USMCFLYR

Every time - every approach....but then that is part of the job so not really an apples to apples comparison

Reservist - I hope you checked that article in spell check before you sent it. You even spelled Martha's name differently. I don't know Martha either, but calling a person a "rouge" on the basis of a 'Flying' article isn't exactly proof positive. Unless you know her failure percentage you don't even know if she is an easy examiner for sure. And the last part - stopping your subscription because of ONE article that you disapprove of is sort of silly. Like the applicant who didn't get hired by Alaska Airlines and now is going to stop flying them.

rickair7777

x2
......................

JamesNoBrakes

Was priceless though!

FlyJSH

IF she was trying to determine if the applicant was monitoring the NDB signal, there really aren't too many other ways to do it. She cannot shut down a navaid mid flight, and pulling a circuit breaker might result in a "parked" ADF needle and would probably fail a bunch of other radios. De-tuning is kinda sneaky, but if the applicant HAD been monitoring, he would have known that the ADF was no longer providing valid information and hopefully done something.

Twin Wasp

Couple of jobs back, one Check Airman couldn't give another Check Airman a 6 month check without a Fed watching. Martha was the Great Lakes DC-3 Fed. We cranked up early one morning out of YIP and picked Martha up at her airport. She had called Airborne at Wilmington and told them to leave their ILS on. Don't remember anything special, I'm sure we did NDB approaches.

Reservist

You got me on the spelling issues. I thought her name was Lunkden initially so I missed some of those that are mixed in there. I'm not trying to get it published just wanted to express my opinion, so I'm not sure it matters.

I have been fortunate not to deal with her or receive any pink slips (so far) so I'm not sure your Alaska airlines analogy holds true. I really found the article to be extremely poor taste for a magazine that's supposed to be promoting aviation to people of all different backgrounds and experience levels.

I believe examiners have a tremendous responsibility to conduct checkrides in an appropriate manner as per the PTS, post colgan a pink slip can haunt you for your entire career, and after receiving one you have zero recourse. So all I ask is when you give a check ride do it by the book. If the applicant isn't identing, and you believe it to be a bust, end the ride, don't go playing tricks.

Planespotta

Read how Martha describes herself in this article where she takes pride in making a G-II go around because she is an immature ****

Unusual Attitudes:

"Prudence and discretion have never been my strong points and sometimes, even now, I marvel at my lack of maturity and good sense"

"When the controller sent The Company GII around for traffic (us), I felt a shiver of excitement. I know, I know, immature, unprofessional, unfriendly, risky, inefficient, wasteful, polluting, immoral, costly, bad for the environment and the economy. As Sister Mary Adelaide checked on my third-grade report card: “Does not exercise self-control.”

Then at the end of the article she admits to telling her student to pretend he's a G-II pilot and say over the radio that it's okay for her Cessna to take off. She needs to be locked up and banned from flying again.

USMCFLYR

You should try to write a shorter version and get it published. Hopefully we'll read a short explanation in an issue or two.

You may have missed the point of my analogy here. I was saying that the canceling your subscription to 'Flying' magazine for one article with which you took issue is a bit of an overly dramatic stance much like not flying on an airline because they didn't you when your qualification weren't really that competitive to begin with and there are a few thousands applicants or very few jobs.

I too believe that DPEs and the Feds that give the checkrides should be held to very high standards. The consequences today are sizable and not easily overcome in a very competitive industry. Personally I don't know enough about giving checkrides IAW with the FAA PTS standards to make a decision on whether her actions are against the rules or not. I do think that you are misreading the part about the examiners not touching any instruments and such; but that is just a difference of opinion I guess.

Timbo

Wow, I'm going to put her in for Tool of the Year!

So this genius slowed up an already slow airplane, with trafic on final, just to make him go around, Brilliant! Why didn't she get fired, that's what I'd like to know. If I were that GII pilot, I'd be waiting for her in the parkinglot, and 'explain' a few things to her.

Heisenberg

I have to agree with this being a realistic distraction. Identify and monitor the NDB, fly the approach (well ), no problems.

However, if she has a history of reckless behavior as an examiner, it seems imprudent of the instructor to send their applicant to her. When I was instructing, we had an examiner who - to put it lightly - did things his own way. Needless to say, we didn't send too many checkrides his way.