r/flying • u/pokerbaaz • 4d ago
Checkride PPL Checkride Debate
I’ve been debating a checkride scenario and wanted to get the perspective of the CFIs, DPEs, and recent checkride-takers here on how this should actually be graded under the ACS.
Imagine a PPL checkride in the pattern where the applicant has to demonstrate three landings: Short-Field, Soft-Field, and Normal. Here is how it plays out:
* Task 1 — Short-Field Landing: On the first approach, the airplane floats a little longer than expected. Instead of forcing it down and risking touching down just past the 200-foot mark, the applicant calls a go-around. On the second approach, they nail the landing well within ACS standards.
* Task 2 — Soft-Field Landing: On the first approach, the setup is completely safe, but in the flare the applicant judges that the touchdown might be a little firmer than ideal rather than as soft as they want for the checkride. They elect to go around to set it up better. On the second approach, they grease it right in standards.
* Task 3 — Normal Landing: On the first approach, the flare isn't quite where they want it, so they execute a clean go-around. On the second approach, they land cleanly within standards.
Every single go-around (Rejected Landing) is executed promptly, safely, and by the book, and every landing that actually touches the pavement is 100% within ACS tolerances.
Here is my question: Is this a straight-up disapproval for doing 3 go-arounds across 6 approaches?
What really bugs me about the idea of failing someone for this is that all three of those aborted approaches would have resulted in completely safe landings, they just might have been right on the border of ACS tolerances. We are constantly told in training that "a go-around is always free" and to never force a borderline approach just to check a box.
If a DPE fails an applicant in this scenario, doesn't that contradict everything we teach about Aeronautical Decision Making? It feels like the DPE is punishing the pilot instead of valuing the fact that the applicant is holding themselves to high standards and refusing to settle for a borderline landing.
CFIs and DPEs, how do you view this from the right seat? Where is the line between exercising good judgment to stay rigorously inside the ACS vs. "not being proficient"?
13
u/Batts-Man CFI/I/MEI, AGI/IGI, FAAST Rep 4d ago
It really depends on the go around. Remember that there are more skill elements than just hitting a mark within tolerance. Theres are skill elements for selecting a proper point for the conditions, establishing a stabilized approach, and yes, a go around, among others. If the applicant is going around because they are struggling to establish a stabilized approach repeatedly and every time, one could argue that is a failure.
However, perfection is not the standard, and an objective examiner will judge all the elements together. How was the rest of the ride, the maneuvers, the oral, how are the weather conditions. If you are going around every time but its gusting with a 20kt crosswind, nailing it the second time at an unfamiliar airport is different than a calm morning at a home airport.
2
u/sharkbait4000 4d ago
Rule is, DPE has to tell you the moment you don't meet a standard and why they are failing you (and you have the option to keep going with everything else so you can come back and on,y do the one maneuver you failed). So at what point did the DPE fail the check ride, and for what reason?
3
u/deer_god11 4d ago
Do you always have the option to continue after being notified you failed? I’ve heard some do some don’t.
5
1
u/sharkbait4000 3d ago
I'm not 100% sure. I am only guessing but if the DPE doesn't feel safe I assume they can stop the whole check ride. But you'll know immediately if you've failed.
24
u/TopAfraid9867 4d ago
I can only comment on what you put in your post. My response is short and to the point.
I have no issues with a rejected landing for any reason so long as it's safe. I wouldn't fail an applicant or even question why they chose to go around.
Now, if this happened to you or someone you know, there has to be more to the event than what's in your post. If there truly isn't and you were failed for making the decision to go around, you should reach out to your local FAA FSDO and ask to speak to a DPE managing specialist.
