Should This Pilot Be Fired?

[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.