manoeuvre isn't conducted to a satisfactory standard for the immediate issue of a licence or permit why does quite how badly it was done the first time (scoring either 1 or 2) make any difference in the person to whom it must be demonstrated again?

I think it is also likely to increase the number of '2's issued vs '1', and increase the pass rate. Examiners are human, and whereas prior to this change an examiner might be reluctant to give the benefit of the doubt to a student, the knowledge that on receipt of a '2' a candidate will require additional training may encourage that outcome: "well, ", the examiner may reason, "they didn't do that exercise very well at all, but at least they'll get some additional training in it, so I shall pass them". Perhaps that's a good thing.

[Squaretail]

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training. If an exercise was deemed so poorly done to need more training, there's already facility for that. Grade it a 1. I wonder if this has been suggested by certain schools and/or PEs associated with those schools. It would be interesting on the source of this idea.

[digits_]

But then the same instructor who already is convinced you know how to do your exercises is going to go fly with you again and go: "yup, you still know how to do a stall, guess you were nervous on your flight test". Why?

If the goal is to create more leniency, then perhaps the allowed number of 2 or 1 on the test could depend on the total score you got.

Ace everything, except for one exercise? Well, you pass anyway.

Barely scrape by on all the other exercies? Sorry, you can only have one 2.

If we want to keep the system of checkrides, then the examiner has to decide if a license can be issued. He gets paid to make that -sometimes hard- decision.

[photofly]

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training. If an exercise was deemed so poorly done to need more training, there's already facility for that. Grade it a 1. I wonder if this has been suggested by certain schools and/or PEs associated with those schools. It would be interesting on the source of this idea.

I actually first heard the suggestion five or six years ago directly from a TC POI. There wasn't much enthusiasm for doing it on a voluntary basis by the FTU. I don't think it's driven by the industry at all.

[Conflicting Traffic]

If the goal is to create more leniency, then perhaps the allowed number of 2 or 1 on the test could depend on the total score you got.

Ace everything, except for one exercise? Well, you pass anyway.

Barely scrape by on all the other exercies? Sorry, you can only have one 2.

This makes sense, and it's exactly the effect that the overall pass mark is supposed to have. The problem, though, is that the overall pass mark is far too low to be effective.

[AirFrame]

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training. If an exercise was deemed so poorly done to need more training, there's already facility for that. Grade it a 1. I wonder if this has been suggested by certain schools and/or PEs associated with those schools. It would be interesting on the source of this idea.

I actually first heard the suggestion five or six years ago directly from a TC POI. There wasn't much enthusiasm for doing it on a voluntary basis by the FTU. I don't think it's driven by the industry at all.

I suspect it's the other way around... TC is driving it so they don't have to send an examiner for a second flight test after the remedial training, they can pawn it off on the FTU instead. The re-tests probably don't pay for themselves.

[digits_]

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training. If an exercise was deemed so poorly done to need more training, there's already facility for that. Grade it a 1. I wonder if this has been suggested by certain schools and/or PEs associated with those schools. It would be interesting on the source of this idea.

I actually first heard the suggestion five or six years ago directly from a TC POI. There wasn't much enthusiasm for doing it on a voluntary basis by the FTU. I don't think it's driven by the industry at all.

I suspect it's the other way around... TC is driving it so they don't have to send an examiner for a second flight test after the remedial training, they can pawn it off on the FTU instead. The re-tests probably don't pay for themselves.

Huh? When is TC involved in flight tests? The only one I can think of is the initial FI checkride. Everything else is already organized by the instructor or FTU.

[lownslow]

I went to one of those evil puppy mills I hear so much about and there it was standard to do a sort of ‘clean up’ flight after any flight test. Why wouldn’t you want to correct your performance closer to 100%?

[digits_]

I went to one of those evil puppy mills I hear so much about and there it was standard to do a sort of ‘clean up’ flight after any flight test. Why wouldn’t you want to correct your performance closer to 100%?

Because you're supposed to be as close to 100% as possible before you attempt the flight test. Then on the flight test your performance degrades a bit due to stress and nerves.

