October 4, 1998 Pelican's Perch #9:
The Type Rating Checkride |
|
Anyone who likes checkrides has to be nuts, says AVweb's John Deakin. We don't expect to find many who disagree. As an FAA Designated Examiner who must also take checkrides himself, John gives pointers from both sides of the cockpit. Join John as he wends his way through one of his C-46 checkrides, explaining the ins and outs, and offering some relatively unknown, but important information that could make your next checkride a lot easier.
October 4, 1998
 |
|
|
| About the Author ... |
|
John Deakin is a 35,000-hour pilot who worked his way up the aviation food chain
via charter, corporate, and cargo flying; spent five years in Southeast Asia
with Air America; 33 years with Japan Airlines, mostly as a 747 captain; and
now flies the Gulfstream IV for a West Coast operator.
He also flies his own
V35 Bonanza (N1BE) and is very active in the warbird and vintage aircraft
scene, flying the C-46, M-404, DC-3, F8F Bearcat, Constellation, B-29, and
others. He is also a National Designated Pilot Examiner (NDPER), able to give
type ratings and check rides on 43 different aircraft types.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Anyone who likes checkrides has to
be nuts. One of the toughest things about being a DE (FAA Designated
Examiner) is knowing that no one really wants to be in the
airplane with me, and even when a successful checkride is done,
the checkee is probably going to say bad things about me in the
bar, later. If the check was unsuccessful, the DE had better
have asbestos ears, if not a bulletproof vest. I feel really sad
when I think about this, but when it comes my turn in the barrel,
guess how I feel? Yup, I hate him, too!
Let me see if I can give you some
pointers from both sides of the cockpit, without being two-faced,
or speaking with forked tongue.
First, what's the difference? Well,
the inspector is a government employee, a member of the Civil
Service, on the FAA's payroll, and cannot charge for his services.
The examiner is not on the government payroll, not a civil servant,
but has been authorized by the FAA to perform services that the
FAA cannot, due to lack of people, funds, desire, or expertise.
The examiner can charge for his services. The generic term,
or slang for an examiner is "DE" (Designated Examiner),
but there are many, many different types of DEs, so we generally
further qualify it, and a "DPE" is, specifically, a
"Designated Pilot Examiner."
With government cutbacks, and downsizing,
more and more of the work previously done for free by the FAA
is falling to examiners and other "civilians." In my
opinion, this will continue and accelerate in the future. When
you stop to think about it, it's just another way of instituting
user fees, which the government is trying so hard to do, everywhere.
I'd even favor this if our taxes would drop, but if you believe
that's going to happen…
Among both inspectors and examiners,
there are a lot of good people, a few not-so-good people, and
a very few really malevolent monsters. Just about like the general
population, and probably in about the same proportions, I think.
Being one myself (an examiner, not
a monster!), I'd like to think DEs are somewhat better than inspectors,
if only because the free market will weed out the really bad ones.
Applicants will simply not use them, their income will dry up,
and they'll go away. The FAA can also lift the examiner's designation
rather easily, while it seems the only way to fire a civil servant
is assassination (that's not a suggestion!)
What's the difference between a checkride
by an inspector and an examiner? Other than the fee, there isn't
supposed to be any difference at all. In the real world,
I am seeing, and hearing of, some very real differences.
The FAA school in Oklahoma City is
excellent. They teach very clearly what must be done on checkrides.
The FAA publishes "Practical Test Standards" (PTS)
for each of the major certificates and ratings, and by and large,
those books are clear and the requirements reasonable. While
there may be no requirement for any applicant to review the PTS that is applicable to the rating he seeks, I think any applicant who does
not do so before a checkride is seriously handicapping himself.
Nevertheless, I am seeing examples,
and hearing stories of inspectors and examiners who are failing
to require some of the stuff in the PTS. These folks may not
realize it, but they risk felony prosecution for fraud, because
by signing off a successful checkride, they are signing government
documents stating that they did do whatever was required.
