Test as You Fly. Fly as You Test.

From the Examiner's Chair

Article No. 10

The practical test should evaluate the way a pilot actually intends to operate—not force an applicant to temporarily adopt an examiner’s preferred methods for one day.

Introduction

There is a common phrase in aviation:

Train as you fly. Fly as you train.

I believe there should be a practical-test equivalent.

Test as you fly. Fly as you test.

I don't want applicants performing a special version of aviation simply because I'm sitting beside them.

I don't want them using tools they rarely use.

I don't want them creating planning products they will never create again.

And I don't want the practical test to be the last time they ever do something a particular way.

I want to evaluate the way they actually intend to operate the airplane after the certificate is issued.

How are you going to plan your flight home after you pass?

How are you going to plan the next flight?

And the flight after that?

That's the pilot I want to test.

The One-Day Pilot

I've had applicants tell me many times that they assumed they couldn't use ForeFlight for cross-country planning or weight and balance during the practical test.

That always surprises me a little because my pretest communications specifically tell applicants to use their normal or preferred planning methods.

Still, some arrive believing they need paper charts, handwritten navigation logs, plotters, or an E6B because that's what they think an examiner expects to see.

Some examiners do require those things.

I've discussed that philosophy with fellow examiners before and have said:

"All that does is force the applicant to bend to your will for one day. How is the applicant going to plan his flight home after he passes—or the flight after that?"

That's the problem I have with checkride-only procedures.

If the applicant normally plans with ForeFlight, requiring a paper navigation log doesn't necessarily tell me more about how that pilot will operate tomorrow.

It may only tell me whether they can temporarily perform a method they don't normally use because the examiner prefers it.

That's not the pilot I'm trying to evaluate.

Use the Tools You Actually Use

There's nothing wrong with paper charts.

There's nothing wrong with a handwritten navigation log.

There's nothing wrong with an E6B.

If that's how you normally plan and fly, use them.

I'll test you that way.

Likewise, there's nothing inherently wrong with using ForeFlight, an electronic weight-and-balance program, GPS, or other modern tools.

If those are the tools you normally use, I want to see whether you can use them competently.

The question isn't:

"Can you fly the way I learned to fly?"

The question is:

Can you safely and competently use the methods and tools you've chosen?

That's an important distinction.

The knowledge test already exposes applicants to foundational concepts such as charts, plotting, calculations, and basic flight planning.

The practical test should determine whether the applicant can actually plan, manage, and complete a flight using realistic methods.

Technology Doesn't Remove Responsibility

Using ForeFlight doesn't make flight planning automatic.

It makes some parts of flight planning faster.

That's not the same thing.

ForeFlight is only as good as the information you give it.

If your aircraft performance profile says your Piper burns 6.4 gallons per hour and cruises at 125 knots, ForeFlight will happily plan your flight using those numbers.

It doesn't know whether those numbers came from the POH, actual operating experience, or hopes and dreams.

If the information doesn't accurately represent the airplane you're flying, the output may look precise while still being wrong.

On a practical test, that can result in a serious planning problem.

In an actual flight, the consequences could be much worse.

The same applies to weight and balance.

The same applies to performance calculations.

The same applies to ICAO flight-plan information.

If your aircraft profile tells ForeFlight that the airplane has equipment or capabilities it doesn't actually have, ForeFlight may file the flight plan accordingly.

That isn't ForeFlight's fault.

The software did exactly what it was told to do.

Modern tools can produce very precise answers from very poor assumptions.

Automation does not eliminate pilot responsibility.

Sometimes it simply makes bad assumptions look more professional.

When a Precise Answer Is Still Wrong

I once reviewed an applicant's cross-country planning during a practical test and immediately thought something didn't look right.

The EFB-generated numbers were neat, organized, and precise.

They were also wrong.

My experience with the type of airplane told me that the planned groundspeed, time en route, and fuel numbers didn't make sense, so we started working backward through the applicant's planning.

Eventually, we found the problem.

The aircraft's POH published its performance speeds in miles per hour.

When the applicant created the aircraft profile in ForeFlight, he entered those same numerical values as knots.

The number looked right.

The unit wasn't.

ForeFlight then did exactly what it was supposed to do. It planned the flight using the performance information the applicant had entered.

But because the aircraft profile overstated the airplane's speed, the calculated time to destination was too short.

