N5139

These are some of the dumbest policies I've ever heard of, albeit true. The content validity and subjective nature of most non-professional checkrides is a joke. This is purely a CYA move kowtowing to the USA TODAY's inaccurate reporting on airline crashes.


Way to go, regionals. You're really saving the day with such hiring practices. What ever happened to evaluating each applicant on a case-by-case basis, verifying their credentials with a written/sim-check, and then enrolling them in a monitoring program throughout their probationary year? Oh wait, that would cost money.

BZNpilot248

Remember. You have to be as good as Tim Martins to work at Eagle.

HIREME

There are separate records for your failures. I checked into my personal PRIA and no failures, letters, etc...BUT, I called my local FSDO and they have all the records of every checkride taken.

N5139

This is true (FAA PTRS, which ASIs have access to), and more airlines are submitting records requests to AFS-760 for your ENTIRE file ("Blue Ribbon), which they receive when you're usually in INDOC. This includes every 8710, every written result, etc.

BZNpilot248

Not sure what the acronyms are, but is there any way an individual can look up their entire file such as this?

N5139

http://www.faa.gov/licenses_certific...a/COMPRQST.pdf

newarkblows

I feel bad for some people who didnt know any better when they started learning how to fly but failed checkrides do raise a pretty large flag. Sure you might have gone to fly freight or instructed for a few thousand hours but more then one failure is a pretty big black eye on your record that wont be overlooked. Once you get through a 121 training program unscathed you will be back on par. You need to prove that you are trainable and know how to study.

The whole reason that it is a big deal is: If you fail a checkride dont you think you would over prepare for every checkride after that?

One is ok but two is either exceptionally bad luck or you just werent giving it 100%.

PeezDog

Exactly! One of the smartest things anyone has ever said. It would be nice to see the FAA be proactive rather then reactive, and take some advice from the people actively working in field for a change. But we know that won't happen since the Examiners are designated (or employed) by the FAA to issue certificates and ratings. That would make them look bad and would put so much liability on the FAA. If something happened to a guy that was given a certificate or rating by a "Santa Claus", then the FAA themselves could be held liable (in the eyes of a lawyer or court) and then possibly be sued. Also, if that were to happen, then they would possibly have the public and government eyeballing them. Then they would be forced to make more changes (and actually do work) to their already outdated regs and policies. We wouldn't want that now would we ; ). FAA, sucks sometimes. Why are they always 10 years or more behind everything? They are government, so I guess I answered my own question there.

minimwage4

What if the first one was not trying and the second one was just bad luck?? You're telling us that a 2000 hour single PIC cargo guy with one or two primary failures is less experienced than the CFI with no failures?

Look, it's not even about good pilot, bad pilot. The point is, the airlines can do whatever they like. But most places are not very stringent on failures depending on your circumstance.

As it was mentioned before, the FAA has come down hard on the airlines. Now they actually DO CHECK your background by requesting things like complete records or airman from the FAA as well as the PRIA. It's not the end of the world if you have an unclean record. Just move on.

N5139

I half-buy your argument, but you are neglecting the cadre of cowboy examiners that the FAA has designated as gatekeepers. 121/135 training is exponentially more uniform and fair, but GA rides run the gamut.