135 checkride

hattrick said:
Sadly this is a fairly common practice in 135 Checkrides, rather than fail we will just count this as a training flight. A Checkride form must be signed by the applicant to make it valid regardless of pass or fail. A training flight does not need this signature. Basically the check airman turned the Checkride into a training flight. Not an acceptable practice and one which could cost him his check airman qualification. That being said I would not include this on pria paperwork. You did not work for this company as a pilot and never completed training either. No there won't be any paperwork sent in to the FAA. No you did not fail a Checkride, although you should have. While what happened is prohibited by the FAA I guess it worked in your favor. Fact is the company is not even required to retain your training records as you were never employed by them, and effectively washed out of training.
PRIA is a very interesting bird really. I've seen responses such as yep this person was employed by us as a pilot and others that came back as an entire binder. It's very much up to the previous employer what is included. The Feds do provide suggested guidance but that's really all it is, suggestions.
Click to expand...


Thank you very much for your explanation. it definitely cleared things up for me. Appreciate your imput.
 
hattrick said:
Sadly this is a fairly common practice in 135 Checkrides, rather than fail we will just count this as a training flight. A Checkride form must be signed by the applicant to make it valid regardless of pass or fail. A training flight does not need this signature. Basically the check airman turned the Checkride into a training flight. Not an acceptable practice and one which could cost him his check airman qualification. That being said I would not include this on pria paperwork. You did not work for this company as a pilot and never completed training either. No there won't be any paperwork sent in to the FAA. No you did not fail a Checkride, although you should have. While what happened is prohibited by the FAA I guess it worked in your favor. Fact is the company is not even required to retain your training records as you were never employed by them, and effectively washed out of training.
PRIA is a very interesting bird really. I've seen responses such as yep this person was employed by us as a pilot and others that came back as an entire binder. It's very much up to the previous employer what is included. The Feds do provide suggested guidance but that's really all it is, suggestions.
Click to expand...


@hattrick You seens to have a great 135 inside knowledge, so I ask you. A good friend of mine just failed his first 135 checkride at CAE for a hawker, he was told that if he retakes the checkride within 60 days and pass it will be no record of his failed checkride on his PRIA record. Is this true? I don't think he understood well what they were saying or something.......
 
Pilot27usa said:
@hattrick You seens to have a great 135 inside knowledge, so I ask you. A good friend of mine just failed his first 135 checkride at CAE for a hawker, he was told that if he retakes the checkride within 60 days and pass it will be no record of his failed checkride on his PRIA record. Is this true? I don't think he understood well what they were saying or something.......
Click to expand...
That is not true, at all.
 
hattrick said:
Basically the check airman turned the Checkride into a training flight. Not an acceptable practice and one which could cost him his check airman qualification.
Click to expand...
I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. If the check airman didn't witness anything that would have been potentially dangerous in the air but felt that there were lapses in training, I think aviation safety is sometimes best served by this approach. I wish there was a checkbox, "deferred for additional training".
 
Last edited:
Pilot Fighter said:
I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. If the check airman didn't witness anything that would have been potentially dangerous in the air but felt that there were lapses in training, I think aviation safety is sometimes best served by this approach. I wish there was a checkbox, "deferred for additional training".
Click to expand...

Makes sense to have two types of busts. Go outside standards on a maneuver and it's a deferral, exhibit poor judgement or ADM and it's an Unsat.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. If the check airman didn't witness anything that would have been potentially dangerous in the air but felt that there were lapses in training, I think aviation safety is sometimes best served by this approach. I wish there was a checkbox, "deferred for additional training".
Click to expand...
Idk, on an initial(for a rating) it's one and done, but on recurrent you can mess 3 things up, the check airman can right there re-train them, then check again. No bust. I think that's pretty fair.
 
Pilot Fighter said:
I have mixed feelings about this kind of thing. If the check airman didn't witness anything that would have been potentially dangerous in the air but felt that there were lapses in training, I think aviation safety is sometimes best served by this approach. I wish there was a checkbox, "deferred for additional training".
Click to expand...

I totally agree with your point of view on that one.......I think it would make a huge difference on one's career and it would give a clear view to future employer as to why the pilot has a fail on the record instead of just a fail with no understanding as to why he wasn't able to pass the checkride.
 
Hattrick - I'm not sure that a 135 check must be signed by the applicant....a pink slip for a new ratting maybe but after 10 plus years of 135 I have never signed a check ride form.
 
z987k said:
I think if we didn't count Florida in aviation statistics, the average pilot salary would show 20-30k more and there would be 95% less violations.
Click to expand...

There are a few really good ones down here. I managed to get in with one that pays well above not only the high end of the surveyed charter pay, but well above the surveyed corporate pay for the airframe I fly. They also have defined rest rules. That's hard to find pretty much everywhere.
 
Request said:
Hattrick - I'm not sure that a 135 check must be signed by the applicant....a pink slip for a new ratting maybe but after 10 plus years of 135 I have never signed a check ride form.
Click to expand...
I think there's only a check box indicating whether the pilot received a copy.
 
Pilot27usa said:
Would be nice to have anyone out there, who is a 135 checke airmen to clear this up for everyone.
Click to expand...
Lol, it doesn't require a check airman to know regulations or to print a standard 8410. Perhaps people that have done dozens of checkrides would know the PTS and how it's done.

http://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Form/FAA Form 8410-1.pdf


Here's the guidance on what must be done out of the 8900.
http://fsims.faa.gov/wdocs/8900.1/v05 airman cert/chapter 03/05_003_007rev1_chg_0b.htm
 
There's a difference between a proficiency check (121, 135) and a certification practical test (private, instrument, atp, etc).

If a PC is administered by a check airman, it doesn't have to be "one and done". They can stop the check, retrain a failed maneuver, and resume the check. Initial or recurrent, doesn't matter. That said, the rule of thumb is "three strikes and you're out", but depending on what is failed and how critical to safety, it could be a one and done thing. Just depends on the check airman.

If the PC is with an Inspector, it is a one and done situation because the inspector cannot conduct training because they are not an instructor for the company.

This all changes if a PC is conducted at the same time as a certification event. In that case, it is a one and done thing regardless of who's conducting the check.

PCs never have a pink slip issued if there's a failure. The PC form is checked unsat and life goes on. These are not reported to airman records in OKC. However, if there is also a certification taking place, a pink slip would be issued and the results forwarded to OKC.

Basically, if only an 8410 is involved, everything (good or bad) will be on there and it stays with the company and possibly sent to the CHDO for filing in the company's records there. If an 8710 and an 8410 are involved, the 8710 will result in one of three things; temporary airman certificate, notice of disapproval (pink slip) or a letter of discontinuance and will be forwarded to OKC to become a part of an airman's permanent file; and the 8410 will be a stand alone document.

Another thing to consider is the standards to which you are tested. If you apply for an ATP purely under Part 61, you are held to the ATP PTS.

If you apply on the basis of completion of an air carriers training program, you are held to the standards listed in the qualification module of that program. Generally they are the same as the ATP, but could be tighter. The qualification module standards also apply to a PC.

There is no regulatory requirement for an applicant for a PC to sign the 8410 or company equivalent. The caveat is that company procedures may require it.

The bottom line is that in the air carrier world, when it comes to training and checking, the carrier's approved training program is what really matters. Not part 61 or the practical test standards.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top