Anyone had a 709 (used to be 609) FAA check ride lately??

[Alex Clark]

If so let me know about your experience on a PM or on this. I have something going on right now with the feds, but since I use my real name on this site I will not discuss it right now.
That has bite me a couple of times....

[Clay Hammond]

I did a 709 ride about a year and a half ago down here in Georgia. The ride had to be in a taildragger due to the fact that I nosed over an experimental Supercub to earn the honor of flying with the feds. Had fun with them trying to find an examiner who was tailwheel qual'ed, took about four tries before they found somebody. Did the ride in my dad's J-3, minimum three T/O's and Landings to a full stop. My choice of landing configuration, but I had to demonstrate both 3-point and wheel techniques. Did the three landings, then the examinier asked if he could take it around. Be my guest I said. All in all, it was a piece of cake. After we finished, the examiner asked if I would be interested in giving dual and endorsements to him and his colleagues. I politely declined... :lol:

[Steve Pierce]

:evil:

[Alex Clark]

It will be interesting to see what happens with mine. So far it looks like I will have to do the commercial and CFI stuff, plus teach a CFI ground lesson relative to tail-wheel operations.
All this because one of my buddies/student ground looped his plane into the ditch.

And get this... I was covered under his insurance policy as a named pilot to give him instruction. The same company I have for my plane. Now his / my insurance company wants to know if I have any business assests they can take (sue me for) to defray their loss. They can sue themselves in that case, I would win in any court as long as it was a judge hearing and not a jury of idiots who think planes are bad...

If that is their stance, I can't see paying for insurance.

[PA12driver]

Alex,

good luck buddy! What you describe is the very reason I don't have my CFI! I personally have had it with the Feds, and have sold my airplane. I have not been without a plane since 1975 and I expect it will take me a few years to get back in the air. It will be with an experimental ("homebuilt cub")

Sure do miss the Halibut Fishing in Homer, Say Hi to Pete at Red Fox Charters if he still is there?

Tim

[bob turner]

Some of this checkride stuff got tacked on to the end of that interesting thread about logbooks and IAs.

This is intriguing, because I have never run into this sort of thing. The post on the IA thread suggested that broken landing gear, and no other damage, was enough to generate an FAA checkride. And I have had a couple of students screw up worse than that, not to mention the tailwheels that have shimmied off the back end of a couple of airplanes that I was in.

Is this all new stuff? Is it possible that they have more time, now that those pesky field approvals are not being done?

[T.J.]

Anything can generate a check ride. Its up to the feds, their call. If they don't like the color of your plane, or how you handled your last landing, they can call for a check ride.
Good luck Alex. PM on the way.

[mvivion]

Fifty percent of the accidents in Alaska last year involved some form of loss of control on the ground.

The FAA and your friendly local Medallion Foundation are harping pretty hard right now on ANY ground handling incidents/accidents. If you have one, plan on a 709 ride, at least if you are in Alaska.

MTV

[Alex Clark]

I have managed to talk to the FAA examiner once out of 5 calls and once to somebody else who answered the phone. He appears to be a good guy who is being buried in an unrealistic work load by the FAA.
Unfortunately, this waiting on wheels has also cost me 5 months of house payments so far in lost customers. Who knows how much in future customers.

I was going to Oskosh to help with some CAP cadets in a flight program in August. But now I have cancelled that as well since I am in aviation limbo living one day at a time.

[T.J.]

Hey Alex:
Does Fred Meyers in Soldotna hire Greeters? :angel: Maybe you and I can get a job doing that and stop this plane crap.

[cubflyer18]

Let's see. My CFIAISMELH runs out in July. A guy's pestering me to sell my SC. You guys are convincing me I've made the right decision to exit gracefully.

[Cubus Maximus]

Or you and TJ could become guides on the Kenai... :D

[Hyrdflyr]

No wonder they're busy. I had a stuck valve occur at cruise on an 0-320 just lately and was monitoring the approach/departure frequency for a large airport traffic area. They were calling me as traffic to incoming aircraft and when the valve started hammering, (actually sounded like a rod let loose), I informed approach that I was making a precautionary landing at the strip below me.

No emergency declaration, no panic, just a precautionary landing. Well, I had no sooner gotten on the ground and taxied over to tie downs after notifiying approach that all was well, thank you very much, than the Tower was on the phone wanting to know the nature of my "emergency", etc etc. Not much longer after that I was called by the FSDO and asked for a report. I asked " how come? no accident, no emergency, just a precautionary landing?" I was told that they were investigating my "occurance".

Over the next week communication requests increased until I met with the inspector assigned to the "occurance" at the FSDO with all the AC logs etc, at which time the review was completed, thanks all around, etc. Turns out that due to the pressure of workload for the staff etc, all my engine problem "occurance" was investigated by an avionics inspector. Nice guy and all that, but damn, don't they have anything better to do?

