For what it’s worth:

http://www.cockpit2cockpit.com/blog/2017/7/11/skeletons-in-the-closet

Some people agree with this, some don't, so it can be risky unless you got it directly from the airline in question. There are no laws about how the airlines treat something like this... they can hold it against you if the find out.

The long simmering concern with 141 has always been the lack of strict accountability for checkride performance, ie with enough and time and money you could keep trying for a while until you slipped through. There would be little formal indication that you struggled. There was talk of holding 141 rides to the same accounting standard as 61/135/121 (ie pink slips), but I don't know if that ever got off the ground. The 141 industry may have fought it off... they always marketed their product as insurance against checkride failures.

I haven’t even thought about whether I should or should not include it on my applications. I have worked way too hard to accomplish my dream to get kicked out of an interview for lying. I unsat a stage check, I learned a very valuable lesson and came out a better pilot because of it. From what I gather, having this one “failure” shouldn’t be a big deal and I’ll just list it and if they ask about it, I’ll explain

For clarity, most folks think a 141 stage check is not a checkride, unless it was the EOC check which would result in the issuance of a certificate. Unless they ask specifically about 141 stage checks, I would answer no to that one. Part 61 people don't even have those, so it's kind of an apples to oranges comparison.

Sometimes if the school does not have examining authority, a CP will do an internal EOC which is documented as such but does not result in a cert. Then an outside DPE (or fed) will do the actual checkride for the certificate. In that case the internal EOC is just checkride prep IMO. You don't have to subject yourself to double jeopardy like that.

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

What do company procedures say?

Busted for an "overspeed event" - yet I can almost guarantee nothing was written up nor was inspected by maintenance... :rolleyes:

We've got a limit speed on the drop doors for retardant. I can't count the number of times I've been through that speed on a steep downhill run. It's rough. Visibility is low. Winds are high. Turbulence is severe. There are rocks everywhere, most of them hidden in smoke. There's another airplane ahead of me, close, sometimes I can see him. it's not going to get any better. I'm in position. I don't want to come back down here and do this again with this load. I dont' want to carry this load back out. I'm pressing the trigger.

There's nothing to write up.

There's no inspection for it, either.

I probably went through the flap speed somewhere in there, too.

Someone said "load and return." By the time I'm back with the next load, I don't remember a thing. Focus. Move on. Live.

There's getting wrapped around the axle of minutia, and an academic case study of what one supposes might happen in the real world, and then there's been there and done that, and the two are not parallel paths.

Two god damn knots? Good god.

Seriously.

I guarantee 109 knots was derived from a lot of vendor specs on the actuator, the doors and some assumptions on conditions, run thru a computer or interpolated on a slide rule (not much new engineering on light airplanes) and the answer was 109.157 knots, so they rounded down.

Digital information might look very accurate but there are still lots of leeway in background. Not recommending blowing off the limitations, just asking for common sense in the craft of operating the plane.

Yes, lots of areas like performance and TERPS have little margins for getting fast and loose.

GF

Everything important in aviation pretty much has a 150% structural margin to failure, so the system is designed to accommodate very slight exceedences due to turbulence, etc. There are margins on the margins.