she might have been trying to help him. if he was going to fail due to not monitoring the adf, she may have been trying to prompt him to catch his error.

Her omnipotent holier than though attitude really just drove me nuts.
Never met her and don't have a personal vendetta. Here's my letter to the editor.(warning lengthy)


When Checking becomes Tricking

We've all heard the stories of checkrides gone awry. Most pilots receive a standard fair checking event from examiners of the utmost integrity. They are able to admit to their failure, learn from their mistake, retake the checkride, and successfully continue their flying endeavors.

We also all to often hear an applicant's side of the story, about a rouge examiner who played a trick, or gave a bust for some seemingly insignificant error, outside of the realm of Practical Test Standard (PTS) guidance. My reaction has always been to take these stories with a "grain of salt". There is always two sides to every story, and it's possible the applicant is not acknowledging everything that went wrong during the checkride.

Then I read an editorial in my Flying magazine, ironically titled "What Goes Around Comes Around, Sometimes the applicant is his own worst enemy" authored by FAA Inspector Martha Lunken, her article includes 3 different checkride stories.

The first checkride event I undoubtably consider a legitimate bust, the pilot while being vectored for the approach flew through the final approach course, received full scale deflection on the needles, lost situational awareness, and didn't initiate a missed approach, nor did the applicant correct their heading to reintercept the course. They were too busy fiddling with an Ipad GPS display on a ILS approach, and the ride was justifiably terminated, pink slip distributed. I would put this bust easily into the checkride category "°standard and fair".

The second description of a checkride however I'm not as confident I could place the event into the "standard and fair" category. During an instrument proficiency check FAA Inspector Lunkden, admittedly distracted the PIC and proceeded to retune the ADF to a new frequency, the pilot saw needle deviation assumed they were over the fix and proceeded to initiate multiple turns to try to align to aircraft with the final approach course, unsuccessful because the frequency had been switched. FAA Inspector Lunkden discontinued the checkride and the PIC was furious and claimed the outcome was unfair.

The FAA publishes pretty clear guidelines on how checkrides are supposed to be performed, these allow applicants and examiners to understand what is expected during the checkride. I would like to look at some notable areas areas from the FAA Instrument Practical Test Standards (PTS).


From the PTS on distractions during a checkride.

"While dividing attention both inside and/or outside the cockpit, the examiner shall cause a realistic distraction during the flight portion of the practical test to evaluate the applicant’s ability to divide attention while maintaining safe flight."

I'm pretty sure retuning a properly tuned receiver does not classify as a realistic distraction. The intent of this section has always been for the examiner to create a distraction such as dropping a pencil and having the applicant pick it up to insure the applicant will not become disoriented and lose aircraft control during a "realistic" real life distraction.


From the examiners responsibilities section of the PTS

"The examiner may not assist the applicant in the management of the aircraft, radio communications, navigational equipment, and navigational charts."

The intent of this guidance within the PTS is obviously to prevent an overly friendly examiner from helping an applicant with their required duties, thereby prevent a checking event from morphing into a instructional flight. None the less, the message is clear, FAA inspector Lunkden was in direct violation of this portion of the Instrument PTS when she changed the frequency of the ADF during the checkride.


Now lets look at Objective #4/17 under the task Non-Precision instrument Approach Procedure

"4. Selects, tunes, identifies, and confirms the operational status of navigation equipment to be used for the approach procedure."

Did the applicant miss this step? Yes. The NDB was not continuously monitored during the approach. As we noted above the examiner was in the wrong to tamper with the navigational radios of the applicant. Now the question lies, Is not identifying NDB continuously an automatic bust?


From the PTS section Unsatisfactory Performance

"Typical areas of unsatisfactory performance and grounds for disqualification are:"
"3. Consistently exceeding tolerances stated in the Objectives"

You had an applicant who missed one objective one time, objective #4, out of 17 objectives for a non-precision approach. That doesn't fit the criteria or consistently exceeding tolerances stated in the objectives, and surely doesn't give Inspector Lunken permission to tamper with the navigational equipment of an applicant.


Then I ask myself, after this examination did the pilot learn anything? Are they a safer pilot now because of their checkride with Inspector Lunkden? I highly doubt that. The pilot undoubtably learned to avoid operating an aircraft with Inspector Lunken acting as an examiner, which in and of itself is a valuable lesson. I imagine it would be impossible to predict what trick may be up her sleeve on any given day. Inspector Lunken should not have tampered with the applicants navigational radios. She should have allowed the approach to proceed and if checkride was succesful, included the item in a thorough debrief. She could have then shared her knowledge of the potential dangers of not properly identifying an NDB continuously after a otherwise successful checkride. Thereby contributing to aviation safety.