I am developing a "lousy attitude"

Not too long ago, I was running back and forth across Prince William sound in a C-185 regularly, floats in the summer and wheels in the winter. One trip I utterly, completely, blew the cancellation of my flight plan. Just flat forgot the sucker. I had always been religious in my filing and closing and sticking to the itinerary as it were; it's Alaska for crying out loud and BIG country.... Well, the NEXT afternoon, I was contacted by the FSS by phone who chided me for not closing. I took it well and humbly, but before the call was over, got mad. " Wait, I was wrong, yes I was wrong, but tell me, its 24 hours later and you are just now starting a call check? How long can YOU tread water in 47degree water temps?

FSS response: " We've been really busy".

I now file with dependable friends, give them my written aircraft info and route and fuel, and ask them to call the Alaska State Troopers if I do not arrive in time. I know ASTs will get things rolling.

I carry a sat phone, floatation, survival gear and rely on myself and my friends.

I get my weather from the internet and friends who will look out the window for me. I know I cannot rely on a FSS that is closed or an AWOS that looks straight up and gets it's visibility report from two probes 10 feet apart.

I let my CFI expire, and will NEVER go for my IA.

I consider myself one of the "good" guys, 25 years commercial bush, AK, and 135 experience, no wrecks, no incidents, but a really lousy attitude, and now I'm gonna quit talking on the radio too unless absolutley necessary for traffic or towers or on 122.75.

Hyrdflyr

[Alex Clark]

Since I used to work for the State of AK, I think I know what is happening with the Feds.. They have 35 supervisors and three folks who actually have to go out and do the work.
The guy I have been trying to re-contact sounds like a one man band. Unfortunately, since I used to be in the same boat, I know that can give you a case of the ass.....
Especially when everyone is crawling up your leg for attention.


The bad thing about all of this is that my buddy-client-student, who dinged his plane is now looking at another larger and more complicated plane. Jeez the guy could not solo the one he had, you would think he would have learned. I would like to have an SR-71, but that does not mean I would be any good at landing it in seldovia.

[Hyrdflyr]

Hi Alex,

All the instruction in the world won't make up for attitude or a lack of ability. I was in LA instructing once long ago while I was training for my FE. We were training 3d world pilots, predominately the spoiled rotten sons of middle eastern airline pilots, as in not El Al either. These guys weren't terrorists, or even would-be terrorists, just asolutely incompetent, no clue, don't give a darn, would-be, students that had signed up for a full student to ATP $25,000 training course. With maybe 50 active students and a dozen aircraft, about half the fleet was in the shop for major repairs at any time, gear, props, engines, wings, you name it.

I wouldn't put one of them in a car if it were up to me. In my short career there, about a month, I sucessfully evaded having to recommend any of them for a check ride.... whenever I hear about some heavy pranging off the active in Karachi or New Delhi, careening through the concourse, bursting into flame and incinerating lots of folks, I think back to my days in LA at the FAA santioned "flight School". Hm,, must have been Saidi, or was it Abdul, who went to work at Air India...

Heck, everytime I go to MRI lately, they're hauling one off the median, last saturday it was a groundlooped C- 170, nice day, 3-5 variable, prop, wing, right gearbox ripped out; two weeks ago, there was a 185 flat on its back right in front of ACE fuels. Someone claimed that he got caught by a sudden gust on the tail while landing, although it seemed light and variable to me then also, both before and after.

So what? Are these guys only competent to be a pilot in perfect conditions? The feds won't weed them out, as instructors we only get them when they are trying their hardest and on their best behavior, so to speak, and we don't make them or break them, we only recommend them for a check ride.

Is your buddies Designated Examiner taking a check ride with you? It was after all, his determination that your student was competent and safe.

I doubt it. If he wasn't in tight with the feds he wouldn't have got the job in the first place.

It's likely the student needs another look, and the DE also. What is the rational for picking on the instructor?

I think the insurance companies will, in the end, set the limits.

Hyrdflyr

[T.J.]

Cubus:
Na, won't work. I tried being a big game guide long time ago, I didn't last. Couldn't put up with the BS from the customers
Hydrflyr:
I think from your comments, you may be a good candidate for a "Greeter" job. Alex and I are gonna check with Fred Meyers in Soldotna and see if they need any. We can put in a good word for you if you want? Minimun wage I think, but all you have to do is show up with your dinner bucket and go to work.
The Soldotna airport has a real nice spot on the east end where they allow model airplane flying. We could go there on our days off, drink beer and fly them little bitty balsa wood planes. I don't think the feds have much control over them, yet. :angel:

[Alex Clark]

I tried calling the fed guy again and no answer. It turns out that the third e-mail address I had for him, (the one from the gal who anwered his phone at his office) was really for another fed soemwhere else in the US. So I am still in FAA limbo. I bet if I put my cub on floats they would want me to do the checvk ride the next day....

And I was just getting used to drinking premium beer. Man I don't want to go back to law dawgin, 20 years of that was enough.....
Maybe I could do the garden section of Freddy's. Naw, too much heavy lifting....
Alex
http://www.acsalaska.net/~aclark/

[mvivion]

Okay, sorry, but I've got to jump in here. First, for perspective, I had a 709 ride not that long ago. At the end of the ride, the FAA Inspector thanked me for being patient and willing to cooperate. I thanked him for teaching me something. And-he did.

