What is likely to happen (Post Accident) ?

[Clip4]

This isn't true. I've prepped people for 709 rides where there was no FAR violation. Crashing a plane is enough reason for a re-examination.

I would tend to agree with you if the facts were different. The year is 2025 and FAA staffing really isn’t sufficient for many 709s these days in most FSDOs. In this accident, the aircraft had an experimental airworthiness certificate, the aircraft was going through initial flight testing, no evidence is provided WX was a factor, no persons were injured and no property on the surface was damaged.

There are increased risks in the operation of experimental aircraft. If there weren’t, the FAA wouldn’t have enhanced flight testing and flight instruction restrictions in place for experimental aircraft..


A 709 ride is to confirm the pilot is qualified for certificates held. What prep would you provide a commercial certificated pilot / CFI-I for a 709 ride?

 

[MauleSkinner]

A 709 ride is to confirm the pilot is qualified for certificates held. What prep would you provide a commercial certificated pilot / CFI-I for a 709 ride?

Sounds like normal approach and landing, landing stalls, and/or go around procedures to me.

 

[midlifeflyer]

Mine was specifically called a “counseling session,” IIRC. So probably not 709. (Might’ve even been 609 at that time.)

Did you get a formal letter saying the FAA was investigating your competence under 49 USC §44709? If not, and it’s not ancient history, it wasn’t a 709 ride.

 

[midlifeflyer]

O

In my experience the cfi ticket is rarely irrelevant. Not even when you are sitting in the back seat going for a ride.

Ooh! Do you have a cite to that case? I’ve been looking for it for about three decades.

(Lest you think I’m joking, a quick search led me to this post from June, 2010:

I've been looking for documentation of the infamous "passenger in the bank seat who happened to be a CFI" for more than 10 years. Haven't seen it yet. I assume you have and can pass it on? Please do.

I think I’ve asked this just about every time I’ve seen that urban myth mentioned. Nope. No dice.

 

[Clip4]

Sounds like normal approach and landing, landing stalls, and/or go around procedures to me.

Interesting, because the lesson I would give would be under risk management / mitigation and ADM.

The pilot basically shouldn’t have been testing an experimental aircraft with a power plant he had no experience with - assuming the accident wasn’t caused by a defect in the aircraft he was testing to identify defects.

The decision to fly that aircraft was the first link in the chain of accident events, not the stuff you listed.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Interesting, because the lesson I would give would be under risk management / mitigation and ADM.

The pilot basically shouldn’t have been testing an experimental aircraft with a power plant he had no experience with - assuming the accident wasn’t caused by a defect in the aircraft he was testing to identify defects. -

Seems like that could be covered under the Risk Management elements for the maneuvers I listed.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

O

Ooh! Do you have a cite to that case? I’ve been looking for it for about three decades.

(Lest you think I’m joking, a quick search led me to this post from June, 2010:

I think I’ve asked this just about every time I’ve seen that urban myth mentioned. Nope. No dice.

There’s no record I can point you to that I’m aware of since it wasn’t an accident. However I did work with the cfi and it wasn’t a rumor. I guess he could have lied about it but not sure why he would have done so. Had a 709 or whatever it was called 26 years ago because his buddies up front got a brasher at a class c during surface ops. Our local fsdo took a dim view of him chilling in the back not speaking up. The 709 was in the fsdo office not the airplane.

I don’t think it’s a huge stretch to see how higher levels of certification come along with higher standards of accountability. Of course it’s very subjective and ultimately up to whoever is doing the investigation. While there are guidelines for inspectors there is also latitude regarding how they effect their regulatory enforcement.

 

[midlifeflyer]

However I did work with the cfi and it wasn’t a rumor

LOL! Sorry. Based on the number of people I’ve heard claim they knew someone who it happened to, I find the absence of any record of it actually happening makes it even more difficult to believe.

I’m not sure what “there wasn’t an accident” means. By far, most pilot deviation enforcement cases do not involve accidents. Over the course of all these years, not even one person ever challenged it?

Not that I wouldn’t expect the FAA to Look at the actions of every pilot in an aircraft after an in-flight deviation. PIC, safety pilot, crew, CFI, or passenger. They do.

FWIW, a copy and paste of the result of my research into this one. It’s already old, so I don’t know if the internal links need to be updated. The NTSB has changed them periodically.

==============================
There are a few NTSB reports in which the probable cause of an accident included the actions of a CFI/passenger. But in all of them, the CFI was doing a more than just being a passenger. They range from the unfortunate, like this one where the Passenger/CFI, faced with an engine failure. attempted to help (I'm reading this report in the worst way. The report doesn't really tell us whether the CFI was "merely" a passenger. Personally, I think the result would have been the same if the passenger were not a CFI, but just another rated pilot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15194&key=1

to the stupid, such as this one where the CFI "passenger" essentially talked another pilot into flying in marginal conditions with an inoperative artificial horizon and ended up sharing the blame for the accident..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

But the CFI in the back seat taking a nap and being held responsible for an accident? No hits.

Some might see these two (and the few others) as prime examples of the urban legend, but I think they illustrate two categories to be careful about.

In the first, taking action always involves the risk of being held for the consequences if you do it wrong. I'm not that thrilled with the idea, but I'm comfortable with accepting that level of responsibility. (Besides, despite the probable cause finding, I don't know whether there was any certificate action or civil legal action taken. There may not have been).

