PAL/RPAL Practical Exam

When you go for a driving test the examiner doesn't go over all of the controls on the automobile and then coach you through how to maximize your score. Imagine the outrage there would be at an MTO if some of the road testers just had people sit in the parking lot and tell how they would safely drive and parallel park without having to actually do the pesky difficult parts of the driving test. That's the situation we have with firearms testing - some examiners just skip the hard parts of the test and have students tell them how to do something rather than actually having them demonstrate the task. No student responds by saying they would pick the gun up and point it outside of the designated safe direction and put their left hand ring finger on the trigger while looking for a safety. When people have to actually do tasks on their own, they often unwittingly make mistakes, even if they know what they're supposed to do. I've seen people recite ACTS & PROVE aloud during a test while they make multiple mistakes in its execution.

With a decentralized testing standard that is supposed to be the same for every single person across Canada, "slavish adherence to an artificial test procedure" is the only way you can hope to have consistency.

I've been through testing for driving, scuba, university courses, first aid, etc. and I've never seen examiners coaching those being tested. I'm not sure why it is that some think a CFSC test is a setting where examiners 'helping/cheating' is ok.
 
dHb said:
When you go for a driving test the examiner doesn't go over all of the controls on the automobile and then coach you through how to maximize your score.
Click to expand...

That's right, because you bring your OWN car to the exam, and you're fully familiar with it. Also, there aren't tricks to activating the e-brake on cars, as there are with activating the safety on some firearms. On some guns, you have to close the bolt before you can activate the safety, for example. This is not obvious on first inspection.

With a decentralized testing standard that is supposed to be the same for every single person across Canada, "slavish adherence to an artificial test procedure" is the only way you can hope to have consistency.
Click to expand...

Consistency is not important. The goal is for a person to leave the CFSC process more educated than when he went in, and above some impossible-to-quantify standard. If he learns in the process of taking the test that you have to close the bolt to activate the safety on some guns, so be it. He and his hunting companions will be safer because of this knowledge.

If consistency was the goal, they'd have one single test written on a single date, and the exam would change at every sitting. Right now, there are any number of different tests.

I've been through testing for driving, scuba, university courses, first aid, etc. and I've never seen examiners coaching those being tested. I'm not sure why it is that some think a CFSC test is a setting where examiners 'helping/cheating' is ok.
Click to expand...

There is nothing that can be rightly described as "cheating" about an examiner telling a student how to activate a safety, assuming the student comes up with the idea of activating it himself.
 
My instructor gave us a whole lecture on how we would exit the building consciously competent, it's all about proving you know how to safely handle firearms. Many people will not even have held one before when entering the course. Examiners do understand that, so there is absolutely no wrong in them pointing out where the safety is, or action release.
 
Um, to state the obvious, the purpose of any test is to test the writers/applicants knowledge, not the examiners. While it is true that it is impossible to know every aspect of every design it is painfully obvious to the examiner when an individual does not know the material. As DHb stated, when an individual "attempts" to put on a safety, he/she gets credit for it. They don't gain points if they ignore it completely (and if they ask me where it is I tend to think they know the material but aren't familiar with that particular design). When they don't know the difference between a pump or semi auto should we also tell them which gun to pick up?

How does it benefit anyone to coach an individual through the practical or written test? Isn't it better in the long run for an individual to actually learn the course in a way that they remember it? How many times have we seen posts in these very forums where people ask the most basic questions on storage when it is/was covered in the course and tests? If they know the material it just might keep an honest individual out of trouble.
 
Shrug. I might tend to agree if anybody actually, y'know, failed these tests. The test is just a ritual the government has established, following Wendy's wishes.

I've written exams where 60% of the class failed; the CFSC/CRFSC exam does not remotely compare. It doesn't matter a whit whether the examiner "coaches" somebody on how to activate the safety on his 1911 blunderbuss; the guy is going to pass anyhow.
 
LOL, I've trained/tested about 1000 people and some do fail. When I teach the course I do my best to cover everything the students need to know and give them all lots of hands on practice with the firearms. BTW, the course material does cover the location of controls for the vast majority of firearms models.

Myself and the examiners I use all test fairly (i.e., without coaching students). A small proportion fail the written tests because of language or learning problems. Of those who get through the written about 1-2% fail the CFSC practical after they've completed the course, while the fail rate is closer to 5-10% for challenges. In the CRFSC, close to 10% will fail the practical because they point a handgun at themselves without reason (after an afternoon of being harped on about the importance of not doing that). Again, the fail rate is a little higher for those just challenging the test.

