Originally Posted by
JamesNoBrakes
Yes, but you have to be EXTREMELY careful and constantly reassess if you are actually asking within the standards. If they start to get flustered because you are asking questions outside what is required, that causes stress and ends up not being fair. It's often hard to put yourself in the shoes of an applicant that studied, was told one thing was most important, looked at the standards, thought he met them all, and then when asked an off-the-wall question, not only is he trying to answer that question, he's trying to understand why it's being asked, if what he knows is wrong, if he was taught wrong, if he should guess, if he should stand up to the examiner (rare), and so on. It creates a snowball effect often that is hard to understand from just the examiner's point of view. I totally agree with questions that actually probe knowledge, understanding, and correlating various systems and scenarios, as long as they make sense. It reminds me of one instructor that attempted to ask scenario questions for EVERY single subject area of any test. He had some highly evolved scenario for each area that had a specific goal and conclusion at the end, but the problem is there are too many opportunities to "branch off", and then you feel like the student didn't meet the standard because he didn't see your scenario the same way you did, or it's so obvious to you because you thought it up, but to the applicant it's not.
The other big problem is that you may think you know a system, but there's always a principle of it that an applicant may know better, so with your highly thought-out scenario, it's possible to trip yourself up. I can't remember how many times an instructor didn't really understand electron flow and grounding, so they really look like an idiot when they try to have some stupid "trace out the electron flow" exercise as part of an oral or check.
The "off the wall" questions must be handled very carefully, and it's likely you can be doing one of the above things without even realizing it.
I kinda agree and kinda disagree with your post.
If I guy gets flustered, that can be an indication of what kind of captain he would be (I haven't looked at the PTS in a dozen years, so I don't know if it addresses this, but every FAA checkride I took had something about
command of the aircraft was never in doubt).
As a Captain, one is often put into situations we never trained for, and for which there isn't a clear solution. For example, engine fire and brake failure... where do you land, close short runway without fire fighters or distant long runway with firefighter. There isn't a clear answer, but if one can support his answer with good reasons, that shows good judgement (even if his answer isn't mine).
Forget why it is being asked. One is given a failure, work with it. Forget about why the examiner is asking the question, just make a decision. Funny thing is, it is often easier to recover from a bad decision than no decision at all.
If the applicant was taught wrong, it is unfortunate that he got a sub par instructor. But if he learned wrong, Even If It IS the Instructor, his knowledge is insufficient to be a Captain. So, he should not get the rating. It sucks that it may not be fault, but that's life. I want a fully qualified airplane driver up front when I am dozing in the back.
Maybe, the feds should mandate a minimum pass rating for instructors to maintain their instructor status (if you can't teach 'em enough to pass, you shouldn't be a teacher), but until that happens Caveat Emptor.
An ATP is a measure of one's flying skills and judgement to be an Airline Captain. It is a test to determine if one has a certain level of piloting skills and decision making skills.