A Mistake Is Not Automatically a Failure
Article No. 13 in “From the Examiner’s Chair”
The ACS does not demand mechanical perfection. It does require applicants to recognize deviations, correct them promptly, and demonstrate that they remain in control of the airplane.
Introduction
Applicants sometimes begin a practical test believing that one mistake will end it. They worry that one wrong answer during the ground portion—or one deviation during the flight—will automatically result in a notice of disapproval.
They become so focused on never allowing an altitude, heading, or airspeed to move outside a tolerance that a small deviation can become a much larger problem. They notice the altimeter, assume they have already failed, and allow that thought to distract them from flying the airplane.
That is not what the Airman Certification Standards say.
The ACS establishes standards that an applicant must meet. It does not say that every momentary excursion outside a tolerance automatically makes a practical test unsatisfactory.
But the opposite interpretation is equally wrong.
The ACS does not give applicants one free mistake. It does not say that any deviation is acceptable as long as the applicant eventually notices it. And prompt corrective action does not erase poor planning, unsafe technique, or a loss of control.
The practical test evaluates the applicant’s performance—not a single frozen indication on an instrument. That performance includes how the deviation occurred, whether the applicant recognized it, what corrective action followed, and whether that action actually solved the problem.
What the ACS Actually Says
Appendix 1 of the Private Pilot for Airplane Category ACS identifies typical areas of unsatisfactory performance and grounds for disqualification.
Among them are:
“Consistently exceeding tolerances stated in the skill elements of the Task.”
and:
“Failure to take prompt corrective action when tolerances are exceeded.”
The same language appears in the Instrument Rating – Airplane ACS and other Airman Certification Standards.
Those two statements belong together.
The first recognizes that an applicant may not hold every parameter perfectly at every moment. The second makes clear that a deviation cannot simply be ignored.
If every excursion outside a tolerance were automatically unsatisfactory, the word consistently would serve little purpose. Likewise, there would be no reason for the ACS to address prompt corrective action after a tolerance has been exceeded.
That does not make the tolerances optional. It means the applicant’s complete performance must be evaluated.
A Deviation Is Not the Entire Performance
Consider the en route portion of a private pilot practical test. The Pilotage and Dead Reckoning task requires the applicant to maintain the selected altitude within ±200 feet.
The applicant is following the planned cross-country route while managing the airplane, reviewing a chart, and completing an appropriate checklist. While attention is divided, the airplane gains altitude and moves outside the ACS tolerance.
It happens.
The applicant notices the deviation and lowers the nose. That is a beginning, but it may not be a complete correction.
If the applicant immediately returns attention to the chart or checklist without determining why the airplane climbed, the altitude may begin increasing again. Perhaps the airplane was not properly trimmed. Perhaps the pitch correction was insufficient. Perhaps the applicant never verified that the airplane had returned to stable, level flight.
Now the altitude exceeds the tolerance a second time.
Does twice mean the applicant has “consistently” exceeded the tolerance?
Maybe. Maybe not.
The ACS does not define consistently with a numerical formula. It does not say that one excursion is acceptable but two are not. The examiner must evaluate the performance in context.
What matters is not simply whether the applicant pushed the nose down. The question is whether the applicant corrected the problem.
Another applicant in the same situation may notice the altitude deviation, make an appropriate pitch correction, adjust the trim, return to the assigned altitude, and monitor the airplane long enough to confirm that the correction worked. Only then does the applicant resume the previous task.
That applicant has demonstrated more than recognition. The applicant has shown positive aircraft control, appropriate division of attention, and an effective correction.
The difference is important.
Moving a control is not necessarily the same as correcting a deviation. A correction is complete when the airplane is returning to the desired condition, the cause has been addressed, and the pilot has verified that the result is stable.
Prompt Does Not Mean Abrupt
The ACS requires prompt corrective action. It does not require a panicked or abrupt response.
A pilot who notices an altitude deviation should make an appropriate correction without unnecessary delay. The size and rate of that correction should still be suitable for the airplane and the situation.
An aggressive response can create a second deviation in the opposite direction. Fixating on one instrument can lead to the loss of another parameter. Chasing altitude with large pitch changes may cause an airspeed problem. Correcting heading without maintaining a proper scan may produce an altitude deviation.
Prompt corrective action means the applicant recognizes that the airplane is moving away from the desired condition and responds while the problem remains manageable. It also means continuing to fly the airplane while making the correction.
The objective is not merely to make the instrument indicate the desired number again. The objective is to reestablish controlled, stable flight.
