Cross-Country Definition

[poadeleted20]

There is more to the job or guidance than is written in the 8700.1 order. How about testimonials from the instructors who have received such letters, and RC's who have supported the action?

What I'd really like to see is a Chief Counsel interpretation or an NTSB Opinion/Order on the subject, but if they list the specifics of what the instructors did/did not do, and the regulations and case law supporting the position, I'd settle for the letters themselves. A second hand "testimonial" about the contents of a letter they don't share is nothing but hearsay.

It is a big world out there and because you can't find it, doesn't mean that it isn't so.

Perhaps so, but if it isn't written down, it didn't happen, and that includes unsupported statements about policies that don't seem to be in writing.

BTW, there seem to be two positions of yours up for discussion here:

1. If a Student Pilot lands at an airport other than where he intended to go, it's an automatic 709 ride for the student's instructor -- and would that be the one who endorsed the student for Solo XC or the one who signed off on the flight planning for that trip?
2. A faxed endorsement pasted into a logbook is unacceptable.

I'd like to see documentation on both.

 

[KennyFlys]

BooBoo,

I'm confused why you won't just reveal the exact information. Or, indicate to a single party what FSDO or other office you'r with. I have my questions as well with so few posts and so little time on the board. I've seen you in the chat room a few times. But, there's really nothing to back up what you claim. I could have posted just as much with a little research. I did so when I was researching my own 709 ride a couple years ago.

So, why not let a board manager have your name and simply look up that name on the employee list for that FSDO or whatever office it is... all available on the FAA site?

 

[midlifeflyer]

Before you start spouting off about what I can and can not do, why don't you read what Congress, in the form of Federal Law says on the subject.

Does that mean that there is no discretion, of course not, but to say there is no basis for questioning a flight instructors competence "in the guidance" which encompasses a wee bit more than just the 8700.1 order by the way, is naive at best.

Before you start spouting off more unsupported statements, perhaps you can find where I suggested for a moment that there was "no basis" for questioning a CFI's competence if a student got lost on a solo cross country.

I know that there is an enormous amount of discretion associated with requiring a 709 ride. Of course, the job of the inspector is to only use that authority "when facts reasonably indicate that a certificate holder may not be qualified to hold a certificate." Fortunately, most FAA inspectors will take that standard seriously and look at the overall event before taking that step. Of course, there are always a few bad apples who seem to get off on a power trip by abusing their authority. Unfortunately, short of convincing their superiors that the bad apples are just that, there is no effective way to combat them since the only way to challenge a 709 ride is to refuse and face the potential of an emergency certifciate suspension order.

 

[poadeleted20]

We can go back and forth about whether Boo-Boo really said or did not say that a single case of a Student getting lost is "usually always" grounds to 709 the instructor, and whether such action would be legitimate. Personally, I think that it would take a lot more than that to justify a 709 ride, but as noted, that's largely a discretionary action, although I'd like to hear of a case where it happened as Boo-Boo suggested in his earlier post:

There is usually not a problem with anyone, (student or airline pilot) landing at a nonplanned airport due to an inflight problem or weather. There is usually always a problem for either the student or airline pilot departing that airport without redispatch or re-endorsement.

The preflight planning for the original crosscountry is suspect if the flight could not be completed as planned.

However, I'm still waiting for Boo-Boo to point to the Chief Counsel interpretation or NTSB Opinion/Order on the faxed endorsement question, which is clearly an issue of legal interpretation of the regulations, a task reserved to the Chief Counsel's office, not an individual FSDO Inspector or even a Regional Counsel.

At least one "district" will not reconignize a faxed student endorsement under any circumstances. That "policy" has the full support of the Regional Council(sic).

I'm also waiting to hear which FSDO has that "policy" and which Regional Counsel supports it.

 

[midlifeflyer]

...and all that because we had the temerity to ask for a reference for what he said was stated policy. Ron wanted an FAA Legal opinion or NTSB dceision, but heck, all I was looking for was

Which district and do you have a reference to anything in writing, official or unofficial, coming out of either the FSDO or the Regional Counsel's office?

Anybody else remember the Buffalo FSDO with the view that a student solo cross country had to have legs >50 NM? At least they had the decency to make it public so people could call them on it.

Of course, it's so much easier to have a secret policy that no one except you knows about and to accuse people of all sorts of nasty intentions if they ask you about it and.... oops! Sorry. I forgot. No politics allowed.