Should This Pilot Be Fired?

[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.