What is the fate for this instructor

Probably neither.

More likely a 709 ride with the local FSDO
 
Concur with Jeff. Client of mine got a 709 last year over a landing which ended up with blown main tires and wheel/brake damage. FAA Inspectors giving the ride (yes, two of them -- one checking the other checking my client) said any time you have an accident or damaged aircraft incident about which the FAA hears, you will get a 709 ride regardless of how legal you were. Since the linked accident report does not have any hint of a violation of the regs, a 709 ride for the instructor is the most likely consequence.
 
Tough to tell as FSDOs are all different even though the word "Standards" is in the name.
As for a 709 rode for any damaged aircraft I know that is not the case even for a CFI. It again depends on the circumstances and the FSDO.
 
A 709 ride and a flight physical to ensure nothing medically wrong.
 
frfly172 said:
A 709 ride and a flight physical to ensure nothing medically wrong.
Click to expand...
I've never heard of a medical exam (other than a routine BAC check/tox screen) being ordered unless there was evidence of a medical problem involved in the event.
 
In the old days you got a physical along with the ride.
 
The reason I ask the question is because he was trying to land in X-wind far beyond the demonstrated limit of the aircraft.

Reported winds where 360 @26 G35 and they where landing 30, by my reckoning that puts them way over the 15kt for the 172.

Winds had been bad all day, so its not like they could have been surprised by it.
 
Ron Levy said:
Concur with Jeff. Client of mine got a 709 last year over a landing which ended up with blown main tires and wheel/brake damage. FAA Inspectors giving the ride (yes, two of them -- one checking the other checking my client) said any time you have an accident or damaged aircraft incident about which the FAA hears, you will get a 709 ride regardless of how legal you were. Since the linked accident report does not have any hint of a violation of the regs, a 709 ride for the instructor is the most likely consequence.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's universally true. I've blown a tire in the middle of Airventure and sat out on the grass next to the taxiway changing it without attention of anybody (other than Cy Galley). When I had my engine failure and ended up off the side of the runway at OKV, it was reported to the FAA, they were wholly uninterested.

Now I have heard that at least in the DC/BAL FSDOs there are certain things (gear ups, fuel exhaustion) that guarantee a 709 ride no matter what explanation is given. Of course, we know the FAA doesn't even need to give a reason to issue one of these rides.
 
ferrari-tech said:
The reason I ask the question is because he was trying to land in X-wind far beyond the demonstrated limit of the aircraft.
Click to expand...
A Cessna 172 has no crosswind limit in Section 2 Limitations, only a maximum demonstrated crosswind in Section 1 General. As such, landing in a stronger crosswind is not a violation per se, although it might be considered careless/reckless if the crosswind was strong enough.

Reported winds where 360 @26 G35 and they where landing 30, by my reckoning that puts them way over the 15kt for the 172.
Click to expand...
Not by much -- my computation of the crosswind component is 13G18, and that's barely over the max demonstrated crosswind on the gusts, and not on the steady state. I don't see an enforcement action on this one.
 
Demonstrated crosswind is not a limitation.

And it doesn't seem to be the problem.

From the preliminary report:

Tower reported:
The air traffic controller heard the engine sounds increase as the airplane turned 90 degrees left.
Click to expand...

The CFI (flying) reported:
The airplane drifted left of runway centerline and the CFI added power in an attempt to crab into the wind and avoid the air traffic control tower. The airplane continued to drift left and collided with power transmission lines.
Click to expand...

Either someone reported wrong, or the CFI turned the wrong way. It's also the wrong way for weathervaning with one wheel on the ground.

That is, unless he screwed up and landed on the wrong wheel. That would explain the 90 deg turn, wouldn't it?
 
ferrari-tech said:
What happens to the instructor in a case like this ?


http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=162895

Does the FAA suspend or revoke his CFI license or all his pilot privileges.

Glad they both walked away, sounds pretty scary on the ATC live archive
Click to expand...
A more interesting question is who was the PIC, since the non-CFI was a private pilot? Remember, a CFI doesn't even need a medical, so let's say this one didn't and therefore couldn't 'legally' be PIC. Would the non-flying private guy get the 709 ride? Neither? Both?

dtuuri
 
flyingron said:
I don't think that's universally true. I've blown a tire in the middle of Airventure and sat out on the grass next to the taxiway changing it without attention of anybody (other than Cy Galley). When I had my engine failure and ended up off the side of the runway at OKV, it was reported to the FAA, they were wholly uninterested.

