Clarification on flight test failures

[sstaurus]

For the purposes of upgrading from Class 3 to 2, the CARs only speak of more than 3 failures of the last 10 being disqualifying. I have not found a place that states whether the same student can count as more than one recommend. For example, say I had a total of 4 students that I recommended, and 1 failed completely the first time, but passed clean the second time. Does this count as 5 recommends? Therefore I have 5 recommended and 1 fail.

One other question, does TC discriminate between a partial and a complete failure? Or are they both just viewed as failures.

Thanks for the help in advance..

ps. I understand the sensitivity to CARs questions here, but I feel I did my research and I thought I would try here before I call TC to confirm.

[Hedley]

does TC discriminate between a partial and a complete failure?

My understanding is that a failure is a failure. The candidate did not pass.

whether the same student can count as more than one recommend. For example, say I had a total of 4 students that I recommended, and 1 failed completely the first time, but passed clean the second time. Does this count as 5 recommends?

Heh. Nice try. I think you're arguing that an instructor who's students fail should move up faster than an instructor who's student's don't fail, as long as the instructor manages to squeak past CAR 421.67 (flight test record).

I strongly suspect TC is only going to give you credit for only 4 above, though what the heck, it can't hurt to try! Get back to us on what TC said.

PS This is an excellent question, because it deals with interpreting the CARs - not locating them.

[Bede]

I can shed a bit of light. To upgrade from 4 to 3, the 3 students must be initial passes (no passing on the partial flight test). For a class 2, it is simply a recommend requirement (they can fail), but you cannot count a fail as 2 recommends.

[f650]

I discussed this scenario with TC during a base inspection a couple of years ago and was told the “recommend” is what is counted. For example: a class 3 has eight students recommended for RPP, PPL and CPL. Two do not pass on the first recommend, but do pass on the second. The class 3 now has 10 recommends, but not for 10 different people. He/She only has two failures out of ten recommends, so he has an acceptable flight test record. He is eligible to take the class 2 flight test (if he has passed the AIRAT).

I said this doesn’t make sense. The TC inspector agreed, but said that is the rule. CARS 421.71 (3) (b)

[KK7]

I have to agree with f650, and have seen this being done personally in the past. But maybe this is something that depends on the inspector.

You need 10 recommends to pass, but the regs do not specify they must be 10 different people. You recommend one student for flight test, they fail (partial or complete failure irrelevant). You review required areas, and recommend again, student passes. You now have two recommends on file.

[shitdisturber]

I have to agree with f650, and have seen this being done personally in the past. But maybe this is something that depends on the inspector.

You need 10 recommends to pass, but the regs do not specify they must be 10 different people. You recommend one student for flight test, they fail (partial or complete failure irrelevant). You review required areas, and recommend again, student passes. You now have two recommends on file.

That's the way it's been traditionally interpreted out here; essentially the instructor gets rewarded if a student fails but that's the way the reg is written.

[YOWza]

essentially the instructor gets rewarded if a student fails but that's the way the reg is written

It's not really a reward, it's simply that 70% of your last 10 recommends must be successful, which seems like fair ball.

[shitdisturber]

essentially the instructor gets rewarded if a student fails but that's the way the reg is written

It's not really a reward, it's simply that 70% of your last 10 recommends must be successful, which seems like fair ball.

Sure it is. Look at it this way; Joe Blow is a class III with six recommends, all successful. He's passed the written for the class two and has the required experience. He recommends two students for flight tests, both of whom partial but the DFTE has the time to hang around and retest them. He takes them out for a quick remedial flight, recommends them again and they pass. Joe can now upgrade to a class II with the resultant pay raise etc etc; sure seems like a reward to me.

[KK7]

essentially the instructor gets rewarded if a student fails but that's the way the reg is written

It's not really a reward, it's simply that 70% of your last 10 recommends must be successful, which seems like fair ball.

Sure it is. Look at it this way; Joe Blow is a class III with six recommends, all successful. He's passed the written for the class two and has the required experience. He recommends two students for flight tests, both of whom partial but the DFTE has the time to hang around and retest them. He takes them out for a quick remedial flight, recommends them again and they pass. Joe can now upgrade to a class II with the resultant pay raise etc etc; sure seems like a reward to me.

