FAA Practical test pass rate down

[ventana7]

That is correct. As I review my career, I can remember a few cases where applicants failed to meet the stick and rudder standard, but for the most part those standards are pretty easy to meet, and most applicants did.

Of course, the occasional applicant would become overwhelmed and gain or lose 200 feet in a steep turn, but it was rare. Additionally, for me and most examiners I know, exceeding a standard is not necessarily a disapproval. Exceeding a standard without recognition, or exceeding a standard without correction, is.

Most failures resulted from pretty egregious brain farts. Failure to check the oil or sump the fuel during a pre-flight inspection. Not using a checklist during a pre-flight inspection. Not conducting a pre-flight inspection. Missing a checkpoint, requiring a course change, on a cross country and not executing lost procedures, etc.

The FAA has attempted to limit subjectivity during practical testing. The Flight Test Guide, then the PTS and now the ACS attempt to distill the standard into quantifiable tasks and objectives. Subjectivity remains however.

The FAA requires checklist usage in many of the tasks examined. But, and this is only my opinion, there are "checklists" and then there are "CHECKLISTS."

I have issued a notice of disapproval for failure to complete a cruise checklist in a high performance, turbocharged, manual waste gate airplane. I have only made a note to use during the debrief for failing to complete a cruise checklist in a C-150. And yes, I understand that the C-150 driver may someday be a C-421 driver. Perfection is not the standard.

Jim

My FW Private checkride was pretty straight forward and the DPE emphasized I was getting a license to continue learning as a PPL. My seaplane add on and my gyro add on with you Jim were both easy passes and I knew very well I was qualified and felt very confident.
My instrument rating was another story altogether and I was put through several unexpected hurdles (flying a DME arc and numerous holding entries, tons of distractions and rapid fire changes) and I felt that was as it should be- being held to a much much higher standard which I appreciated. I passed all on my first try but was glad the bar was set higher for precision on instruments.
Rob

 

[WaspAir]

The FAA has a much broader view of aviation, thankfully.

I don't think I needed that particular lesson. If you reread my post, you will see that I started with a description of "my corner" of aviation. I can't imagine a more explicit way of acknowledging that a broad range exists elsewhere. I also acknowledged ILS utility when I described my airline passenger status.

Nowhere did I call for retiring VORs.

Nonetheless, they remain essentially useless for my own piloting tasks, right up there with A-N ranges.

 

[Loren Jones]

I don't think I needed that particular lesson. If you reread my post, you will see that I started with a description of "my corner" of aviation. I can't imagine a more explicit way of acknowledging that a broad range exists elsewhere. I also acknowledged ILS utility when I described my airline passenger status.

Nowhere did I call for retiring VORs.

Nonetheless, they remain essentially useless for my own piloting tasks, right up there with A-N ranges.

And I was simply pointing out that the MON was not targeted at your corner of aviation. The fact that it's useless to you doesn't reduce the value to those that do take advantage of it.

 

[GyroChuck]

I remember having a A-N range question on my private pilot actual written test. Boy that was a while ago

 

[okikuma]

We can always go back to the Low Frequency Four Course Radio Ranges that proceeded VORs.

Navigation in the 1940s: The Four Course Radio Range

 

[Mayfield]

Considering that several participants in this conversation are, charitably speaking, well seasoned, I'm surprised we haven't touched on LORAN aviation receivers.

Also, the first Beech 18 I checked out in had a rotatable ADF loop. I could turn it to null the signal and read a relative bearing on an azimuth ring inside under the antenna. I don't remember if that installation also had a sense antenna.


Jim

 

[okikuma]

We can always go back to the Low Frequency Four Course Radio Ranges that proceeded VORs.

Navigation in the 1940s: The Four Course Radio Range

In fact, my old Piper Pacer had an old tube NARCO LFR-3 receiver still mounted in the instrument panel for those early LF Four Course Radio Ranges. The receiver originally used the power supply from then accompanied NARCO Superhomder VHF NAVCOM tranceiver. Since that radio was long since removed, I built a power supply to operate the LFR-3. It had one long wire sensing antenna, and a fixed loop antenna inside the fuselage with the null fore and aft. I used the receiver mostly to listen to AM broadcast stations while flying XC. I did find with the fixed loop antenna, I could track NDB stations by listening to the Morse code identifier, then slowly turn the plane until the nose was pointing directly at the station and thus the signal faded in the null. If I deviated away from the heading, the signal would become louder. A little less accurate than navigation with an ADF "needle" tracking an NDB.

Wayne

 

[okikuma]

Considering that several participants in this conversation are, charitably speaking, well seasoned, I'm surprised we haven't touched on LORAN aviation receivers.

Jim, I was getting to that. A decent navigation aid before GPS. LORAN-C was active until about 2015. The Feds and military are seriously looking at starting up eLORAN, an upgraded system as compared to old LORAN-C as a fall back from destroyed GPS satellites.

I remember all the C-130s, C-141s, and C-5s that I flew in during Space-A hops had Omega receivers at the Navigator's station on the aircraft.

Also, the first Beech 18 I checked out in had a rotatable ADF loop. I could turn it to maximize the signal and read a relative bearing on an azimuth ring inside under the antenna. I don't remember if that installation also had a sense antenna.

Ah, the Beech D-18. My favorite twin to fly. My Dad and I were looking to purchase one in the early 1980s. Eventually, we decided against it. Wisely, we realized that for the following twenty years after purchase, the airframe would cost more and more to operate and maintain because of age and increasing fuel and oil prices.

Wayne

 

[MikeBoyette]

Considering that several participants in this conversation are, charitably speaking, well seasoned, I'm surprised we haven't touched on LORAN aviation receivers.

Also, the first Beech 18 I checked out in had a rotatable ADF loop. I could turn it to null the signal and read a relative bearing on an azimuth ring inside under the antenna. I don't remember if that installation also had a sense antenna.


Jim

We had one of those when I was a kid. Dad had the use of a 1968 177 Cardinal with a very weak 0320. It belonged to Scott Lewis he had very little time to fly it and basically we had it all of the time. We even took it when we moved to a Plant City from West Palm. Within two weeks some Jackenape decided he wanted to LORAN more than we did. The cops were called but back then that airport was run by a bunch of hood ole boys who were friends with cops and nothing was done.

 

[okikuma]

Considering that several participants in this conversation are, charitably speaking, well seasoned, I'm surprised we haven't touched on LORAN aviation receivers.

Also, the first Beech 18 I checked out in had a rotatable ADF loop. I could turn it to null the signal and read a relative bearing on an azimuth ring inside under the antenna. I don't remember if that installation also had a sense antenna.


Jim

Jim, I'm sure the on board ADF had both loop and sense antennas as in the C-45 photo. My NARCO LFR-3 loop and sense (broadcast) antennas were activated separately by the horizontal toggle switch just below the frequency window.

Wayne