To clarify my first post...the details ARE important on the checkride oral. But understanding the concept doesn't require all the details. Once you "get" how it works then you can fill in all the airplane-specific details.

How many orals/checkrides have you taken with an examiner where this might be a posed question? I'd say my last P135 ride at work had more questions on the governor operation than your experience :)



On the 135 side i would agree they will go into detail. But on a multi commercial checkride i doubt it. Nothing wrong in being prepared i just don't find it common for the examiner to make you build the airplane. And the explanations you guys are giving sounds like you are building the governor. I am curious to know the level of detail you were asked about the governor usmc.

Let's see, I had to explain it to an instructor for a High Performance endorsement, Again during Commercial and for the CFI; never for a 135 deal. I think they figure at that point you should have it down.

Details contained in the PM sent.

Part of the problem that I perceived with your answer was that you made it sound like all you would ever need to know was ................
If I misunderstood your post then I apologize.

Yoda - Never had any prop questions asked on any .293 .297 .299 rides during recurrent sim or in the airplane? I should tell our check airmen that they are being to tough on us! :eek::D

USMC, To answer your question, never on a 135, ever! Just lucky I guess. However, in hindsight it might have been due to the fact that they knew I had an A&P. But then I received the A&P between my Private and Instrument, so who knows... It's important to know all the systems of course, though my personal pet peave is fuel systems. There is still an awful lot of carnage due to folks not understanding their fuel systems or fuel related issues. Anyway; yes, tell them to back off and that you were flying airplanes when they were on the Evenflo!

The amount of detail is in accordance with what PTS are being used. For a 135 check, if the requirement for the pilot is to just be a commercial pilot, the check is to be at that level. If the operation requires an ATP certificated pilot, then the check is performed at that level and according to the appropriate PTS.

With that said, ridiculous drawings and questions about what way the flyweights move can only serve to confuse and it becomes somewhat of an ego-trip for the checking examiner in a "well guess what I know that you don't"?! situation. An examiner that asks you to draw something right off the bat without asking you to explain it is a red flag and sign of a poor examiner.

What is important? Well, what happens when you lose oil pressure?, and from that you should be able to piece together what happens when the prop goes towards high RPM/low AoA or low RPM/high AoA, or what happens if you increase RPM or decrease. You can understand these things just fine, perhaps using a diagram, cut-aways and other resources in the LEARNING phase, but the checking phase is to make sure the applicant can meet the standards, not draw a diagram, and the pompous attitude of those who do expect diagrams to be drawn needs to stop. I'd say a good 98-99% of the time, the EXAMINERs "understanding" of what the diagram should look like or how it operates is wrong, as it's often been simplified to allow for the concepts to be understood, but it often doesn't "technically" work as drawn or there are often missing parts. How many times does the examiner understand that all electrical parts ground to the plane, the negative terminals ground to the plane, electrons flow from negative to positive and therefore flow "backwards" into the airframe, then back into the components, then into the positive leads to the battery/alternator/generator? That it makes a circuit is an important concept, but if an examiner doesn't really know what direction current flows, they shouldn't be asking people to show or draw the BS "journey of an electron", as is commonly done on checkrides. They should be asking situation questions about the electrical system, failures, what is affected, what might happen in various scenarios, etc.

I'm not implying that all one needs to know is "what happens when you lose oil pressure". I am stating though that the instructor should focus on ensuring the concept is understood, using whatever means is necessary, and the examiner should not be playing an ego-trip during the checkride and expecting the applicant to far-exceed the standards and somehow match up to their "greatness".

James said it better than i could.

How did I miss "David Carson" and PAST, what is those? I don't remember them from the "way back."

I cannot explain the governor; I think he is just a complete goof.

"I check it during the runup. If it works, I go. If not, I go back to the ramp. If it fails inflight, I'm screwed."