At least two FAA inspectors were fired, stripped of all Civil
Service benefits, all FAA certification, all retirement benefits,
and are now serving hard time in the cooler for their sins. Serious
stuff! This tendency may be greater among inspectors, a few of
whom seem to feel that since they are the FAA, they can
modify the rules to suit themselves. Boy, are they wrong!
Many, many years ago, I was an applicant
for a DC-3 type rating on my Chinese ATP. Our chief pilot was
authorized to conduct the checkrides, so he loaded up five or
six of us in a DC-3 (C-47, actually), and we each went out and
did a landing. Maybe only a steep turn, I forget, it's been 35
years. He signed us off, and a few weeks later we got our Chinese
licenses, all properly endorsed. At that time, this was just
the way things were done, and no one much cared. By the time
we were really released to command the airplane, we knew how to
fly it very well indeed, but the checkride was something of a
farce, a formality.
I am reliably informed that this
same sort of thing goes on here and there even into modern times,
hard as that is to believe. Most make more of an effort to conduct
some sort of real checkride, but a few skip some items. Or,
so I hear. Such stories are always hard to pin down.
Two specific examples. The ATP PTS,
which also covers type ratings, absolutely requires an actual
inflight engine shutdown and restart, on multiengine aircraft.
There have been a number of reports after successful checkrides
that this was not done, because the inspector/examiner was nervous
about doing this in "vintage" aircraft. Folks, the
PTS and the FARs don't make an exception for vintage aircraft
(or for inspectors), here! Furthermore, this is, in my opinion
(and I'm not alone) a good maneuver, not only to test the
applicant on two fairly complex procedures that he must
know how to do properly, but to prove the airplane systems will
actually perform as required. One check pilot who does require
this task reports two cases he has seen where the props and feathering
system worked fine on the ground, but would not feather properly
in the air! Operators really, really need to know that particular
system will work reliably.
The same PTS also requires a "V1
cut" (if there is a published V1), where the airplane is
accelerated to that speed, an engine failure is simulated at,
or slightly above it, and the applicant is expected to continue
the takeoff, demonstrating the proper procedures. I have reliable
reports from one area of the country that "NO ONE
around here is doing this."
This sort of thing makes it really
difficult for an honest DE, which I'd like to be. I hear "Gosh,
why are you all of a sudden making us do this, even the
local FAA doesn't require it!" (And no, folks, for those
who know where I currently have DPE privileges, I'm not talking
about the SEA and VNY FSDOs, so far they're "clean.")
On the other hand, there is the case
where the inspector/examiner goes beyond the PTS and requires
maneuvers, or tolerances, to some higher standard. While this
is not a felony offense, and may even be well-intentioned, that's
not what the FAA wants, and it's not what the checkees
want. I do favor maneuvers and tolerances in training
that go beyond the PTS, but that's a learning process, and fun,
too.
I'm going to climb way out on a limb
here, stick my neck out, and start sawing on the limb behind me,
in an effort to tell you what I think about these checkrides,
and how I do them. If any FAA people read this, your comments
are welcome. Anyone is welcome to comment, of course. Keep 'em
public, if possible, so we can all learn something.
examiner's privileges are very specific.
As a DPE (Designated Pilot Examiner) I can do type ratings in
the old Curtiss-Wright C-46 "Commando" and the Martin
404. I hope to add the Douglas DC-3 and North American B-25 to
my privileges soon. I can also do initial Private, Commercial,
Instrument, and ATP rides, but only in those airplanes. DPE privileges
are limited to specific FSDO areas. In my case, Seattle, Wash.,
Van Nuys, Calif., and soon (I hope), Lubbock, Texas. It is
fairly easy to add other areas, if there is a specific need, and
the FSDO is "cooperative."
In parallel with that, I hold PPE
(Pilot Proficiency Examiner) privileges in those same aircraft.
As a PPE, I can do annual proficiency checks as required by FAR
61.58. Oddly enough, PPE privileges are not limited by geographic
regions, they are good worldwide.
The minimum maneuvers and minimum
standards are the same for both the type rating ride and the proficiency
check. They must be to ATP standards, regardless of the underlying
certificate. The one major difference is that the proficiency
check can also include brush-up training ("Training to Proficiency"),
while the certification ride cannot. The FAA wants no training,
and no "second chances," on the certification ride.
