Narrative:

The reason for sending this form to you pertains to far 91.87D(3). I was taking my first VFR 135 chkride with FAA and a check airman on board obtaining certification as well. The FAA decided the ride was not satisfactory, due to the fact that I did not fly the VASI down to the runway. When landing was assured, I proceeded to land on the numbers. Flying the VASI all the way down would have set the aircraft 1000' down the runway. I feel the last part of far 91.87D(3) (until a lower altitude is necessary for a safe landing) is ambiguous. The word safe could be interpreted differently. I feel it to be unsafe to leave a 1000' of runway behind you. The FAA does not seem to agree. I would like to see a change to give the pilot an option depending on existing conditions. I do not understand way the FAA did not check the 135 operators file on flight training. They would have found I did not receive any flight training, also the only time in the aircraft was .9 which was the length of the chkride. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: suspects he was used as a scapegoat and the FAA was not going to rate him west/O some company training. Believes the primary purpose of the flight was to get the company check airman rating for the other pilot. Company does have a training department per 135 but felt with his experience he could pass the flight test. Has never received his rating because he took a job with another operator. During that week the FAA examiner checked several company check airman.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAILED TO FOLLOW THE VASI TO TOUCHDOWN ON FAA FLT CHECK.

Narrative: THE REASON FOR SENDING THIS FORM TO YOU PERTAINS TO FAR 91.87D(3). I WAS TAKING MY FIRST VFR 135 CHKRIDE WITH FAA AND A CHK AIRMAN ON BOARD OBTAINING CERTIFICATION AS WELL. THE FAA DECIDED THE RIDE WAS NOT SATISFACTORY, DUE TO THE FACT THAT I DID NOT FLY THE VASI DOWN TO THE RWY. WHEN LNDG WAS ASSURED, I PROCEEDED TO LAND ON THE NUMBERS. FLYING THE VASI ALL THE WAY DOWN WOULD HAVE SET THE ACFT 1000' DOWN THE RWY. I FEEL THE LAST PART OF FAR 91.87D(3) (UNTIL A LOWER ALT IS NECESSARY FOR A SAFE LNDG) IS AMBIGUOUS. THE WORD SAFE COULD BE INTERPRETED DIFFERENTLY. I FEEL IT TO BE UNSAFE TO LEAVE A 1000' OF RWY BEHIND YOU. THE FAA DOES NOT SEEM TO AGREE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A CHANGE TO GIVE THE PLT AN OPTION DEPENDING ON EXISTING CONDITIONS. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WAY THE FAA DID NOT CHK THE 135 OPERATORS FILE ON FLT TRNING. THEY WOULD HAVE FOUND I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FLT TRNING, ALSO THE ONLY TIME IN THE ACFT WAS .9 WHICH WAS THE LENGTH OF THE CHKRIDE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: SUSPECTS HE WAS USED AS A SCAPEGOAT AND THE FAA WAS NOT GOING TO RATE HIM W/O SOME COMPANY TRNING. BELIEVES THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE FLT WAS TO GET THE COMPANY CHK AIRMAN RATING FOR THE OTHER PLT. COMPANY DOES HAVE A TRNING DEPT PER 135 BUT FELT WITH HIS EXPERIENCE HE COULD PASS THE FLT TEST. HAS NEVER RECEIVED HIS RATING BECAUSE HE TOOK A JOB WITH ANOTHER OPERATOR. DURING THAT WK THE FAA EXAMINER CHKED SEVERAL COMPANY CHK AIRMAN.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.