Should This Pilot Be Fired?

[ProFracPilot]

If we want to be perfectly correct, you only have to demonstrate recovery from an approach to a stall by recovering from the first indication.

You win :beer:

 

[P180puke]

Right or wrong I won't debate, but stalls in a P180 are as benign as a 172.
N O N - E V E N T

I won't deny though that someone somewhere out there will find a way to dick it up. OR Maybe the FO should grow a pair.

 

[linder]

I think you must mean a .299 Line Check.

A .297 Check requires at least 1 (turning) stall. 2 stalls may be waived. So, if someone is signing off your .297's without having you demonstrate at least 1 stall, then your check rides have been invalid.

I guess my 50 or 60 (lost count years ago) 297 checks have never been valid because I have never been asked to do any stall stuff on that ride. Only demonstrate instrument proficiency. Where is the word "stall" mentioned in 135.297. I can't find it.

 

[Flex-ible]

2 things you never want to hear in the cockpit.

Captain saying " Watch this"


F/O saying "I have an idea"!

My favorite posting so far this decade!!!!

 

[surveypilot]

Sec. 135.297
(1) The instrument proficiency check must --
(i) For a pilot in command of an airplane under §135.243(a), include the procedures and maneuvers for an airline transport pilot certificate in the particular type of airplane, if appropriate; and


From the ATP PTS
B. TASK: APPROACHES TO STALLS
REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 61; FAA-H-8083-3; FSB Report;
POH/AFM.
THREE approaches to stall are required, as follows (unless
otherwise specified by the FSB Report):
1. One in the takeoff configuration (except where the airplane
uses only zero-flap takeoff configuration) or approach
(partial) flap configuration.
2. One in a clean cruise configuration.
3. One in a landing configuration (landing gear and landing
flaps set).
CAUTION: Avoid deep stalls which are termed as “virtually
unrecoverable” in airplanes, and “tip stalls” in swept wing airplanes.
One of these approaches to a stall must be accomplished while in a
turn using a bank angle of 15 to 30°.

I guess my 50 or 60 (lost count years ago) 297 checks have never been valid because I have never been asked to do any stall stuff on that ride. Only demonstrate instrument proficiency. Where is the word "stall" mentioned in 135.297. I can't find it.

 

[linder]

Sec. 135.297
(1) The instrument proficiency check must --
(i) For a pilot in command of an airplane under §135.243(a), include the procedures and maneuvers for an airline transport pilot certificate in the particular type of airplane, if appropriate; and

If appropriate is the key. In almost 40 years of this I never heard of anyone having to do anything other than instrument procedures on a 297 check. As a previous check airman I would have used the PTS stuff only if someone was so marginal (but still meeting min standards) that the PTS could be used to wash them out. It can be a little hard to eliminate someone solely on 297 stuff, but really easy if you use the basic stuff. That being said, I never encountered that situation.

 

[Box-Hauler]

From the ATP PTS
B. TASK: APPROACHES TO STALLS
REFERENCES: 14 CFR part 61; FAA-H-8083-3; FSB Report;
POH/AFM.
THREE approaches to stall are required, as follows (unless
otherwise specified by the FSB Report):



Big difference between approach to stall and a stall, maybe not in a straight wing turbo prop but in a jet it can be a very big deal.

 

[transpac]

If appropriate is the key. In almost 40 years of this I never heard of anyone having to do anything other than instrument procedures on a 297 check. As a previous check airman I would have used the PTS stuff only if someone was so marginal (but still meeting min standards) that the PTS could be used to wash them out. It can be a little hard to eliminate someone solely on 297 stuff, but really easy if you use the basic stuff. That being said, I never encountered that situation.