There are a couple of exceptions, but in general, if you really
blow a maneuver on the certification ride, it's time for a pink
slip.
As you should have gathered by now,
I don't do checkrides on modern aircraft, that's for the wussies
who prefer all their abnormals in simulators. There are no simulators
for the "vintage," "antique," and "warbird"
aircraft and we do checkrides the old-fashioned way, for real.
Yes, it gets really interesting! Anyway, my comments below will
be from the perspective of doing type rating rides in real airplanes.
Old ones, with props and pistons that go "suck, squeeze,
bang, blow" up to 50 times per second.
Ok, my phone rings, and you tell
me you want a type rating ride. There are a number of things
we need to get organized before we can do that. We'll exchange
phone numbers and addresses of all concerned, including the recommending
CFI. Why? Because if it's a type rating ride, I need to make
sure he is properly qualified to sign the back of the Form 8710-1,
the application. He needs to be a CFI, II, MEI, and hold the
type rating himself. As it happens, this is a very difficult
area, because there are very, very few fully-qualified instructors
on these old airplanes! (In fact, we're critically short of pilots
and copilots for them, but that's for another column.)
No folks, contrary to popular belief,
an ATP cannot sign this form, or instruct, generally. The
language in the FARs (see 61.167(b)(1)) that grant "instructor"
privileges to an ATP pilot strictly limits such instruction to
the airline environment. The intent there is to allow line pilots
to work in the training department, without having to go get the
CFI first.
Speaking of the application (FAA
Form 8710-1), it is not required that it be typed. But in my
opinion, it is foolish not to type it, unless you can print a
lot more neatly than I can. A lot of people may be looking at
this form, and it really needs to be highly legible to keep errors
from propagating down the line and causing problems. The FAA
is harsh with examiners who turn in paperwork with errors and
a 10% return rate is unacceptable. Do us all a favor and type
it out, please? In fact, I have the form on my portable computer
and can fill it out and print it out on plain paper, which I prefer.
In a pinch, the temporary certificate can also be hand-printed,
and it's just as valid. The Temporary that goes to the FAA must be typed, but that's my problem, not yours.
It is absolutely not necessary to
use your Social Security Number! I've run into several FAA people
who still don't understand this. "DO NOT USE" is a
perfectly valid entry (see the instructions) for those (like me)
who are unhappy with the government's broken promises to never,
ever use the SSN as any form of ID. No one should even raise
an eyebrow over that.
There is a lot of confusion
over the "physical address" issue. The insane "drug
war" is destroying our country, but nevertheless, the FAA
has been required "by higher authority" to have on file
a real, physical address, presumably so that the DEA Gestapo can
come knocking in the night. If you cannot clearly identify where
you live, you may be required to describe it in text form on a
separate piece of paper, or to even draw a map. I don't like
that any more than some of you do, but my job is to make the paperwork
go smoothly for you, the customer, and for me, and the FAA, too.
In that same initial phone conversation,
I'll suggest you make a copy of your present certificate, your
medical (only a Class III is required, for all checkrides),
and your driver's license, which I want to keep in my files (proves
I checked). You will save a little time, and some thrashing around
on the day of the checkride, by having this done before I get
there. I will also remind you that I will want to see the Certificate
of Airworthiness, Registration, aircraft manual, and a current
weight and balance. I will also want to see evidence that the
annual inspection, the static system test, and the 30-day VOR
tests are properly documented (the VOR test can be on a paper
napkin, for all I care).
We will agree on a time and place,
and it will be up to you to provide a quiet, comfortable area
where we can work undisturbed, without distractions. We'll discuss
intercoms and headsets. I don't like hoods for these checkrides,
for several reasons. Most of these airplanes are flown more by
instruments than outside reference, even in good weather, so a
hood is a little superfluous, it gets in the way, prevents a view
of the overhead panels, and often limits the peripheral view of
the other side of the cockpit. Most importantly, it blocks outside
view of traffic from cockpits with far too limited visibility
already. We need all the eyeballs we can get in today's traffic
patterns.