People get "thrown" students at the end of their training to get recommends, and that is no better off. Likewise, sometimes another instructor takes over the review of failed items on a flight test, and they deserve this recommend.

[Hedley]

It's a character flaw of mine, but I find it depressing when people are rewarded for displays of incompetence. This is not entirely unlike people in large corporations and bureaucracies getting promotions. Often, that's the only way you can get rid of them - move them up to some administrative position, where hopefully they will do less harm.

I realize that this is simply the way life is, and there's nothing we can do about it. But another character flaw of mine is that I have difficulty respecting incompetent people, who have violated the Peter Principle by rising distinctly above their level of incompetence.

We are told to "repect the office - not the man" and I suppose that's true, but I have difficulty doing that, sometimes, and it has caused me terrible trouble in the past.

For the youngsters here:

The Peter Principle is stated in chapter 1 of the book with the same title: "In a hierarchy every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence".

It was formulated by Dr. Laurence J. Peter and Raymond Hull in their 1969 book The Peter Principle, a humorous treatise which also introduced the "salutary science of hierarchiology", "inadvertently founded" by L. J. Peter (deceased 12.1.1990). It holds that in a hierarchy, members are promoted so long as they work competently. Sooner or later they are promoted to a position at which they are no longer competent (their "level of incompetence"), and there they remain, being unable to earn further promotions. This principle can be modelled and has theoretical validity for simulations.[1] Peter's Corollary states that "in time, every post tends to be occupied by an employee who is incompetent to carry out their duties" and adds that "work is accomplished by those employees who have not yet reached their level of incompetence". Managing upward is the concept of a subordinate finding ways to subtly "manage" superiors in order to limit the damage that they end up doing.

[YOWza]

A perfect record is difficult to obtain due to the numerous factors in flight training and testing. There's lots of good, competent instructors with 70 and 80 percent pass rates that deserve to upgrade.

[Shiny Side Up]

does TC discriminate between a partial and a complete failure?

My understanding is that a failure is a failure. The candidate did not pass.

This once was my understanding as well, but TC interprets it differently. An oddball licensing conundrum recently came up with a student where apparently a "partial pass" is still considered a "pass" in terms of the limitations concerning written tests and flight tests. I argued for a long time about the absurdity of this, since it can possibly set up a student under that interepretation to become impossible to get a license - until of course they outright fail one of those items and can start everything again. Lesson to be learned, don't let students f*ck around getting their written and flight tests done in a reasonable ammount of time.

[Shiny Side Up]

It's a character flaw of mine, but I find it depressing when people are rewarded for displays of incompetence.

Personally in this case I don't think being rewarded (in this case gaining the class 2 license) is the result of a display of incompetence. There's a mis-alignment of objectives. Joe instructor gets his class 2 because he passed the written and the flight test (both displays of competency), not because he reccommends 10 people for a flight test. Reccomending people for a flight test often might not have any bearing on whether the reccomender is a competent instructor or not, it is an experience requirement, not a skill requirement, much like the hours required.

Note that thre is provision for an instructor who does not have a satisfactory record to upgrade from three to a two. See 421.71 (4) (b).

[Hedley]

it is an experience requirement, not a skill requirement

Well played, sir! When I start up my law firm - Dewey, Cheatem & Howe - I am going to invite you to join as one of the founding partners

[Shiny Side Up]

[shrug]

Like you said, its a question of interpretation. In this case that particular "experience requirement" might seem low. While ideally its designed to make sure the instructor has spent a fair ammount of time with students, it might possibly mean that this instructor has only reccomended people - hence a minimum possible time of 50 hours (five of the last ten for ten candidates for the flight test). Combined with the hour requirement and the pass requirement (see last post for CARs reference) hopefully a new class 2 won't slip through the cracks and be poorly experienced, though there is the possibility. Because there is a possibility though, whenever there is a loophole of such, it of course increases the probablility that people will seek to take advantage of it - thus it is possible to "fast track" someone to their class 2. It becomes a question of spirit of the law verses letter of it.