Are you serious? Are you saying a new-hire pilot with no line experience can pass your initial PIC check without doing a solitary non-instrument maneuver? How about a V1 cut? Remember, a 135.293 check is not required if a .297 check is completed.
My understanding is the "if appropriate" statement in part 135.297 refers to the capabilities of the aircraft used for the checkride. It's pretty clear to me that if an ATP is required to fly the machine under Part 135, all ATP maneuvers must either be performed or waived if waiverable. Ditto commercial maneuvers if a Commercial certificate is required.

 

[corpflunkie]

Not to worry.....when you have the same last name as the D.O., you won't be fired anyhow.

Dude, you quit a year ago. What is your hangup? Are you that much of a bitter pill that you can't get over that fact that you were treated "oh so unfairly" (sarcasm off) Have fun teaching stall/spin recovery to the blue zoo boys

 

[linder]

Are you serious? Are you saying a new-hire pilot with no line experience can pass your initial PIC check without doing a solitary non-instrument maneuver? How about a V1 cut? Remember, a 135.293 check is not required if a .297 check is completed.
My understanding is the "if appropriate" statement in part 135.297 refers to the capabilities of the aircraft used for the checkride. It's pretty clear to me that if an ATP is required to fly the machine under Part 135, all ATP maneuvers must either be performed or waived if waiverable. Ditto commercial maneuvers if a Commercial certificate is required.

The 293 section says a 297 check MAY be substituted for a 293. A 297 does not say it SHALL or WILL substitute for a 293. The final outcome is determined by which box is checked. If giving a 297 check there is no requirement to check the 293 box...only the 297. The checks are usually combined in the sim, but if done in an aircraft it adds quite a bit of expense to do anything more than the instrument checks required in 297. If an individual had a current 293 I only checked the 297 box on the form.

If appropriate: (i) For a pilot in command of an airplane under §135.243(a), include the procedures and maneuvers for an airline transport pilot certificate in the particular type of airplane, if appropriate; and

Move the comma from being located after "airplane" to after "certificate" and your belief would be correct. However, as written, "if appropriate" refers to the procedures and maneuvers. Typical FAR...the placement of a ,:; etc allows 50 different interpretations.

 

[Lear70]

MODERATOR INPUT

No posting of names, references to names, or enough data to determine the names without that person's consent or unless it's a quote from an outside news source where the names are already revealed publicly.

That goes both ways, not just to one side or the other. Next one to violate it gets a Flightinfo vacation for a week to think about it.

/mod input

 

[transpac]

The 293 section says a 297 check MAY be substituted for a 293. A 297 does not say it SHALL or WILL substitute for a 293. The final outcome is determined by which box is checked. If giving a 297 check there is no requirement to check the 293 box...only the 297. The checks are usually combined in the sim, but if done in an aircraft it adds quite a bit of expense to do anything more than the instrument checks required in 297. If an individual had a current 293 I only checked the 297 box on the form.

If appropriate: (i) For a pilot in command of an airplane under §135.243(a), include the procedures and maneuvers for an airline transport pilot certificate in the particular type of airplane, if appropriate; and

Move the comma from being located after "airplane" to after "certificate" and your belief would be correct. However, as written, "if appropriate" refers to the procedures and maneuvers. Typical FAR...the placement of a ,:; etc allows 50 different interpretations.

Sorry, but your interpretation makes no sense. By your definition, a 135.297 check for an operation that only requires a Commercial Pilot is more comprehensive than one that requires an ATP. Note that 135.297(C)(1)(ll) (Part 135 instrument check requirements for operations requiring a Commercial Pilot) clearly requires the maneuvers in the Commercial pilot PTS be performed, and additionally, requires the maneuvers for issuance of a type rating "if appropriate". If you can interpret this "if appropriate" to mean anything other than whether or not the check is administered in an aircraft that requires a type rating, I'd like to know how you arrived at that conclusion. The bottom line is that your interpretation would mean that a pilot flying a jet limited to cargo only (Commercial Pilot with type rating required) is required to take a more comprehensive check than the same pilot flying the same jet would be required to take if he/she also carried passengers (ATP and type rating required).