I do suggest wearing a baseball cap,
as it is very useful for blocking the sun during steep turns,
and can sufficiently block most of the forward view of the runway.
I will usually also block that view on final approach with something
opaque, and in a manner that doesn't block anyone else's view,
but otherwise, I want the applicant to be watching for traffic,
right along with the rest of us. I'd modify this somewhat for
someone who is concurrently getting an instrument rating, but
at the ATP level, I assume the applicant can already fly instruments.
I will probably ask you to prepare
a written weight and balance for some specific condition and to
plan a flight to some distant destination. We will agree on my
fee, and possibly expenses if you're at some distant location.
The day of the ride, we'll take a
few minutes for small talk, and getting to hate each other…
just kidding. We'll make sure the airplane will be ready for
us when we need it, so we don't get delayed, later. If it's a
certification ride, the paperwork will probably take about an
hour. I like to have it 100% done before we fly, so all I have
to do is hand you the completed temporary certificate when done
(No, I don't fill out a pink slip in advance!) The oral will
generally take about two hours, including a walk-around and preflight,
and the flight itself should never take more than two hours.
Any more than that is unacceptable, in my opinion, because fatigue
sets in for everyone and the operation becomes unsafe. Under
ideal conditions, the checkride can be done in less than 1:30,
but 1:45 is also reasonable (airborne times).
We need to get very explicit, before
flying, on just who is the real PIC. You, the applicant, are
supposed to act like one. But, if I'm in the right seat, it is
my ticket that's on the line, and we need to understand that.
In rare cases, where I know the people involved, I may give the
check from the jumpseat, with a well-qualified pilot in the right
seat, but these airplanes are so lethal I really prefer to have
some control over my own destiny. Of course, along with that
may come some liability and I don't even want to think about that.
I sometimes wonder why anyone even wants to be an examiner.
This one is really confusing. I
hope the FAA clears it up, but I'm not holding my breath. Up
until August 4, 1997, we had the option (in any aircraft) of giving
type ratings limited to "VFR ONLY." Unfortunately,
the FARs no longer allow this, unless the type certificate limits
the aircraft to VFR. As far as I know, that applies only to a
few helicopters. Strangely enough, the PTS also allows a "VFR
ONLY" type rating on "certain types of vintage airplanes,
which require a pilot type rating and ARE NOT CAPABLE of demonstrating
instrument procedures." It is not really clear to me just
how liberally that can be taken, but I guess we'll find out the
first time some smartass yanks the nav radios out of a C-46 and asks me for a "VFR ONLY" rating ride!
Existing VFR ONLY ratings are grandfathered,
and 61.58 rides for them are still "VFR ONLY."
I will explain to you that today's
practical test, once begun, has only three possible outcomes.
A Temporary Certificate, a "Notice of Disapproval" (the dreaded
pink slip), or a "Letter of Discontinuance." That last
one is not well understood. If anything outside the control of
the applicant aborts the test, the examiner is required
to give this letter, which is to protect the applicant.
It certifies that the applicant has successfully completed all
the items "so far," and will probably not need to repeat
them when the test resumes. If the examiner drops dead before
the test can be resumed, then another examiner can (at his option),
skip the completed items.
There are some rules for examiners
that seem to be a dark, dirty secret, but I get them right out
on the table, before the check begins. One is that the FAA is
absolutely adamant that I must tell you immediately if
I have decided on a pink slip. I cannot let you go on to the
next maneuver without telling you. If that happens, and we both
agree, we might try to complete the remaining items on
the rest of the check, but I must tell
you, and we must discuss it. I can't tell you after the check
ride is over "You blew the steep turns, and the stalls."
Very few seem to catch the significance
of this. This means that you know the checkride is successful,
"so far," if I haven't said anything! I have always
hated the check pilots who keep me in suspense until I'm in the
de-briefing room, still wondering if I passed, or failed. At
the end, I usually say "Well, if you can get us back to the
parking spot without killing anyone, you passed." If there
are onlookers when we taxi in (often, with these old birds), I'll
give a thumbs up out the window, too, to let everyone know we've
got a new captain.