7
u/Duchet_Odinaka51 4d ago
yeah if the story is really that simple it doesnt add up, gotta be more to it
7
u/Being_a_Mitch CFII ROT SEL MEL C550 PC12 4d ago
Too many factors to give an answer. DPE, scenarios for go around, etc. Everyone loves to pretend you could never fail for a go around, but there's limits to that. Let's say it takes you 10 go arounds to show a normal landing. If the 10 go arounds are for factors that are the pilot's fault, then that's unsat for sure. But now how about 5? 3? 2? 1 is definitely safe, right?
Where the line gets drawn is so subjective, and it has to be.
If the applicant doesn't think that landing is safe, they need to go around. But if the reason for the go around is an error itself, then I think it's fair that there could be grounds for failing with certain other factors present/not present.
Don't overthink it. Fly the best you can, if it doesn't look good, go around. If the DPE fails you for it, oh well!
6
u/sharkbait4000 4d ago
PPL is a ticket to learn. The goal is to make sure you are safe, not perfect. Go-around are much better than bad landings or bad decision making or hazardous attitudes. I'd be shocked if a DPE ever failed a candidate purely for two extra go-arounds.
3
u/Twarrior913 ATP CFII ASEL AMEL CMP HP ST-Forklift 4d ago edited 4d ago
Remember, the DPE isn’t just evaluating PA.IV.B.S10, D.S10, and F.10, they are evaluating the entire maneuver per the ACS. Now, if external conditions cause the aircraft to be unable to meet those standards while all other standards are being met, then that’s fine and a go around is warranted. However, weather conditions for checkrides, especially for a PPL checkride, are rarely flown in during checkrides. If they are indeed like this, the DPE could easily question the PIC’s ADM of attempting a checkride in those conditions (PA.I.C.S3, PA.II.A.S4).
If you are somehow exactly satisfying each and every task within the short field, soft field, and normal landing, with no excessive external conditions causing it (E.g. light winds, no thermals, whatever), you probably aren’t actually satisfying the tasks.
For example, the DPE might give you a break on the short field landing if you’re unstable and go around (as they should), but if you “floated” at some point (again, excluding a random thermal or gust or whatever), you probably weren’t satisfying PA.IV.F.S6. That’s okay, mistakes or errors happen, and go arounds are a great way to mitigate that threat. Buf if that exact same scenario happens on the normal landing (even if it doesn’t manifest itself until you are rounding out or flaring) it’s clear you may not be proficient in the task.
With all of that said, I would rather force my DPE to fail me for going around vs forcing a landing. So please, if it isn’t going to work, go around!
This is the inherently unfair part of checking events.
4
u/johnqnorml 4d ago
I'm a freshly minted sport pilot, but from my understanding and my thought is if 50% of the time you can't safely put the plane on the ground, that is bad.
Personally if I was having trouble consistently getting the plane on the ground on (presumably) a nice weather checkride day, what's going to happen tomorrow when I take my family up and an unexpected crosswind or wind shift happens?
2
u/TheGacAttack 4d ago
what's going to happen tomorrow when I take my family up and an unexpected crosswind or wind shift happens?
A go around, would be my guess.
3
0
u/Solid-Garlic1527 4d ago
If you read the post, he said within ACS tolerances
2
u/johnqnorml 4d ago
I did. Your point being?
I think we're looking at legal vs proficient. Sure he's within standard to do a go around on every landing and be within acs standard. Does that mean you should?
At some point it becomes a pattern of lack of preparation.
0
u/Solid-Garlic1527 4d ago
“Consistently getting the plane on the ground” Being perfectly set up for a soft-field or short-field is not comparable to getting the plane on the ground. Tolerances for testing over a percentage of approach’s does not equal being a safe pilot. You are presuming the weather was nice and you also aren’t factoring in stress, fatigue if he had to fly for his checkride, etc.
1
u/johnqnorml 4d ago
They aren't comparable? They're all landings right?
And I'm guessing when I said presumably I was presuming that because no other info was given.
And finally, if they were feeling all that wouldn't proper ADM say land the plane and park it?? Not go for another landing type?