 

[Lear70]

Not a moderator input, just personal observation:

I have performed a .297 ride almost every year since 1994.

I have never been asked to do anything that wasn't a specific instrument activity. Approaches only, missed approaches, and a hold.

I have, from time to time, been asked to do a .293 in the interest of time, which can be substituted for the .297 ride, and is actually a shorter ride by about 30 minutes.

The Part 121 world is the same way.

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the wording in Parts 135 or 121 that allow you to substitute what for what and in what circumstances. I'm simply going to tell you that I've had more checkrides than I can count, including multiple type ratings, feds on jumpseats, Check Airman authorizations, checkrides in the actual aircraft as well as the sim, you name it, I've likely done it, and I have never, ever, ever had anyone, including a Fed, from any FSDO (and I've flown for companies based in N.Y., FL, GA, TN, TX, MI, and MN) try to tell me that I had to perform any kind of stall or steep turn or anything else on a .297 ride except instrument competency maneuvers.

You can argue semantics all day long, but reality rules, and the reality is that no one expects a stall on a .297 ride. Not that it CAN'T be given, but simply that no one does, unless they're on a fishing expedition because you've otherwise screwed the pooch with your instrument maneuvers and your basic flying skills are in question.

 

[surveypilot]

I do not have the variety of experience that you have, but as Chief Pilot for a small part 135 piston twin operator, I can tell you that I have taken 10 flight checks in the last 5 years. All of those were done 100% in the airplane. One of them was a combined ATP and 297. Out of the remaining 9 checkrides, five them were 293, 297 and 299 rides. The remaining 4 were 297 only. All of them were with FAA inspectors. I was asked to steep turns and at least 1 approach to stall on all but one of them. We did not on that flight check because I was the second flight check of the day and the inspector elected not to do anything but the bare minimum of approaches that we had to do to be legal for the next 6 months. The experience of our other captains has been the same. Trust me, we expect approach to stalls on the flight checks.

Not a moderator input, just personal observation:

I have performed a .297 ride almost every year since 1994.

I have never been asked to do anything that wasn't a specific instrument activity. Approaches only, missed approaches, and a hold.

I have, from time to time, been asked to do a .293 in the interest of time, which can be substituted for the .297 ride, and is actually a shorter ride by about 30 minutes.

The Part 121 world is the same way.

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the wording in Parts 135 or 121 that allow you to substitute what for what and in what circumstances. I'm simply going to tell you that I've had more checkrides than I can count, including multiple type ratings, feds on jumpseats, Check Airman authorizations, checkrides in the actual aircraft as well as the sim, you name it, I've likely done it, and I have never, ever, ever had anyone, including a Fed, from any FSDO (and I've flown for companies based in N.Y., FL, GA, TN, TX, MI, and MN) try to tell me that I had to perform any kind of stall or steep turn or anything else on a .297 ride except instrument competency maneuvers.

You can argue semantics all day long, but reality rules, and the reality is that no one expects a stall on a .297 ride. Not that it CAN'T be given, but simply that no one does, unless they're on a fishing expedition because you've otherwise screwed the pooch with your instrument maneuvers and your basic flying skills are in question.

 

[bunman45]

I'm not sure this person should be fired. I would suggest however, shoving a live snake up his a$$.

 

[transpac]

Not a moderator input, just personal observation:

I have performed a .297 ride almost every year since 1994.

I have never been asked to do anything that wasn't a specific instrument activity. Approaches only, missed approaches, and a hold.

I have, from time to time, been asked to do a .293 in the interest of time, which can be substituted for the .297 ride, and is actually a shorter ride by about 30 minutes.

The Part 121 world is the same way.

