Is this reasonable?

[DG]

There is a LOT more to this check ride than has been presented.

...undoubtedly true!

But the information is confidential to protect the pilot who was evaluated.

...fair!

BTW: I think I have been kind, generous and open-minded!

If you are to be fair, you must present all the facts.

Without that, this ex parte thread is misleading and inequitable conduct.

[KyCAP]

While I think that a 5 hour oral is a bit much, I can assure you that I know of an FAA DE that I know that every check flight (PVT, INST, COMM, ATP, etc) that I have ever heard of him managing consists of a 5 hour ORAL.   At first I had to re-read the first post to see where the thread poster originated.  It's not the same guy.  So, while long, not unheard of by FAA DE.  I am sure that there are others lurking on CAPTALK that also know of whom I speak. 

5 Hour oral for a Form 5 - I would expect to fail three hours earlier.

[JGremlin]

B.S.!

Based on your comments, I assume you know the details but that is irrellevant.  Regardless of the details, there is nothing - and I repeat nothing - that justifies a 5 hour oral...or anything close to that.  If a candidate didn't do well on the oral it should've stopped there - he should've never gotten in the airplane for evaluation.   Period. 

Agreed. But I'll add that not only should it have stopped at the oral. It should have stopped an hour into the oral. A 5 hour oral for a form 5 checkout in a 182 is simply unacceptable. I know folks whose initial CFI oral was shorter than that.

[RiverAux]

I think we all want form 5s to be very thorough and I'd rather have us err on the side of going too far.  What is the right length for the oral?  Well, I can't really offer a good opinion on that as I'm not a pilot. 

However, I can say that stopping the check ride and demanding that the member come back again because the check pilot supposedly had a student waiting is inexusable. 

There is nothing that can be said that is going to justify that in my book (assuming that is what the check pilot actually told the person getting the form 5).  Now, if the check pilot thought the person getting the form 5 wasn't cutting it he should have said that.  If he didn't deserve to pass, thats fine, but SAY that!

[caprr275]

NO WAY!

My CAPF 5 oral was about .5 with a 1.5 hour flight. Everything was covered. The 182 G1000 isnt a hard airplane to fly, you don't need to know how to reprogram the 2nd GPS while upside down in IMC. You need to know how to safely fly the airplane and meet the CAP flight standards.

If you add my instrument and both commercial orals together it is just over 5 hours.

[heliodoc]

eS_god

Thanks

I did get the Form 5 accomplished in Oct 08 with the blessing of two Wings...

I haven't flown the G1000 much lately because of involvement with the wildland fire assignments and my position with wildland fire, wildland urban interface issues, and numerous after work meetings with city council meetings, working with contractors contracted by the State doing timber thinning operations.

BUT after reading these posts, it sure seems there is an abundance in agreement that these other gentlemen got caught up in the "powers and prowesss" of CAP folks who think there are CAP standards exceeding FAA PTS and from what I gather in the 60-1 all references are to FAA PTS Standards

WHERE ARE THOSE CAP STANDARDS WRITTEN IN 60-1?  HUH??

But I will reiterate for all you CFI's with the CAP Golden Seal Check Pilot stamp....
DO NOT waste the members time.  Their time is as valuable as yours

If anyone care to look it up  but here where it says what a volunteer is worth today.....independentsector.org   that will tell you

DO NOT waste peoples time ESPECIALLY if they took a day off of work to do a 5 and if you as CFI are grumpy cuz YOU had to take time off.......check your IMSAFE profile and inform the member how long this is going to take and if one is not pleased with us , as members, with our flying, then DOCUMENT where we need the help.  I do recall now that most CAP CFI's have never really written things down to help.  Help the membership out and inform the person what is wrong and if the person is succesful  SIGN THE FORM 5 SAME day not months later as what has happened in some Wings

[DG]

What a lynch mob!

Did it ever occur to any of you to ask to hear the other side of the story?

Think of what it would be like if you were judges.  Think of all the money we could save, effectively doing away with the judicial system.  You would convict on the prosecutor's opening statement!  And then, over time, prosecutors would bring all manner of baseless charges and become expert at half-truth fact patterns.

Think of what it would be like if you all were commanders having the authority to sanction one of your members.

I would be scared to live in a jurisdiction or be part of an organization where you held any authority to make decisions.

In this case, much has been left out.  The pilot being evaluated should come forward with all the facts.  Or with permission to the thread originator or others to present all the facts. 

The details are being held confidential until the pilot waives any confidentiality.

But it can be said that this was not your normal check ride.  Because of past actions (violations) by the pilot.  And because of conduct (violations) during that day.  Egregious violations.  All confidential for now.