Correction Is Not a Reset Button
Does this mean an applicant can descend below minimum descent altitude on an instrument practical test as long as the applicant recognizes it and corrects?
Not necessarily.
The Instrument Rating ACS requires an applicant flying the final segment of a nonprecision approach to maintain altitude above MDA within +100/-0 feet until the visual descent point or missed approach point. It also requires the applicant to establish a stabilized descent to the appropriate altitude and identifies operating below MDA without the required visual references as a risk.
Suppose an applicant is descending toward MDA. The applicant waits until the airplane reaches MDA before adding power, changing pitch, and trimming for level flight. The airplane’s momentum carries it below MDA.
The applicant may recognize the deviation immediately and begin correcting, but recognition does not undo the technique that caused it.
The applicant should have anticipated the level-off and begun making the necessary changes early enough to arrest the descent at MDA. Going below MDA was the predictable result of waiting too long. That is poor airmanship and can properly result in an unsatisfactory practical test.
This is similar to a point I made in “Your Personal Minimums Only Matter If They’re Personal”: the decisive error does not always occur at the visible boundary. Sometimes it occurs earlier, when the pilot continues without taking the action necessary to honor that boundary. The altimeter passing below MDA may simply reveal the consequence.
Prompt correction is not a reset button. It cannot make a foreseeable and preventable deviation disappear.
Now consider a different performance.
The applicant begins the level-off at an appropriate point, arrests the descent, and establishes the airplane at MDA. A jolt of turbulence then pushes the airplane below MDA while the applicant is already making appropriate control and power inputs to maintain altitude.
Is that automatically unsatisfactory?
Probably not.
The altimeter may briefly display the same number in both examples, but the performances are not the same.
In the first example, the applicant’s technique created the deviation. In the second, the applicant had properly established the airplane at MDA and was actively responding to an external disturbance.
That does not mean turbulence excuses every altitude deviation. The magnitude and duration of the excursion still matter. So do the applicant’s control inputs, situational awareness, and response. An applicant who allows the airplane to remain below MDA or fails to recognize what has happened may still demonstrate unsatisfactory performance.
The point is that the examiner must evaluate more than the lowest number shown on the altimeter.
Some Errors Can Be Unsatisfactory Immediately
The word consistently should not be taken out of context.
Appendix 1 also identifies other grounds for unsatisfactory performance. These include an action or lack of action requiring the evaluator to intervene to maintain safety, failure to use effective visual scanning, and failure to exercise risk management.
Some errors are significant enough that repetition is not required.
An examiner does not need to wait for an applicant to create the same unsafe situation twice before intervening. A single action may demonstrate that the applicant did not meet the knowledge, risk management, or skill standard for the task.
That is why “a mistake is not automatically a failure” must not become “a mistake cannot be a failure.”
The nature of the error matters.
So do its consequences.
Perfection Is Not the Standard on the Ground, Either
The same principle applies during the ground portion of the practical test.
There is no formula for how many questions an applicant may answer incorrectly. The ground portion is not scored with a passing percentage, and the ACS does not provide an allowance for a certain number of wrong answers.
The evaluator samples the applicable knowledge and risk-management elements to determine whether the applicant demonstrates mastery of each Task. Depending on the subject, an incomplete or initially incorrect answer may lead to a follow-up question, a scenario, or the use of an appropriate reference. That answer does not necessarily mean the applicant has failed.
But one answer can be enough.
Consider spin awareness. The Private Pilot ACS specifically requires the applicant to understand what causes a spin, identify its phases, and know the spin-recovery procedure. If an applicant cannot explain how to recover from a spin, that is not a minor missed question that can be offset by several correct answers on other subjects. It demonstrates that the applicant has not met an essential knowledge and risk-management standard.
Or consider an airworthiness scenario. The scenario may involve an overdue inspection, inoperative equipment, or another condition requiring an airworthiness determination. If the applicant’s answer demonstrates a willingness to fly without first determining that the aircraft is legal and safe, the problem is not simply that a regulation number was missed. The applicant has demonstrated unsatisfactory knowledge, application, or risk management. The practical test may be over.
There is an important difference between saying, “I don’t remember that inspection interval, but I know where to find it,” and being willing to fly before determining whether the aircraft is legal and safe. There is also a difference between struggling to recall a detail and not knowing how to respond to a condition that could result in a loss of control.
Correct answers elsewhere do not average away a failure to meet the standard for a Task.
