Originally Posted by
BoredwLife
Well, not that this is the case, but if you attend a Part 141 Flight School with full examining authority there is a loop hole. The 141 flight program only files one 8710 with the FAA and that is only filed once the pilot has passed the required checkride. So a student could fail his commercial ride 5 times with the check examiner at the school, but when the paper work is filed with the FAA it will show he passed it on his first attempt(one 8710=one attempt). The only way to catch this is to get flight records from the school or review the entire logbook and catch the unsats.
Not that it matters, but an unsatisfactory attempt at a 141 stage check is considered an additional lesson and is recorded as such, or at least it should be, in both the training records and the student's logbook. Technically, failure is not a concept under 141, only complete or incomplete.
That being said, an applicant to a part 121 op is in no way obligated to report multiple attempts at a 141 final check as checkride failures. If he/she is asked in an interview whether multiple attempts were made at the final check, than that information should be offered by the applicant in the interest of integrity.
I highly doubt that this question was asked in the interview. But for the sake of argument, lets say it was. If the applicant lied, there would be no way for the company to know, unless they had access to his training records (which I'm not sure they would have the legal right to access) or as you suggested, they looked for the extra time in the logbook.
Are knowledge of these "failures" at the 141 level (if he did indeed attend a 141 school with self examining authority) is probably only because of the tragic events in Buffalo and henceforth the investigation into his primary and advanced training. The WSJ implies that this knowledge was either withheld by the Captain, or ingnored by the airline. The truth is most likely neither. In the WSJ's defense, they do not have a complete understanding of how this works, and are therefore reporting what they have been told. It's unfortunate, but understandable. Sadly, people will read this and assume negligence. I see lawyers making alot of money with this one.