In the article Inspector Lunken says " Issuing a pink slip or checking unsat in a box is as painful for me as it is for the pilot" and later goes on to say "But my all time fondest "unsat" memory involved a hotshot flying a Piper Seneca in Indianapolis" Can you not see the obvious contradiction in these statements? Inspector Lunken is a rouge examiner who obtains pleasure from busting applicants. I hesitate to comment on her final check ride story because it appears she was overruled in a bust decision by her manager, something I've never even heard of, and then goes on to seemingly take pride in the fact that an unrelated accident occurred, as if it somehow substantiates her checkride decision making. I find it more plausible that the applicant didn't follow proper IMSAFE protocol and prepared to fly an aircraft, after being put through the ringer, was overcome with stress and fatigue, which contributed to an unfortunate outcome.

She also makes a comment about flying low over an inner-city area and being in danger of being shot down. This has obvious racist undertones and has no place in Flying magazine.

I was throughly disgusted by the entire article and plan on discontinuing my Flying subscription as soon as possible.

What ever happened to debriefing items? Simply just debrief the fact he forgot to ID instead of purposely busting him.

Not like anyone ever IDs navaids unless its a check ride anyway

Really? I got away from ID ing them too, for awhile, until the time I was almost violated and the other time that almost got me killed. Other than that, not a big deal... Watch out for the Killer button as well; the Nav/GPS switch...

Well, the PTS for Dead Reckoning and Pilotage says nothing about using the GPS, that's in Navigation Systems and Radar Services. In fact, the PTS for Dead Reckoning and Pilotage is pretty specific in how it describes an applicant will navigate:
So with that in mind, failing the GPS/VOR is absolutely fair game for a private/commercial checkride in terms of navigation. Everyone has a different take on this, but if a student was following airways using GPS/navs or magenta lines, I'd have them do at least one leg completely visually/according to PTS and see if they end up at their next checkpoint within standards. Failing the GPS/VOR without telling the applicant that you'd like to see this next segment via pilotage and dead reckoning would be a poor way to do it though. I'd always tell them what I was doing and why (so we can evaluate pilotage and dead reckoning).

BTW, you could argue that not monitoring the ADF is "consistently" exceeding the standards or doesn't even apply for that aspect, just to play the devil's advocate, since it was 100% of the time. Dipping below your altitude a bunch of times during a steep turn (past the standards) would also be, but that's kind of what that is geared towards. Yeah, changing the ADF frequency on someone is a pretty bad thing to do IMO, on the other hand, if asked, and the applicant didn't even know the importance of it and why, that is a bigger problem that should be a bust. It does sound like tricking to say nothing and just change the frequency, but I'd bet there's more to the story than we are hearing.

If you feel something unfair happened on a checkride, take a step back, a big breath, think about the PTS and if you really met it/knew what you were supposed to, and if you feel the same, call the FSDO and explain. Everyone makes mistakes, even examiners. Remember though, the pilot isn't supposed to "learn anything" in the checkride. It may just always happen, but the guy has to meet the standards and that's it.

Agreed but you would announce failure of the gps by covering it up or turning it off, which would be fair game. Changing the adf by one digit without announcing it midflight is akin to repositioning the gps initialized position mid flight without them noticing and watching havoc ensue as they debate the now erroneous rigged GPS data, it's bush-league.

It appears the FAA was aware of some of her techniques, from her bio on Flying magazine website, it appears she was chronically "on suspension".

"After a divorce and far too much time instructing, Martha reluctantly accepted a job in 1980 as an Aviation Safety Inspector with FAA's Flight Standards Division at DuPage Airport in Chicago. Eight years later she made her way back home via the Indianapolis FSDO and ran the FAA's safety program in southern Ohio ... when she wasn't on suspension."

in other news, she ain't Heather Locklear thats for sure

Any seasoned CFI or pilot for that matter, has probably come across an examiner who does it his way, or really unnecessarily pushed the buttons of the applicant, 'because he can'. It's really a form of bullying. How would one explain that in an interview? The truth may very well be that the examiner was having a bad day and busted me. Or the examiner was unfair and changed a frequency on me. Even though it may be stranger than fiction, it still may be the truth and unfortunately you will have to grit it out.

Why would an instructor ever let their student go to an examiner like this?

When I used to instruct...I always knew the examiners and wouldn't let my students go to anyone else. The examiners were fair and professional in every aspect. Rogue examiners are despicable.

I've had horrible examiners in 121 checking events and they do nothing but **** me off. Checkrides are tough enough on their own, let alone with someone trying to "sabotage" the event.