Failed Instructor Class 4 FT

[rookiepilot]

Why did you get 2 chances at the forced? Curious.

Seems awfully lenient for an instructor rating.

You’re right it doesn’t seem like it should be allowed since now you’re supposed to set a higher standard than a normal flight test.

It’s considered good airmanship since in real life if you blew it on a demonstration with a student you’d just do it again. However you’d better get it right the second time on the instructor ride because you’re not getting a third chance.

Still don’t get it.

My PPL ride had a standard.

My CPL ride had a higher standard.

My IFR ride had (as it should be) the highest standard I have had.

Yet an instructor ride….is easier?

Gee, there lies the issue.

[Big Pistons Forever]

I did my IFR after about 500 hours of instructing. It was the easiest initial flight test I ever had. The instructor course was the hardest training I have ever done and the ride the most demanding.

[rookiepilot]

I did my IFR after about 500 hours of instructing. It was the easiest initial flight test I ever had. The instructor course was the hardest training I have ever done and the ride the most demanding.

I am asking a specific question.

Why 2 chances to pass an exercise then on that ride only?

[7ECA]

Why 2 chances to pass an exercise then on that ride only?

Have you ever considered that there may have been extenuating circumstances?

Since the OP has (rather wisely) decided to stop responding, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that they've omitted some details. There may have been a reason why the first forced landing was discontinued and a second opportunity given... rushing to judgement and assuming that there's some grand conspiracy to let incompetent candidates through to become incompetent class four instructors is ridiculous. And yet, you love nothing more than to harp on about, your perceived, view that the vast majority of instructors are useless and only in it for the hours.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and we've all f'd up in an aeroplane to some degree or another. We've also had our fair share of bad days, and if you can't own up to that and admit that you're not perfect 100% of the time; then you're simply deluding yourself.

[khedrei]

Why did you get 2 chances at the forced? Curious.

Seems awfully lenient for an instructor rating.

You’re right it doesn’t seem like it should be allowed since now you’re supposed to set a higher standard than a normal flight test.

It’s considered good airmanship since in real life if you blew it on a demonstration with a student you’d just do it again. However you’d better get it right the second time on the instructor ride because you’re not getting a third chance.

Still don’t get it.

My PPL ride had a standard.

My CPL ride had a higher standard.

My IFR ride had (as it should be) the highest standard I have had.

Yet an instructor ride….is easier?

Gee, there lies the issue.

An instructor ride is easier in some ways, and no that's not an issue.

Also, it's a class 4 initial ride. It would not be the same on a class 2 or 1 and possibly not even on a class 4 renewal. Instructor rides are seeing if you can teach, and most of all seeing that you know what to teach. If a new instructor messes up a demonstration and then shows a student a second time how it's done, that accomishes the objective. They demonstrate they know what to teach, and can do it.

None of us are perfect. And you don't need to be perfect to teach someone to possibly do something better than you can.

In the end the examiner has the discretion. That being said I was under the impression that you would only get a second attempt if the skill you are teaching needs another demonstration, I didn't think you would get a second attempt at the 2 CPL mavouvres that you have to show on the instructor ride. Haven't run into that so I didn't know.

To the OP, stop worrying about a job looking at a second failure when you haven't even gone a second time. Focus on one thing at a time. Do some more practice, the go again. Don't worry about future jobs yet. Plenty of people fail rides and become successful pilots.

[rookiepilot]

You’re right it doesn’t seem like it should be allowed since now you’re supposed to set a higher standard than a normal flight test.

It’s considered good airmanship since in real life if you blew it on a demonstration with a student you’d just do it again. However you’d better get it right the second time on the instructor ride because you’re not getting a third chance.

Still don’t get it.

My PPL ride had a standard.

My CPL ride had a higher standard.

My IFR ride had (as it should be) the highest standard I have had.

Yet an instructor ride….is easier?

Gee, there lies the issue.

An instructor ride is easier in some ways, and no that's not an issue.

Also, it's a class 4 initial ride. It would not be the same on a class 2 or 1 and possibly not even on a class 4 renewal. Instructor rides are seeing if you can teach, and most of all seeing that you know what to teach. If a new instructor messes up a demonstration and then shows a student a second time how it's done, that accomishes the objective. They demonstrate they know what to teach, and can do it.

None of us are perfect. And you don't need to be perfect to teach someone to possibly do something better than you can.

In the end the examiner has the discretion. That being said I was under the impression that you would only get a second attempt if the skill you are teaching needs another demonstration, I didn't think you would get a second attempt at the 2 CPL mavouvres that you have to show on the instructor ride. Haven't run into that so I didn't know.

To the OP, stop worrying about a job looking at a second failure when you haven't even gone a second time. Focus on one thing at a time. Do some more practice, the go again. Don't worry about future jobs yet. Plenty of people fail rides and become successful pilots.

Ok. That’s fair. I was just curious how about the thinking.

[HankHill]

Why 2 chances to pass an exercise then on that ride only?

Have you ever considered that there may have been extenuating circumstances?

Since the OP has (rather wisely) decided to stop responding, it's not outside of the realm of possibility that they've omitted some details. There may have been a reason why the first forced landing was discontinued and a second opportunity given... rushing to judgement and assuming that there's some grand conspiracy to let incompetent candidates through to become incompetent class four instructors is ridiculous. And yet, you love nothing more than to harp on about, your perceived, view that the vast majority of instructors are useless and only in it for the hours.