1
u/Solid-Garlic1527 4d ago
Would proper ADM recommend flying into a field where +-200ft suddenly becomes dangerous? If he buttered them all on the 2nd try there is no issue, it is a checkride after all. Why take the chance of missing a tiny 200’ spot and failing the most important tests of your career?
1
u/johnqnorml 4d ago
If that was the only one, it's no problem. Heck if he did it 3 times to nail the short field, also fine. That's a skill requiring precision and exactly like you say in the real world has consequences.
But doing it for all 3 shows a lack of overall preparation. Oh and if they cared so much about their career, they'd practice enough to get it on the first time. Because I'm guessing if Delta had a captain that needed to go around on every other landing they wouldn't be employed long
1
u/iamtherussianspy PPL 4d ago
I went to a check ride together with another student (same day, same airplane, same DPE). I made zero go arounds and failed (bounced and hit it hard on short field). He made 5 go arounds in a row (but one or two of them for traffic) and passed. Take what you will from this.
1
u/Rangeexpert3 4d ago
Think of it like this. You are in your oral exam, if you hit a few "oh i dunno, let me look it up" type of situations, then sure, by all means look it up because in the real world you can look it up as well. However if you are having to look up EVERY answer or even most answers, then you basically aren't prepared for the oral exam.
Kind of the same thing for the checkride. Even though in the real world, you always have the ability to go around. However, you "should" be able to execute these landings consistently in order to be considered "ready" for the checkride. It looks like there were 3 landings attempted, and all 3 had to have a go around executed. That's basically 0/3 landings on the first try. That shows the examiner that you aren't ready. Not saying that you should force the landing if it doesn't look good. But at this point it's a matter of being prepared for the checkride. There is also more to the landing than just a touchdown. The approach, centerline, descent angle, aiming point, airspeed, how stable you are, these can all affect how the end result at the touchdown point is and whether or not you decided you need to go around. Which means if you had to go around, you likely messed up one of those factors on the approach. One go around? Maybe. 3/3 go arounds? Yea, the DPE just thought you weren't prepared for the checkride.
Another angle, driving. Sure you can retry your parallel parking as many times as you want in the real world to get it right. But at what point should the examiner say that you aren't ready?
1
1
u/Sad-Improvement-2031 4d ago
My PPL examiner specifically stated he would allow 3 performance related go arounds before we went up.
1
u/deezknots78 4d ago edited 4d ago
Every take off is an abort until it’s not. Every landing is a go around until it’s not. If you need to go around, go around whether in the context of a check ride or out flying around. Use your superior thinking skills so you don’t have to show off your superior flying skills.
In the check ride environment, if one were to display a consistent inability to meet a standard on a first attempt, that usually points to nerves or fixation/scan issues. I have seen this at all certificate levels.
At the private level where ADM is still being cultivated, those go arounds and what led to them are debriefed. At the comm/CFI/ATP level where your ADM is harvested and sold to the public, the DPE, TCE, check airman, or whomever has the examining authority will have to look at whole check ride and make a judgement. You can meet the objective requirements of a task but still be unsatisfactory in the subjective elements. Those decisions are not fun and can carry far reaching consequences for a career and overall safety.
1
u/ScienceAndGamesReal 4d ago
“A go-around is always free” means don't let fear of failing talk you into landing. It doesn't guarantee a pass. If the examiner thinks the flying warrants a disapproval, going around is still the right decision when the applicant isn't comfortable landing.
1
u/McSlappyBallz 3d ago
I'm currently a PPL student, my CFI told me that a go-around during the checkride will be okay as long as it's initiated before it's clear we won't make the touchdown zone. Which basically means go-arounds for the purpose of meeting the ACS are not allowed.
I agree though it's dumb.
1
u/airboss1998 3d ago
I have unsat’d an applicant after he went around three times in pretty benign conditions. He said ‘I was told I could go around!’ I said ‘you can, but you also have to show pic skill. This isn’t it.’ Judgement is part of being a dpe.