This is why an examiner cannot tell an applicant, “You may miss three questions,” any more than the examiner can say, “You may exceed the altitude tolerance twice.” The number alone does not determine the result. The evaluator must consider what the answer—or the error—reveals about the applicant’s knowledge, judgment, and ability to exercise the privileges being sought.
There Is No Mechanical Formula
Applicants sometimes want practical-test evaluation reduced to arithmetic.
How many questions may be answered incorrectly?
How many feet outside tolerance are allowed?
How many seconds can the deviation last?
How many times can it happen before it becomes consistent?
The ACS does not provide those formulas.
It provides tolerances, required skills, risk-management elements, and examples of unsatisfactory performance. The examiner must apply those standards to the performance observed.
That judgment should not be arbitrary. It should be tied to the applicable task and to what the applicant’s actions demonstrate.
An examiner may consider:
The significance of the knowledge or decision involved
Whether the applicant can apply the information to the scenario
The magnitude of the deviation
How rapidly the condition was changing
Whether the applicant recognized it without prompting
Whether the corrective action was timely and appropriate
Whether the applicant addressed the cause or only the indication
Whether the airplane returned to stable flight
Whether the same problem continued or repeatedly returned
Whether safety margins were reduced
Whether the examiner had to intervene
Whether the performance demonstrated acceptable risk management
These considerations do not replace the ACS tolerances. They help the examiner determine whether the applicant met the standard described by the ACS.
The Practical Test Is Not a Search for Perfection
No pilot flies a practical test with every instrument indication fixed perfectly in place.
Airplanes move. Winds change. Turbulence occurs. Workload increases. Pilots divide their attention among aircraft control, navigation, communication, checklists, traffic, and changing conditions.
The ability to manage those demands is part of what the practical test evaluates.
A capable pilot does not ignore deviations. A capable pilot also does not become overwhelmed by them.
The applicant recognizes what is happening, prioritizes correctly, makes an appropriate correction, and confirms that the airplane is again doing what it should.
That is not an excuse for imprecision.
It is a demonstration of aircraft control.
For Flight Instructors
Applicants should know the ACS tolerances before arriving for a practical test. More importantly, they should understand what to do when the airplane begins moving away from them.
The ground portion should not be taught as a trivia contest, either. An applicant should be able to explain essential safety knowledge, apply it to a realistic situation, and use an appropriate reference when the missing detail is something that can reasonably be looked up.
Do not train students to believe that touching a limit ends the flight. That belief can cause them to mentally quit while the airplane still needs to be flown.
Do not train them to believe that merely noticing a deviation makes it acceptable, either.
Teach them to recognize trends early. Require corrections that are timely, appropriate, and complete. After the correction, make sure they verify the result before allowing their attention to remain elsewhere.
Training should also expose applicants to realistic workload. A pilot may hold altitude easily when doing nothing else. The more useful question is whether the pilot can maintain aircraft control while navigating, communicating, using the applicable checklist, and managing an unexpected change.
The objective is not to manufacture a special response for the practical test. It is to develop the habits that keep an ordinary deviation from becoming a continuing problem.
From the Examiner’s Chair
When an applicant gives a wrong or incomplete answer, I do not simply add it to a total. I consider what that answer reveals. Is the applicant missing a detail that can appropriately be found in a reference, or does the answer reveal a failure to understand an essential safety concept? Can the applicant apply the information, or does the scenario reveal a willingness to make an unsafe decision?
When an applicant exceeds a flight tolerance, I do not look only at the number.
I look at what happens next.
Did the applicant recognize the deviation?
Was the response prompt?
Was it appropriate?
Did the correction address the cause?
Did the applicant verify that the airplane was stable?
Did the same problem continue?
Did the deviation reveal poor planning, ineffective aircraft control, or unacceptable risk management?
Did I have to intervene?
A momentary flight excursion followed by a timely, effective correction may demonstrate exactly the kind of awareness and aircraft control the ACS expects.
A repeated deviation, an incomplete correction, or a foreseeable exceedance caused by poor technique may demonstrate something very different.
The practical test is not a search for mechanical perfection. It is an evaluation of whether the applicant can operate as a safe, competent pilot within the standards.
A mistake is not automatically a failure.
What the pilot does before it, during it, and after it may determine whether it becomes one.
— Brad Kramer
FAA Designated Pilot Examiner
About the Author
Brad Kramer is an FAA Designated Pilot Examiner based in Evansville, Indiana. He has over 25 years of aviation experience and has conducted FAA practical tests for more than a decade. His goal is to help applicants and flight instructors better understand the principles behind safe flight operations, sound aeronautical decision-making, and the Airman Certification Standards.
