I just read an article in the latest flying magazine by Martha Lunken titled "What Goes Around Comes Around, Sometimes the applicant is his own worst enemy"

In the article she goes into detail about her administering a checkride in which she busts an applicant. After distracting the applicant she then tampered with the ADF and changed the frequency inserting the incorrect frequency for the approach. Besides the fact that examiners tuning navigational equipment is specifically disallowed by the PTS, this was a blatant trick used to incite a bust.

Has anyone ever dealt with her? If not have you read the article and are you equally disgusted?

Post a link to it.

It's in the April 2013 issue, I have an ipad subscription, I can't find the article online yet.

unprofessional if true.

In the late 80's when I learned to fly, my CFI at the time (and this seemed to be "the thing" back then) harped on 67 KIAS climb speed in the C-152. Dare I drift to 68 or 66 and he would boil with rage. Square your base ! God forbid the plane was never flown at right angles to everything. He said "you got to learn how the heavy boys do it". This guy was like 23 and had ??? 1000 TT.

I was 17 at the time and I fired him. This guy was an IDIOT. . He left to fly 1900-D's for an airline HQ in PHX named after a table and then went to a major airline HQ out of DFW with a patriotic paint scheme. Kinda a "hotshot" attitude at our smaller field, always cancelling students at the last minute to scam Baron time with the local dentist who owned a Baron. This is circa 1990. I remember one hot summer day, thermals lifted the little C-152 past the intended touchdown point somewhat, and I bounced the landing. With 15 hours under my belt, this guy told me (age 17) "you need to really look inside and ask yourself if you are cut out for this" as he shook his head at my otherwise safe and normal landing.

An older gentleman, who earned his living flying cropdusters, and another CFI, who flew Hawkers on the field, took me under their wing and to this day I still hear their voices in my head, as they shaped me in a very positive manner. One guy was all stick and rudder, he could care less WHAT the airspeed indicator said, the other guy was more we are part of the ATC and airport system and lets use it safely and here is how to do it.

Turns out, everything at the PPL VFR phase (well all phases....) is about "flying the plane" and keeping your head outside. Keep the ball centered in the turn. Stalls don't necessarily happen at book stall speeds. Always have an awareness of where you are landing if the engine quits. Engines need fuel, air, and oil. Pilots need food, water, and rest. Don't mistreat the plane and it will take care of you later. Don't get lost. Etc

amazing concepts to some CFI's

There's a push in GA now to put AoA indicators in all the trainers, something I support because it would help new pilots understand and manage lift and drag better than most of them do. It also might save a few of the lives taken by stall spin episodes each year as well.

Martha Lunkden:
Martha Lunken, Contributing Editor | Flying Magazine

She's been around awhile.
Maybe things were done differently back in the day?
I see in the IR PTS where is says:

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

...but that seems to more atuned to HELPING the applicant rather changing something up on the applicant.
Is this action addressed in another part of the PTS?

Blatant trick - yes. Much like bugging on a preflight.

I read the article, the examiner had the pilot do a NDB approach. The applicant tuned the correct frequency, but didn't identify or continue to monitor the station. The examiner distracted the pilot changed the frequency to simulate the NDB being offline or something to that effect.

i think in that case it is ok for the examiner to foul up the check ride, and as a side note i believe the examiner used this as a teaching moment - the check ride was failed when the applicant failed to monitor the NDB.

Playing trickster is certainly useful in teaching, but less so in testing. Generally you use it when you have a bad habit to break in a student, and it's kind of cruel playing tricks to a certificate applicant in my opinion. The idea is that you want to see how much they know, not whether they can figure out a bunch of unlikely tricks. Failures are another thing, it is quite ok to fail something and see what happens. This examiner may have just intended to fail the ADF, I did not read the article. But you can fail anyone if you try hard enough. I recall an airline sim operator telling me that he managed to fail the director of safety at his airline by giving him a set of unlikely failures.

I did not read the article. I support realistic distractions but shady tactics isn't cool. One distraction at a time, realistic, consistent with the portion of the flight or exam. Again, did not read the article but I have expressed my view on such things already

I definitely recall one DE saying she fails the GPS on private pilot students if they do not use enough pilotage or dead reckoning.