Checkride Qs

[El Piloto Chido]

During simulator checkrides, multiple unrelated systems malfunctions are generally avoided. At least that's been my experience. A total electrical failure combined with an unrelated hydraulic loss would be a bit extreme on a checkride, I'm sure all would agree. I'm wondering though, where in the PTS, or elsewhere, is there any guidance on this?

Anyone out there know if there are official limits on this kind of stuff?

 

[ASA_Aviator]

During simulator checkrides, multiple unrelated systems malfunctions are generally avoided. At least that's been my experience. A total electrical failure combined with an unrelated hydraulic loss would be a bit extreme on a checkride, I'm sure all would agree. I'm wondering though, where in the PTS, or elsewhere, is there any guidance on this?

Anyone out there know if there are official limits on this kind of stuff?

I don't think so. Some companies may have contractual language to prevent it. I think the only thing we have are multiple hydraulic failures, unless the instructor is playing around. At that point, you know the checkride is over and you've passed.

 

[On Your Six]

During simulator checkrides, multiple unrelated systems malfunctions are generally avoided. At least that's been my experience. A total electrical failure combined with an unrelated hydraulic loss would be a bit extreme on a checkride, I'm sure all would agree. I'm wondering though, where in the PTS, or elsewhere, is there any guidance on this?

Anyone out there know if there are official limits on this kind of stuff?

At that point, if I were you I would YELL "I have extreme projectile diarrhea! Let me outta here!"


OYS

 

[Airboss]

[FONT=&quot]It is located under Powerplant, but I would say the intent is the same.
FAA Order 8900.1 Volume 5 Chapter 3 Section 2.


5-836[/FONT] EMERGENCY PROCEDURE EVENTS. An applicant must be able to competently operate all installed emergency equipment and to correctly apply the procedures specified in the operator’s aircraft operating manual.

[FONT=&quot]A.[/FONT] Powerplant Failures. Inspectors and examiners may introduce malfunctions requiring an engine shutdown at any time during the flight test. This provision is not intended as authority to require an unrealistic number of failures, but to permit such failures at times when they are most appropriate. Powerplant failures should be limited to those necessary for determining an applicant’s proficiency. An applicant must promptly identify the inoperative engine and initiate correct action while maneuvering the airplane safely. If the airplane is not capable of maintaining altitude with an engine inoperative, the applicant is expected to maintain the best engine-out climb speed while descending. Smooth application of flight controls and proper trim are required.

[FONT=&quot]B.[/FONT] Other Emergency Procedures. Inspectors and examiners should sample as many of the following events as necessary for determining whether an applicant is proficient in identifying and responding to emergency situations:

· Fire in flight;
· Smoke control;
· Rapid decompression;
· Emergency descent (with and without structural damage);
· Hydraulic and electrical system failure or malfunctions (if safe and appropriate);
· Landing gear and flap systems failure or malfunctions;
· Navigation or communications equipment failure; and
· Any other emergency procedures outlined in the operator’s aircraft operating manual or training program.

 

[scrub]

so your saying a dual engine fire with one flaming out at v1 is not protocol!

 

[acaTerry]

Back in the day before you pepsi-generation pilots came along, I remember what checkrides were like.
Engine fire at V1 with multiple bird strike. During climbout, neither bottle worked so we had to fly the plane in a wing-down attitude over water so we could dip the engine in water to put the fire out. Sound easy? Well, while in the water, the propeller would catch a rope from a crab pot placed by the Northwestern. Captain Sig Hansen would come out and yell at us as we flew in ever-tightening circles as the rope wound tighter with each turn. Kind of like tetherball, but with an airplane.
Then we had to climb out on the wing, remove a blade from the other engine while it was producing power, and use that blade to saw off the rope. the plane would violently shudder from the imbalance of the missing blade and we had to get it back on before the engine shook off the plane.
Then it was airwork...turns around a point, usually a tree, and feed the squirrels while doing the maneuver. We then did stalls, usually to about 10' AGL recovery on a predetermined heading to recover. Then a partial panel, single engine NDB approach, INVERTED, with a rolling missed approach follwed by a gear up, no flap landing on a skateboard. Whew. And you guys think you have it tough.

 

[Freebrd]

Well done! Bravo!

 

[bigshooter107]

Well played!

 

[pilotyip]

so your saying a dual engine fire with one flaming out at v1 is not protocol!

or an engne failure at V1, with the other one catching on fire. It proves nothing. These compound scenarios are all right for training, but should never be used for checking. For instance, in the DA-20 the check airman would introduce a 100% hyd failure which results in a no flap landing, but then there are no wheel brakes, no airbrakes and the student goes off the end of the runway and fails the event. The PTS for a jet only requires a non-stand flap configuration. We could do a 15 flaps landing, or a DLE not deployed and meet the PTS. But the check airman said anyone could do that we have to test him or her at a higher level of difficulty. This resulted in a number of unnecessary failures. Like a pilot with a Fed observing, trying to get it on the end of the runway to ensure max length to stop and the sink rate exceeded the 500’ that the sim allows for landing, resulting in the red cracked windshield with crash symbol and an event failure. I don’t allow this any more.

 

[mejorgy]

Back in the day before you pepsi-generation pilots came along, I remember what checkrides were like.
Engine fire at V1 with multiple bird strike. During climbout, neither bottle worked so we had to fly the plane in a wing-down attitude over water so we could dip the engine in water to put the fire out. Sound easy? Well, while in the water, the propeller would catch a rope from a crab pot placed by the Northwestern. Captain Sig Hansen would come out and yell at us as we flew in ever-tightening circles as the rope wound tighter with each turn. Kind of like tetherball, but with an airplane.
Then we had to climb out on the wing, remove a blade from the other engine while it was producing power, and use that blade to saw off the rope. the plane would violently shudder from the imbalance of the missing blade and we had to get it back on before the engine shook off the plane.
Then it was airwork...turns around a point, usually a tree, and feed the squirrels while doing the maneuver. We then did stalls, usually to about 10' AGL recovery on a predetermined heading to recover. Then a partial panel, single engine NDB approach, INVERTED, with a rolling missed approach follwed by a gear up, no flap landing on a skateboard. Whew. And you guys think you have it tough.

Awesome!!!!!! I remember those days