Mistakes are allowed! Not too many,
please, but I'll forgive almost anything if you recognize the
error, and take prompt corrective action. Say you didn't hit
the timer over the VOR on a non-precision approach, and the MAP
is determined only by timing? If you try and cheat, you'll blow
it. But if you say "Ahh rats, I forgot to start the clock,
missed approach, call ATC and ask for another," I'll just
smile, pat you on the shoulder, and say "Well done!"
Busting the limits is allowed! (The
sound you just heard is every FAA person in the world choking on his
latte.)
Take the feared steep turn, with altitude limits of +/-100 feet.
You roll in, everything is going fine, but about halfway through,
you start gaining altitude, and you go 160' above, or 60' out
of limits. If you catch it, and take immediate (don't jerk it!)
corrective action to get back within limits, and that's the only
problem with the steep turn, I won't say a word. If we go around
the other way, and you exceed the limits again, you'll have my
attention, and you may have just skated out onto thin ice, so
to speak. If that's the only error or exceedence, I'll probably
let it go, but now let's say you get a secondary stall on the
stall series, and you didn't maintain altitude on the entry, and
your first takeoff was a little wobbly. Ok, now it's maybe time
for a pink slip, but I can't bust you for anything but the
final goof. Remember, I have to TELL you when the pink slip
decision has been made. What I will say is, "You didn't
meet the PTS standards for stalls, so I'm going to have to issue
a Notice of Disapproval. And oh, by the way, you really need
work on takeoffs and steep turns."
Here are the FAA's own words. Note
carefully the first two words.
Consistently exceeding
(emphasis mine) tolerances
stated in the TASK Objective, or failure to take prompt, corrective
action when tolerances are exceeded, are indicative of unsatisfactory
performance. The tolerances represent the performance expected
in good flying conditions. Any action, or lack thereof, by the
applicant which requires corrective intervention by the examiner
to maintain safe flight shall be disqualifying.
checkrides can be "discontinued"
for maintenance, weather, illness, lots of reasons. What you
as an applicant should know is the you have just as much right
as the examiner/inspector to discontinue! If you bobbled
that takeoff, and you blew the steep turn, and you're sure you're
just not going to make it today, you might say something like
"I'm just not feeling well today, I'm discontinuing the check
ride." If the examiner/inspector hasn't already told you
it's a bust, he CAN'T bust you, or at least he shouldn't,
and I won't.
A word about checklists. All the points I made in my first AVweb column, "Throw Away That Stupid Checklist," apply to the airplanes you need a type
rating to fly, EXCEPT, you do not have the option on written checklists,
you MUST use them. They are explicitly required by FAR 91.503, and they
are "A Very Good Thing." Unfortunately, I'm seeing a lot of really bad
ones. But frankly, unless I see something downright dangerous, the
checklist you use is none of my business, as long as you use it, and it
creates no major problems.
Checklists are not sacred. They were not issued to Moses, engraved in
stone. Good checklists are living, changing things, and should get revised
from time to time. In Part 91 operations, you do not need FAA approval to
alter one, or to write an entirely new one. That piece of trash that came
with the airplane is just another person's idea of what HE thought it
should be, fifty years ago. It is probably badly out of date, and I've
seen many that are not even readable, leading me to think it doesn't get
used at all, except for checkrides. With modern word processors, and neat
lamination kits and services available, there is no good reason to put up
with "stupid checklists."
I will say that if a pilot doesn't routinely use a checklist, but then
tries to take a checkride and use one, he's unlikely to pass the checkride.
It's just too obvious, and he'll blow it, every time.
Ok, once the paperwork is all reviewed
and found acceptable, at some point the inspector/examiner is
supposed be very explicit, and say "OK, the Practical Test starts now." Once that is said, then there are only three
possible outcomes, the Letter of Discontinuance, the Notice of
Disapproval, or a Temporary Certificate. In other words, we can't
just drop it, and walk away, there must be some paperwork.
That is the point at which the oral
begins, to be followed by the practical. The distinction between
preparation and the test is important, because if the airplane
paperwork is not in order, it's not a bust, and no paperwork is
required. So all the non-essentials need to be squared away first,
then the test begins.
