Checkride

Rushing brings many risks

This may sound familiar. You must make a flight but weather or some other situations have conspired to give you a timeframe that requires superhuman piloting and planning skills. You've probably heard hangar tales and war stories about checkrides deferred again and again while weather patterns seem to conspire to keep worthy applicants grounded. The longer a delay, the greater the frustration. Then, finally, the day arrives that the airplane, examiner, and student are all available--but tornado conditions suddenly develop.

Most designated pilot examiners (DPEs) can relate stories of applicants stressed because of time constraints that pushed the checkride to within days or hours of an authorization's end. Examples of questionable decisions might include the commercial pilot applicant who, during a retest for a ground reference maneuver, elected to fly a direct course to the same practice area used for an unsuccessful demonstration. On the day of the retest, sky conditions were approximately 1,200 feet overcast. Between the departure airport and the practice area lay an area of rising terrain, blanketed with trees and with no place to go should the engine decide to quit. Upon returning to the airfield, the applicant reviewed Federal Aviation Regulation 91.119(a), arguing that the regulation permitted an altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to persons or property on the surface. His logic went like this: There are no persons, structures, vehicles, or even fences down there.

Meeting a small window of opportunity afforded by the slight lifting of a low ceiling for a few hours perhaps clouded that applicant's judgment, for if he had flown a mere two miles north of the forest, a flat river bottom offered an excellent location for the ground reference maneuvers he sought to perform.

Some in the aviation community argue that pilot testing is archaic, and perhaps not serving the industry well. Others disagree vehemently, noting that valid and reliable testing allows evaluation of the process as well as the applicant. The realm of flight is certainly one of those wherein coordination and muscle skills meet cognitive and cerebral abilities. Practical tests remain the most effective and certain means of evaluating judgment and aeronautical decision making, provided those doing the testing are properly equipped to do so.

As an example, consider the applicant and DPE facing the expiration day of the applicant's graduation certificate from a Part 141 program. Waiting until the next day would mandate that the applicant meet all the Part 61 requirements for the certification sought. That would mean significantly more solo flight hours and the accompanying cost. The day is unseasonably warm and humid with visibility near the lower limits in haze, and thunderstorms in the forecast. What heartless examiner would discourage an applicant from trying to use that graduation certificate while it remains valid? Actually, an examiner represents the FAA administrator at that point, and should make no input at all. We exist at that moment to assess an applicant's judgment and aeronautical decision making. Once a DPE accedes to a flight, he has made a tacit statement that the applicant's judgment and decision making are appropriate. Tough call, sometimes.

Consider the pilot applicant in a nearly identical situation as discussed above, making an identical decision to fly. In this case, judgment and decision making wrap themselves like tree roots around a missing skill--the ability to read and interpret the entirety of a significant meteorological report (sigmet). That particular report's line number six included a contraction, INTSFYG, in relation to thunderstorms moving though the area. This applicant, it turns out, had decided during his training to simply disregard attempting to decode contractions commonly found in aviation. His reason: Pilots get all they need from flight service anyway. Not that time.

DPEs encounter situations in which the applicant's airplane may need what the applicant considers some "minor" maintenance attention...not even enough (in these applicants' minds) to create a squawk sheet. Instead, they go in person to the maintenance technician to discuss the question. So far, this does not violate any rule or constitute an infraction of the Practical Test Standards' principles. In fact, many examiners consider this to be appropriate. Others may wish for the paper trail that a formal squawk sheet provides.

In this scenario our maintenance professional advises the pilot applicant that a mechanic will be available in about 20 minutes. As those 20 minutes become 30, then 40, the applicant's window of opportunity seems poised to slam shut. So, the pilot applicant rationalizes that the problem is, in fact, not a problem. Either a mental recall or actual review of the body of regulations discloses nothing that specifically addresses the anomaly, so the applicant decides to load his passenger aboard and taxis away. (Yes, this really happened.) Legalities aside, such a scenario clearly shows that examiner a classic case of attitude-driven judgment or decision making that will someday make headlines.

There may be only a small amount of time for you, as an applicant, to demonstrate your "right stuff" on a practical test. By the same token, your examiner has an even smaller window to judge whether or not you, your instructor(s), and fate have constituted the right team to allow you to fulfill your dreams without potentially destroying someone else's.

So many flight and ground instructors focus their efforts on the body of the Practical Test Standards that those who attend to the special emphasis areas of judgment and aeronautical decision making are becoming rare. Discuss judgment and decision making with your instructor.

Dave Wilkerson is a designated pilot examiner, writer/photographer, and historian. He has been a certificated flight instructor since 1981 with approximately 2,000 hours of dual instruction, and is a single- and multiengine commercial-rated pilot.