709 ride for frayed seatbelts?!

Inverted

Inverted

mmmmmm wine
Had a co worker get ramped today. He was told that if the aircraft had so much as a frayed seat belt he would get a violation, and a 709 ride. That sounds ridiculous to me. How is that even justified and how the hell would a 709 ride be necessary?
 
Inverted said:
Had a co worker get ramped today. He was told that if the aircraft had so much as a frayed seat belt he would get a violation, and a 709 ride. That sounds ridiculous to me. How is that even justified and how the hell would a 709 ride be necessary?
Click to expand...


Commercial PTS preflight prep section?

I do agree that it's a bit ridiculous but I'm on airplane owners all the time for belts that are frayed or missing TSO tags... it's so easy for the FAA to violate you on that.
 
The pilot determines if the airplane is safe to fly...so if you get ramped checked after flying with a frayed seatbelt how could you complain about a 709 ride?
 
That is when you say you have a pressing engagement and don't have time for your silly ramp check.

Sent from my SPH-D700 using Tapatalk
 
trafficinsight said:
The aircraft no longer meets its certificated type design and hasn't been properly altered. It's unairworthy.
Click to expand...

Be that as it may, how does that warrant a 709 ride?

This aircraft didn't have frayed seatbelts, it was more the FAA inspector being a jerk and making threats to the pilot about a bunch of "what if's" and one of them was any fraying on any seatbelt will land a pilot violation and a 709 ride. It just sounds extreme to me.
 
Inverted said:
Be that as it may, how does that warrant a 709 ride?

This aircraft didn't have frayed seatbelts, it was more the FAA inspector being a jerk and making threats to the pilot about a bunch of "what if's" and one of them was any fraying on any seatbelt will land a pilot violation and a 709 ride. It just sounds extreme to me.
Click to expand...

Sounds like your buddy needs to get the guy's name, badge #, his FSDO and the name of the FSDO manager from the inspector.
 
One of the commercial PTS items is determining Airworthiness of the airplane

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
 
However, we're pilots, not mechanics.... not all mechanical deficiencies are immediately obviously to pilots (or explicitly written in some book)...

if he flies his own plane, he's only responsible for "ATOMATOFLAMES+FLAPS" ie 91.205 and 91.213(d)... where in there does it specify that the seatbelt has to display "TSO"? Where does it say that the amount of fraying must be no more than x millimeters? Where does it say that you have to look in a maintenance manual to determine it?

Sounds like a case of the sour grapes inspector, to me.
 
You know, if the guy didn't actually move the airplane, I'm not sure how the FAA can try to violate him on anything. Until the plane has moved, there is no flight and I have a hard time believing the can give you a 44709 ride for that.
 
cencal83406 said:
However, we're pilots, not mechanics.... not all mechanical deficiencies are immediately obviously to pilots (or explicitly written in some book)...

if he flies his own plane, he's only responsible for "ATOMATOFLAMES+FLAPS" ie 91.205 and 91.213(d)... where in there does it specify that the seatbelt has to display "TSO"? Where does it say that the amount of fraying must be no more than x millimeters? Where does it say that you have to look in a maintenance manual to determine it?

Sounds like a case of the sour grapes inspector, to me.
Click to expand...

You can argue it all you want, it is what it is. You, the pilot, are responsible for ensuring an aircraft is airworthy before committing lift in it. If you think you are only responsible for 91.205 you are unfortunately mistaken.

I agree. The inspector was probably having a bad day. But your requirements don't change.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
 
trafficinsight said:
You can argue it all you want, it is what it is. You, the pilot, are responsible for ensuring an aircraft is airworthy before committing lift in it. If you think you are only responsible for 91.205 you are unfortunately mistaken.

I agree. The inspector was probably having a bad day. But your requirements don't change.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
Click to expand...

Is that an "argument"?

Sure, you're responsible for determining an aircraft is airworthy... but there's reasonable and not so...

