Proficiency Check
flyhard said:
Tony C,
How would you define "other evaluation"? You seem to contradict yourself.
First, let me answer how I would NOT define "other evaluation." I would NOT say that "other evaluation" encompasses any and all other types of flights, ground exams, or simulator rides that anybody has a mind to characterize or label as a "check." That simply doesn't make sense, based on the four specific examples of proficiency checks given ("initial, transition, upgrade, recurrent").
I also will not attempt to list each and every check that does fit the characterization. If that were possible, the author of the application might have done so in the first place.
I will attempt, though, to explain what "initial, transition, upgrade, recurrent" means, and what a "Proficiency Check" is in that context. Initial, Transition, Upgrade, and Recurrent training programs are formal programs submitted to the FAA for approval and oversight that result in the issuance or retention (in the case of recurrent) of an Airman's Certificate, or an addition thereto. For example, when a pilot is hired as a pilot/crewmember at a Part 121 airline, he might begin an Initial Training course that will ultimately result in his receiving an FE rating in the 727. The Proficiency Check he receives at the conclusion (almost) of that formal course is an a Proficiency Check in an Initial Course. After he completes IOE he begins revenue flying, and a year after his Initial Proficiency Check, he is required to undergo a Recurrent Proficiency Check. Perhaps the next year, he is senior enough to bid a different aircraft, maybe the DC-10 Flight Engineer seat. So, he goes through a formal course to Transition to the same seat of a different airplane. Again, he takes a Proficiency Check at the conclusion of that Transition syllabus. Later in life, he becomes senior enough to move up the the right seat of the same airplane -- he goes through the Upgrade syllabus, and takes an Upgrade Proficiency Check. Someday, he becomes senior enough to move up to the right seat of the MD-11. When he nears the end of the MD-11 transition syllabus (same seat, different aircraft = transition) he takes a Proficiency Check that also is a Type Rating ride. A type rating ride is an example of "other evaluation" that fits the intent of this "Proficiency Check."
What do all of these (Initial, Transition, Upgrade, Recurrent) have in common? First, they are all administered by a Check Airman - - either an FAA Check Airman or a Designated Examiner. The standards for each of these are detailed in the FARs. Failure of any of these Proficiency checks requires specific action. Not only will the applicant not receive the qualification for which he is applying, it will be revoked or rescinded if he already has it. The FAA receives formal notice of the failure. The FAA receives formal notice of successful accomplishment.
What other types of "checks" fit this description? Private Pilot checkride? I think so. Instrument Rating ride? I think so. Commercial Rating ride? I think so. Any Type Rating ride? I think so. T-37 Mid-phase? NO.
Originally posted by Falconjet
I hate to sound biased, but quite often AF pilots in particular like to think that they are the only military pilots out there and that everyone else should know what a Form 8 is.
I didn't mean to slight any Nasal Radiators
but the question was couched in the context of USAF UPT, so I tried to answer it in that same context. I'm certainly no authority on Navy flight training, but I'd imagine that some of the concepts are the same.
Originally posted by learherkjay
When our students finish UPT they are not qualified T-38/T-1 pilots. They would have to take a proficiency checkride to become such qualified pilots.
Excellent point. Although I took 3 "check rides" in the T-38 during USAF UPT, I was not qualified to fly the T-38 in the same way a recipient of a Type Rating is qualified to fly a airplane of that type. In fact, even the last "checkride" that I took that resulted in the "Form 8" didn't qualify me to fly the T-38 -- it just gave me an Instrument Rating and started the cycle for my recurrent Instrument Proficiency checks.
When I got to my first formal course after UPT, I went through a syllabus that culminated in an event ALSO called a checkride. Successful completion of THAT checkride resulted in my being qualified to fly that airplane (and a Form 8). That ride would be considered a proficiency check on the Application being discussed in this thread.
When I got to my first assignment, I also had the privilege to fly the T-38 "on the side." Did my UPT "checkride" 4 months earlier qualify me to do so? NO. Rather, I was required to accomplish 2 checkrides, a Contact Check (Form 8) and an Instrument Check (yepp, another Form 8) before I could legally fly the T-38.
My next assignment was as a T-37 Instructor. You'd think my 3 T-37 checkrides in UPT would qualify me to at least FLY the T-37, right? Nope. Refresher training? Nope. Initial course, along with Form 8 Checkrides in Contact, Instrument, and Formation flying. Just to fly the airplane. More Form 8 Checkrides to become an Instructor.
I don't think I have to recount every sortie that I flew in the Air Force to paint a rather clear picture of the difference between a UPT "check" and a Proficiency Check referred to in the ATA application.
Originally posted by FastCargo
The question really becomes...how did you deal with it? In my opinion, that's what the HR people really want to know.
I respectfully disagree. If they want to know how you deal with adversity and failure, they have plenty of ways to ask during the interview. In fact, they can ASK you to recount a time in your life when you encountered adversity or failure, and recount how you dealt with it. THEN you can sing them the sweet song of how you grew, and repented, and have been strengthened.
Rather, I think (my opinion, mind you) they want to know if you're a safe risk to put through their formal training program, and if you can be expected to maintain an acceptable level of proficiency 6 months afterward. They have insurance underwriters to consider, after all. If you've stumbled during Proficiency Checks before, there's a fair chance you might again. If you've consistently performed well on PCs, you might perform well with them too. If you took an extra ride before solo, whether it was in UPT or at your local FBO, they don't give a hoot.
Originally posted by JohnDoe
Seems to me, if these upt checks result in either a pass or fail result.......it is an evaluation. If it wasn't, there'd be no failing them.
Unfortunately, the "test" is not that simple. In fact, every "event" -- every simulator ride, every airplane ride, every training event -- is graded. Excellent, Good, Fair, and Unsat were the grades when I was a student and an Instructor. In other words, every one was pass or fail. So, as a criteria for determining if a UPT "check" is a "Proficiency Check - (Initial, Transition, Upgrade, Recurrent, or other)" doesn't work. Otherwise, we took 2 or 3 "Proficiency Checks" every day for a year.
Originally posted by ~~~^~~~
A few months ago I was about mowed through by a T-34C doing acro in IMC between PNS and MOB. Last year a C172 was whacked by a F-16 that blew through a clearance limit and our airline has had several close calls with T-38's.
I've been on the other end of a few of those close calls myself. It seems that the term MOA means nothing to many general aviation enthusiasts. It's a 2-way street, and the issue really has no bearing on the question at hand.
Originally posted by ~~~^~~~
The intent of the question is to reveal busted PC's. If they only wanted to know about civillian checkrides, they would have worded the question differently.
I disagree with your assessment of intent, and I submit to you that the same logic can be used both ways. If they wanted to know about military pilot training end-of-phase rides, they could have asked about them specifically. After all, they're no secret.
