709 Ride

[tach32]

Hey all! Does anyone have any information on what is involved in a 44709 checkride with the FAA?

Situation: Gear collapse after landing and the FAA cannot determine if it is mechanical error or pilot error due to the nature of the gear box and transmission. To call it even a 709 ride is to be set up.

Any information would be great.

 

[Typhoon1244]

Not too long ago, you were looking for information on how to look up past METARS for the purpose of completing a NASA report.

I take it things have gone sour.

Wish I had something useful to add. I will say that based on most of the airplanes I have known, unless you practically crashed, I don't see how a gear collapse could be anything but a mechanical failure.

 

[bobbysamd]

609 (709) "Rides"

I believe that "609" is the old term, which I'm used to using.

Thank G-d I never had to go through the experience. A friend of mine did. Her airplane went into the grass during a training flight when her student stomped on the rudders too heavily during a landing. FSDO was on an airport a couple of miles away and was over in a flash. A couple of weeks later she took a 609 ride with an inspector and was absolved. However, the situation might have killed her chances for a career with the FAA. She was a FSS specialist and instructor and had an interest in becoming an ASI, but the 609 went on her record.

A 609 ride is a re-examination ride. Some event has called your quals into question. You can be re-examined for any or all of your ratings, for virtually any reason. Failure to comply and your privileges are held in abeyance. It usually entails an inspector asking you to demonstrate things. I've read of people who felt it was a beneficial experience because they felt they received some quality flight instruction from the inspector. These same people also were not professional pilots who could care less if they suffered a black mark in their FAA file.

The FAA can use 609 rides as a threat. That did happen to me. I went to the horrible Orlando FSDO to renew my CFI based on activity. I had just left my job at FSI to take a new job in California. The inspector started to give me the third degree about where I had worked and why I wanted to renew so soon. When I asked her why she needed to know these things she trotted out a 609 threat. It was totally and completely inappropriate to the situation. I was in good standing with the FAA. All I wanted to do was renew my d@mn CFI.

Hope that helps and your experience works out well.

 

[Rick1128]

If you are threatened with or feel that you may be subject to a 709 (609) ride, the first thing you need to do is to read the guidance issued to FAA Inspectors. If I remember right it is in Order 8700.10. It lists the requirements and limitiations of that ride. Many inspectors do not know then that well. Or they feel they can be a little loose with the rules. Know then and closely check each piece of paper they send you. And how it was sent to you.

I too have been threatened with 709 (609) rides by an incompenent inspector, I found the best way to deal with that is to make an issue of the threat with the inspector's supervisor in writing with copies to regional legal and the inspector general. While some may think you would be stirring up the pot, in reality, this inspector is already out to get you, so you don't have a lot to lose.

 

[SoCalFlyer]

709 ride

Just take to 709 ride. Depending on the inspector you fly with it will probably be a pretty easy ride. Don't listen to the guy with the horse in his avtar...he doesn't know what he is talking about. You can have up to 2 FAA violations and still get a job with the FAA. i've spoken with many FAA inspectors and many of FAA inspectors have completed 709 rides themselves. they use it as a method of mitiating liability after accidents or incidents. It will be good experience... don't puss out because you're afraid of the repercussions.

 

[bobbysamd]

Re: 709 ride

Don't listen to the guy with the horse in his avtar...he doesn't know what he is talking about . . . . You can have up to 2 FAA violations and still get a job with the FAA.

All I know is what happened to my friend. She was a long-time FSS specialist and was an FSS instructor at the FAA Academy in Oklahoma City (read that to mean already employed by the FAA). That's where I met her and when her incident happened.

That's not the point. Unless there's some way around it, which Rick suggested might be, you either take the 609 ride or not fly. Based soley on what I've read in this discussion, I think Tach is being hosed. If there is indeed a way to fight it, he should.

 

[350DRIVER]

I have heard that it is not that bad at all and you should do fine. Most of the inspectors will know you are a bit worried and may use intimidation tactics but with your flight time hopefully that will not phase or bother you. I think you are forced into a corner with the obvious two choices, fly or not fly. Just do it and keep the chin up.

