Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

IR examiner refuses to do test due foggles

Pulled straight from flyer forum

"There has been at least one examiner who has very recently turned up and declined to use foggles, and charged the full exam fee for announcing that.

He is unlikely to be subject to a successful appeal"

I have to say I find this amazing.

Yes but as usual no info supplied beyond that assertion despite questions being asked.

You will always get the odd character who fights his own battles. They will eventually come out in the wash. I have flown with quite a few crazy people. Some were totally bonkers.

I could tell some amusing stories but they would not do me any good

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Sounds like an initial test where the fee is paid directly to the CAA. If the Examiner declines to do the test because the equipment is not as required then it is quite likely that the fee would be forfeited. In the past Doc 7 prevented this.

Doc 7 still exists and should prevent it. It is quite detailed, and actually not too problematic; it even makes allowance for owner-provided aircraft. IN 2013/111 is the problem, which gives the head of training discretion with regard to view limiting devices, and the examiner the power to disagree. It appears we now have two cases of examiners not being too happy not having screens.

Biggin Hill

Do you mean Standards Doc 7A? That still talks about screens.

This thread is perhaps more up to date. And the CAA statement on screens is here.

The more detailed version is here.

I had no problems getting my N-reg TB20 approved on the day, by the CAA staff examiner. But then he was probably familiar with the aircraft equipment, from my trip writeups. But yes it could be a risk, and then you lose the £700+ test fee.

Incidentally I have it from a CAA staff examiner that a plane that does not have an ADF and DME can't be used for the initial IR test - because the examiner can choose (on the day) to do an NDB procedure as the "nonprecision" part of the test.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Why not name the examiner?

United Kingdom

Haha, this "screens" business is funny. Never heard of that before. Peter's devices look scary.

I did my IR exam in CAVOK on a nice sunny day. No screens, no foggles, no maps on the windscreen. I think it's pretty pointless anyway because an IR is not about being able to control the aircraft using instruments, it's about being proficient executing IFR procedures.

Flying an aircraft based on instruments is fairly trivial and I am convinced most of these VFR in IMC accidents happen because the poor VFR pilots get told by (non instrument rated) FIs and other pilots that they will die in IMC. If you know where the AI is and you have a bit of confidence, it's easy. I know VFR pilots that have more experience and routine in IMC than I do...

The version you link to is the old version. The latest version is Standards Document 7 (A/H) as of September 2012.

It still contains the screens requirements, but that was changed by IN 2013/111 in July 2013.

The problem in this IN is paragraph 3.2, which says

Examiners must satisfy themselves that the means adopted by the ATO ... is satisfactory. Where there is doubt of the efficacy of the view limiting device(s) the matter should be referred to CAA Flight Crew Standards

You probably did not have problems getting your screens approved because they were, um, screens.

Biggin Hill

I tend to agree with achimha.

However, voicing such an opinion tends to lead to damning words from skygods and instructors.

EGLM & EGTN

an IR is not about being able to control the aircraft using instruments, it's about being proficient executing IFR procedures.

I can't agree with that.

You could learn IFR procedures on FSX but the moment you get into IMC in a plane without an autopilot you will crash it.

Why not name the examiner?

Please pick another website to do that on

We can never know why the examiner refused to approve that aircraft. It is just hearsay, posted by someone who heard it from someone who heard it from someone.

The CAA doc enables the examiner to refuse to do the test if he/she thinks the candidate can see past the foggles/hood, for example. Or maybe the plane was a clapped out old heap (many planes used for IR tests by the FTOs are barely airworthy) which the examiner was looking for an excuse to not fly in.

If somebody wants to really make enemies in what is a very small world, they could sue the CAA for a breach of EU law... There are cases of people walking into CAA House with a solicitor but you need to be prepared to push it through, and have nothing to lose.

voicing such an opinion tends to lead to damning words from skygods and instructors

There are no skygods on EuroGA

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom
31 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top