I've heard of TC denying an application to becoming a class 2 based upon them, in their opinion , not thinking that an applicant has enough experience. They'd be on shaky legal ground in that case though if the applicant challenged them. Though I doubt anyone who was desperate for some reason to get a class 2 would have the financial means to do so.

As an aside, once again I'll press the point that while nothing trumps having experience, the low times we're talking about to measure it aren't a large enough pool of data to make an accurate assessment of it. In the case of the class 2 upgrade, the skill requirement becomes really the final arbiter in deciding. Whether that's right or wrong is a matter of circumstance.

[shitdisturber]

It's a character flaw of mine, but I find it depressing when people are rewarded for displays of incompetence.

That's a pretty broad and unfair blanket statement. Take the following case which I personally witnessed. A certain flight instructor has recommended a student for flight test. Said student was a good, competent pilot and her instructor wasn't at all concerned about whether or not she'd pass despite the fact that she was a little nervous. The school was rather busy that day so while the instructor was off flying with another student, the CFI came in from a flight and told the student something to the effect of "it's a bit windy today, add about five knots to your speed for the forced approach." Unfortunately, the student listened to the CFI and ended up missing the field. The instructor who was not impressed that the CFI had cost the student a partial, took her up for a quick review and essentially told her; "ignore the CFI and just do it the way I taught you." Student did it as taught, and lo and behold, passed; getting a perfect score on the exercise she'd just failed. The flight instructor ended up with two recommends, which he wasn't happy about but you could hardly consider him incompetent.
Edited because I forgot to add; the CFI's interference cost the flight instructor his perfect record so he was more than a little choked about it.

[Aviatard]

Note that thre is provision for an instructor who does not have a satisfactory record to upgrade from three to a two. See 421.71 (4) (b).

I've read and read that section, and for the life of me, I cannot see how it says that:

(b) An applicant who is the subject of follow-up action with respect to the applicant’s Flight Test Record in accordance with Section 421.67, is not eligible to upgrade the instructor rating from a Class 3 to a Class 2.

Please explain?

[shitdisturber]

Note that thre is provision for an instructor who does not have a satisfactory record to upgrade from three to a two. See 421.71 (4) (b).

I've read and read that section, and for the life of me, I cannot see how it says that:

(b) An applicant who is the subject of follow-up action with respect to the applicant’s Flight Test Record in accordance with Section 421.67, is not eligible to upgrade the instructor rating from a Class 3 to a Class 2.

Please explain?

By follow up action, they mean some kind of remedial action is necessary. If they review an instructor's record and determine he/she was not at fault then he/she can indeed upgrade with an unsatisfactory record.

[FlightSolutions]

That's a pretty broad and unfair blanket statement. Take the following case which I personally witnessed. A certain flight instructor has recommended a student for flight test. Said student was a good, competent pilot and her instructor wasn't at all concerned about whether or not she'd pass despite the fact that she was a little nervous. The school was rather busy that day so while the instructor was off flying with another student, the CFI came in from a flight and told the student something to the effect of "it's a bit windy today, add about five knots to your speed for the forced approach." Unfortunately, the student listened to the CFI and ended up missing the field. The instructor who was not impressed that the CFI had cost the student a partial, took her up for a quick review and essentially told her; "ignore the CFI and just do it the way I taught you." Student did it as taught, and lo and behold, passed; getting a perfect score on the exercise she'd just failed. The flight instructor ended up with two recommends, which he wasn't happy about but you could hardly consider him incompetent.
Edited because I forgot to add; the CFI's interference cost the flight instructor his perfect record so he was more than a little choked about it.

I'll come to the defence of this particular CFI based on the information above. However, I do understand that there may be more information to this story than what you provided.

Sounds like the first instructor taught the forced approach poorly in the first place if the student couldn't handle a change in speed. Its not about the speed you fly it at, but judging your glide path that should be the focus. If the instructor focused on this skill as the primary objective it shouldn't matter what speed you fly a forced approach. Its a skill you can take with you to any airplane at any speed.

Too often I find that the student may be able to pull off a forced approach based on the rote procedure they were taught but they have not truly acquired the underlying skill of judging their glide path. Often this failure in flight training doesn't reveal itself until the individual flies a different airplane or is asked to fly it in different configuration or speed.