I'm not going to argue the semantics of the wording in Parts 135 or 121 that allow you to substitute what for what and in what circumstances. I'm simply going to tell you that I've had more checkrides than I can count, including multiple type ratings, feds on jumpseats, Check Airman authorizations, checkrides in the actual aircraft as well as the sim, you name it, I've likely done it, and I have never, ever, ever had anyone, including a Fed, from any FSDO (and I've flown for companies based in N.Y., FL, GA, TN, TX, MI, and MN) try to tell me that I had to perform any kind of stall or steep turn or anything else on a .297 ride except instrument competency maneuvers.

You can argue semantics all day long, but reality rules, and the reality is that no one expects a stall on a .297 ride. Not that it CAN'T be given, but simply that no one does, unless they're on a fishing expedition because you've otherwise screwed the pooch with your instrument maneuvers and your basic flying skills are in question.

I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one. A 121 PIC proficiency check IS an ATP and a type rating check all rolled up into one. And, all of the stalls cannot be waived. Likewise, a Part 135 proficiency check by rule includes all the maneuvers on either the ATP PTS or the Commercial Pilot PTS depending on the operations specifications for the operator. I've given a few hundred checks, both 121 and 135, and I certainly never saw any expressions of surprise when steep turns and a stall series was asked for.

Your statement that you've only done instrument maneuvers during your many .297 checks means you've never done an aborted takeoff, a V1 cut, a balked landing, a visual no-flap approach, or a simulated brake failure. I find this very hard to believe.


BTW, a .293 check can't be substituted for a .297. It's the other way around. And, the reason a .297 can be substituted for a .293 is because .297 contains all the maneuvers required by .293 plus the additional instrument stuff.

 

[Lear70]

I'm going to throw the BS flag on this one. A 121 PIC proficiency check IS an ATP and a type rating check all rolled up into one. And, all of the stalls cannot be waived. Likewise, a Part 135 proficiency check by rule includes all the maneuvers on either the ATP PTS or the Commercial Pilot PTS depending on the operations specifications for the operator. I've given a few hundred checks, both 121 and 135, and I certainly never saw any expressions of surprise when steep turns and a stall series was asked for.

Your statement that you've only done instrument maneuvers during your many .297 checks means you've never done an aborted takeoff, a V1 cut, a balked landing, a visual no-flap approach, or a simulated brake failure. I find this very hard to believe.


BTW, a .293 check can't be substituted for a .297. It's the other way around. And, the reason a .297 can be substituted for a .293 is because .297 contains all the maneuvers required by .293 plus the additional instrument stuff.

Call whatever you want, chief, them's the facts.

And I never said a 121 Proficiency Check was an instrument check. YOU are the one who threw that in there. What I said was that my instrument checks (that are every 6 months IN BETWEEN PC's (in the Part 121 world) and every 6 months in between .293/.299 checks in the 135 world) did NOT include stalls and steep turns. Not that it would be a problem to perform them, they're easy as hell, but my checkrides didn't unless we had briefed, in advance, that we were doing a full PC.

I also never said that an instrument competency check wouldn't include an aborted takeoff (the 6/6/6 low-vis takeoff/abort is an instrument maneuver, as by the time you're doing 100 kts in a 6/6/6 vis situation, you can't see jack except the blip of the CL's and are watching your HSI half the time, as is a V1 cut as you then transition into an instrument environment).

I will, however, tell you that I have never done a visual zero-flap approach on an instrument check at 6 months, nor a simulated brake failure, nor a stall, nor a steep turn. Those are done at my yearly PC. Period. The end. 3 Part 121 airlines, 5 charter companies 1 turboprop, 4 jet. Them's the facts.

 

[transpac]

Call whatever you want, chief, them's the facts.

And I never said a 121 Proficiency Check was an instrument check. YOU are the one who threw that in there. What I said was that my instrument checks (that are every 6 months IN BETWEEN PC's (in the Part 121 world) and every 6 months in between .293/.299 checks in the 135 world) did NOT include stalls and steep turns. Not that it would be a problem to perform them, they're easy as hell, but my checkrides didn't unless we had briefed, in advance, that we were doing a full PC.