Orals for type ratings tend to cover more complex systems.
Weight and balance is more important and there are a lot more
numbers to add up (bring a calculator!) as there are generally
more compartments, multiple fuel tanks, zero fuel weights, etc.
During the oral I don't like to get
too bound up in numbers that are already marked on the instruments.
Minimum/maximum temperature and pressure markings are required,
and I'd almost rather see someone say "I don't know those,
they're on the instruments." Some examiners will run through
them, so it's neat if you can commit them to short-term memory.
On the other hand, "unmarked things" like turbulence
speeds, flap speeds, and the engine-out speeds are very important,
and must be well memorized (and understood!)
I like to do much of the oral in
and around the airplane, with the approach of "What does
it mean when this light comes on?" "What would you
do?" "Why?" I hit propeller systems on these
airplanes very hard, because it is the one system that can kill
quickly, and the one system where quick, positive, and accurate
action may be absolutely necessary, from memory.
A good oral should include a thorough
review of the emergency procedures, not only to determine if the
applicant knows them, but to confirm what will happen, how they'll
be simulated, and how recoveries will be done. It is especially
important if the examiner will be in the right seat, because there
will have been no practice at teamwork. In my opinion, it is
up to the examiner to "adapt," not the applicant!
Unless the review reveals something that is unsafe, the applicant
should use the precise procedures used for training. Only after
the checkride is over, paperwork complete, should the examiner
say something like "Oh, by the way, you might think about
your engine out procedure, here's what I prefer when instructing…"
The FAA requires all examiners/inspectors
to have a written action plan and I think this should be
fully shared with the applicant in advance. These airplanes can
be lethal and I think it's stupid to have any surprises.
At the risk of repeating myself, these are not simulators, where
a crash simply means "reset, and try again." I cannot
find the word "surprise" in the PTS.
Here's my typical C-46 checkride,
performed out of Camarillo and Oxnard, California. It is rather
carefully crafted to satisfy several needs. First, minimum time,
to reduce fatigue. Second, minimum time at high engine power,
especially on one engine, close to the ground. Finally, I do
as many "combined" maneuvers as possible (but not multiple
failures).
Normal Takeoff at CMA, possible
reject (crosswind, if available) Put hood on asap (100')
I really prefer to just do a normal
takeoff on the first one, to give the applicant time to get over
the jitters. If I've flown with him before, and know he's sharp,
we might get the rejected takeoff out of the way, either by calling
an engine failure, pulling a throttle, or simulating a fire. I use the word "hood" hereafter to
mean any sort of vision blocking arrangement, including the baseball cap and blocking device mentioned
earlier. Note this accomplishes three major required maneuvers at once, the normal takeoff, the possible
reject, and the full instrument departure.
Simulated radar vectors for the
OXR LOC approach (MDA 1,000'), circle to landing
This gets three required maneuvers,
a non-precision approach, a circle, and a required landing. I
cheat on the MDA, by setting a high "training MDA",
both for safety, and for noise abatement. Just try a low circle
over Oxnard at the real MDA, and you'll have a lynch mob waiting,
led by the airport manager (and rightfully so, I might add!)
If I add, say, 500 feet to the MDA, I also add 500 feet to the
other altitudes on the approach. A key point on these approaches
is a very "brisk" rate of descent to MDA, with 1,000
fpm desired. Get down early, then fly level as long as
possible. Don't forget the timing, if that's what determines
the MAP. (The glass cockpit folks are starting to do things differently,
but "the old ways" work better.)
Normal takeoff (possible reject),
simulated engine failure at 500', procedure, recover engine.
On "real" transport category
airplanes (like the Martin 404), there are established V1 and
V2 speeds, and on these we are required to cut the engine at,
or shortly after V1, still on the runway, and continue the takeoff.
