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$$.