I also never said that an instrument competency check wouldn't include an aborted takeoff (the 6/6/6 low-vis takeoff/abort is an instrument maneuver, as by the time you're doing 100 kts in a 6/6/6 vis situation, you can't see jack except the blip of the CL's and are watching your HSI half the time, as is a V1 cut as you then transition into an instrument environment).

I will, however, tell you that I have never done a visual zero-flap approach on an instrument check at 6 months, nor a simulated brake failure, nor a stall, nor a steep turn. Those are done at my yearly PC. Period. The end. 3 Part 121 airlines, 5 charter companies 1 turboprop, 4 jet. Them's the facts.

You're confusing the heck out of me by referring to "yearly checks" and "in between checks". The only "yearly checks" in Part 135 are the .299 line check and the .293 competency check. The .293 competency check is for SICs, VFR-only PICs, and may be given to PICs who fly more than one type of airplane and complete their .297 check in the other type airplane. Thus, if you take a .297 check every six months you don't ever need to take a .293 check unless it's in a second type of aircraft. Even then, there are limitations that frequently require .297 checks in all types of aircraft that a pilot flies under Part 135. The point I'm trying to make is that many if not most Part 135 pilots are never required to take an "annual check" other than a line check.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about regarding Part 121. There is no difference between the PC done at six months and the one done annually. Granted, some operators are permitted to substitute simulator training for one of the checks, but that merely eliminates one of the checks, it does not modify it. You might want to look at 121.441 and 121 appendix F if you still disagree.

 

[ProFracPilot]

I will, however, tell you that I have never done a visual zero-flap approach on an instrument check at 6 months, nor a simulated brake failure, nor a stall, nor a steep turn. Those are done at my yearly PC. Period. The end. 3 Part 121 airlines, 5 charter companies 1 turboprop, 4 jet. Them's the facts.

How much of this experience that you refer to is recent (last 2 years)? If so, I want to work under the purview of your FSDO or CMO because my life would be made much more simple. We can waive airwork and unusual attitudes (and the hold), but can only waive 2 of 3 approach to a stall demonstrations. The one we must perform has to be a turning approach to a stall, 15-30 degrees of bank.

Not a big deal, just a PITA to secure a block of airspace at times.

And my original post should have referenced "approach to stall". My bad.

 

[Lear70]

How much of this experience that you refer to is recent (last 2 years)?

None in the 121 world. Last 121 PC was in June of '07, and wasn't PIC that year, PC before that was June '06.

The previous 5 years were at PCL in the MEM FSDO, and I'm here to tell you, I didn't do zero-flap approaches or brake failures on our 6 month checks as PIC, and very rarely did stalls on those, either (never steep turns) - I do have to say, talking of all this made me remember I *DID* do a stall series exactly once at PCL on a 6 month check, I only remember because the guy next to me nearly failed the checkride over it... The PC we had to have once a year encompassed all of those, of course.

Not going to argue with you about what maneuvers we did, 'cause I'm the one who was there doing them. I simply don't believe that in this many years of flying, so many check airmen were simply ignoring the rules (I only had the same check airman once in my 121 flying).

And yes, I'm very familiar with 121.441 and Appendix F. However, I never did read the simulator training portion of our Ops Specs with our FSDO; it wasn't included in the copy the pilots had and we simply performed the maneuvers we were asked.

When you're flying 80+ hours a month, if you can't fly any of the maneuvers required on a checkride, there's something seriously wrong with you. Never worried about what we were going to get or not enough to go look it up.

 

[BeenThereDoneIt]

Wasn't this thread supposed to be about stalls, and Captains who do them just for fun on repo legs in the frac world.....against the FOs wishes?

 

[C425Driver]

Anyone recommend a good BBQ joint?

 

[wacoflyr]

That is the whole point behind a K.C. overnight, I swear.

