Failed CFI inital ride

I think the issue of you reducing power really depends on how much airspeed you had when you reduced power. Jump through this last hoop and land your CFI, its worth it... And if you don't like the way the DPE works you don't have to send any of your students for rides with them, and they don't get paid.

Nosehair, 61.183(i)(2) says that if it is a retest for deficiency in "knowledge or skill of stall awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery instructional procedures" the examiner must test them on the same. So, maybe not required, as this was an issue of stall recovery technique?
 
Radu38J said:
then power on turning stall to the left. During recovery, I lower the nose then as the speed builds up, I take out some power (to about 20" MP) to relieve the pressure on the controls.
Click to expand...

Well, the problem is that you reduced power for the wrong reason. You shouldn't reduce power to to "relieve control pressure", you should fly the airplane and use the trim. During a power on stall if you lower the nose enough to require a throttle reduction to prevent over-speeding you've lost waaaay too much altitude. Remember, for a stall recovery you just need enough airspeed to get the airplane flying again. In a 172RG thats about 65-70kts with the top of the cowl just resting on the horizon. Anything over that with full power, you're just burning up altitude.

Remember, fuel burned is ALWAYS altitude saved.

Practice the right way, go back and do it again.
 
It sounds like a great learning experience along your road to becoming a pilot. You have had a great lesson in Pilot Fatigue, Checkride-itis, and Disappointment, all important lessons for your career.

Busting a CFI initial is pretty common and shouldn't affect your career. It should be easy now to finish your ride now with just a few maneuvers to perform.
 
nosehair said:
What about the requirement to demonstrate a spin/ spin recovery when you fail a CFI checkride on any stall?
Click to expand...

Actually, I think that's only if you fail the stall by unintentionally spinning the airplane


To the OP, there are a few examiners out there, including some FAA Inspectors, who seem to believe that nobody should pass their CFI initial on the first try. Nobody. Ever. Could be you got one of them.
 
Contrail the Kid said:
If it really was that big of a difference between the 172RG and the 172 I would imagine that you would have flown in the 172 for your check-ride to begin with.
Click to expand...

Incorrect. You must satisfy initial CFI requirements in a complex aircraft. Obviously a 172 doesn't meet that requirement. If you spin in a stall and bust, then you get to hop back into the 172.
 
Radu38J said:
That's my CFI's suggestion. Simpler, less chances to screw up, not as nose heavy, cheaper. I'm not sure it's the best thing to do though.
Click to expand...

I am sorry, but if your CFI is worried about a 172RG being too complex, and you are about to become a CFI and will be teaching in it, something is horribly wrong.
 
Just to clarify: I don't blame the DPE, she was fair, although the reduction in power was when the plane had stopped descending. It wasn't to not overspeed as someone mentioned, but rather to not go into a trim stall if I didn't have enough forward pressure on the controls. Of course, nose down trim should have been the correct answer.

As for the -+0 ft, what I meant was that I landed exactly on the spot I selected, the top of the first bar.

I can finish in a 172 because I've already done the maneuvers required for the complex part of the ride. Many people use 2 planes for the ride to save money. I'm not worried about it being too complex, just worried about getting too anxious and forgetting something stupid like closing the cowl flaps. I have a tendency to freak out during checkrides, and the DPE likes to put pressure on the candidates.

For instance, after doing my steep turns, she told me to do another maneuver, and I start teaching it from the beginning, including clearing turns. She snapped angrily at me 'Oh God! why do you need those, you just did steep turns? how long do you want to be in the air?' and so forth. I understand that's her way of putting pressure on me, and it's reasonable to demand performance under pressure. But it did get me nervous nonetheless. Up to that moment, she had been OK. And after busting me, was nice again :).
 
moxiepilot said:
I really dislike this poster's advice.

I get the feeling that this poster is not a CFI giving advice on what he or she thinks about how a CFI ride should go. So, I'm not going to lecture on the role of a CFI and teaching; most CFI's know this. The DPE actually sounds to me to be thorough, fair, and overall....average.

Radu - sorry you busted. Don't worry about it, get back on the horse, in the same plane and bang out what you need to do. With having a long day, we all make mistakes. You'll do great as a CFI after you pass and get that first student.
Click to expand...

Moxie,

Thanks for NOT giving me a lecture for all the world to see. You spared me a great deal.

Your intuition would be wrong.

I indeed am a CFI who is also a FAA designated examiner on Learjet 60's for a large international training outfit.

I can tell in an hour and a half at most whether or not an individual is qualified for the rating they are applying for.
I don't need to put a person through a meat grinder for hours on end to make a decision, to prove a point, or just to
"make them feel they have earned it".

And any examiner worth his/her salt is the same way. I don't care what certificate or rating the person is applying for.

As I said in my original post, an examiner should look at the entire body of work on a checkride. Unless the maneuver was absolutely
out of limits or flatout unsafe you factor the rest of the performance into the equation before arbitrarily busting the person. Then you debrief them afterwards on whatever you thought could have been better.

