709 RIDE??? insight please!!

[EatSleepFly]

If this guy passed, they'll pass anyone.

You mean that inspector will pass anyone.

With the inconsistency between FSDO's and even individual inspectors, I wouldn't bet my certificates on a hopefully pain-free 709 ride.

 

[Flymach2]

I don't know, Bridgette. But I do get the feeling this guy thinks he's getting away with something. He seems to be acting like he did nothing wrong. I have a big problem with sharing the skies with someone like this. I'll follow the details and let you know. Thanks for the comments.

Regards

 

[transpondersoff]

The problem with FLYMACH2's example is that the pilot should have made a 180 and go direct to the airport ATC pointed out. I have read in AOPA's magazine where a pilot did something similar and was cited with wreckless endangerment for not going to the first nearest suitable field when an emergency arose.

Both pilots did the same thing and the FAA didn't like the way it was handled. Most pilots think that when an emergency arises, they can chose where to go when something goes wrong. The FAA's position on this is if you declare an emergency, you must land at the first nearest suitable airport, not one where maintenance is available or your comfort. They will understand if you overfly a 1800 foot grass strip at night, but don't overfly a 3500' airport with no maintenance to get to the 7000' foot airport with maintenance.

A good example of chosing to continue as opposed to landing at the nearest suitable airport is the Air Alaska accident in California. Had the crew chose to land earlier instead of experimenting, it may have been a different outcome.

 

[slatsnfive]

I thought it was called a 609 ride, or is that something different?

 

[transpondersoff]

I think a 609 ride is for CFI's who have had numerous sudent failures. The FAA will give you this ride to reevaluate you as a CFI. I could be wrong about the number but it sure sounds right.

 

[slatsnfive]

I think a 609 ride is for CFI's who have had numerous sudent failures. The FAA will give you this ride to reevaluate you as a CFI. I could be wrong about the number but it sure sounds right.

Cool, thanks for the info. So is the "709" ride strickly for commercial and airline pilots?

 

[JAFI]

Cool, thanks for the info. So is the "709" ride strickly for commercial and airline pilots?

No, a 44709 Re-examination can be for ANY Airman. Do a search on this board for 44709, 709 and 609 and you will find this topic comes up again and again.

Here is a previous answer to this question.

JAFI

-----------------------

The term 609 was part of the FAA Act of 1958. The Airman Re-examination section was in Section 609 of the act. It became a “609 ride”. The Act of 1958 was incorporated into the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). The Airman Re-examination section is now under section 44709 of the code. Thus the new “709 ride”. Same examination, it’s just a new number. There was no 44609.

If you read the below references, the examination can be called for if there is a “Question of Competency”. Any time there is an incident/accident with an unanswered question on what happened, there is the unanswered “Question of Competency” of the flight crew. So Section 44709 is required.

How in-depth the re-examination will be is up to the inspector. Some 709s are just knowledge tests (orals), some are flight tests, and some are both. It will be spelled out in the letter you will receive.

The exam can be a few questions, or it will be like you never had the certificate in the first place. It can depend on how you conduct yourself, so behave yourself.

In short it is a re-examination of all or part of you certificate (read the letter you received).

I recommend you be professional, positive, and go to the exam with the attitude that the experience is part of the certificate. Like life in general, do your research, KNOW THE PROCESS!!!, be well prepared, and demonstrate how good an airman you are.

This is a copy of the US Code on Re-examination of an Airman. Any Certificate Holder (Airman, Flight Engineer, Dispatcher, Repair Station, or Airline) can be re-examined at any time, period.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/49/44709.html



The Re-Examination section of the General Aviation Inspectors Handbook

http://www1.faa.gov/avr/afs/faa/870...l2/87v2_toc.pdf

Go to chapter 26 and read about re-examinations. This is an Adobe file; you need Adobe to read it.


You will hear a lot of stories from other pilots. Some are true, some are only partly true, and some are complete lies. Right now you do not have the time to decide which are which. FOCUS ON DOING WELL. Do I need to say this again???? OK, once is enough.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Good web site for lots of information.

Flight Standards Service

http://www2.faa.gov/avr/afs/

 

[chriskcmo]

Also, if you are required to take a 709 ride, you can request to do it with any FSDO, not just the one that's making you do it.

 

[JediNein]

I asked an NTSB Administrative Law Review Judge (Central US area) what they thought about 709 rides and if there was any way for an airman to avoid one.

Per this Judge: Any FAA inspector can request one without any reason or justification. The only pilot certificate suspension for refusal to test that was deemed improper in NTSB history was when the guy couldn't fly because of injuries. However, as soon as the pilot healed per his AME, he had to complete the ride.

IOW, if you get the letter, you smile and take the ride.

Thanks to this Judge and the many folks at EAA for arranging Oshkosh and the opportunity to ask these questions to the folks that matter.

Fly SAFE!
Jedi Nein

 

[gern_blanston]

I was along on a 709 ride during my instructing days. The guy had run a 172 off the end of a runway, and the fed assigned to do the 709 ride wasn't current in a 172, if you can believe it. I sat right seat, the fed sat in the back, and the guy did 4 or 5 landings. The fed was kinda grumpy and apathetic, but the guy did a fair job on the landings and she signed him off.
It was no big deal. We knew what the fed expected, and the guy delivered.