709 RIDE??? insight please!!

[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.

 

[jafo20]

2 Points:

Above, someone cites a pilot who lost one of two engines for not making a 180 and landing at the nearest possible airport. There are reasons to continue a flight, on one engine, to the destination or a more suitable field.

Example: Numerous 1800 - 3000' strips are underneath you, and your Aerostar just lost the left engine. Thirty-five miles away, you have a 9000' runway with firetrucks, an ILS, etc. Oh yeah, the weather is MVFR and it's 03:30 in the AM.

I'm not saying the dude who almost ran his tanks dry is in the right. I'm just saying that ATC suggestions aren't always the most prudent, and there aren't any blanket rules that apply to all situations.

This brings me to my second point.

The 709 ride:

Because some FAA types have real flying experience and others don't, they may have trouble differentiating between brainy and retarded actions. This variability means that some dummies can get through a 709 ride with commendations for wearing polished boots to the ship. Other, sharp guys will be zapped because they didn't land with full flaps in wet snow.

In short, you don't know what you're going to get or whether you'll get. You could have a sharp guy or a beaurocrat with wings in the cockpit with you.

Finally, I've never taken a 709 ride. All my information is second hand from friends who have been required to go on 'em. Take all this with a grain of salt.

 

[transpac]

Jafo20:

I suppose anything is possible. But, do you have personal knowledge of someone without "real flying experience" becoming a FAA Operations Inspector? My experience might not be typical, but every Ops Inspector I've worked with has been a high-time pilot.

 

[jafo20]

You know, I only know of one incident where an inspector made a questionable call during a 709 ride. Usually, they're exceptionally forgiving. Usually they're thoughtful aviators and human beings.

I mention flying experience because the inspector I'm thinking of had a lot of flight time, but his judgement was questionable. An elderly guy once took his Skyhawk off the end of a short, grass strip. He had been flying professionally since AN ranges were new to aerial navigation. Anyway, the guy goes flying with the inspector and makes a short field landing. He puts his Skyhawk into a slip with full flaps, and, according to my friends, the inspector decided to nail him for exceeding a limitation on the airplane.

The manual for a 1972 C-172 stated that strong nose down moments may be encountered with "certain combinations of forward CG and sideslip". According to the story I've heard, the old dude always carried a lot of weight in his baggage compartment, and nowhere does it day "slips with full flaps are prohibited" in his ship. He never exceeded a limitation. Plus, he has enough common sense to straighten out when he loses elevator effectiveness.

Now, we can all argue about whether or not it's smart to slip a Cessna with full flaps. We can argue about what constitutes a limitation or not. These are hazy points that leave room for interpretation.

What's clear from the story I've heard is this: Before the first turn of that plane's propeller, his inspector showed up thinking "It's time for this guy to hang up his wings.".


Now this story is thirdhand information. It may be completely inaccurate. The elderly guy could've totally fouled up in the air, and the slip with full flaps may have been preceeded and followed by some other significant incidents. Still, if it's true, the guy who's worried about his 709 ride should be prepared for this type of inspector.

 

[JAFI]

Isn't this thread great, Where else can you get third hand (maybe) information from some one who sorta maybe heard something but still has an opinion they want to "share" about something they may or may not know anything about. And then there are the people who hear this third hand maybe information and pass it on as the truth with maybe some additional added stuff to make the story better....

Got to love that.

JAFI.

 

[FracCapt]

Isn't this thread great, Where else can you get third hand (maybe) information from some one who sorta maybe heard something but still has an opinion they want to "share" about something they may or may not know anything about. And then there are the people who hear this third hand maybe information and pass it on as the truth with maybe some additional added stuff to make the story better....

I always thought that's what flightinfo was all about... You expect REAL knowledge and info from a totally anonymous board? What, do you work for the FAA or something?!

 

[JAFI]

I always thought that's what flightinfo was all about... You expect REAL knowledge and info from a totally anonymous board? What, do you work for the FAA or something?!

One can always hope, can't they.....

 

[jafo20]

First, on numerous occasions I state that my facts are hazy and that I'm not an expert.

JAFI makes a good point. Because I'm not an expert, I shouldn't be offering my thoughts. It's dumb of me to share an opinion when I don't have personal experience with a 709 ride, and I didn't personally deal with the questionable individual. Although I have dealt with feds who have lmited experience and judgement, and I'm sure they've thought the same thing of me, I shouldn't be posting my thoughts in this thread.

Let me condense all my BS posts into this one statement.

Things don't always work as advertised. You can't depend on FAA personnel, mechanical systems, mental processes, electronic components or anything working as published all the time.

 

[Otter]

Should be no surprises on a 709 ride. The letter issued will designate cause for the ride and what is being evaluated. Pick up a PTS for the certificate held and expect a ride that a minimum addresses the issue stipulated and at a maximum a full ride in accordance with the PTS for level of certificate held or being evaluated.

Dont know if this helps.

 

[Capt1124]

It used to be called a 609, but the changed the numbering a few years ago and now it's a 709.