Now I have heard that at least in the DC/BAL FSDOs there are certain things (gear ups, fuel exhaustion) that guarantee a 709 ride no matter what explanation is given. Of course, we know the FAA doesn't even need to give a reason to issue one of these rides.
Click to expand...

On my forced landing, totaling the aircraft, neither myself, nor my instructor had any enforcement action whatsoever. That was an off airport, damages totaling the aircraft accident. FSDO and NTSB took reports, issued there reports and went on their merry way.
 
wind at 360 @26 G30 with a runway heading of 300 gives considerably more than 13kt crosswind component, closer to 24kts by my calculation.

granted the demonstrated capability is not a limit, if the pilot believes he can demonstrate it better than the original test pilots

Chester
 
dtuuri said:
A more interesting question is who was the PIC, since the non-CFI was a private pilot? Remember, a CFI doesn't even need a medical, so let's say this one didn't and therefore couldn't 'legally' be PIC. Would the non-flying private guy get the 709 ride? Neither? Both?
Click to expand...
The FAA normally starts with the instructor and goes from there depending on the story the two pilots tell. But even if the trainee ends up getting hammered for lack of skill/judgment, the CFI will get hammered for failing to control the situation unless the CFI can show that the trainee did something so unpredictable so fast that the instructor couldn't stop it from happening (there is case law on that point).
 
Last edited:
Blackhawk said:
Tough to tell as FSDOs are all different even though the word "Standards" is in the name.
As for a 709 rode for any damaged aircraft I know that is not the case even for a CFI. It again depends on the circumstances and the FSDO.
Click to expand...

flyingron said:
I don't think that's universally true. I've blown a tire in the middle of Airventure and sat out on the grass next to the taxiway changing it without attention of anybody (other than Cy Galley). When I had my engine failure and ended up off the side of the runway at OKV, it was reported to the FAA, they were wholly uninterested.

Now I have heard that at least in the DC/BAL FSDOs there are certain things (gear ups, fuel exhaustion) that guarantee a 709 ride no matter what explanation is given. Of course, we know the FAA doesn't even need to give a reason to issue one of these rides.
Click to expand...

Aztec Driver said:
On my forced landing, totaling the aircraft, neither myself, nor my instructor had any enforcement action whatsoever. That was an off airport, damages totaling the aircraft accident. FSDO and NTSB took reports, issued there reports and went on their merry way.
Click to expand...

The 44709 re evaluation is up to the investigating Inspector to initiate if he sees a need.
 
chester2005 said:
wind at 360 @26 G30 with a runway heading of 300 gives considerably more than 13kt crosswind component, closer to 24kts by my calculation.

granted the demonstrated capability is not a limit, if the pilot believes he can demonstrate it better than the original test pilots

Chester
Click to expand...


That's what I came up with as well. 160hp 172, with (xx) flaps down in that wind makes a go around a challenge I would imagine.

I also agree that the demonstrated X-wind landing is not written in stone as it were, but as one of my instructor friends told me " you can land in anything you want, but the trick is to make sure you land"
 
chester2005 said:
wind at 360 @26 G30 with a runway heading of 300 gives considerably more than 13kt crosswind component, closer to 24kts by my calculation.
Click to expand...
Correct. I was thinking 30-off, not 60-off.

granted the demonstrated capability is not a limit, if the pilot believes he can demonstrate it better than the original test pilots
Click to expand...
The original test pilots don't fly to the max they can accomplish, just enough to satisfy the FAA requirement (at least 20% of Vs0) and the marketing folks. Beyond that, there's no incentive to spend the money on further testing. Generally speaking, I've found most certified production light singles can be landed in a lot more than the book number crosswind, often nearly twice that number.

Of course, that's going to take a lot more than average skill (and we all know that 100% of pilots you ask are convinced they have above average skill), and gusty conditions make it harder still. Further, there is no small portion of the pilot population for whom even the book crosswind number is more than they can handle (whether they will admit that or not). My experience as an instructor is that most of the time, the airplane can handle more than the pilot can. The problem, then, is what Clint "Inspector Callahan" Eastwood said (more or less) in Magnum Force: "A pilot's got to know his (or her) limitations." And therein lies the rub.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top