But as to the length of the check ride, would your outrage be tempered if you heard that the pilot's tedious actions and attitude were responsible for the unusal length? 

What would you say in the case (hypothetical, of course, and not with reference to any specific case), if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to give the pilot all this extra time for paperwork that should have been completed before the beginning of the check ride?  Or for flight planning and performance that the pilot was responsible for after the beginning of the evaluation?  And if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to allow the pilot extra time, to work on what should have been performed in much less time.  In other words, if you heard that the pilot wasted the check pilot's time, but rather than shutting down the check ride, the check pilot worked with the pilot and gave him what turned out to be much longer than the normal check ride?

This thread should be given to all CAP check pilots and check pilot examiners together with all of the facts of the case.  So they can see how they are viewed by some of the CAP pilots they are evaluating.  Then at the first hint of abnormal paperwork or performance, shut the check ride down.  With justification.

And as we all know, that means a failed Form 5, and the pilot is grounded.  Requiring, as a minimum, remedial work, and a follow-up Form 5 with the same check pilot.

Or better yet, print out and take this thread to your next check pilot.  Then notify me and I will get all the facts of this case to him under confidentiality.  Gee, do you think he may perceive in you an attitude that may have been the cause of this troubled check ride, in the first place?
   

[sparks]

If the "rest of the story", means that a 5 hour oral was required due to previous egregious actions, the check pilot should have failed the applicant after the first hour or two. Slugging through requirements beyond a few hours probably means the pilot doesn't get it. 3 more won't keep the eyes bright and mind open more like eyes glazed over and day dreaming. This may be an over simplification but without more facts it's all we can do.   

[DG]

If the "rest of the story", means that a 5 hour oral was required due to previous egregious actions, the check pilot should have failed the applicant after the first hour or two. Slugging through requirements beyond a few hours probably means the pilot doesn't get it. 3 more won't keep the eyes bright and mind open more like eyes glazed over and day dreaming. This may be an over simplification but without more facts it's all we can do.   

What if the first hour or two was spent by the pilot doing the aircraft questionnaire which was not done before the beginning of the check ride?

Should the check pilot fail him then, and not go further?

[RiverAux]

Did it ever occur to any of you to ask to hear the other side of the story?

Well, we aren't actually a jury.... but a situation was presented for comment on this board and we've commented on it based on the information presented.  I'm sure that everyone would be more than happy to revise their opinion based on another view of this situation.

[Flying Pig]

If details are being withheld, then this whole thread is useless.

[heliodoc]

REALLY??

Another side of a story, say it isn't so........

Wh

Hypothetical?  well then I guess this whole thread is hypothetical, huh?

These things are happening.  Either way CAP Form 5 is an over rated Flight review and if there are "attitude" problems with prep....then call it ...... Man up or shut up  or at the very least if the CFI and "Applicant for F5" has wasted that must time.....  Might as well turn into a "training session" and turn those lemons into lemonade. HUH?

[JGremlin]

What if the first hour or two was spent by the pilot doing the aircraft questionnaire which was not done before the beginning of the check ride?

Should the check pilot fail him then, and not go further?

Ok so the first two hours weren't part of oral. Fair enough. What about the other three? A checkpilot should be able to get through a 182 form 5 oral in an hour. If it was the pilots fault that the oral took as long as it did, why didn't the checkpilot put an end to it and tell the pilot to reschedule when he was more prepared?

[Pace]

But it can be said that this was not your normal check ride.  Because of past actions (violations) by the pilot.  And because of conduct (violations) during that day.  Egregious violations.  All confidential for now.

The check ride should have ended the moment a single "egregious" violation occurred.  If the pilot will do it with an examiner, they will do it without an examiner or worse.

But as to the length of the check ride, would your outrage be tempered if you heard that the pilot's tedious actions and attitude were responsible for the unusal length? 

No.  Under such circumstances, I do support the check pilot not giving the pilot a sign-off; however, the pilot should have been failed hours earlier.  For example, before it ever began:

if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to give the pilot all this extra time for paperwork that should have been completed before the beginning of the check ride?  Or for flight planning and performance that the pilot was responsible for after the beginning of the evaluation?  And if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to allow the pilot extra time, to work on what should have been performed in much less time.  In other words, if you heard that the pilot wasted the check pilot's time, but rather than shutting down the check ride, the check pilot worked with the pilot and gave him what turned out to be much longer than the normal check ride?

