Help out the SAABster please
05-31-2007, 08:57 AM
#51
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,107
Yes. Because 61.56(d) allows a proficiency check and 121.441(c) allows that proficiency check to be in an approved flight simulator.
Only an approved pilot check airman(121.441(b)(2)), not a sim instructor or just an ATP, can give a 121.441 PC. You must be designated by the FAA on your check airman approval letter as either a "Proficiency Check Airman - Simulator" or "Check Airman - All Checks" to conduct a 121.441 PC in an approved flight simulator.
Thanks.
Only an approved pilot check airman(121.441(b)(2)), not a sim instructor or just an ATP, can give a 121.441 PC. You must be designated by the FAA on your check airman approval letter as either a "Proficiency Check Airman - Simulator" or "Check Airman - All Checks" to conduct a 121.441 PC in an approved flight simulator.
Thanks.
05-31-2007, 12:42 PM
#52
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 423
I looked at the FAR's, and I now have to agree that a PC in a 121 SIM (even for an FO) should count as a BFR. However, I'm not confident that a PT would count since it's "training" and technically not a flight check. We should all get at least one PC every two years anyway...just watch the late grace month, that would NOT apply to a BFR!
05-31-2007, 01:07 PM
#53
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 40,107
Yes. In case anyone isn't familiar, airline people have two varieties of recurrent sim training: Proficiency Check (PC) and Proficiency Training (PT).
A PC is like your original checkride. It has set requirements, is somewhat scripted, and can be failed.
A PT allows the instructor leeway to do different things, including multiple systems failures (which are not normally part of a PC). Technically, you cannot fail a PT, but if you do poorly enough, the instructor can usually stop the PT, and immediately commence a PC, which you can fail.
Normally you will alternate PC's and PT's, so a CA would see one PC and one PT each year at six month intervals, while an FO would see one of each every 24 months, at 12 month intervals. You must have a PC every 12 months (CA) or 24 Months (FO), but a PT can be replaced by a PC (there are several reasons for doing this). So you could have two PC's in a row, but never two PT's in a row.
05-31-2007, 01:42 PM
#54
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: 737/FO
Posts: 423
Yes. In case anyone isn't familiar, airline people have two varieties of recurrent sim training: Proficiency Check (PC) and Proficiency Training (PT).
A PC is like your original checkride. It has set requirements, is somewhat scripted, and can be failed.
A PT allows the instructor leeway to do different things, including multiple systems failures (which are not normally part of a PC). Technically, you cannot fail a PT, but if you do poorly enough, the instructor can usually stop the PT, and immediately commence a PC, which you can fail.
Normally you will alternate PC's and PT's, so a CA would see one PC and one PT each year at six month intervals, while an FO would see one of each every 24 months, at 12 month intervals. You must have a PC every 12 months (CA) or 24 Months (FO), but a PT can be replaced by a PC (there are several reasons for doing this). So you could have two PC's in a row, but never two PT's in a row.
A PC is like your original checkride. It has set requirements, is somewhat scripted, and can be failed.
A PT allows the instructor leeway to do different things, including multiple systems failures (which are not normally part of a PC). Technically, you cannot fail a PT, but if you do poorly enough, the instructor can usually stop the PT, and immediately commence a PC, which you can fail.
Normally you will alternate PC's and PT's, so a CA would see one PC and one PT each year at six month intervals, while an FO would see one of each every 24 months, at 12 month intervals. You must have a PC every 12 months (CA) or 24 Months (FO), but a PT can be replaced by a PC (there are several reasons for doing this). So you could have two PC's in a row, but never two PT's in a row.
And I agree. A proficiency training session would not count as a BFR.
06-01-2007, 11:23 AM
#55
Moderator
Joined APC: May 2006
Position: ATP, CFI etc.
Posts: 6,056
I realize most of you are tongue in cheek about needing all this touch up training, but this does sort of explain why fresh CFIs tend to think airline pilots are lousy. I have heard many times local CFIs say this airline pilot I checked out bounced his landings, and scared the heck out of everyone. I know that even if I am out of the cockpit for a few weeks the first few landings I can't put it where I want it. I actually thought I was gonna have to go-around on one it was so long. It comes back fast though; the same flight I was nailing piano keys within maybe six touch 'n goes.
06-02-2007, 09:00 AM
#56
Line Holder
Joined APC: May 2007
Position: MeSAABa
Posts: 79
The time/speed/distance relationship is so very much different in what we fly in part 121 ops that it takes some adjustments to get back in to a GA airplane and do OK. Approach speeds are uncomfortably slow and the tendency is to flare way too high. I had a NW A320 Captain actually get the stall warning horn in a 172 on short final, fortunately in that case he flared so high that it wasn't an issue to talk him through the correction. The smaller RJs and turboprops make an almost perfect transition into amphib seaplane flying though... flare is just right, still seems awfully slow though.
06-02-2007, 10:24 AM
#57
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2005
Position: Retired 767 Captain
Posts: 548
I realize most of you are tongue in cheek about needing all this touch up training, but this does sort of explain why fresh CFIs tend to think airline pilots are lousy. I have heard many times local CFIs say this airline pilot I checked out bounced his landings, and scared the heck out of everyone. I know that even if I am out of the cockpit for a few weeks the first few landings I can't put it where I want it. I actually thought I was gonna have to go-around on one it was so long. It comes back fast though; the same flight I was nailing piano keys within maybe six touch 'n goes.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