And because the calculated flight time was wrong, the projected total fuel burn was wrong too.

By the time we worked through the numbers, the fuel planning was off by several gallons.

The practical test was unsatisfactory.

This wasn't a failure of ForeFlight.

It wasn't even a particularly complicated mathematical error.

It was a failure to verify that the information being fed into the tool accurately represented the airplane.

That's one of the dangers of modern flight-planning software.

The output can look extremely authoritative.

The route is drawn perfectly.

The times are calculated to the minute.

The fuel numbers may be displayed to a tenth of a gallon.

Everything looks precise.

But precision and accuracy are not the same thing.

If the input is wrong, the software can give you a beautifully calculated wrong answer.

That's why pilots still need enough understanding of aircraft performance to recognize when an answer simply doesn't make sense.

The Airplane Has to Match the Plan

Even a perfectly configured aircraft profile isn't enough.

The airplane still has to be operated in a way that makes the planning assumptions valid.

If your planning assumes a particular cruise power setting, fuel burn, and true airspeed, then you need to know how to configure the airplane to produce those results.

That means setting power correctly.

Leaning properly.

Understanding how altitude, temperature, weight, and mixture affect performance.

Suppose your planning says you'll cruise at 125 knots while burning 6.4 gallons per hour.

Where did those numbers come from?

What power setting produces them?

At what altitude?

At what temperature?

How is the mixture leaned?

And are those numbers actually representative of the airplane you're flying?

A pilot who plans around a specific fuel burn but never leans properly may discover that the airplane is consuming considerably more fuel than expected.

A pilot who assumes a cruise speed but doesn't use the power setting associated with that speed may find the flight taking longer than planned.

ForeFlight didn't make either mistake.

The pilot did.

A good flight plan is only as accurate as the pilot's ability to fly the airplane the way the plan assumes.

What Happens When the iPad Stops Working?

My willingness to let an applicant use ForeFlight doesn't mean I expect the applicant to be helpless without it.

Quite the opposite.

If ForeFlight is your normal tool, I want to know that you've thought about what happens when it isn't available.

What happens if the iPad overheats?

What happens if the battery dies?

What happens if the app crashes?

What happens if you lose Internet connectivity?

What information is already downloaded?

What information requires a connection?

What other resources are available in the airplane?

And most importantly:

Can you still make safe decisions?

A backup doesn't necessarily mean duplicating every modern tool with a paper equivalent.

It means understanding what capability you've lost and having a realistic way to continue operating safely.

Your Method Has to Work in the Airplane

Here's a simple example.

An applicant tells me during the ground portion that his personal maximum crosswind component is a particular number.

Fine.

Later, during the flight, I introduce a scenario that requires a diversion.

Now we have another airport.

Different runway.

Different wind.

How are you going to determine whether the crosswind component is within the personal minimum you gave me?

In many training airplanes, there is no Internet connection in flight.

An online crosswind calculator isn't going to help.

So what now?

Maybe you use a crosswind-component chart.

Maybe you use an onboard EFB capability that doesn't require connectivity.

Maybe you make an appropriate mental estimate.

Maybe you have another reliable method.

I don't particularly care which method you use.

I care that you have one.

A personal minimum isn't very useful if you can't determine whether you're exceeding it when you're actually flying.

That's where real competence begins to separate itself from simply having access to good software.

Cross-Check the Answer

Another important skill with electronic tools is recognizing when the answer doesn't make sense.

If ForeFlight says you have an enormous fuel reserve after a flight that should consume most of your usable fuel, something deserves another look.

If the calculated groundspeed looks unreasonable, ask why.

If the flight plan suggests capability that the aircraft doesn't possess, investigate it.

If the weight-and-balance result seems inconsistent with what you know about the airplane, verify the inputs.

The software's confidence should never become the pilot's confidence.

The pilot should still be able to look at the result and ask:

"Does this make sense?"

That's one of the most valuable habits technology can never replace.

This Philosophy Goes Beyond Flight Planning

"Test as you fly" isn't really about ForeFlight.

It's about authenticity.

The same philosophy applies throughout the practical test.

If you normally use a manufacturer's checklist, use it.

If you normally use an electronic checklist, use it appropriately.

If you normally brief an approach in a particular effective way, do that.

If you normally use installed GPS, flight director, or autopilot systems appropriately, I want to see whether you can manage them.

