Design your ideal flight test

[DirtySmellingPropBlast]

There is always discussion about the quality of flight training in Canada.


Some say this situation can only exist if training is poor and the test standards are too low, and thus poorly-trained candidates are able to pass.


So here's your chance to write your own flight test standards. What would you include[font=Verdana][size=2px]?[/size][/font] Whether it's for the student pilot permit, PPL, CPL, a rating etc.


Be creative! What would convince you that a candidate deserves a specific permit/licence/rating. This is your chance to design a flight test that includes that as a KPI (Key Performance Indicator)!


What would you need to see, to prove a pilot is proficient / competent?


Take it away...


(And the Colonel is encouraged to jump in and say that in his opinion - all CPL flight tests must be conducted in a tail-wheel aircraft. That might not be a bad start.)


What are your thoughts, on the state of Canadian flight tests today? What would you like to see change?

[Colonel]

Be nice, now!

For IFR:  I only want to see two things from a candidate:
1) while hand-flying a hold, re-fold a map, and
2) a 0/0 landing (ILS under the hood)

For PPL:
1) a successful landing with a 25 knot direct crosswind
in a certified light single.  If a month passes without these
conditions being available, a one-wheel touch + go landing
can be substituted.
2) circuit with dashboard entirely covered
3) navigation under the hood at night to a
landing at a distant airport, must use GPS

For CPL:
1) hand-bomb a start and be airborne in two minutes
from engine start, all required checks completed
2) 100nm diversion never above 500 AGL, only map

[DirtySmellingPropBlast]

[i]If you don't want to hear jokes - try not to be one (?)[/i]

[b]Good thing DirtySmellingPropBlast is both a joke and I enjoy hearing them[/b]


[quote]while hand-flying a hold, re-fold a map[/quote]
Do you have any tips?


[quote]circuit with dashboard entirely covered[/quote]
I really like this one -- as long as I can use my trusty checklist though, couldn't fly a circuit without one. Without instruments or checklist in hand I would surely fail this exercise!  ::)


[quote]100nm diversion never above 500 AGL, only map[/quote]
Would you have them fly the whole thing?  :D  Or just part of it? What would they use other than a VNC? I don't think the flight test as written allows anything other than VNC.

[Colonel]

Why would you think that my answer was not serious?

In Canada, flight training is regulated by gangsters
and FTU designated pet examiners operate with serious
conflicts of interest.

And yet somehow compared to that, my opinion after
a quarter century of instructing is a joke to you?

[Trey Kule]

Lets see.  Hand bomb a plane and depart in two minutes.


It is hard to believe you could be seriously suggesting that.
Maybe after 25 years of instructing, you know what is the most important thing to test though.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Colonel, you forgot the first thing a lot of pilots don't know how to do.


Proper use of power and brakes while taxiing.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

To the poster of this thread.


Are you saying you can not fly a circuit without a written check list?


How complex is the airplane you are flying?

[Colonel]

[quote]Are you saying you can not fly a circuit without a written check list?[/quote]

I think he's pulling your leg.  I hope.

PS  Although some of my suggestions for tasks might
look a little odd, I don't think there's any doubt that
only the top 1% of candidates would be capable of
them.  And I know that egalitarianism is important
to the politics of Margaret Atwood and David Suzuki,
but I question it's value in aviation, which I prefer
to be more merit-based, which make me a [b]BAD PERSON[/b].
Got that.  Dumbing down is good.  I am bad.


PPS  I know today's pilots would rather touch a strange
man's penis through a glory hole than a propeller,  but
fly a Garrett turbo-prop sometime and get back to us.

Hand-bombing a piston prop, while terribly unfashionable
(Hiliary would not approve) teaches a pilot an awful lot
about correct priming and prop safety.  Both subjects
are unimportant to future four bars - I get it.

But he did ask, and after a century in aviation consisting
of four generations far pre-dating the gangsters at TC,
perhaps I am permitted to hold an opinion.

[Chuck Ellsworth]

Don't count on it.


Some can't even start it without a written check list.

[Colonel]

Jesus, I hope he's kidding.

"Checklist" is an abuse of the term for the
"how to fly" books that people carry and
somewhat incredibly, try to read as they
fly an aircraft.

If you need a "how to fly" book to safely
operate an extremely simple (single engine,
fixed pitch prop, fixed gear) aircraft, you
haven't received adequate training to
go solo.

Most light trainers have about four things that
need to be checked.  A simple cockpit flow suffices.

When I was instructing, I would toss those silly
books in the back, and teach the student to

[b]LOOK OUTSIDE[/b]

and perform a simple cockpit flow.

I rarely see sportbike riders, for example,
moving quickly through heavy traffic, reading
a "how to ride" book that they're hold with one
hand.

Why is that?  A sportbike is pretty complicated
compared to a light single.

Oddly, the gangsters in charge did not think
much of this opinion.