Based on the information you provided it is my opinion that this particular flight test failure just happened to reveal a lapse in training. I do agree however, that flight tests are often a farce, and do not indicate the actual skill level of the individual. Nor do I believe a flight test record is the only indicator of the quality of the instructor.

[shitdisturber]

I'll come to the defence of this particular CFI based on the information above. However, I do understand that there may be more information to this story than what you provided.

Sounds like the first instructor taught the forced approach poorly in the first place if the student couldn't handle a change in speed. Its not about the speed you fly it at, but judging your glide path that should be the focus. If the instructor focused on this skill as the primary objective it shouldn't matter what speed you fly a forced approach. Its a skill you can take with you to any airplane at any speed.

Too often I find that the student may be able to pull off a forced approach based on the rote procedure they were taught but they have not truly acquired the underlying skill of judging their glide path. Often this failure in flight training doesn't reveal itself until the individual flies a different airplane or is asked to fly it in different configuration or speed.

Based on the information you provided it is my opinion that this particular flight test failure just happened to reveal a lapse in training. I do agree however, that flight tests are often a farce, and do not indicate the actual skill level of the individual. Nor do I believe a flight test record is the only indicator of the quality of the instructor.

The student was taught to fly the forced as they would a normal circuit including selecting the aim point and how to ensure a landing in the first third of the field. I'll grant you that the extra speed shouldn't have made a difference but in this case it did, the student ended up carrying too much speed and went long obviously forgetting in the heat of the moment that other options were available to her. As this was the only failure the instructor had on their record on that exercise over something like a ten year instructing career I suspect he was doing something right.

[Big Pistons Forever]

Since most schools only use one or two fields for the EX 22 it always seems to turn into a rote exercise (eg turn base over the red house , turn final at the bend in the road add flap at XXX feet ASL etc etc), and it doesn't help that it often means more emphasis is placed on all the TC required bumpf (mayday call, pax brief, reading the written checklist {that one makes my head explode }) than on flying the airplane. Not to mention that since 80 % of all engine failures are directly caused by the actions or inactions of the pilot, it would seem the best way to deal with an engine failure is to not have the engine fail in the first place, a discussion that hardly ever occurs during training.

IMO the 180 glide to landing exercise is the best indicator of whether the student can actually judge the flight path of a gliding aircraft. Adding that exercise to the CPL flight test was the best thing TC has done in a long time, but there is no reason it can`t be incorporated into PPL training and it will IMO be a great help with the formal ex 22 .

Sorry for the rant and the thread drift

[Shiny Side Up]

Further thought on the subject of reccomends. It occurs to me that the recommend really only is a measurement of how well the instructor asseses students rather than instructs them. In the case of the upgrade from the 4 to the 3, not even that, since a supervising class 2 is ultimately responsible in that case for those three recommends (and also co-assesses the recommendations). The upgrade from the 4 to the 3 the real only pupose of which is to ensure experience-wise that the upgrading instructor has worked with at least three different students - the idea being that differences in students being ideal to the instructor's experience level. The idea behind the 3 to the 2 upgrade being that an instructor has enough experience assessing people - since he will have to do so now possibly for the products of class 4 instructors. It also supposedly guarantees the instructor has a larger pool of experience from more students, but not necessarily. From my own record, I have probably a dozen, give or take, recommends that really all I did was assess if they were ready for a flight test, the student in some form or another being near completion but being orphaned by their instructor. A common occurance I assume given how most instructors are looking to move up in the industry and disappear at the first "real flying job" they get offered.


Interestingly enough, to apply to be part of TC's pool of examiners who grade instructor candidates, you have to have a satisfactory reccomendation record for recommending class 4 instructors, and have at least 10 recommends. Again measuring your ability to assess.

Much to think about. In those aspects the system probably in most cases works as intended, though arguably some instructors are still getting through with insufficient "experience" as measured by the remaining factor - hours. It would be very interesting to actually see the data on those hours that instructors do. TC of course has a large database of them in the form of PTRs of students. It would be interesting to see a break down of how much time is being spent by instructors per excersise and resulting total times to completion. Cross reference that info verses controlled vs uncontrolled airports, total times of instructors, actual flight test results, and (to satisfy the oldtimers) aircraft type.