The way some examiners do the testing a pass is certain if you don't stick a muzzle in the examiner's face. So results will vary widely, though they shouldn't...
 
dHb said:
When you go for a driving test the examiner doesn't go over all of the controls on the automobile and then coach you through how to maximize your score. Imagine the outrage there would be at an MTO if some of the road testers just had people sit in the parking lot and tell how they would safely drive and parallel park without having to actually do the pesky difficult parts of the driving test.
Click to expand...

Good point. No such thing ever occurs with driving schools. I really wish we could model our firearms training after the exemplary standard driving instructors in Canada adhere to. Hell we even have companies offering the training in many different languages, and yet still manage to maintain the same level of excellence amongst new drivers right across the board! ;)

As far as help during the exam - There's a difference between

"And now I switch the safety on... is that as far as it goes?"
"Yes"

and

"Don't point it at me! Don't point it at yourself! OMG point it THAT way FFS! Ok, your test's over. Congratulations, you passed."

I'm confident that any competent person after passing the CFSC or CRFSC, could make safe any firearm in a safe manner, even if they have to figure out exactly where the safety is and how it functions. Once you remove all the cartridges and keep it pointed in a safe direction, and keep your finger off the bang switch, you can study it as much as you need to to figure out the rest.

There are only a handful of firearms that have their quirks (I remember being handed a break-action .410 where you had to pull back on the trigger guard to open the action. Again, I had it figured out in less than 30 secs even though I had never seen anything like it before, and was fairly new to firearms at that point). Nowadays, even the Marlin lever actions with the half-#### safety have a cross-bolt safety as well.

In the end though, an empty firearm will always trump the best safety mechanism on a loaded firearm.
 
dHb said:
Myself and the examiners I use all test fairly (i.e., without coaching students). A small proportion fail the written tests because of language or learning problems. Of those who get through the written about 1-2% fail the CFSC practical after they've completed the course, while the fail rate is closer to 5-10% for challenges. In the CRFSC, close to 10% will fail the practical because they point a handgun at themselves without reason (after an afternoon of being harped on about the importance of not doing that). Again, the fail rate is a little higher for those just challenging the test.
Click to expand...

For my tests, the examiner told me to ask questions if I had them and then he would answer me OR NOT depending on the question..........

I was penalized a couple of points for "picking up the wrong rifle."
There were four on the table
1- Lee Enfield 303 (bolt)
2- A pump action shotgun
3- A single-barrel break-action shotgun, and
4- A lever-action rifle.

Everything went smoothly with 3 and 4 and then I distinctly heard him say, "Pick up the pump action." (I was hoping to get the Lee Enfield with which I was very familiar (having shot it during military training in High School...last Century).)
After I did all that he asked for, I asked where I went wrong for the couple of points deducted. He said that he wanted me to pick up the bolt-action rifle. Now, I know what I heard since I was extremely aware of being very precise in everything I did. However I did not want to enter into an "argument" with the examiner (who was also the head Instructor) so I let it go.
 
3strokes said:
For my tests, the examiner told me to ask questions if I had them and then he would answer me OR NOT depending on the question..........

I was penalized a couple of points for "picking up the wrong rifle."
There were four on the table....
Click to expand...

Examiners are required to have all five action types on the table when doing testing. As many semi-autos are usually one of the more complicated to operate action types, omitting that gun will increase the pass rate.
 
dHb said:
Examiners are required to have all five action types on the table when doing testing. As many semi-autos are usually one of the more complicated to operate action types, omitting that gun will increase the pass rate.
Click to expand...

You're correct. There was also the AK47 look-alike.
 
I just passed the FSC so I can relate what happened in my practical (if I got something wrong that's probably my memory):

- The examiner names a particular type of firearm and you have to go to a table where all the types are laid out and find the correct one. This was the combined restricted and non-restricted so there was a 1) bolt action rifle 2) lever action rifle 3) semi-automatic rifle 4) pump shotgun 5) semi-automatic shotgun 6) hinge or break action shotgun 7) double-action revolver 8) single-action revolver 9) double-action semi-automatic handgun 10) single-action semi-automatic handgun

- You have to P.R.O.V.E it twice. Once because you have just received the firearm and once because the instructor calls a cease fire and the firearm has to be rendered safe for inspection. In between you demonstrate a safe firing stance and load the firearm and unload the firearm.

