Student failed a 709 ride

Clocks said:
Besides 709's for CFIs when their student busts the same ride repeatedly, can anyone cite some real world examples of situations that lead to 709s? I've never heard any.
Click to expand...

Busted airspace, gear up landings and ground loops are the ones I've seen.
In all three cases I've given training to pilots training prior to their 709 rides and it highlighted some of my pet peeves.
1. CFIs not giving students real world training scenarios that prepare them for busy airspace. How many times have you read "get your PPL at a sleepy non-towered airport to save yourself time and money"? Well, the pilot who gets his training at a sleepy non-towered airport has serious issues when he decides to fly cross country as a private pilot to Phoenix. Granted, El Paso is in the middle of no where (it's not the end of the world but you can see the end of the world from here), and it's difficult to replicate busy areas such as Phoenix, Atlanta or Long Beach, but at least take them into Class C airports more than once. Make them find the FBO or some other business on the airport. Do it more than once.
2. Lame airplane checkouts. One guy taking a 709 ride did not even know how to use his GPS in his 210 beyond the "direct to" function, to include not being able to use the comm radio function. So instead of being able to use 4 frequencies he could only use 2. He could not load a flight plan, did not know how to use the nav function of his autopilot... I could go one.
His checklist use was horrible. Granted, his checklist was like many out there- difficult to use. But I think he was indicative of those who have gear up landings.
3. Quicky tail wheel check outs. Sorry, tail wheels are different. We've had two ground loops around here in the last two years. Guess what. Both were tail wheel airplanes so this does not seem to be a problem with trike airplanes. Also, consistent theme in these accidents of the pilots being given a quick tail wheel endorsement then being told not to fly without a CFI. Hmmm. If the person needs to fly with a CFI I would say they are not qualified to be a PIC in a tail wheel airplane. But that's just me.
 
Blackhawk said:
3. Quicky tail wheel check outs. Sorry, tail wheels are different. We've had two ground loops around here in the last two years. Guess what. Both were tail wheel airplanes so this does not seem to be a problem with trike airplanes. Also, consistent theme in these accidents of the pilots being given a quick tail wheel endorsement then being told not to fly without a CFI. Hmmm. If the person needs to fly with a CFI I would say they are not qualified to be a PIC in a tail wheel airplane. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a reason for a CFI 709 to me.
 
mojo6911 said:
I went through a situation with a student where he was ordered to surrender his instrument rating or take a 709. We talked it over and thought it was more prudent to surrender the certificate, take the written exam again, and get some training for a private checkride, that he could take with a DPE.

We kind of got the feeling the FSDO wanted blood.
Click to expand...

Something didn't track. If the FAA gave him the option of surrendering his instrument rating, he would still have had his private pilot certificate. At that point he would need to take his instrument knowledge test (written) and practical test (check ride) again to add the instrument rating back to his private pilot certificate.

I suspect the FSDO was trying to prevent blood.
 
PeterPilot said:
Something didn't track. If the FAA gave him the option of surrendering his instrument rating, he would still have had his private pilot certificate. At that point he would need to take his instrument knowledge test (written) and practical test (check ride) again to add the instrument rating back to his private pilot certificate.

I suspect the FSDO was trying to prevent blood.
Click to expand...

I mistyped. It should say instrument checkride, rather than private checkride. He was nervous about doing the checkride with the FSDO, and they made it very clear that if he didn't meet the standards on that day, then they would take action on his certificate.
 
Blackhawk said:
3. Quicky tail wheel check outs. Sorry, tail wheels are different. We've had two ground loops around here in the last two years. Guess what. Both were tail wheel airplanes so this does not seem to be a problem with trike airplanes. Also, consistent theme in these accidents of the pilots being given a quick tail wheel endorsement then being told not to fly without a CFI. Hmmm. If the person needs to fly with a CFI I would say they are not qualified to be a PIC in a tail wheel airplane. But that's just me.
Click to expand...

Hah...Let me tell you if you could ground loop a tric plane I would have bent up most of the fleet when I switched from the left to right seat. I side loaded the living crap out of those things.
 
shdw said:
Exactly, the incident in question occurred just after touchdown. I don't know if that is qualified as ground damage per this regulation.

But yes, ground damage doesn't require reporting. However, I believe they mean ground damage as in during taxiing.

For instance and this is based on my opinion not a certainty:

1) Ground Damage: Taxi and knock the wing off by hitting a hanger. No report as that is undoubtedly ground damage.

2) Not Ground Damage: Initiate a takeoff, get hit by a big gust of wind and drift sideways knocking your wing off on the wind sock poll. Likely nothing that would ever happen, but the aircraft is still on the ground yet I don't think this would count as ground damage since it was an act being taken for the purpose of flight.

3) Not Ground Damage: Any ground loop, such as the one in question, or anything else that happens from the point of touchdown till a complete stop. Granted they have landed but when people go off the end of a runway they are technically on the ground then too and still must report. I would think this falls under a similar category, since your are landing as part of a flight process it wouldn't be considered ground damage.

Does that help?

Does anyone have a definition for ground damage per this regulation? I checked part 1, part 830 definitions, the index, and faa.gov with no luck.
Click to expand...

You are seriously misunderstanding the definition of substantial damage in NTSB 830 by taking the phrase "ground damage" and putting it in the wrong context.

To paraphrase, NTSB 830 is saying that, among other things, "ground damage to rotor or propeller blades" does not constitute substantial damage. In other words, if you damage your prop through a ground strike (gear up landing, don't flare, etc), it is not substantial damage. The words "ground damage" only apply to "rotor or propeller blades", as evidenced by the use of commas to separate the phrase from the rest of the items listed in the definition. Essentially everything after the first sentence in the definition of "substantial damage" in NTSB 830 is intended to provide an exception to reporting a "routine" gear up landing scenario. My guess is the NTSB got tired of getting flooded by gear up reports.

I assure you, if you knock the wing off an airplane by hitting a hangar while taxiing, you have substantially damaged the airplane because it "adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft". The NTSB and the FAA don't differentiate whether the accident occurred as the result of a ground operation or flight operation. This is clearly mentioned in the definition of "accident", which specifies "an occurrance associated with the operation of an aircraft which takes place between the time any person boards the aircraft with the intention of flight and all such persons have disembarked..." That clearly includes taxi time.
 
Well, we just had another 210 from my airport do a gear up landing this weekend. That's 3 in about 6 months. Apparantly they got it into a hanger most ricky tick.
 
Blackhawk said:
Not sure of all the tail numbers, but I could probably look them up. One actually happened in CA, but the airplane was based here. The other two happened here.
Click to expand...

Was just curious if it was anyone of my cohort aircraft, as we got a request for one of our 210s to be sent to ELP just before I went on orders and came to Rucker, but I never knew the reason why. Was just wondering if there was a connection.
 
MikeD said:
Was just curious if it was anyone of my cohort aircraft, as we got a request for one of our 210s to be sent to ELP just before I went on orders and came to Rucker, but I never knew the reason why. Was just wondering if there was a connection.
Click to expand...

No, it was not them. I would have told you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top