I had an FAA inspector ask me if I thought the tires on my aircraft were beyond limits... I said "no", and he said nothing further. They were bald as hell and showing chord...

but, lucky for me, had he pressed the issue, I could have shown him my book which allows chord as long as it's less than 1/8 circumference of the tire...

now to tell me that these guys can violate you on the spot is ridiculous... the inspector probably has NO IDEA what the wear limit on the seatbelt is.

Let me also add... had the pilot brought this up to an A&P, had the A&P inspect it, and the A&P signed it off, would he still be violable? I think not - because we're NOT mechanics. If you bring up an airworthiness issue and a FAA-certificated person signs it off, you have reasonable expectation that you have rectified/inspected any questionable items.
 
trafficinsight said:
You can argue it all you want, it is what it is. You, the pilot, are responsible for ensuring an aircraft is airworthy before committing lift in it. If you think you are only responsible for 91.205 you are unfortunately mistaken.

I agree. The inspector was probably having a bad day. But your requirements don't change.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
Click to expand...

PIC is only responsible for determining that the aircraft is "safe for flight." - per part 91.

The aircraft also can't be flown if it is not airworthy, but it would take an A&P to determine that. This is, after all, why we have 100 hours and annuals.
 
The FAA has the legal authority to perform a 44709 reexamination of anything for which they issue a certificate. That can be an airworthiness certificate, a repair station certificate, or a pilot certificate. However, while they have the legal authority to do so, their policy is to not perform a reexamination unless there is a question regarding the certificate holder's fitness to hold the certificate. More specifically, as relates to this matter, it is also the FAA's policy NOT to use a 44709 reexamination in lieu of an enforcement. A 44709 may accompany an enforcement, but it cannot be used as a punishment tool. So, if the inspector thought the aircraft was unairworthy, he could properly do a 44709 reexamination of the airworthiness certificate, but by policy, he could not do a reexamination of the pilot unless he also did an enforcement of the pilot.

Any inspector who follows through on the threat he made would be way off base. It just doesn't happen. Management wouldn't support his actions and he cannot do it without management approval. Also, any inspector who interfaces with people in a manner attributed to this inspector would also be way off base.

However, there are always two sides to every story. I would want to hear the words out of the inspector's mouth before I would believe that was what was said. Tales of encounters with the FAA have a mysterious way of becoming highly embellished in the retelling.

If the airman who states he was treated in such a manner wants to take positive action, he should contact FAA management. Personally, I would suggest writing to the Region level. You can find the address for the offices here. I would recommend writing to the Regional Administrator. Just present the facts and state that you feel that is an inappropriate manner for dealing with the public and would like to know if he supports that type of behavior.

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/arp/regional_offices/
 
drunkenbeagle said:
Unless there is a service manual or AD that specifies how many loose threads are acceptable, that is totally up to the A&P signing theal MX log book to determine.
Click to expand...

Actually if it comes down to the a&p (or pilot) vs. The inspector it's the inspector's call.

In the case of a seat belt there is no standard for acceptable damage, just a standard for strength. So if there is damage the only way to prove that it meets the standard is to test it. If the inspector says its not airworthy and you do, you'd better be willing to throw down... and it isn't going to win you friends at the fsdo.

Its easier just to replace the belt and apologize. Pick your battles.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
 
trafficinsight said:
Actually if it comes down to the a&p (or pilot) vs. The inspector it's the inspector's call.

In the case of a seat belt there is no standard for acceptable damage, just a standard for strength. So if there is damage the only way to prove that it meets the standard is to test it. If the inspector says its not airworthy and you do, you'd better be willing to throw down... and it isn't going to win you friends at the fsdo.

Its easier just to replace the belt and apologize. Pick your battles.

Sent from outer space using tapatalk!.... DRRROID!
Click to expand...

The problem here is you're allowing the FAA Inspector to have nearly unlimited power over you through lack of knowledge. The GA guy that asked me about our airplane tires? Well, on a GA airplane, your standards are different for tire wear... so, to have a guy try to pull the "certificate action" card to scare me would be a report from me to my POI/ASAP/FSR program and possibly his local FSDO. We can't allow FAA Inspectors to act like Gods just because they have the potential to violate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top