Originally Posted by
JohnBurke
I don't think it's fair game at all.
The philosophy of busting is somewhat old school in that for the last decade or so, the FAA has pushed the approach of recognizing an error and correcting it; if one can recognize and correct, that's far more important than trying to bust someone for a two-knot excursion. The point of doing this is to recognize the real world and the need to be constantly correcting. We fly an approach not perfectly but by bracketing the glideslope and localizer up and down, left and right, constantly making small corrections back to where we want to be.
The check airman is there to see that you can fly the airplane. It's not a lottery, and it's not a fault finding mission. It's a flight. Two knots?
My question would be did you recognize it and correct? Far more important than a two knot excursion.
I tend toward
John’s opinion. If it had been a steam gauge plane of the exact same model; the excursion would never have been noticed, assuming it wasn’t rapidly increasing with the nose down. I see the point of it being an exceedance, but beyond debriefing it what’s gained by the documenting a bust. I’ve started the slats out a few times in moderate turbulence near, but under the limit speed, and gotten a short overspeed warning, should I turn in my ATP? Should I ground the plane 4,000 nautical from any maintenance for an inspection?
As an evaluator, I’d look at the manner the procedure was handled, was there any doubt of a safe and successful completion of the task and maintaining aircraft control. If so, pass with debrief.
GF