-- we didn't have a cleaning rod so it was acceptable for us to just make the motion that we were doing that for the Examine the bore part

-- we were told to ignore the safeties for the test (though we were taught the different types and shown how to disengage or engage them for those weapons). In any case, none of the safeties for those firearms needed to be engaged. They were all left off.

- You are asked to do this with two different weapons -- once for restricted and once for non-restricted (the examiner testing your knowledge of action types by telling you to pick out the one he names).

- You are asked to demonstrate an allowable carry position with a non-restricted firearm. 1. Shoulder (not advised) 2. Trail 3. Ready 4. Cradle 5. Sling

- you are asked to identify the ammunition type for the gun you are being tested on by finding the data stamp. My trickiest one was a pistol that I had to slide closed because the data stamp was hidden inside the barrel and could only be seen with the slide closed. Tricky.

- You are failed automatically if you do one of the following 1) squeeze the trigger (since the 'range' is not declared hot during the test) 2) point the firearm at yourself or anyone else 3) aim the firearm breaking a 90 degree arc from the properly designated downrange direction.

- The examiner asked me to pick out a particular ammunition type from any on the table (mine was full metal jacket).

- He asked me three general information questions: (1. a shotgun can legally fire a solid projectile. What is that projectile called? A: a slug. 2. At a range where can you temporarily place your loaded weapon for it to be safe? A: nowhere. You can never store a loaded a firearm. It is only loaded when you mean to fire it. Otherwise it must be unloaded and rendered safe. 3. When you are trying to find someone at a distance can you use your telescopic sight to find that person? A: no since that would be pointing your weapon at another person.)

- It was actually easier than this might seem because we were tested in pairs so if there are multiple answers for one question you can get the easy answer out of your head or the person before you might say the wrong answer you were thinking of. The person I was paired with got two questions wrong and I was given the opportunity to answer them.

-- Anyone who can read and who has been paying attention can pass the written test. I doubt anyone failed in my class.
-- I don't know if anyone failed the practical test but I can see how someone who is nervous might do that. During the course I think I had maybe three hours total actually handling firearms -- the same firearms that we were tested on. I'm pretty sure people would have freaked out if for the test they brought out a whole bunch of totally new firearms (well those of us who were total newbies like me).
-- Every time we took a break from the seminar we could go to the table and free-learn the firearms.
-- The test is only offered in English and French (I don't think there is a French course here). A couple of the students were ESL and so they probably asked more clarification questions than most.
 
OMG, Silveragent, say it ain't so!?! That is so far from the proper CFSC and CRFSC testing that it is simply#%$(*!@ amazing.

- In each of the CFSC and the CRFSC test you have to demonstrate safe gun handling with three different firearms (not 1 as in your test).
- During the CRFSC there is only supposed to be one semi-auto on the table along with the two revolvers.
- There are 5 ammunition questions where you handle ammo before you start handling the guns.
- You are supposed to be alone during the practical test with the examiner so that a student doesn't get a chance to see the test before doing it.
- The examiner has to have appropriate cleaning rods available for guns (no cleaning rod, look down the bore, don't pretend you have an invisible cleaning rod).
- The instructor isn't supposed to tell you to ignore safety mechanisms.
- There are no general information questions in the practical test - you have to demonstrate tasks by doing what is asked of you, not by explaining what you would do.
-The only way to automatically fail the test is by pointing a firearm unnecessarily at a person, the touching the trigger unnecessarily or pointing outside of the designated safe direction is a 2 point penalty.

So if your reporting is accurate and you didn't forget most of the test, your practical 'testing' was about a third of what is actually on the test. There was also some stuff that the examiner just made up.

If the instructor truly did the test that you described, and then completed the paperwork showing that you did the full test, he committed fraud. Given that he's acting as a public agent in the testing, he could also be charged with breach of trust. This is the kind of irresponsible conduct that undermines the integrity of the firearms safety program. If what you described is accurate, this instructor really should be reported to your Chief Firearms Officer.

After you complete the test you can look over your practical test before you sign it. For anyone who is going to do the test in the future, if you see the examiner didn't actually have you do everything that is on the paper, you were just tested by a fraudster.
 
dHb, it is not the occasional invigolator's deviation from your version of the strict and narrow that compromises the program. It is, first of all, the mindless half-truths, and the underlying dishonesty in the concept that compromises the program.

The course should be a four hour course. The four rules of gun safety should be hammered home, and all the urban myths that Elmer Fudd has perpetuated should be eliminated from the cirriculum. Then, the test should be to safely pick up a few different guns, clear them, load them and unload them, and move aobut in simulated shooting range and hunting field scenarios, without demonstrating unsafe practices.