This is one of the more hazardous maneuvers we do. On the older
airplanes, without such certification testing and established
airspeeds, the PTS says we are not allowed to do that engine
cut until reaching 500 feet AGL (no objection, here!). I generally
pull the throttle back, let the applicant go through the failure
procedure (Power, Gear, Flaps, Identify, Verify, Feather, Mixture,
Checklist). As he calls "feather," I'll set zero thrust,
and the moment he calls the final item (Checklist), I'll return
things to normal, going to climb power on both engines (saves
flogging them to death).
Here's one of the more interesting
maneuvers on my checkrides. It looks like a massive headache,
but it's really not, and it's a very realistic sequence.
Simulated vectors to OXR ILS.
Break out at minimums, continue to runway, rejected landing,
full standard missed approach to SQUID, and hold.
That gets one of the precision approaches,
the rejected landing, a full published missed approach, and the
hold. The rejected landing will be deep in the flare, after the
throttles have been fully retarded, and I like to point and yell
"Baby on the runway, go around!" Note there is nothing at all wrong with an actual touchdown during this maneuver,
and I do it late enough to make that a very real possibility.
Once the hold has been entered, and
the applicant has demonstrated that he knows about timing, we
break out of that and do the airwork. This works well, because
the PTS requires a full missed approach, and in this case we are
left at 4,000 feet in an ideal area for airwork, so we might as
well do those maneuvers and avoid another climb to altitude.
Steep turns, which everyone loves (NOT!), generally come first.
I have heard of check pilots who insist on "trim,"
or "no trim" during the steep turn. I think it's easier
without trimming, but it's none of my business which way an applicant
prefers, and I won't say a thing.
Many FAA people, and some examiners,
seem to think stalls are done as they are in General Aviation,
with "approach stalls," "departure stalls,"
etc. In big airplanes they are configuration stalls, and
only to the first definite sign (spins are definitely a bust!)
All of them are done level at a selected altitude, with a power
setting that produces a good speed reduction to the stall (one
knot per second, but who's counting?) That power setting can
be maintained right into the maneuver and when the applicant calls
for "Max Power," I'll set some much lower power, just
to save the engines. In the real case, of course, more power
might be needed, so the applicant must call for all of it. Setting
climb power pretty nicely simulates a normally loaded airplane,
anyway.
Review hydraulic failure, cabin
fire, emergency descent, still working back towards OXR, then
engine failure, shutdown, restart.
If we're over a runway, we'll do
the engine failure first, otherwise we'll do the emergency review
while getting there. I'll quietly try and sneak a fuel valve
to "OFF," and try and look innocent and surprised when
the engine quits. The applicant must go through the drill, and
this time it's for real. The moment he calls "Checklist,"
I'll say "Checklist complete, case closed, let's start it
right back up." What I really want to hear is "Inflight
Engine Restart Checklist," and then we work it carefully.
We don't want the engine cooling off any more than necessary,
but we really don't want to miss anything on the restart, there
are a few extremely critical items.
Single engine (just before final
intercept), ILS OXR to minimums, landing, full stop
Now, the applicant has demonstrated
his engine-out procedures at least twice by this point and the
PTS does NOT require this to be demonstrated six times! So unless
he was a little shaky, any further failures will be announced
by "Engine is out, checklist complete," and I'll just
set zero thrust (simulating feather). We get another precision
approach, this time with an engine out, and another landing to
a full stop.
Takeoff, simulated vectors to
CMA, VOR approach on one engine (fail just before final intercept),
missed approach on one engine, as soon as procedure is complete
and climb safely established, remove hood, recover engine, break
off to VFR pattern, no flap landing.
Again, a non-precision approach,
this time on one engine. It is still important to descend 1,000
fpm to MDA, so some drag will be needed. But, these old airplanes
don't do very well on one engine with any drag out, so it is almost
mandatory to clean up just before reaching MDA and do the level
flight portion "clean." This also avoids flogging the
engine, again, and it makes the missed approach on one engine
easier, just go to METO power, and climb. But again, any way
the applicant wants to do this is OK with me, as long as he meets
the PTS standards.
Taxi home, shutdown.
Hey, it's part of the checkride,
so don't relax and run into something, or jump out of the airplane
with the engines still running, it's considered poor form!
Congratulations, you're a C-46 pilot!
Be careful up there!
|
Email this article
