Real Weather Is Fairer Than Fake Weather

Article No. 5 in “From the Examiner’s Chair”

Knowing about weather and making weather decisions are two different skills. A practical test should evaluate both.

One question I occasionally hear is why I use the day's actual weather during a practical test instead of creating a hypothetical weather scenario.

The answer is simple.

Because weather knowledge and weather judgment are two different skills.

The Airman Certification Standards recognize that distinction, and so should we.

Whether the sky is clear or thunderstorms are rolling through the area, an applicant should be able to explain weather theory. We may discuss thunderstorms, icing, fog, frontal systems, or convective activity even if none of those hazards are present that day. Those conversations evaluate weather knowledge.

Making a go/no-go decision is something entirely different.

That requires applying weather information to a real flight.

That's where today's weather becomes invaluable.

Real weather forces applicants to evaluate the same information every pilot evaluates before every flight. It isn't about finding the "right" answer. It's about gathering current information, understanding what it means, and making a sound decision.

Sometimes applicants assume that if the weather is beautiful, there isn't much to discuss.

In reality, good weather simply changes the scenario.

If today's conditions make the decision an obvious "go," I might ask,

"Your passenger can't make the trip today. They want to leave tomorrow afternoon instead. Looking at the forecast over the next several hours or days, when would this no longer be a good day to make the trip, and why?"

The objective isn't to create bad weather.

The objective is to evaluate judgment.

A practical test from several years ago illustrates why.

The applicant had planned a VFR cross-country to the St. Louis area.

Before we even started the examination, I was concerned that the forecast might deteriorate enough to prevent us from completing the flight portion later that day. After reviewing the forecast, the applicant assured me the flight was still acceptable, so we began the practical test.

Later, at the appropriate point during the oral, I asked the applicant to take a short break, update the weather briefing, and answer one question.

"Is this flight a go or a no-go, and why?"

While the applicant reviewed the weather, I reviewed it myself.

The weather had evolved almost exactly as forecast. Ceilings along portions of the route had lowered into marginal VFR and IFR conditions. I fully expected the applicant to return with a no-go decision.

Instead, the answer came quickly and confidently.

"It's a go."

I paused.

"Tell me why."

The explanation didn't match what I had just reviewed.

As we discussed airports along the route, the applicant continued describing weather that simply wasn't there.

Finally, I asked to see the information being used.

We quickly discovered the tablet wasn't connected to the internet. The METARs hadn't updated.

At first, that seemed like the explanation.

But it wasn't.

The Terminal Aerodrome Forecasts were current.

They had accurately predicted the deteriorating ceilings that had now developed.

So I asked one more question.

"What does the TAF call for at this airport right now?"

The applicant described IFR conditions.

At that moment, the decision became clear.

The outdated METARs weren't what made the go decision unsatisfactory.

Even if the METARs had still suggested acceptable conditions, the applicant already possessed the most important information needed to make the decision. The current TAFs supported a no-go.

The practical test became unsatisfactory because the applicant failed to apply the weather information already available.

Ironically, the meteorologist who prepared those forecasts should have been proud.

The forecast had verified almost exactly as predicted.

The weather did precisely what it said it was going to do.

There is another lesson hidden inside that story.

Technology didn't fail the applicant.

The tablet wasn't at fault.

Modern electronic flight bags are extraordinary tools, but they don't make decisions.

Pilots do.

Our responsibility isn't simply to collect weather information. It's to verify that it's current, understand what it's is telling us, and use it appropriately.

That responsibility belongs to the pilot, not the software.

For Flight Instructors

Separate weather knowledge from weather judgment during training.

Teach your students why thunderstorms form.

Then ask whether today's flight should launch.

Those are two entirely different lessons.

Likewise, don't wait for marginal weather to discuss decision-making. Some of the best conversations happen on beautiful flying days. Delay the departure. Change the destination. Move the flight to tomorrow. Ask what weather changes would alter the decision.

Good instructors don't simply teach students how to interpret weather reports.

They teach them how to think.

Putting It Into Practice

Whether you're preparing for a practical test or simply planning your next flight, develop the habit of separating weather knowledge from weather judgment.

Know how to interpret the weather products available to you.

Verify that your information is current.

Compare observations with forecasts.

Then ask yourself the most important question:

"What does this information mean for the flight I'm about to make?"

That's the question every pilot should answer before every flight.

From the Examiner's Chair

Weather knowledge answers questions.

Weather judgment makes decisions.

The two are related, but they are not the same.

A pilot can correctly explain every symbol on a weather chart and still make a poor go/no-go decision.

Likewise, a pilot who consistently gathers current information, understands forecasts, and recognizes changing conditions has developed something more valuable than weather knowledge alone.

They've developed judgment.

And judgment—not memorization—is what practical tests are designed to evaluate.

More importantly, it's what keeps pilots safe long after the practical test is over.

— 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. Through From the Examiner's Chair, he shares lessons from practical testing to help applicants, flight instructors, and certificated pilots better understand the principles of sound aeronautical decision-making, risk management, and the Airman Certification Standards.