If the laws were not so dishonest, then all that trash about legal storage, and what constitutes "not easily broken into" yadda yadda yadda, would not need to be in the course, since they have zero, zilch, nada to do with gun safety, but all to do with demonizing firearms in the minds of the public, and we could, in a few short hours, turn out safe shooters we would all welcome into the fraternity.

Long before the latest mindless gun laws, responsible gun owners and good shooting clubs managed to make safe shooters in a matter of one short session at the range, generally in the course of an afternoon enjoying shooting. CFSC does no better, in the course of two days of stressful B.S.

But I do agree. Examiners should stick to the exam, not coach nor skip parts, nor add any comments which could add to the stress of being tested. My experience as an instructor was that some of the most experienced handlers of firearms exhibited the most stress. Ex-RCMP members seeking a licence for top paying security jobs, for instance. Ex-military, with years lugging about FN's or Browning HP's, only to find their expertise denigrated by their very own government. Imagine being expected to seize and clear any firearm encountered whilst apprehending an armed individual, only to be forced to demonstrate a sequence developed solely to fit two fudged acronyms, and tested by some unknown civilian contractor!
 
Hunt&Hook said:
If you PROVE a rifle safe and set it down, I don't make you PROVE it safe again when you pick it up if you are the only that has handled it, but that's just me. Other instructors may differ.
Click to expand...

They are different and I wish they would all do things the same way. My son took the restricted test and the instructor wouldn't go over the functions of the gun because he gave a quick description of the test and asked if there were any questions and then said sorry can't go over the guns the test has already started. He also deducted him a point when he PROVE the gun safe and set it down in front of him and didn't PROVE again it after he picked it up.

Passed the test though, that's the important thing.

I signed my name as an endorsement so they phoned me and asked some questions. "Is your son ever "fascinated" with Violent video games or events like the Columbine shooting? I said no. They said NO HE ISN'T, OR NO YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? They seemed kinda harsh to me... :confused:
 
dHb, honestly, I picked up and proved so many guns during that course I could have gotten the number of times I did it for the test wrong. But I don't believe it was three for each test. My buddy who took it with me remembers two non and two restricted.

The course itself was over two days so it certainly wasn't a "four hours" instruction either.

Not meaning to argue against your experience but I don't feel gypped that we never got a cleaning rod to push down the barrels for the Verify part. (The instructor demonstrated it once.) The alternative, looking down the barrels as I saw in one of the videos they showed, doesn't strike me as a habit I want to pick up, even at the end of proving the firearm.

Perhaps once I get some more experience in me I might look back in horror at what i was taught but I don't feel it was either too much or too little education. I can prove a gun (okay maybe not with with the cleaning rod but surely I can pick that up), I can certainly educate myself better on the various ammunition types on my own (I'm pretty sure if he had asked me to pick five types I could do that).

I was surprised to read about the hunting exercises being part of the test. We did get that information but it wasn't in the test. It was a question in the written.
 
ykkid said:
If the laws were not so dishonest, then all that trash about legal storage, and what constitutes "not easily broken into" yadda yadda yadda, would not need to be in the course, since they have zero, zilch, nada to do with gun safety, but all to do with demonizing firearms in the minds of the public, and we could, in a few short hours, turn out safe shooters we would all welcome into the fraternity.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I see a lot of noobs getting bashed on this and other forums when they ask a question about locking up their ammunition, or transporting firearms with the tired old line "I can't believe you passed your PAL course and don't know the answer to that" among other similar lines. Having just skimmed the 2008 edition of the course materials, I can now see how the "recommendations" brought to you by consultation with the Coalition for Gun Control among others (Don't believe me? Check out the acknowledgments at the beginning of the book) are getting confused with what the LAW actually sets out.

CZ_Brno said:
I signed my name as an endorsement so they phoned me and asked some questions. "Is your son ever "fascinated" with Violent video games or events like the Columbine shooting? I said no. They said NO HE ISN'T, OR NO YOU REFUSE TO ANSWER THE QUESTION? They seemed kinda harsh to me... :confused:
Click to expand...

That's totally uncalled for, and yet unfortunately not surprising given the overall 'tone' of C-68. Not to mention, how many people are going to say "Hmm.. you're right, you know until now I didn't put the 2 and 2 together (application for PAL + psychopathic tendencies), but yeah, he did mention wanting to shoot up some schools last week... but will he still get his license?". Perhaps anything's you say is ok no matter how negative if you add "but he's currently turning his life around" to the sentence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom