709s that aren't due to any violation or pilot deviation by the pilot...

[bflynn]

It looks to me like the statute does not require a violation to justify a reexamination or even a revocation.

Depending on the reason, they do it even if it isn't required.

 

[Salty]

One was a woman who was flying a photographer in a J-3 when she entered a stall/spin at low altitude and caused minor injuries and totaled the airplane. She was required to demonstrate stall recoveries and spin awareness, especially because it was a commercial flight. We did dozens of stalls and she passed the exam and was reinstated.

If living through a real life crash due to stall isn’t enough experience for you, how is practicing a bunch of fake ones going to be enough to do anything?

 

[MauleSkinner]

A friend had to do a 709 ride after a ground loop damaged his Cessna 180. But the FSDO did not have any inspector qualified to fly the 180. So, my boss gave the inspector tailwheel instruction before the 709 ride, and of course, my friend then passed.

I had a guy come to me for instruction in a Super Cub who had a “Not valid for Pilot In Command of Conventional gear Aircraft” Limitation on his certificate. Balled up his vintage taildragger before he was signed off to fly it, 709 ride didn’t go so well. I called the FSDO to figure out what needed to be done, and they said a DPE could remove the Limitation. Apparently nobody at the FSDO wanted to chance it.

 

[luvflyin]

I had a guy come to me for instruction in a Super Cub who had a “Not valid for Pilot In Command of Conventional gear Aircraft” Limitation on his certificate. Balled up his vintage taildragger before he was signed off to fly it, 709 ride didn’t go so well. I called the FSDO to figure out what needed to be done, and they said a DPE could remove the Limitation. Apparently nobody at the FSDO wanted to chance it.

So…. Was you braver than them? How’d he do?

 

[midlifeflyer]

I've heard of those incidents, but that's not the case here. The DPE wasn't found to have done anything wrong.

Not suggesting it was. Just an example of a recheck triggered by something that is not the applicant's fault.

 

[flyingron]

The FAA doesn't need the pilot to have "done something wrong" to trigger a 709 as you've found by the reg.

There are a few things around here that automatically trigger a 709: fuel starvation or gear problems, EVEN if it was already shown to be a non-pilot-involved mechanical failure. On the other hand, all the guys I know who did the ride, had a very easy time of it (other than nerves).

 

[donjohnston]

Didn’t the Steve-o guy have to do a 709 ride?

 

[MauleSkinner]

So…. Was you braver than them? How’d he do?

I flew with him a little bit, and had an examiner lined up, but we couldn’t get out schedules to align well enough for me to finish him up.

 

[Zeldman]

The FAA doesn't need the pilot to have "done something wrong" to trigger a 709 as you've found by the reg.

I seem to recall a incident in Alaska where a 207 stopped running on short final. The pilot landed safely and stopped approximately 15-20 feet short of the pavement.

Maintenance did not find a reason for the engine to quit, (CND) but the pilot had to do a ride with the feds. All the ride consisted of was one take off and one landing.

 

[Salty]

I seem to recall a incident in Alaska where a 207 stopped running on short final. The pilot landed safely and stopped approximately 15-20 feet short of the pavement.

Maintenance did not find a reason for the engine to quit, (CND) but the pilot had to do a ride with the feds. All the ride consisted of was one take off and one landing.

What a waste of time.

 

[Doc Holliday]

What a waste of time.

Yep. If it was true.

 

[Sundancer]

OK, so no examples. Got it.

And from the bottom of your referenced article Fred Simonds, CFII is not a lawyer, nor even a jailhouse lawyer. This article is informational. Seek professional advice as your circumstances dictate.

No, I think there are examples - I just didn't feel an urge to do your leg work. Try Google? AOPA has an article on a recent pilot/FAA dispute I believe, regarding a single low pass to determine a loctions suitability for landing.

 

[Palmpilot]

No, I think there are examples - I just didn't feel an urge to do your leg work. Try Google? AOPA has an article on a recent pilot/FAA dispute I believe, regarding a single low pass to determine a loctions suitability for landing.

"His" leg work? Are you saying that it's his responsibility to find data to support your assertion?

 

[Doc Holliday]

No, I think there are examples - I just didn't feel an urge to do your leg work. Try Google? AOPA has an article on a recent pilot/FAA dispute I believe, regarding a single low pass to determine a loctions suitability for landing.

You try to state there are examples, then when asked to produce you can't, you can only "think" there are. Got it.

Thanks for playing.

 

[Salty]

You try to state there are examples, then when asked to produce you can't, you can only "think" there are. Got it.

Thanks for playing.

It's also a fallacy to claim that because he isn't producing an example, that there is none.

 

[Sundancer]

You try to state there are examples, then when asked to produce you can't, you can only "think" there are. Got it.

Thanks for playing.

Well, not "Can't" - just don't care to. Clearly you have the skills to access the Internet. . .

 

[Lindberg]

No, I think there are examples - I just didn't feel an urge to do your leg work. Try Google? AOPA has an article on a recent pilot/FAA dispute I believe, regarding a single low pass to determine a loctions suitability for landing.

Using Trent Palmer (I assume) as your example is really proving Doc's point, I think.

 

[Doc Holliday]

Well, not "Can't" - just don't care to. Clearly you have the skills to access the Internet. . .

LOL.

 

[Sundancer]

Using Trent Palmer (I assume) as your example is really proving Doc's point, I think.

Did he have a point? Other than me not providing examples?

I do recall semi-recently the FAA attempting to hammer a low flyer (not Palmer) based on video - wrong guy, wrong airplane, details escape my memory, other than an FAA empoyee didn't letting facts sway him in the face of higher truths. My OP was the feds actions are justified, most of the time. But you need to be careful - there are, as in any org, loose cannons and pin heads. Even with the PBR the burden of proof is pretty light, and for some violations the action is over the top.