A question for Examiners, Instructors, Pilots & anyone else......

[HercFeend]

Today I was told of an account were an examiner failed a PPL candidate for busting airspace.

Roughly, the circumstances were as follows: during the flight test the examiner instructed the pilot to climb to 2500ft in an area where, if this instruction was complied with, the aircraft would enter controlled airspace. The pilot unfortunately followed the instructions given and upon completion of the test was failed for ‘busting airspace’.

Now before we go any further, I know that the pilot was the PIC and should not have followed the instructions and ultimately failed because he broke the law and this was his own fault.

My question is, do you think this practice is ok? Personally I’m not a fan! I was always told and it’s always been my experience that instructors and examiners aren’t there to ‘try and catch you out’. They are there to pass you unless your prove otherwise....etc etc. Has something changed since I was told this, is this part of the syllabus now?

Names and organisation’s details have been omitted as they are irrelevant.

I’m just interested from a purely theoretical and moralistic standpoint what other pilots points of view are on this one......

[pilotgallagher01]

I had a similar circumstance when I did my PPL flight test, he told me he wanted me to climb to 3,000ft . I knew the upper limit for the Tauranga control zone is 2500ft so I told him if we attend to go that high we would need to get a clearance to enter Christchurch’s Airspace. One I told him that he said "good" and we just stuck at 2500ft or below, so I’m guessing it was test regarding situational awareness and knowing the airspace boundaries..

I suppose it depends on your examiner and what he wants you to do but regarding this case knowing airspace boundaries is part of the syllabus so yea..

[HercFeend]

further - who is the PIC on a flight test? Am I correct in thinking (remembering) that if you PASS you are PIC and if you fail the examiner is PIC and you are dual / PUT?

If this is the case, as the student failed the test, doesn't this in fact mean that it was the examiner that was PIC and them whom 'bust' airspace - legal technicalities................

[pacblue]

QUOTE (HercFeend @ Jul 5 2010, 12:48 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

further - who is the PIC on a flight test? Am I correct in thinking (remembering) that if you PASS you are PIC and if you fail the examiner is PIC and you are dual / PUT?

If this is the case, as the student failed the test, doesn't this in fact mean that it was the examiner that was PIC and them whom 'bust' airspace - legal technicalities................

The student logs flight as PIC (pass or fail) but obviously if an emergency did occur the examiner may wish to take over, but it is the pilot who is being tested that has to make all decisions and at the same time comply with the examiners instructions in order to pass the test.

[Timmo]

I have registered just to comment on this.

Ignoring the issue as to who is PIC, the candidate entering controlled airspace without a clearance results in a mandatory fail.

QUOTE

My question is, do you think this practice is ok? Personally I’m not a fan! I was always told and it’s always been my experience that instructors and examiners aren’t there to ‘try and catch you out’. They are there to pass you unless your prove otherwise....etc etc. Has something changed since I was told this, is this part of the syllabus now?[/quote]
It should never be assummed that manouvers on a flight test will take place outside of controlled airspace. A former organisation I worked at had differing levels of controlled airspace to the East and West. If you went West anything above 2500ft required a clearance while to the East you had free range up to 3500ft. If an Examiner took you out West and said climb to 3000ft, I would have expected the student to get a clearance. I would even emphasise this point to students prior to flight tests. I understand how stressful flight tests are (I've done enough of them!) but the Candidate here showed poor situational awareness and was failed accordingly. S#*t happens and like anything in this business one needs to suck it up, learn from your mistakes and get back on the horse

[scon]

On a flight test both the examiner and student log PIC time, think thats odd? Take it up with the boys in Wellington

If you have been told to climb into controlled airspace on a flight test, question it. Tell him/her of the airspace, if they still want you to climb, get a clearance.

I think the situation mentioned by HercFeend is perfectly acceptable, the examiner provided a situation that would test the situational awareness of the student, if they were unaware of the controlled airspace they were not situationally aware, if they felt what the examiner says goes, unquestioned, then thats poor CRM.

Its a fail in my books.


Regards, Scott

[Timmo]

Yeah its a fail in my books too.

[SA227]

QUOTE

but the Candidate here showed poor situational awareness and was failed accordingly.[/quote]
As an examiner myself I couldn't agree more.

[HercFeend]

Thanks for the input.

As I found this quite an interesting account I also posted the question on PPRuNe: PPRuNe Link

It's interesting to note that 'generally' the instructors and examiners on this forum, mainly UK based by the look of it, seem to disagree with the practice of "creating situations to try and fail people".

There's certainly no right or wrong answer - I suppose it depends on ones personality as much as anything. I'll maintain that personally I think it's poor practice - if a student PPL candidate does something stupid, dangerous or illegal i.e. inadvertently entering CAS because they're unaware of their position, then sure they fail, but to purposefully set out with failure in mind and try and trick, catch out (however you want to word it) the candidate so you CAN fail them is a counter productive mind set and practice - IMO.