293/297/299 when changing company?

[SPilot]

Hi,

Leaving one part 135 employer to go fly the same type aircraft for another part 135 employer:

Just kinda want to confirm what I figure >>
.... When I did in-house training, and passed Part 135 Initial Checkride, with company check airmen, do the 293/297/299 letters I hold from this company hold any legal value if I'm changing employer, and want to fly for another Part 135 company? Or will I have to do the entire training program over again with the next employer?

Would it be any different if the Part 135 check ride was conducted by an FAA DE or inspector?

Thanks

 

[ksu_aviator]

Hi,

Leaving one part 135 employer to go fly the same type aircraft for another part 135 employer:

Just kinda want to confirm what I figure >>
.... When I did in-house training, and passed Part 135 Initial Checkride, with company check airmen, do the 293/297/299 letters I hold from this company hold any legal value if I'm changing employer, and want to fly for another Part 135 company? Or will I have to do the entire training program over again with the next employer?

Would it be any different if the Part 135 check ride was conducted by an FAA DE or inspector?

Thanks

No two 135 carriers have the same training program or the same ops specs. At the very least, you will have to get training on their differences and take a check ride.

Of course, that is subject to the local FSDO's interpretation of the rules.

 

[SPilot]

So, when a job ad says they want an 8410, what does it refer to? The 8410 form looks exactly like the company issued form I got after check rides with my old company, listing 293,297,299 competencies.

Is it possible to get an 8410 with an FAA inspector, that is valid across all companies?

 

[tathepilot]

I switched 135's earlier this year. My 8410 was still current on the falcon for a month. I flew until late grace than went to FSI for recurrent.

 

[MauleSkinner]

With the exception of 293(a)(1)--the company stuff--it all transfers. Equipment is equipment, a demonstration of instrument proficiency is a demonstration of instrument proficiency, and a line check is a line check.

the only real exceptions would be equipment and operational authorizations that the new company may have and the old one doesn't that may require training and/or testing.

I operated the same equipment for a couple of different companies for several years, and only had to do a 293(a)(1) oral for the "second" company every year to make it legal. When the second company got a King Air 200, I had to take an equipment oral in that, since the company I primarily flew for only had 90's and 100's, but no additional checkride was required.

Fly safe!

David

 

[MauleSkinner]

With the exception of 293(a)(1)--the company stuff--it all transfers. Equipment is equipment, a demonstration of instrument proficiency is a demonstration of instrument proficiency, and a line check is a line check.

the only real exceptions would be equipment and operational authorizations that the new company may have and the old one doesn't that may require training and/or testing.

I operated the same equipment for a couple of different companies for several years, and only had to do a 293(a)(1) oral for the "second" company every year to make it legal. When the second company got a King Air 200, I had to take an equipment oral in that, since the company I primarily flew for only had 90's and 100's, but no additional checkride was required.

Fly safe!

David

 

[gulfstream2345]

Actually many FSDOs interpret this different ways. Generally the Van Nuys FSDO wants a checkride with each company. It doesn't seem to make much sense to have to take a .297 or .299 more than once during the qualification period with more than one company but who can figure out the FAA? And this is from, me, a retired FAA inspector.

 

[Freightdog99]

Most companies will not do this without a letter from your previous employer to your new employer transferring your training/checking records. How else would the new employer have any record of your previous training?

 

[b350capt]

It all depends on how the company's Approved Trainng Program is designed. When hiring a new employee there are 4-6 typical categories of New Hire, deemed INH-A, -B, -C, -D (some have E and X). The setup of the Initial New Hire (INH) structure and its approval is up to the certificate holder's POI. Some POIs will interpret and approve a new hire for Basic Indoc and a .293a1 (company specific) oral with a company Check Airman or FAA Inspector. This is the minimum requirements and typically is called an INH-B, which is a new-hire who has prior experience in the aircraft in a 135 duty position (can be combined with an upgrade if changing SIC to PIC). Once the INH-B has been chosen, some POIs will only want to see records of the prior training (General Emergency, Airman specific .293(a)4-8, .293b/.297 etc.) Almost ALL POIs now will require a new .299 Line Check as company protocol and procedures vary between certificate holders.

However, some POIs and FSDO are far less liberal in their interpretation of the regs, the 8900 and HBAT99-12. Some will require a new "4 & 4" program which requires 4 hours of flight training and 4 hours of ground traning minimum for all Initial New Hires (including INH-B). This can be done in house or through a recurrent 142 school. The .299 is then accomplished in house or with the FAA.

I have also seen 1 FAA Inspector (POI) who interprets HBAT99-12 to mean that the INH-B pilot must complete an entirely new 135.293b/297 before being assigned to duty (PIC) if no "4 and 4" program is designed. This is not a widely accepted position and comes from a slanted view of HBAT99-12.

Bottom line is it will vary from certificate holder to certificate holder and how they have their Approved Training Program and definitions of INH.

Oh, and an 8410-3 is an FAA form. If you take a checkride with an FAA Inspector you will get an 8410-3, some companies design and get approval for their own varriant of an 8410.

Good luck

 

[SPilot]

Thank you b350capt., the award for most enlightening answer goes to....YOU!