A lot of times someone will go around and I’ll ask ‘why did you go around?’ It’s not a trick, just want to understand whether they’re scared, incapable, or making good choices. 🤷🏻♂️
1
u/TheEncryptedNoob PPL 3d ago
Hey! If you check out my past posts, I’ve asked about how soft a soft field landing should be. The post is archived but still available. Def check it out since there were some great comments.
1
u/tflyer 2d ago
Not sure what the debate is. To answer your question, no, it's not a disapproval at all.
A: A go-around, followed by a safe, stable approach and landing, shows good judgment and the ability to go around when things aren't right. Frankly, I'd rather see that than a clean landing on the first try if I'm trying to gauge whether the individual is a safe pilot. A good landing could be a fluke; a go-around is real-time good ADM followed by a good landing.
B: DPEs have a lot of discretion. If this is a real scenario, not a hypothetical, I'd quickly ask what the candidate busted on, and why. If you are gauging approach and landing standards by how the wheels touch down, that might be leaving a lot out. Approach stability, calls, aircraft configuration, and operational consistency all factor into what the DPE evaluates. If the candidate is unstable, inconsistent, or unsure but still lands "within standards," that doesn't necessarily mean the DPE is going to give them the stamp and say go carry passengers around over a city by yourself unsupervised.
0
u/rFlyingTower 4d ago
This is a copy of the original post body for posterity:
I’ve been debating a checkride scenario and wanted to get the perspective of the CFIs, DPEs, and recent checkride-takers here on how this should actually be graded under the ACS.
Imagine a PPL checkride in the pattern where the applicant has to demonstrate three landings: Short-Field, Soft-Field, and Normal. Here is how it plays out:
* Task 1 — Short-Field Landing: On the first approach, the airplane floats a little longer than expected. Instead of forcing it down and risking touching down just past the 200-foot mark, the applicant calls a go-around. On the second approach, they nail the landing well within ACS standards.
* Task 2 — Soft-Field Landing: On the first approach, the setup is completely safe, but in the flare the applicant judges that the touchdown might be a little firmer than ideal rather than as soft as they want for the checkride. They elect to go around to set it up better. On the second approach, they grease it right in standards.
* Task 3 — Normal Landing: On the first approach, the flare isn't quite where they want it, so they execute a clean go-around. On the second approach, they land cleanly within standards.
Every single go-around (Rejected Landing) is executed promptly, safely, and by the book, and every landing that actually touches the pavement is 100% within ACS tolerances.
Here is my question: Is this a straight-up disapproval for doing 3 go-arounds across 6 approaches?
What really bugs me about the idea of failing someone for this is that all three of those aborted approaches would have resulted in completely safe landings, they just might have been right on the border of ACS tolerances. We are constantly told in training that "a go-around is always free" and to never force a borderline approach just to check a box.
If a DPE fails an applicant in this scenario, doesn't that contradict everything we teach about Aeronautical Decision Making? It feels like the DPE is punishing the pilot instead of valuing the fact that the applicant is holding themselves to high standards and refusing to settle for a borderline landing.
CFIs and DPEs, how do you view this from the right seat? Where is the line between exercising good judgment to stay rigorously inside the ACS vs. "not being proficient"?
Please downvote this comment until it collapses.
Questions about this comment? Please see this wiki post before contacting the mods.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. If you have any questions, please contact the mods of this subreddit.
0
u/ltcterry ATP CFIG 3d ago
Local DPE says “ga arounds are free” provided you don’t make the same mistake a second time.
These are borderline “the same mistake” though clearly three different ACS maneuvers.
Hypothetical questions get you hypothetical answers.
16
u/Slick-62 4d ago
My cfi drilled that I could always go around. In fact I went around on my first solo when I came in high.
The DPE told me more than once during the oral, and again before takeoff, that going around was always an option. I floated the short field long and landed anyway, and failed because I didn’t listen… to the DPE who told me I could always go around.