I don't believe an applicant should ignore useful equipment simply to demonstrate a version of flying that doesn't reflect normal operations.

But once you choose to use that equipment, it becomes part of what you're demonstrating.

You should understand it.

You should know its limitations.

And you should be prepared for what happens when it doesn't work as expected.

Method Is Flexible. Standards Aren't.

There is an important boundary to all of this.

"That's just how I do it" does not excuse poor technique.

The applicant gets flexibility in method.

Not in standard.

Your preferred method still has to comply with regulations.

It still has to satisfy the Airman Certification Standards.

It still has to produce accurate information.

It still has to manage risk appropriately.

And it still has to demonstrate the required knowledge and skill.

If your normal method is flawed, the practical test may expose that.

That's okay.

The purpose of allowing applicants to use their normal methods isn't to lower the standard.

It's to make the evaluation more meaningful.

Method is flexible. Competence is not.

Don't Perform for the Examiner

One of the things I least want to see on a practical test is an applicant performing a ritual because someone told them:

"The DPE likes to see it this way."

If an instructor says:

"Normally we use ForeFlight, but for the checkride you'll need a paper nav log,"

I think we should ask why.

If the paper nav log provides something essential to safe flight, why isn't the student using it normally?

If it doesn't, why are we making the practical test the one day it suddenly becomes important?

That doesn't mean training should be narrow.

Students should understand multiple methods.

They should understand the concepts beneath the tools.

They should experience failures and alternatives.

But by the time they reach the practical test, they should also have developed an operating method that is safe, repeatable, and realistic.

The checkride shouldn't require a temporary version of the applicant.

For Flight Instructors

Flight instructors have a major role in preventing "checkride-only" habits.

Teach students how to use the tools they're actually going to use after certification.

Then teach them what those tools are doing.

Don't let the EFB become a black box.

Don't let an electronic weight-and-balance result replace understanding.

Don't let a route appear on the screen without asking whether it makes sense.

Don't let a performance profile exist without verifying where the numbers came from.

And don't teach one method during normal training only to replace it with another because you think the examiner prefers it.

If a technique matters, teach it consistently.

If a backup matters, practice it.

If an applicant relies on technology, create situations where that technology becomes unavailable.

The goal isn't to prepare a student to impress the examiner for one day.

It's to prepare a pilot to operate safely for years afterward.

Putting It Into Practice

Before your next practical test or training flight, ask yourself:

Applicants and Pilots

• Is this the way I normally plan and fly?

• Would I use the same method tomorrow if no examiner were watching?

• Where did the performance numbers in my aircraft profile come from?

• Do they accurately represent this airplane?

• Did I verify both the number and the unit?

• Do I know what power setting and leaning technique are required to achieve the planned performance?

• Is my equipment and ICAO profile accurate?

• Can I recognize when an electronic result doesn't make sense?

• What information or capability would I lose if my primary device failed?

• What can I still do without Internet connectivity?

• Can I calculate or reasonably estimate important information in flight when an online tool isn't available?

• Do I have a realistic backup plan?

Flight Instructors

• Am I teaching methods the student will actually use after certification?

• Have I explained the concepts beneath the technology?

• Have I verified the aircraft profiles and performance data my students are using?

• Have we verified both values and units?

• Do students know how to operate the airplane so actual performance matches their planning assumptions?

• Have I trained them to recognize implausible electronic results?

• Have we practiced realistic equipment or connectivity failures?

• Am I teaching a "checkride procedure" that I don't expect the student to use afterward?

• If so, why?

A practical test should not be a temporary performance.

It should be a meaningful evaluation of the pilot who will be flying after the examiner gets out of the airplane.

From the Examiner's Chair

I don't care whether an applicant prefers paper or an iPad.

I don't care whether the navigation log is handwritten or generated electronically.

I care whether the planning is accurate.

I care whether the applicant understands where the numbers came from.

I care whether the airplane can actually perform the way the plan assumes.

I care whether the applicant can recognize when technology is giving them an answer that doesn't make sense.

And I care whether they can continue making safe decisions when the tool they normally rely upon isn't available.

The practical test shouldn't be about adopting my preferred method for one day.

It should be about demonstrating that your method works.

Train as you fly.

Fly as you train.

And when practical-test day arrives, test the same way.

Because I don't want to test the pilot you become for one day.

I want to test the pilot you intend to be every day after.

— 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.