Let us know how it goes,

3 5 0

 

[Rick1128]

Bobby,

I didn't say that there is a way around a 709 ride. Just that you need to know what they can do and can not do. The inspector is required to follow certain procedures and policies, which they don't always do. If as pilots we are required to follow the rules, then we have every right to expect and demand that FAA inspectors do so also. If they are outside of policy then they need to be called on it.

As for threats, no one likes to be threatened. It has been my observations that some FAA inspectors will threaten a pilot with a 709 ride to get them to either roll over on someone or to get their own way. This is so far outside of FAA policy. If it happens, document the threat and report it to at least the inspector's supervisor. If the ride does happen to occur, it may make things a little bit more interesting.

You do have the right to refuse to take the ride with particular inspector. I know of one case where the pilot threw the complaining inspector off his aircraft for the 709 ride. There was a history of bad blood between them and that inspector was not qualified in the aircraft. So he had some ammunition.

And it does sound like tach is getting the short end. The FAA can conduct a 709 ride after an incident, but with the reason of the incident in question, they normally don't. There seems to be a lot more involved in this story.

 

[tach32]

Thanks for all of your replys! There is no hidden story. The story was a solid landing to complete currency and while on landing roll out the gear collapsed. The tower agreed with the same story. The aircraft was secured after incident but because so many people were in and out of the plane things began to change (ie, mixture levers, fuel cut off valves, props position, throttles position, landing gear handle, etc.). To top it off the towing company caused most of the damage, so much that some things needed for the investigation can no longer be used. To settle the unexplainable, I agreed, only when asked to complete the 709 ride and upon completing it satisfatoraly all I would have was an incident on my ticket. I guess things could be worse but I am positive I will pass. I was told in an event like this all the FAA was looking for was basic checklist procedures and to see if I knew how to land. HA! I know that anything is possible on this type of ride so I was wondering if anyone has taken one.
Thanks again.

 

[logolight]

Wait a minute... I had the same thing happen to me about 3 years ago. I had a nose gear collapse due to mechanical failure. They tried to pin it on me but dropped the charges because they couldn't prove that is was pilot error.

If you know it was mechanical then it wasn't your fault. Fight this thing.

Get copies of the MX logs and look for write-ups on the gear that might be cause for suspition.

Also, if you're wit AOPA then get legal advise.

A 709 will go on your record for 2 years before it gets expunged and will always be reportable to an airline in the interview.

Try to fight this, you won't be penalised further if you do.

 

[A Squared]

609-709

just some trivia for those of you who may be wondering why some call it a "609 ride" and some a "709 ride". The term comes from the section in the US Code (Title 49 Sec 44709) which gives the FAA the authority to re-examine an airman (or any certificated aircraft or appliance also) A few years ago the Code was reorganized and renumbered. Before that the authorization was in a section numbered 609 (44609?)so the older term was "609 ride"

 

[Long Time Gone]

Re: 609 (709) "Rides"

I believe that "609" is the old term, which I'm used to using.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "609" is for re-certification of all airmen, and the "709" is for re-certification of the CFI ticket.

Hey logolight.....

I remember that well; the fat boys and Feds wanted to stick it to you good. Nice fight you put up. Ain't VRB a nice place to spend the afternoon? Tell the Nagster I said hi, and write me some time.

LTG

 

[quigs]

709 and 609 are the same thing. 709 applies to all certificates, not just CFI..

 

[A Squared]

Re: Re: 609 (709) "Rides"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the "609" is for re-certification of all airmen, and the "709" is for re-certification of the CFI ticket.

No, Quigs said it correctly:

"709 applies to all certificates, not just CFI.."

Not only that but it applies to *all* certificates issued by the FAA, not just airman certificates. An aircraft can be examined under the provisions of 44709 to see if it meets the standard of its airworthiness certificate. It has nothing to do with CFIs. As I noted earlier, some still call it a 609 because that was the number of the section prior to renumbering.

