135.299 line check ?

[some_dude]

First of all, show me where in the reg it says one certificate holder may accept another's checking?

Second, I've seen plenty of yahoos who have flown multiple aircraft and who I would not want as a PIC on a certificate I was responsible for.

Third, if you have an authorized check airman on your certificate, you can conduct a 299 check during revenue operations. I've done it many times. In fact, that is by far the best way.

135.293... 1 yr Initial/Recurrent (EQUIPMENT) check.
135.297... 6 month Instrument (PROFICIENCY) check.
135.299... 1 yr Line check: (ROUTES & AIRPORTS) Check.

...Seems to me with multiple aircraft under your belt, the FAA and any Certificate Holder you would fly for has ample opportunity to.. "evaluate someone as PIC".

 

[PSL]

FWIW ...

I am a check airman for a 135 simultaneously serving as the DO.

Here's what I've learned from a recent meeting with the FSDO, who could not have been more helpful on revalidating my authorization after a 5+ year inactive status.

1) 135.299 may be conducted on revenue operations so long as the check airman is doing the 'checking' (read ... not a FAA Inspector).

2) It is being encouraged by the FAA to do line checks like we do them in the 121 world (read during normal line operations) and not during 135.293 (a,b) 135.297 checks. LOFT scenarios are another story as they have approved programs.

3) Simulator check airmen (as in FSI, SIMFL, SIMCOM) need to be cleared by the air carrier's POI. This was a new one on me; but I have read the guidance and it's not just a rumor. The way I am handling this is to introduce myself to the Program Manager; explain the guidance I was given ... telephone interview the check airman ... explain the guidance to ensure they are not offended in any way and then submit the results of my phone interview and the check airman's resume to my POI for approval.

4) I was told check airman oversight is being tightened due to the findings of some FAA audit where the oversight members found that check airmen were not being surpervised appropriately (This is 50th hand information so take this for what it's worth).

 

[Rick1128]

Retaliation by the POI. Most of the Power Tools from the 90's have been weeded out by the new customer service initiatives. An appeal process to the MGR should dissway retaliation if the guy wants to continue to be a POI. Besides, Pay is pretty good these days with the trimmed staffs, these guys are making a bit more than normal GS levels with the increased workload from the hiring freezes.

100-1/2[/QUOTE]

BS! Just went through that just over a year ago. It took major action on our part and the part of FAA legal to correct the issue. It finally came done to Washington coming in and demoting or firing several inspectors and managers. And my former employer still hasn't gotten his business up and running again.


"The only time a FSDO can call for something alternative to what is written in the FAR's in when the statement, "Unless otherwise approved/authorized by the Administrator..." accompanies that regulation. "

Unfortunately, a majority of inspectors use this section of any guidance to reqrite the sections they personally disagree with. It was never intended for that. It was intended to allow the inspector some flexibilitt to deal with situations that were not foreseen when this guidance was written.