The other category is illustrative of a more general rule that if you act like a moron you're going to share the blame for what happens.

==============================

 

[Tarheelpilot]

LOL! Sorry. Based on the number of people I’ve heard claim they knew someone who it happened to, I find the absence of any record of it actually happening makes it even more difficult to believe.

I’m not sure what “there wasn’t an accident” means. By far, most pilot deviation enforcement cases do not involve accidents. Over the course of all these years, not even one person ever challenged it?

Not that I wouldn’t expect the FAA to Look at the actions of every pilot in an aircraft after an in-flight deviation. PIC, safety pilot, crew, CFI, or passenger. They do.

FWIW, a copy and paste of the result of my research into this one. It’s already old, so I don’t know if the internal links need to be updated. The NTSB has changed them periodically.

==============================
There are a few NTSB reports in which the probable cause of an accident included the actions of a CFI/passenger. But in all of them, the CFI was doing a more than just being a passenger. They range from the unfortunate, like this one where the Passenger/CFI, faced with an engine failure. attempted to help (I'm reading this report in the worst way. The report doesn't really tell us whether the CFI was "merely" a passenger. Personally, I think the result would have been the same if the passenger were not a CFI, but just another rated pilot.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15194&key=1

to the stupid, such as this one where the CFI "passenger" essentially talked another pilot into flying in marginal conditions with an inoperative artificial horizon and ended up sharing the blame for the accident..

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001208X05581&key=1

But the CFI in the back seat taking a nap and being held responsible for an accident? No hits.

Some might see these two (and the few others) as prime examples of the urban legend, but I think they illustrate two categories to be careful about.

In the first, taking action always involves the risk of being held for the consequences if you do it wrong. I'm not that thrilled with the idea, but I'm comfortable with accepting that level of responsibility. (Besides, despite the probable cause finding, I don't know whether there was any certificate action or civil legal action taken. There may not have been).

The other category is illustrative of a more general rule that if you act like a moron you're going to share the blame for what happens.

==============================

“there wasn’t an accident” means there was no accident I.e. I don’t think there is any way to find the event in any public record search. So the fact you can’t find any events where a cfi wasn’t at a crew position and was held to account in the investigation doesn’t mean anything.

Also. No. No one ever tried to challenge the 709. You ever met a CFI in their early twenties that would be willing to take the administrator to the legal mat? If you have, you’ve met an idiot.

 

[Gilbert Buettner]

A 709 ride is to confirm the pilot is qualified for certificates held. What prep would you provide a commercial certificated pilot / CFI-I for a 709 ride?

I had one a few years ago. The pilot of a J-3 Cub stalled and spun in at low altitude. It was a commercial flight - she had a photographer with her. Both had minor injuries, but the airplane was a total loss.

She came to me to prepare for the 709 ride. First, I had to get her checked out in a 172, as she had never flown one and that was what was available for her ride with the FAA. We flew quite a few times, doing stalls over and over again. Recoveries at first indication, from a full stall, power on and off, straight ahead and in turns, etc.

The Milwaukee FSDO wanted her to come there for the ride. She was terrified of the airspace. Her home base was in far northern Wisconsin, and all of her flying for many years was VFR with little contact with ATC. She managed to find a time when an inspector was going to do an airport inspection at Shawano, an uncontrolled field about 55 miles from where we were flying. At her request, I went along. The inspector was very cordial... I had expected it to be a short flight, but I recall it was about 45 minutes. When he came back into the FBO office, he said, "She did fine." When we finished paperwork and headed out to the airplane, she said, "You fly home. I am done with this airplane." The last I heard, she was looking to buy another J-3.

 

[Clip4]

I had one a few years ago. The pilot of a J-3 Cub stalled and spun in at low altitude. It was a commercial flight - she had a photographer with her. Both had minor injuries, but the airplane was a total loss.

She came to me to prepare for the 709 ride. First, I had to get her checked out in a 172, as she had never flown one and that was what was available for her ride with the FAA. We flew quite a few times, doing stalls over and over again. Recoveries at first indication, from a full stall, power on and off, straight ahead and in turns, etc.

The Milwaukee FSDO wanted her to come there for the ride. She was terrified of the airspace. Her home base was in far northern Wisconsin, and all of her flying for many years was VFR with little contact with ATC. She managed to find a time when an inspector was going to do an airport inspection at Shawano, an uncontrolled field about 55 miles from where we were flying. At her request, I went along. The inspector was very cordial... I had expected it to be a short flight, but I recall it was about 45 minutes. When he came back into the FBO office, he said, "She did fine." When we finished paperwork and headed out to the airplane, she said, "You fly home. I am done with this airplane." The last I heard, she was looking to buy another J-3.

Pre-DOGE, commercial flight, a certified aircraft, a paying passenger on board, pilot wasn’t a CFI, likely injuries from a stall spin accident (a miracle 2 souls weren’t killed) - the circumstances are not the same.

Everybody who is a CFI went through stall spin training, commercial pilots don’t. Besides the stall recognition and recovery training, the issue of handling realist distractions and preflight risk assessment mitigation should have been covered.

 

[Salty]

Before writing my accident report I did my own evaluation of my accident. Reviewed what mistakes I made and how I would avoid them in the future and included all that in my report. I believe this is a healthy way to respond in general and may have contributed to my only having one short conversation with the faa after the accident. Ymmv