 

[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/8700/8700_vol2/87v2_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/

 

[tach32]

JAFI and everyone else who responded,
Thank you very much for your encouraging responses and all of the information provided!
As of now I still have not received the letter but when I do I will keep you guys posted on the details and the outcome.

 

[mar]

Uh oh. There goes the neighborhood

Have you ever been to a party with a bunch of pilots and then a Fed walks in?

First thing: Everyone stops telling their "story"--"So there I was..."
Second: Everyone puts down their drink.
Third: Someone whispers, "Who the hell invited him?"
Fourth: Everyone trickles out the back door.




I'm just joshin' ya JAFI! Thanks for the good advice--I hope I never need it!

 

[bobbysamd]

609 as a strong-arm tool

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.

Nice research job.

Read my post above. All I wanted was to renew my CFI. So, because I asked the inspector why she needed to know all the information for which she was giving me the third degree, that my competency was called into question? That sounds like fascism to me.

<sigh>

 

[JAFI]

Well Mar, if only that were true.

Usually at a party when I see old friends that I had worked with they will introduce me to their co-workers as an FAA Inspector and we had worked at XYZ company, flying the ABC aircraft. Many times I get the look that I just grew three heads and should be at the sideshow. Then for about an hour my old friends and I will reminisce about the old job while the other guests point and inform their friends what my job is. After an hour or so of cocktails a senior spokesman will come over and start a conversation of “So how is our company doing”. We will chat for a while and more guests will join in and I will be asked, “well how about this, I heard this, and who did that?” If it is public knowledge I will discuss the topic. Then the FAR questions will come. I would really like to go to a party where I would not have to recite the FARs. Then I get asked for my card. I have handed out dozens of cards but no one ever calls. I have no idea what they do with the cards.

Some guests will still look at me like I have three heads. That is fine too.

At one non-aviation party, I was informed that I really work for the CIA and to quit putting radios in peoples brains. The host pulled me aside to tell a sad story of that guests long use of homemade pharmaceuticals as a young man. But he never did ask me an FAR.


Bobbysamd,

I don’t answer for all Inspectors, Just one. If you re-read my post:

----If you read the below references, the examination can be called for if there is a “Question of Competency”. ---

I will highlight the word “CAN” if that helps. Or I could use “could be”, “maybe”, “in some cases”. I was not there when your CFI renewal was happening, how can I respond to something I did not see, hear, or experience.

Unprofessional behavior is never called for. All you can do is rise above it. And if you have the sand, report it to AFS 1 in Washington DC or the Manager of your FAA region. Go to faa.gov to find the address and phone number. They require specifics and facts; who, when, what, where, and how.

 

[bobbysamd]

Not all feds are fascists . . . .

Unprofessional behavior is never called for. All you can do is rise above it. And if you have the sand, report it to AFS 1 in Washington DC or the Manager of your FAA region. Go to faa.gov to find the address and phone number. They require specifics and facts; who, when, what, where, and how.

One of my best friends in aviation is an ASI at the Portland FSDO. Not only was this gal an excellent pilot and flight instructor (and one of the few people I've met who can land a 182 without landing flat), she is an asset to the FAA. I told her about my experience at the Orlando FSDO, whereupon she immediately apologized to me on behalf of the FAA.

I was always treated exceptionally well at the PWA and SDL FSDOs. I took three practicals from the former manager of the PWA FSDO after he retired and became a DE. He had a reputation for being tough, but I found him to be extremely fair. That's why I kept going back to him and why I sent one of my first students to him. These experiences led me to believe that all FSDOs operate in that fashion. It's too bad that the actions of one inspector can poison the well for the whole lot of the FAA.

PS-Thanks for responding to this thread. I, for one, appreciate your response and integrity.

 

[tach32]

Well, to everyone who was so kind to post any information on the "709" ride I really appreciate it a whole lot. I had my checkride today and everything went really well! What a relief! Thanks again for everything.

 

[bobbysamd]

Well, to everyone who was so kind to post any information on the "709" ride I really appreciate it a whole lot. I had my checkride today and everything went really well! What a relief! Thanks again for everything.

