Student failed a 709 ride
- Thread starter jikky54
- Start date
It actually appears like 20 days: http://frwebgate5.access.gpo.gov/cg...SdocID=239773306307+3+1+0&WAISaction=retrieve
I would read through this, it sounds like the burden of proof is on the administrator, "innocent until proven guilty" it seems. As for the procedure to file I am sure that is also located somewhere under part 821. In my opinion, consult an aviation attorney. This isn't something to handle lightly and if the certificate was taken, for how long? why? is there even grounds to appeal? what certificate level is this guy? why did he get the ride? The questions go on and on, an attorney would likely be the best bet to get this right, and do it quick. Good luck sir.
The inspector told him he has 30 days to retake the 709 ride, and if he passes, he gets his certificate back. So I don't think he needs to appeal yet. If he fails again, I still don't think he should appeal, because it seems like two 709 failures is more than enough to warrant revocation of a certificate.
Has anybody had a student fail a 709 ride? The inspector also told him that he can go through the private pilot checkride again and have his certificate reissued if he passes.
Has anybody had a student fail a 709 ride? The inspector also told him that he can go through the private pilot checkride again and have his certificate reissued if he passes.
CoffeeIcePapers
Well-Hung Member
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.
We kind of got the feeling the FSDO wanted blood.
ppragman
No pasa nada.
Accident, incident, violation.
Clocks
Well-Known Member
Thank you, that's perfect (and a good article!)
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Gear up landings, that weren't mechanical problems, is a big cause for 709 rides. Especially if you're a repeat offender.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
You're looking at the wrong rule. That's the appeal of the FAA's action suspending or revoking the certificate. Based on the post alone (I don't have anything to go on) that hasn't happened yet.
What you are looking for is Order 2150.3B - FAA Compliance and Enforcement Program: http://www.faa.gov/regulations_poli....cfm/go/document.information/documentID/17213
Specifically, Chap 5, Section 6 deals with 709 Rides, with paragraph 6(d) dealing with failures. Although not required to, the inspector will generally allow a second retest if the pilot voluntarily puts the certificate on deposit (they do't want to use word "surrender" which has a very specific meaning) pending the retest. If the pilot decides not to take the retest or fails it, the FAA will revoke the certificate.
Then the NTSB 20-day appeal rule comes into play.
Good advice although, unfortunately, there's not much room to maneuver in 709 ride cases
So since he gave him a chance to retake it he isn't at the appeal step yet, am I reading that right?
Any idea why this FAA guy didn't give him the chance to just redo his private pilot license, or whatever rating he is at, instead of redoing a 709 ride?
Thanks for clearing that up, that was all I could find on the 44709 ride on the database.
Here is likely what caused a report to be necessary:
This one is a bit tricky but here is how to read it from NTSB 830 in the FARs:
830.5 Immediate notification.
(a) An aircraft accident or any of the following listed incidents occur:
What we care about here is the word accident, so lets find out what that means:
830.2 Definitions.
Aircraft accident means an occurrence 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, and in which any person suffers death or serious injury, or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage.
A whole lot of hoopla right? But the key here is substantial damage, what does that mean? So lets find out:
830.2 Definitions.
Substantial Damage means damage or failure which adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and which would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component. Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage or rotor or propeller blade, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this part.
Note in here it mentions ground damage. I am unsure if this would qualify under ground damage, though I presume since it was just after a landing it would not. I believe by ground damage they refer to taxiing around and such.
There is one other section here that may have also required the report:
830.5 (a) (6) Damage to property, other than the aircraft, estimated to exceed 25,000 for repair (including materials and labor) or fair market value in the event of total loss, whichever is less.
I don't know what a PAPI system costs to replace but I would assume it isn't cheap. Either way, the substantial damage portion of NTSB 830 seems as though it would require a report. Just my opinion of course, but I know I would have reported it.
Tip to everyone: make sure you are familiar with this part and have your students become familiar with this section of the FARs. I have noticed many students don't even know it exists, it is an important section.
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
MidlifeFlyer
Well-Known Member
Pretty much. There's supposed to be a reason that the FAA is questioning your pilot credentials, but there's a pretty broad range of things that can trigger one. It doesn't have to be an FAR violation or a reportable incident in NTSB 830 terms.
The guy in the article groundlooped. The wrong people saw it. The FAA decided to test his pilot qualifications "with special emphasis on taildragger techniques."
I'd take a WAG that a good number of 709 rides involve involve takeoffs and landings - both tailwheel and gear-ups. I even know of one that involved a hard landing.
Bernoulli Fan
Controller
Note that ground damage does not require a report as it is not substantial damage. Good to familiarize students, though. :laff:
I said that on the very next line.
shdw said:
I don't know if crashing from a ground loop is just considered ground damage though. It would seem to me that it is part of a landing and thus flight damage. I couldn't find a definition that expresses that one way or another for what they mean by "ground damage," maybe someone else here has one?
Bernoulli Fan
Controller
I said that on the very next line.
Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but it appears you are saying that the incident in question may not involve ground damage.
What I am saying is, whether it involved ground damage or not, ground damage does not require a report.
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.