Everyone has to start somewhere, and we've all f'd up in an aeroplane to some degree or another. We've also had our fair share of bad days, and if you can't own up to that and admit that you're not perfect 100% of the time; then you're simply deluding yourself.

Thank you for the comment. To further clarify. I had successfully taught both PGI and upper air exercise. I was graded successful for 2 out of the 3 CPL level exercises.

The forced approach did not meet CPL standard, due to my poor planning of making the field and miscalculating my descent from high to low key. I own up to my mistake and have continue to seek further lessons to hopefully make another attempt. Additionally to other comments posted on the forum, having about 26 hours on the right seat flying upper air exercises and landings/TO's to CPL standard can be hard. Where's it's easy to do the same exercises from the left seat if you have 200 hours (or what ever the minimum for a CPL FT is)

[CpnCrunch]

Thank you for the comment. To further clarify. I had successfully taught both PGI and upper air exercise. I was graded successful for 2 out of the 3 CPL level exercises.

The forced approach did not meet CPL standard, due to my poor planning of making the field and miscalculating my descent from high to low key. I own up to my mistake and have continue to seek further lessons to hopefully make another attempt. Additionally to other comments posted on the forum, having about 26 hours on the right seat flying upper air exercises and landings/TO's to CPL standard can be hard. Where's it's easy to do the same exercises from the left seat if you have 200 hours (or what ever the minimum for a CPL FT is)

I think maybe the "high key" "low key" way of doing the forced approach is part of the problem, and is unrealistic. I see no mention of that of any of TC's documents, and from what I remember from my CPL a more flexible approach was allowed. Is the key approach really still used?

[HankHill]

You can do the 360 method or straight in downwind approach or straight in final. The 360 method has been the only method I've been taught since PPL. I would explore all other options for forced approach.

[7ECA]

Therein lies part of the problem, when students (generally) only see one method of completing a certain exercise (or one technique, etc.) it can be a disservice to them later on. It pays to be shown different techniques throughout one's training, because every student is unique and sometimes a method that works for "Sam" may not work for "Jeff". Flexibility is a key skill for all instructors, so that they can tailor their delivery for a wide variety of students and their abilities.

As an aside, this reminds me of BPF's rants about forced approaches and how the scenarios used by many instructors are not an accurate reflection of a significant proportion of real world issues. The general forced approach scenario is "oh shit, your engine just quit - what're you going to do?" The student then runs through a cause check and inevitably cannot resolve the issue and is committed to a power-off approach to the same field everyone else uses in the practice area... As BPF, and the stats clearly show, the majority of failures are caused by a pilot's actions or inaction - and thus a proportion of them can be resolved. Not to mention the even more insidious issue of partial power engine "failures", which tend to be more common and are largely not taught during training. And yet, amongst failures, partial power is a scenario that could lead to all kinds of issues - and is a valuable topic to discuss and troubleshoot.

[HankHill]

Therein lies part of the problem, when students (generally) only see one method of completing a certain exercise (or one technique, etc.) it can be a disservice to them later on. It pays to be shown different techniques throughout one's training, because every student is unique and sometimes a method that works for "Sam" may not work for "Jeff". Flexibility is a key skill for all instructors, so that they can tailor their delivery for a wide variety of students and their abilities.

As an aside, this reminds me of BPF's rants about forced approaches and how the scenarios used by many instructors are not an accurate reflection of a significant proportion of real world issues. The general forced approach scenario is "oh shit, your engine just quit - what're you going to do?" The student then runs through a cause check and inevitably cannot resolve the issue and is committed to a power-off approach to the same field everyone else uses in the practice area... As BPF, and the stats clearly show, the majority of failures are caused by a pilot's actions or inaction - and thus a proportion of them can be resolved. Not to mention the even more insidious issue of partial power engine "failures", which tend to be more common and are largely not taught during training. And yet, amongst failures, partial power is a scenario that could lead to all kinds of issues - and is a valuable topic to discuss and troubleshoot.

Thank you for your feedback and response. I fully agree with everything you have mentioned. Especially the different forced approaches for each student.

Adding onto what you've said, I agree with the partial engine failure. This has been one issue we've breifly discussed during our training, however never to go demonstrating it whilst flying in the training area.

[Red_Comet]

The circling method (high/low key) for forced approach is tougher than just a standard circuit IMO. The nice thing about doing a circuit is that it's muscle memory you've practiced a million times. As a bonus, the precision 180 basically becomes the base/final of your forced approach, so you're constantly practicing/refining the skill of judging your descent rate from base to final. Your key point is the start of your base leg for both precision 180/forced.

[khedrei]

To touch on comments above, and clear up a few things, on an instructor ride, if asked to demonstrate a FA, the 360 or modified circuit methods are acceptable.

On a PPL or CPL ride, you can use any method you want, or no method at all. As long as you can make the field you chose and run through the checks, you will pass. He'll, you can choose a field straight in that's 5 miles away from 3k AGL. If you can make it, you pass.

I also agree with showing all methods, and I do so regularly from all kinds of different spots not just practice area. I also like the partial power scenario and haven't really done that. I will bring that into my routine.

Thanks

[ant_321]

The first time I ever heard of The 360 method was during the briefing for my class 4 ride when the examiner told me I would have to demo it. I asked a senior instructor to give me the Cole’s notes and I managed to make my way through it. I learned to like that method and taught it as an option to my students.