The check pilot sounds like a nice guy for bending over backwards and still not failing the pilot; however, the pilot was clearly not prepared for the F5 if what you have said is true and should not have made it into the ride, much less all day with no sign-off.  It almost sounds like the check pilot is stretching his prerogative a little too far.

[A.Member]

But it can be said that this was not your normal check ride.  Because of past actions (violations) by the pilot.  And because of conduct (violations) during that day.  Egregious violations.  All confidential for now.

The check ride should have ended the moment a single "egregious" violation occurred.  If the pilot will do it with an examiner, they will do it without an examiner or worse.

But as to the length of the check ride, would your outrage be tempered if you heard that the pilot's tedious actions and attitude were responsible for the unusal length? 

No.  Under such circumstances, I do support the check pilot not giving the pilot a sign-off; however, the pilot should have been failed hours earlier.  For example, before it ever began:

if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to give the pilot all this extra time for paperwork that should have been completed before the beginning of the check ride?  Or for flight planning and performance that the pilot was responsible for after the beginning of the evaluation?  And if you heard that the check pilot went out of his way to allow the pilot extra time, to work on what should have been performed in much less time.  In other words, if you heard that the pilot wasted the check pilot's time, but rather than shutting down the check ride, the check pilot worked with the pilot and gave him what turned out to be much longer than the normal check ride?

The check pilot sounds like a nice guy for bending over backwards and still not failing the pilot; however, the pilot was clearly not prepared for the F5 if what you have said is true and should not have made it into the ride, much less all day with no sign-off.  It almost sounds like the check pilot is stretching his prerogative a little too far.

This is exactly right.

[ascorbate]

What a lynch mob!

Did it ever occur to any of you to ask to hear the other side of the story?

I'll be the first to concede that there are at least two sides to every story but it is now evident to me that you and I are not talking about the same pilot/same story!

In this case, much has been left out.

...no, not really... I received a thorough 1 hr debrief firsthand within 2 hours... the same evening!

One of the questions (during the 5 hr oral) involved discussion of the CAPF 9 (Release - for non CAP members). According to CAPR 60-1: "All non-CAP members other than Military/Federal employees must execute a CAPF 9, Release, and leave the form in a secure location on the ground known to the flight release officer (FRO) or mission IC/CMD." Simple and straightforward... that's all that CAPR 60-1 says... but I was told firsthand that the checkride pilot launched into a bunch of "what if this" and "what if that"... things which are not covered in CAPR 60-1. And apparently this continued into other areas... for 5 hours! The oral exam was then followed by a 1 hour preflight inspection exam. Once in the air, it apparently continued with touching on virtually every nuance of every piece of equipment in the cockpit!

Remember, I originally mentioned that I didn't want to recount every excruciating detail of the oral/flight exam!

BTW: I'm all for being thorough, complete and checked-out but it seems to this CAP pilot that a CAP checkride should be more about ascertaining current proficiency (with some learning along the way because none of us knows it all) versus being like an initial FAA Private, Instrument, Commercial or ATP oral/flight exam!

But it can be said that this was not your normal check ride.  Because of past actions (violations) by the pilot.  And because of conduct (violations) during that day.  Egregious violations.  All confidential for now.

Again, you and I are not talking about the same pilot/same story! This pilot has been in CAP for less than 2 years and was Formed 5 in a C-172... no problems, no past actions, no past violations, no egregious conduct... NO NOTHING!!! Please withdraw your indictment.

But as to the length of the check ride, would your outrage be tempered if you heard that the pilot's tedious actions and attitude were responsible for the unusal length?

No tedious actions and no attitude... you and I are not talking about the same pilot/same story... see above!

Gee, do you think he may perceive in you an attitude that may have been the cause of this troubled check ride, in the first place?

For the final time... you and I are not talking about the same pilot/same story... see above!

Now I'd like to inquire... who is lynching whom?

[ascorbate]

What if the first hour or two was spent by the pilot doing the aircraft questionnaire which was not done before the beginning of the check ride?

In this case, the applicant completed the C-182 questionaire one week beforehand at the squadron because we reviewed it with other propsective Form 5 applicants and other prospective glass C-182 CAP pilots.

[desertengineer1]

I'm curious what opinion your wing Stan Eval might have.  You do have one of those, right?

[ascorbate]

I'm curious what opinion your wing Stan Eval might have.  You do have one of those, right?

Yes, Maryland Wing does have a Stan/Eval officer!

I was looking to gather data points before taking this to another level (eg. group, wing)... and that is why I posted my original query here because this forum offers a wide cross-section of opinions and personal/professional experiences which I value as gauging how our organization is... or is not working!

[cnitas]

What are you waiting for?  Escalate this up the chain.