299/297 Ride

[NYG-Flyer]

I'm Typed in lears and the company I worked for hired me as an SIC. They had me do the 135.293 for SIC at Simuflite only. I now have been hired elsewhere as a Captain. Can the 299/297 ride be done inhouse (or with the feds) or do I need to go back to Simuflite for the initial 299/297?

 

[RedGuy]

No you can do the 299/297 in house, we do them all the time.

 

[cvsfly]

I'm Typed in lears and the company I worked for hired me as an SIC. They had me do the 135.293 for SIC at Simuflite only. I now have been hired elsewhere as a Captain. Can the 299/297 ride be done inhouse (or with the feds) or do I need to go back to Simuflite for the initial 299/297?

You can do the check in house as long as the company has an authorized check airman. Credit may be given for previous experience - ref 8400.10 paragraph 291, 371 & 471 (according to our Training Program). It is also at the POI's discretion so it has to be coordinated with them. Simuflite (or any other qualified Part 142 training facility) would also be albe to do the checks if they are listed as an Outsourced Training vendor in Op Spec A031 (which requires audits of their facility/program).

 

[mike1mc]

Also keep in mind that the 299 HAS to be done in-house as it can not be completed in the simulator and is company specific. You can still try to get approval for a 299 completed with another company but a lot of FSDOs don't allow it.

 

[cvsfly]

Also keep in mind that the 299 HAS to be done in-house as it can not be completed in the simulator and is company specific. You can still try to get approval for a 299 completed with another company but a lot of FSDOs don't allow it.

Correct - Part 142 facilities can't do line checks or part of the .293 test that is company specific info (Ops manual, etc). I miss read the question.

 

[avbug]

Part 142 can do company specific training, initial or otherwise. So long as the operator has approval for it and the Part 142 training center is listed with the operator, the operator may have part, or all of the training done there (excepting certain line checks, and most of these can be done in the sim, too).

Part 142 centers will accept the operating and training documents from each operator to tailor the training and checkride to the specific operators requrements. I've done it, and it's done all the time. The limitations aren't the training center, but the operator and what each operator is approved to do or not do.

 

[cvsfly]

Part 142 can do company specific training, initial or otherwise. So long as the operator has approval for it and the Part 142 training center is listed with the operator, the operator may have part, or all of the training done there (excepting certain line checks, and most of these can be done in the sim, too).

Part 142 centers will accept the operating and training documents from each operator to tailor the training and checkride to the specific operators requrements. I've done it, and it's done all the time. The limitations aren't the training center, but the operator and what each operator is approved to do or not do.

What needs to be done to get this approval? Our FSDO allows FSI to do only our 135.293 (a) 2-3 checks. and that reflects a change in the last couple of years. They used to be able to cover (a) 2-7 as had been previously signed off. In re-reading our training manual (which was provided by FSI for our company) under Sources of Training/Training Responsibilities it lists our company's and FSI testing and training responsibilities under various topics (135.293 a, b, .297, .299, .329, .331, .345, etc) that corresponds to this. So we come back and do our 135.293 (a) 1, & 4-8 & 135.299 checks with the Feds.

 

[cvsfly]

Part 142 can do company specific training, initial or otherwise. So long as the operator has approval for it and the Part 142 training center is listed with the operator, the operator may have part, or all of the training done there (excepting certain line checks, and most of these can be done in the sim, too).

Part 142 centers will accept the operating and training documents from each operator to tailor the training and checkride to the specific operators requrements. I've done it, and it's done all the time. The limitations aren't the training center, but the operator and what each operator is approved to do or not do.

What needs to be done to get this approval? Our FSDO allows FSI to do only our 135.293 (a) 2-3 checks. and that reflects a change in the last couple of years. They used to be able to cover (a) 2-7 as had been previously signed off. In re-reading our training manual (which was provided by FSI for our company and then copied/rewritten, submitted and approved by the FSDO as acomplete stand alone program) under Sources of Training/Training Responsibilities it lists our company's and FSI testing and training responsibilities under various topics (135.293 a, b, .297, .299, .329, .331, .345, etc) that corresponds to this. So we come back and do our 135.293 (a) 1, & 4-8 & 135.299 checks with the Feds.

 

[avbug]

In a nutshell, (where am I, and how did I get into this bloody great shell?) one need only include it in the training program. So long as it's in the training program and is included in your GOM and and operations specifications as an approved part of your training as a provider, you can use them. I've done my checks at both FSI and Simuflite.

I just went back through Simuflite a few weeks ago, and out of our class of 8, three were FAA, one was special operations, one was auditing the class, and four were different 135 operators. Each 135 was doing a company-specific program to include all their checks, which could be done in the sim. Each had to accomplish their company-specific checks, which they did. Their ops manual was on file with Simuflite, and the instructors and examiners acted strictly in accordance with the syllabus prepared for each individual student per their company needs.