Based on the O.P's version of the maneuver in question, his recovery- while techically not correct- certainly wasn't unsafe. If I had been the examiner on that ride, I would not have asked him to fly the maneuver again based on his performance on the oral and the other in-flight maneuvers. We would have discussed it in the debrief. I also would debrief the CFI who signed the applicant off.
Maybe the person was trained to fly the maneuver a certain way.

But, hey, that's just me.

As a side note, I'm wondering how much this DPE is going to charge this guy for the re-check. Quite a nice cash cow.

K
 
I should know better. I had my initial done multi, so that kind of flew over my head; but sometimes those little things can get passed me! Thanks!
Stomp16 said:
Incorrect. You must satisfy initial CFI requirements in a complex aircraft. Obviously a 172 doesn't meet that requirement. If you spin in a stall and bust, then you get to hop back into the 172.
Click to expand...
 
Dude stick with RG. I just took CFI last week and used RG. A standard 172 does have slightly different characteristics and at this point you do not want to fail for anything else. Clearly this examiner was being a d***. You will be fine and get your ticket next flight. Good Luck!
 
azfsi60 said:
Moxie,

Thanks for NOT giving me a lecture for all the world to see. You spared me a great deal.

Your intuition would be wrong.

I indeed am a CFI who is also a FAA designated examiner on Learjet 60's for a large international training outfit.

I can tell in an hour and a half at most whether or not an individual is qualified for the rating they are applying for.
I don't need to put a person through a meat grinder for hours on end to make a decision, to prove a point, or just to
"make them feel they have earned it".

And any examiner worth his/her salt is the same way. I don't care what certificate or rating the person is applying for.

As I said in my original post, an examiner should look at the entire body of work on a checkride. Unless the maneuver was absolutely
out of limits or flatout unsafe you factor the rest of the performance into the equation before arbitrarily busting the person. Then you debrief them afterwards on whatever you thought could have been better.

Based on the O.P's version of the maneuver in question, his recovery- while techically not correct- certainly wasn't unsafe. If I had been the examiner on that ride, I would not have asked him to fly the maneuver again based on his performance on the oral and the other in-flight maneuvers. We would have discussed it in the debrief. I also would debrief the CFI who signed the applicant off.
Maybe the person was trained to fly the maneuver a certain way.

But, hey, that's just me.

As a side note, I'm wondering how much this DPE is going to charge this guy for the re-check. Quite a nice cash cow.

K
Click to expand...

HAHAHA you just OWNED THAT GUY!
 
not really. I chose not to respond because I think this DPE is one of those guys who thinks that if it's not done his way, then there must be something wrong with the other person. You can also tell that the DPE in question HAS the experience to make judgment calls in an hour and a half, but when compared to the reality of FSDO CFI checkrides, the oral is going to be ballpark 3 hours and the flight over two, because they do things a little differently. Doesn't mean that the FSDO inspector is a horrible, terrible, no good, very bad person.

I don't judge the CFI DPE or the CFI applicant that the ride was "to make them feel they earned it." Honestly I've never come across a DPE with that attitude and having been a CFI for a loooong time, I've come across many DPEs, just as this fella has.

My issue, again, was that azf states that any examiner "worth their weight in salt" basically does things his way. Poor view of reality, IMHO.
 
Jett said:
Nosehair, 61.183(i)(2) says that if it is a retest for deficiency in "knowledge or skill of stall awareness, spin entry, spins, or spin recovery instructional procedures" the examiner must test them on the same. So, maybe not required, as this was an issue of stall recovery technique?
Click to expand...
I can tell from the many responses that I am alone on this,...but "stall awareness" is a pretty broad sweep, and in my honest, old tired opinion, any indications of a lack of complete knowledge and control in stalls is at the root of all other aircraft control problems.

...oh, wait, I get it. Most of today's Examiners are a product of today's CFIs that are not really instructionally proficient in stalls, so the Examiner sure doesn't want to do a spin, so...it still isn't being done, is it?

BTW, the quote under 61.183(i)(2) starts with "demonstrates instructional proficiency in stall awareness, etc."
 
nosehair said:
I can tell from the many responses that I am alone on this,...but "stall awareness" is a pretty broad sweep, and in my honest, old tired opinion, any indications of a lack of complete knowledge and control in stalls is at the root of all other aircraft control problems.

...oh, wait, I get it. Most of today's Examiners are a product of today's CFIs that are not really instructionally proficient in stalls, so the Examiner sure doesn't want to do a spin, so...it still isn't being done, is it?

BTW, the quote under 61.183(i)(2) starts with "demonstrates instructional proficiency in stall awareness, etc."
Click to expand...

That's the truth, so if the examiner can weasel out of doing spins with an applicant they will. I love coming across CFIs who don't want to do spin training... in a 172 no less. Could a spin be any less exciting? I almost find it criminal that I'm a CFI and haven't been required to have, at least basic, aerobatic training.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top