canav8 wrote:Wow Vic, sorry but there is no excuse for that kind of conduct. On a checkride? Are you serious? This is absolutely unacceptable conduct. Trying to make up procedures on a checkride is unacceptable. I understand the theory by clarifying what the examiner wants but the example was bad. You should have never been exposed to that scenario in the first place and you should have had a free ride. It is these stories that give the FAA a black eye.
Doug... how do we know it was an FAA employee that was the examiner...in order to give FAA a black eye? It may have been a designee. In fact, I'd be willing to bet a doughnut it was not an FAA employee, as FAA is very strict about such matters. I agree, that was not likely a valid manuever to require on an actual check-ride.
As for a "free ride".... no such thing. It's either a satisfactory ride, or an unsatisfactory ride.
'53 B-model N146YS SN:25713
50th Anniversary of Flight Model. Winner-Best Original 170B, 100th Anniversary of Flight Convention. An originality nut (mostly) for the right reasons.
George I have to ask who designated the designee? The FAA. So by extension actions of a designee are a reflection of the FAA after all the designee is acting on behalf of the FAA.
I've had check rides where both an FAA examineer and a examineer designee designed an approach or modified an approach for expedience sake. But I can not see either type of examineer failing someone because they were not able to fly the procedure created or modified.
CAUTION - My forum posts may be worth what you paid for them!
Bruce Fenstermacher, Past President, TIC170A
Email: brucefenster at gmail.com
This is absolutely unacceptable conduct. Trying to make up procedures on a checkride is unacceptable. I understand the theory by clarifying what the examiner wants but the example was bad. You should have never been exposed to that scenario in the first place and you should have had a free ride. It is these stories that give the FAA a black eye.