Have you asked your POI about adding a training provider and obtaining the necessary approal?

 

[cvsfly]

Well our FSDO is pathetic. We do have FSI a the training provider lissted in A031. When we went from single pilot-in-command to a basic we submitted the training program manual that was provided for us from FSI. Our FSDO rejected it. They gave us a Word file template for the training manual and said to use this. So I jumped through their hoops, cut and pasted the appropriate material from FSI (no propietary info - original was designed specifically for us) program with their blessing and incorporated it into a contract training section. A few more hoops with some expresed agravation and questions like - " you need a flight maneuver approach profile for a 50% loss of power on one side." I asked what this was. We are 2 engine turbo-prop. Was this in addition to the single-engine approach already in there? Did finally find the reference for it in the 8400.10 in the Multi-engine General Purpose family (which I think this manuever profile was meant for 3 or more engine aircraft). When I started to argue the point my POI said I was being "difficult and that she didn't have to approve the basic certificate". So to keep things rolling I went ahead and threw it in there. So............ back to subject. FSI has our FAA approved training program which is the same program they designed for us with some minor changes. (Our POI also didn't like the FSI graphic profile for the BE-200 referencing V1 in the Part 23 aircraft. I had to white-out that and replace it with Vr.). We happen to have a new POI who I haven't met yet. Should I try to rewrite those sections and submit it to see if it flies? Do I have to come up with any additional documentation that shows that FSI is equipped and qualified to provide that testing level (the training section already allows it)?

 

[avbug]

First things first...don't ever get into a pissing match with your POI. Remember the rule about never wanting to offend the secretary at the company where you want to work because she holds your career in her hands? So does your POI. If you're seeking certificate approval, the POI may administer the program or require whatever he or she feels is necessary. You are the begger here, not the chooser.

The FAA is under no obligation to accept a training manual from another company, including companies which professionally prepare certiifcation documents such as GOM's.

The beauty of seeking certificat approval as a Part 121 or 135 operator is that you can make up the regulation as you go, and to you, it is the law. Want something on your MEL that isn't on the MMEL? No problem, add it in there. If you can show reasonableness and gain approval, you're golden. Want to change your maintenance program or customize it to include things that aren't in the manufacturers program? No worries...design it well, show your homework, walk away with approval. Once you get that approval, you're legal and official.

Put a policy in your GOM that your pilots will all have handlebar moustaches and wear black ties with orange trim? The FAA expects you to comply, because that approved document is the standard by which you'll be judged. Want FSI to be your training provider? Not a worry, so long as your traning program passes muster and you can show full training and compliance for all the maneuvers, proceedures, etc, for which you are authorized.

Putting together a manual isn't an easy task. You should always plan on a year to get through the approval, and that's making the assumption that you have your act together and know your material. And have used professional products such as GLN compliance documents. (You might try GLN for your training program if you haven't, yet).

When people design the training manual, too often they try to incorporate a duplicate of a flight training manual. That's the wrong way to go about it. Think about what the FAA wants to see. You're trying to show compliance with the regulation, just as you are when writing your Operations Manual (GOM). With this in mind, go over the regulation one line at a time, and write your manual from that to show compliance, then flesh it out by showing in simple terms how you are going to comply with the regulation.

One doesn't necessarily need to have diagrams of each maneuver and spell out the speeds and power settings to produce a steep turn...but one does need to include the standard to which the turn will be taught, and assign a syllabus for the training. In other words, show how you intend to comply. Showing a diagram from a FSI book with a picture diagram of the steep turn with little markings around the turn showing bank and so on is dandy...but what about leaning more toward the PTS? That's an approved document, and a good place to go to build both a training manual and a syllabus. If you want to include details such as diagrams, then fine, but remember that just like the moustache and the tie, you're held accountable for every extra bit of information you put out there.

FSI or Simuflite should be able to help you design something within their own framework for compliance...they do it all the time. Even then, your POI may or may not accept it. The person to please is your POI. Don't forget. Don't argue.

POI's are people too. Robot people. With mismatched socks. And laser beams in their eyes. And hearts made of melted glass. Not the good glass, but the recycled kind that comes from things people don't want any more. Some have the heart of beautiful child. In a jar. On their desk. Respect that jar. It's your connection to certification, and ultimately the nirvanesque state of mind in which you finally get to go fly, instead of type. Good luck!

 

[cvsfly]

I recently asked Flight Safety if we would be able to submit a revision to our Training Program to allow FSI to do 135.293(a) 4-8 checks in addition to the 2-3 we are already approved for. They said Part 142 training centers don't have that authority. So for now we only do 135.293(a) 2&3 and .297 checks there. Everything else we do with the FSDO (no company check airmen allowed).