 

[ProFracPilot]

Anyone recommend a good BBQ joint?

Jack Stack.

 

[fischman]

That is the whole point behind a K.C. overnight, I swear.

http://www.arthurbryantsbbq.com/

 

[linder]

You're confusing the heck out of me by referring to "yearly checks" and "in between checks". The only "yearly checks" in Part 135 are the .299 line check and the .293 competency check. The .293 competency check is for SICs, VFR-only PICs, and may be given to PICs who fly more than one type of airplane and complete their .297 check in the other type airplane. Thus, if you take a .297 check every six months you don't ever need to take a .293 check unless it's in a second type of aircraft. Even then, there are limitations that frequently require .297 checks in all types of aircraft that a pilot flies under Part 135. The point I'm trying to make is that many if not most Part 135 pilots are never required to take an "annual check" other than a line check.

I don't have a clue what you're talking about regarding Part 121. There is no difference between the PC done at six months and the one done annually. Granted, some operators are permitted to substitute simulator training for one of the checks, but that merely eliminates one of the checks, it does not modify it. You might want to look at 121.441 and 121 appendix F if you still disagree.

Re-read 293. It is not for SIC/VFR only.

135.293

(a) No certificate holder may use a pilot, nor may any person serve as a pilot, unless, since the beginning of the 12th calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed....................................

(b) No certificate holder may use a pilot, nor may any person serve as a pilot, in any aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 12th calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed a competency check......

Look on the 8410 form. There are different boxes to check for 293, 297 and 299. Any one or all may be checked. Each is a different type of check. A pilot must have a checkmark in the 293 and 299 box every 12 months. The 297 box must be checked every 6 months.

It's all an insignificant argument. Most of these checkrides given in the aircraft are a joke (just like Class 1 medicals). Sims are better.

 

[cessnapilot]

First of off, that FO should not be telling him what to do, nor should anyone else.

haven't been to a CRM course for a while?

 

[Say Again Over]

You guys and your .297 and .293's, do you think anyone really gives a rat a$$, you guys really know how to screw up a thread.

Flame on.

 

[transpac]

Re-read 293. It is not for SIC/VFR only.

135.293

(a) No certificate holder may use a pilot, nor may any person serve as a pilot, unless, since the beginning of the 12th calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed....................................

(b) No certificate holder may use a pilot, nor may any person serve as a pilot, in any aircraft unless, since the beginning of the 12th calendar month before that service, that pilot has passed a competency check......

Look on the 8410 form. There are different boxes to check for 293, 297 and 299. Any one or all may be checked. Each is a different type of check. A pilot must have a checkmark in the 293 and 299 box every 12 months. The 297 box must be checked every 6 months.

It's all an insignificant argument. Most of these checkrides given in the aircraft are a joke (just like Class 1 medicals). Sims are better.

You won't give up, will you? I'll make one last try to clarify what I've already posted:

The reason I stated the .293 check was PRIMARILY for VFR PIC's and SIC's was the section of 135.293 you choose to ignore:

(c) The instrument proficiency check required by §135.297 may be substituted for the competency check required by this section for the type of aircraft used in the check.


What is the point of giving an IFR PIC an additional check that's not required by the FARs? I realize some check airmen check off the .293 block for whatever reason once a year. But, if they think .293 requires maneuvers in addition to those required by .297, they're confused.

And, what do you mean by the statement that it's all insignificant because airplane checks are a joke and sims are better? I don't disagree that sims are a better tool. But, the same regulations apply and the same maneuvers are required regardless of whether an aircraft or a level B, C, or D sim is used.

 

[transpac]

You guys and your .297 and .293's, do you think anyone really gives a rat a$$, you guys really know how to screw up a thread.

Flame on.

I suggest you ignore posts that annoy you. But, I'd guess most pilots who actually fly IAW Part 135 might have some interest in differing opinions of the checkride requirements.