When I got my PPL my first thought was not 'let's spend some more time in the plane with my instructor so I can fly those steep turns within 20 ft accuracy instead of 25' but 'woohoo, I passed, now I can take my dad for a flight!'

[Big Pistons Forever]

I think you are seeing a belated realization by TC that the flight test standards are so low, particularly for the CPL, that other countries are starting to indicate they will not accept TC licenses as currently issued due to the low standards demanded.

This is why the restrictions on the number of "2's" came about. Before the change there were pilots who managed to achieve a pass mark on the CPL with up to 12 "2's". That was not a good look for TC.

The suggestion of mandatory remedial training is another quick fix to help address the low quality perception.

The real problem is that the CPL syllabus has not materially changed in over 50 years. It is wholly inadequate to prepare a pilot for the reality of commercial flight operations and needs to be totally redone.

[Conflicting Traffic]

I suspect it's the other way around... TC is driving it so they don't have to send an examiner for a second flight test after the remedial training, they can pawn it off on the FTU instead. The re-tests probably don't pay for themselves.

They already don't send an examiner for level 2 assessments. Plus, the *vast* majority of flight tests are done by PEs, not TC. The need for a partial test after failing one or two exercises is isn't changing.

[photofly]

I'm unhappy that this is being sneaked through in a document full of what are supposed to be (according to the document) "no-cost" "housecleaning" changes.

Regardless of whether you think it's a good or bad idea, it isn't no-cost, not to student pilots, and if you agree then please email CARAC at the email address at the top, saying you think this deserves more scrutiny than it is being given.

[digits_]

I'm unhappy that this is being sneaked through in a document full of what are supposed to be (according to the document) "no-cost" "housecleaning" changes.

Regardless of whether you think it's a good or bad idea, it isn't no-cost, not to student pilots, and if you agree then please email CARAC at the email address at the top, saying you think this deserves more scrutiny than it is being given.

Done!

[Bede]

I think you are seeing a belated realization by TC that the flight test standards are so low, particularly for the CPL, that other countries are starting to indicate they will not accept TC licenses as currently issued due to the low standards demanded.

This is why the restrictions on the number of "2's" came about. Before the change there were pilots who managed to achieve a pass mark on the CPL with up to 12 "2's". That was not a good look for TC.

The suggestion of mandatory remedial training is another quick fix to help address the low quality perception.

The real problem is that the CPL syllabus has not materially changed in over 50 years. It is wholly inadequate to prepare a pilot for the reality of commercial flight operations and needs to be totally redone.

Completely agree.

If you were king, what changes would you make to the CPL program to improve it?

[Squaretail]

I think you are seeing a belated realization by TC that the flight test standards are so low, particularly for the CPL, that other countries are starting to indicate they will not accept TC licenses as currently issued due to the low standards demanded.

I'm sure that the fact that many schools use an in house PE has nothing to do with this.

[photofly]

I think you are seeing a belated realization by TC that the flight test standards are so low, particularly for the CPL, that other countries are starting to indicate they will not accept TC licenses as currently issued due to the low standards demanded.

I'm sure that the fact that many schools use an in house PE has nothing to do with this.

One cannot simultaneously believe that in-house examiners are giving students an easy pass, and at the same time...

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training.

... be looking for excuses to extend training duration artificially.

It really has to be one sort of malfeasance or the other. You pick!

[digits_]

I think you are seeing a belated realization by TC that the flight test standards are so low, particularly for the CPL, that other countries are starting to indicate they will not accept TC licenses as currently issued due to the low standards demanded.

I'm sure that the fact that many schools use an in house PE has nothing to do with this.

One cannot simultaneously believe that in-house examiners are giving students an easy pass, and at the same time...

Playing the devil's advocate, this sort of stinks of perhaps some schools looking to soak students for a bit more training.

... be looking for excuses to extend training duration artificially.

It really has to be one sort of malfeasance or the other. You pick!

Oh it can be both. You just need a bit of creativity. 'We'll milk them for whatever we can with inferior instruction, but in the end they NEED to pass!'