Practical Test Standards

desertdog71 said:
Just looking for opinions and other options that might work better.
Click to expand...

I've considered the progressive practical. Train the student in one area, send him for a checkride on that, train him on a second area, send him on a checkride for that, etc.

Another possibility is the statistical practical. Rather than requring the student to hit a landing spot one time on a particular day, measure his performance over some period of time and require that, say, 90% of his landings are within tolerances, or perhaps say that his average deviation from dead on is, oh, maybe 50 feet.

I favor the latter; it's more representative of ability than a checkride.
 
My problem is the use of the PTS by examiners...Out of 10 Tasks, a PTS may say that the examiner has to choose D and at least one other...Some DE's will only choose one other, and others may choose 6 others......The question should be, is there a problem witht the PTS, or the reliability and descrimination of the individuals administering the test?
 
I lean more towards a real world type of training and more important evaluation. I don't like the fact that you can basically gouge a checkride after using an examiner once or twice and teach nothing but the checkride. I can pretty much with 95% accuracy predict the exact questions on the oral. This is how people end up with big holes in their skills.

The question is how do you measure something that is so subjective to begin with. I contend that if examiners followed the exact guidelines in the PTS that people would bust rides all the time. I have seen really sharp students bust rides and then seen others that were really lacking pass.

Then there is the human factor where examiners for the most part want you to pass and start to find excuses why they should give you a license instead of being more firm.
 
For all its faults (we are dealing with human beings after all), I don't have a problem with a single "final exam" where the applicant is asked ti pull it all together and is tested on a series of representative tasks, some required some optional, using a guide that is designed to limit "cowboy examiners" who would like to make up their own tests and standards.
 
I don't mind the PTS as the standards are not unattainable at all. My only problem is with the DE's that don't follow the PTS, or DE's that think they need to yell at the student while on the ground or even in flight. All it does is create a dangerous situation and the student will lock up.
 
desertdog71 said:
I don't like the fact that you can basically gouge a checkride after using an examiner once or twice and teach nothing but the checkride. I can pretty much with 95% accuracy predict the exact questions on the oral. This is how people end up with big holes in their skills. I have seen really sharp students bust rides and then seen others that were really lacking pass.
Click to expand...

All of which my proposal solves. The existing oral is just a very small sampling of the knowledge; I propose they know everything. The existing checkride is just a random sampling. I propose that the student show consistency of all skills.
 
I've read on AOPA a while back where the FAA was looking into redoing the PTS to MUCH more scenario based training. I think this would be a good thing but you must see, as was stated above, that every system will have its faults.

Train them to the highest standards and there will be no problem. :)
 
A comprehensive checkride would be great, but it would also be very time consuming. Examiners here already charge $300-$500 bucks. I could only imagine what they would charge if they had to show up a few times in a week for one student.
 
Sidious said:
I've read on AOPA a while back where the FAA was looking into redoing the PTS to MUCH more scenario based training.
Click to expand...

During the oral exams of all the checkrides I have taken, the examiners always presented everything in a scenario based question. The questions were never like what you read in the oral exam guides. They would always present a real world situation and ask questions about these situations that would require your use of all the required knowledge.
 
My main beef with the PTS is that while it tries to keep checkrides standardized and fair, it somewhat falls short of doing that. Often the wording in a task as to what the objective is can be too vague, and still allows too much leeway for unreasonable examiners.

For example (from the Private PTS C. Task Weather Information) :

"Exhibits knowledge of the elements related to weather information by
analyzing weather reports, charts, and forecasts from various
sources..."

Which Weather reports or charts? Theres a multitude of them in the Aviation Weather Services book. Some of which serve little practical use....such as the Composite Moisture Stability chart. Do I need to know that? How in depth do I need to know it? The book goes into great detail into how the K index and Lifted index is calculated...should I be able to spit that out verbatim? Most reasonable pilots and examiners would say no. I dare say most reasonable pilots don't even know what the hell a composite moisture stability chart even is. I do from my days as a CFI....can you guess why?

Having said that, so long as you have a reasonable examiner, the current PTS works well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top