Now, I know it’s strictly ‘taboo’; but I figure I pay my dues and may get away seeking forgiveness, not permission. Aunty Pru will understand a classic post and a good example of why Part 61 is lethal. How 61 enhances, excuses, legitimises and provides an excellent platform for the time honoured tradition of the “Chop ride”. Mach covers the ‘old’ school type of examination; the objective, passive, quiet, educational in debrief, role a ‘testing’ pilot should take. The ‘new’ 61 test enshrines and lends it’s self to a more sinister application.
The discretion of civilised ‘examiners’ is now severely compromised, with CASA in attendance; the hoops must be jumped through – and – should the FOI think a candidate ‘should’ have failed and the ATO did not do so; then the ATO delegation (or whatever it’s called now) is in jeopardy. The sad case of ‘Pat’ and several others at least left open a thin (anorexic) line of defence. Under 61, there is no such grace afforded.
Skidmore and his ilk think this is a good thing; safety through ‘paper-work’’ Load of old, chewed Bollocks – if you ask me; remote from the practical, estranged from routine and meekly accepted by industry.
Chock Frog Mach and thank you for a rare good post on the UP....
Addendum:-
I will, on reflection, add one more comment – a professional, current pilot should have no need of doubt going into any test; it should be an ‘educational’ process; the de-brief an informative discussion of how things could, perhaps, have been done better the check a formality, the ‘discussion’ priceless. Now it’s simply pass or fail – for no examiner would dare to make notes or offer guidance; dare not and cannot do it. Safety looses, in self preservation. Sad, true and fully supported by your local, friendly CASA FOI (an “expert”).
Quote:Mach E Avelli - (legend).
The list of questions on the new form is far more extensive than before. In the 'good old days' some examiners would ask one from each section, or about five total.
Now, strictly speaking, all have to be asked, though how the examiner deals with that is probably somewhat an individual thing. Go to the check armed with your own AIP, ERSA and of course, charts.
If the examiner is a prick and wants you on the back foot you will know soon enough, because he will have his own AIP or extensive notes in hand and will start grilling you. Typically, examiners with that style need these 'props' themselves, so I think it is only fair that if he needs to refer to notes, so can you. Therefore, when you don't know the answer, or are a little uncertain, admit it and look it up on the spot.
A more relaxed examiner will simply work from the CASA form, ask questions in his own words and accept reasonably close answers in your own words. He will avoid 'open' questions and won't belabour trivia. Again, if you really don't know an answer, at least know where to quickly access the information Which, after all, is what you should do if you are planning a flight and something odd presents itself in a NOTAM or forecast.
Of course the 'biggies' relating to basic tolerances, terrain and traffic avoidance need to be absolutely known without reference. Most of the remainder is non life threatening.
If the examiner is a decent sort he will be trying to put you at ease, not winding you up into a lather before the actual flight.
The discretion of civilised ‘examiners’ is now severely compromised, with CASA in attendance; the hoops must be jumped through – and – should the FOI think a candidate ‘should’ have failed and the ATO did not do so; then the ATO delegation (or whatever it’s called now) is in jeopardy. The sad case of ‘Pat’ and several others at least left open a thin (anorexic) line of defence. Under 61, there is no such grace afforded.
Skidmore and his ilk think this is a good thing; safety through ‘paper-work’’ Load of old, chewed Bollocks – if you ask me; remote from the practical, estranged from routine and meekly accepted by industry.
Chock Frog Mach and thank you for a rare good post on the UP....
Addendum:-
I will, on reflection, add one more comment – a professional, current pilot should have no need of doubt going into any test; it should be an ‘educational’ process; the de-brief an informative discussion of how things could, perhaps, have been done better the check a formality, the ‘discussion’ priceless. Now it’s simply pass or fail – for no examiner would dare to make notes or offer guidance; dare not and cannot do it. Safety looses, in self preservation. Sad, true and fully supported by your local, friendly CASA FOI (an “expert”).