Congratulations! Hope what was posted eased your concerns.

 

[JAFI]

Any updates? Comments? Suggestions? General Information?

 

[Lrjtcaptain]

Well, whats to worry about here? Just cause an incident is on your record doesn't necessarily kill you. If the FEDS say you need the ride, take the ride. It will be harmless. If the gear was down when you landed and then retracted and the controllers agree with you you have a fighting case when it comes down to having this on your record. Mecanical **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** happens every day and the FAA can't pin a faulty power pack, or a jacked up down limit switch on the pilot. Most of time this is just standard format. The faa want to reexam you as a pilot. Woopty doo, go fly and show them your professional and you do the **CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED****CENSORED** GUMP check. I don't know you but im sure it wasn't your fault but with lackof evidence to blame it on mechanical, they just want to check you out andmake sure your not unsafe.

 

[CFI'er]

I only had one bad experience with a FISDO jerk, all other times they have been very accommodating. Being prepared for the unexpected is what it is all about. At the end of a grueling all morning oral for my initial CFI, this FAA jerk made a comment that floored me. He had a reputation for bust’n all initial rides, so I was more than prepared for the oral and practical. His comment went something like this: “I could not find anything during the oral to bust you for, however the practical is still to come, so lets go flying after lunch”. Maybe I can find fault with your flying skills”. Man, I about died on the spot and could not believe what I just heard. After gaining my composure, I said “I don’t want a pink slip in the record, and I decline to fly with you with that attitude”. He proceeded the give the “I’m the FAA, and I’m God” speech and said I could not do that. I asked to see his supervisor, and I declined to discuss the matter with him any further. His supervisor came into the room and heard my side and his side. The super then took the jerk out of the room and was away for, what seemed like an hour, but it was probably only 5 minutes or less. The super came back into the room, closed the door, and apologized. He said he would reschedule the practical and personally fly with me. During the rescheduled practical, the super did all the work and I just sat there in amazement. It was the best check ride of all. Sometimes you have to stand up for what you believe is right, but you better know you stuff and what you can and can’t do. Don’t let the FAA intimidate you. Make sure your homework is complete.

 

[JAFI]

Let me rephrase my last post. With the number of hits on this thread there must be some intrest in what a 709 ride is. I hope Tach32 could say more than "all went well" and describe what "ride" he took. There are very few 709 rides compared to the number of certification events. Maybe his information would be of benefit to the readers.



How about it Tach, care to share your 709 experience with the group?

 

[TurboS7]

I was going to say that there is only one person that knows whether you are competent or not and that person is you. Review your procedures, review your numbers and go knock them dead. Turn your nervousness into aggressiveness. Sounds like you already did that--good job.

 

[logolight]

All the more reason to fight the FAA on matters like this. The FAA administers a 709 ride when they suspect pilot error involved in an incident/accident. The ones who claim no harm in a 709 ride are the ones who didn't have to take one or who's careers are not affected by it. I know two people who have taken the 709's over two years ago. For one, pilot error was in question. But both have had their carrers affected.

If you are only a general aviation pilot then I guess there's no harm in doing it if you feel you should. But some FAA findings are objectionable and you have a right to fight them if you feel you are being wrongly accused.

709 rides were not developed for mechanical failure beyond the pilot's control. Don't let the FAA or anyone tell you otherwise.

I don't mean to sound adamant here but refer to my first post and "Long Time Gone's" post above and you'll get the idea.

 

[bobbysamd]

609 (709) rides

The ones who claim no harm in a 709 ride are the ones who didn't have to take one or who's careers are not affected by it. I know two people who have taken the 709's over two years ago. For one, pilot error was in question. But both have had their carrers affected.

(emphasis added)

Their careers were affected because (1) they had to answer affirmatively application questions about being re-examined for ratings and (2) barring that, the 609 showing up in their FAA airman files. I submit the latter is enough to blight anyone's career. That is enough reason to go to the mat with the FAA on taking the ride.

I go back to my friend the FSS specialist's 609 killing her chances for an ASI job.