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.