I've said from day one that every time you ride with another pilot, there are valuable lessons to be learned. That can go both ways of course, but in my case, I had the opportunity to fly with a guy with a LOT of experience, and it was a very positive experience for me. And I learned a few things. He also reminded me of a few things that had sorta faded into the recesses. It was a good experience.

Hydrflyr: Take a clue--the tailwheel endorsement does not require the concurrence of a DPE. The CFI signs that one off, all by his or her lonesome. If something bad happens right after, why wouldn't the "authorities" come visit Mr. or Ms. CFI?

A flight instructor certificate (note that its a separate certificate, NOT just an add on to your basic certificate) is a license to convey knowledge and impart skills. One of the reasons that people come to flight instructors is to learn to fly more competently, more skillfully, and more thoughtfully. It is our job as flight instructors to try to fulfill those promises.

If one of our students fails in any way, it reflects on what and how we taught them, right, wrong or indifferent. If I taught a person to do things one way, and they did it some other way, is that my fault? Probably, simply because I didn't succeed in convincing them that my way was better, and safer.

Most of what I'm seeing on this thread is whining, except if you really can't schedule a ride with the FAA. If not, I'd start climbing that ladder, and tell them you really value their input, and just can't wait to get it.

Just suck it up, take the ride, learn something from it, and get on with life. If they can't give you someone to do a ride with shortly, ask them if you can do it with a DPE. If they require a 709 ride, they are also required to make it happen.

But, don't whine to me about how your ex student screwed up. A lot of them do, and if I was their instructor, that reflects on me and my instructional skills. I need to fix that, and no amount of whining will help with that.

Bottom line: If the guy didn't demonstrate the skills adequately to you, why is your name in his logbook?

Forgive me for being harsh here, but I think it's really important that we all take responsibility for what we do in aviation, and that includes me especially.

So, I'll sign this slightly more humble, but a better pilot:

Mike Vivion
Chairman
Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation

AKA: MTV

[Hyrdflyr]

Well Mike, I am resisting the impulse to get all het up here, but if you will take a clue yourself, I'll put forth a couple of assumptions we maybe both made about half of which will inevitably be incorrect. You obviously assumed this was a primary student with a tailwheel endorsement from Alex.

In reading Alex's first posts, I came to the assumption that this was not necessarily a primary student, due to the fact that Alex was facing a commercial instruction check as well as his CFI abilities. I guess neither of us knows that yet, do we? Under that possibly mistaken assumption, it's likely that the "student" was working on his commercial having having gotten his PP in a tailwheel aircraft, again having taken a checkride from a Pilot examiner. Lots of folks here in Alaska do, last I heard. In aviation, we remain "students" forever as we move into different aircraft and capacities in the business.

Humbly, I will read a little slower and be a bit more contemplative prior to posting.

But I sure as heck stand pat on the rest of my post... but given your position I can respect where you're coming from, though calling someone who is in somewhat of a bind a whiner for voicing some rightful frustration is maybe a little uncaring as I see it.

Maybe, with your contacts, you could see if there might be a little daylight on the ANC FSDO manpower end for a fellow cubber who needs a little help?

That said, lets move on..

Hyrdflyr

[mvivion]

Hyrdflyr,

I don't make any assumptions regarding what Alex's student was working on. He was flying with the person, and that involves endorsements of logbooks, hopefully.

I'm not casting stones at Alex, either, but rather trying to remind folks that one of the reasons pilots hire a CFI is to help protect them from disaster. If they subsequently get in trouble, part of the blame rests with us, the CFIs. And, as I noted, that includes me.

Nobody is perfect, least of all me.

So, maybe I was a little harsh, and if so, I apologize.

But, I'll say again, as in my first post: A few phone calls to the FAA, emphasizing that he is ready and willing to take that ride, and if they don't have time, how about doing it with a DPE, might help speed things along.

Hopefully, it will all come out for the best, and Alex can put it in his book of been there done that, and move on.

MTV

[SJ]

But, I'll say again, as in my first post: A few phone calls to the FAA, emphasizing that he is ready and willing to take that ride, and if they don't have time, how about doing it with a DPE, might help speed things along.


We use this a lot around here for rides normally left to the FAA, such as the CFI, etc. In the summer, they can get way too busy and have I believe a 2 week window where if they can't do a ride in two weeks, you can be assigned to a DPE.

Developing a good relationship with the FAA is not rocket science. I do it largely by being involved in their safety programs and other things that THEY see as a priority. The safety program is where all the funding cuts are going to be (except of course, "Runway Incursions" which still get the lion's share of the budget) again. There is a meeting sheduled here next week at the FSDO for ASC's I suspect telling us how it is going to be up to us to continue any form of safety program.

sj

[Christina Young]

Wow. Reading this thread and one thing comes to my mind! Over-regulation and micromanagement! When you have a lot of good people who would make great CFI's or A&P/AI's leaving or not doing it because of the extreme professional risk and hassles with the FAA, there is something wrong. Seems to me that this is ultimately compromising safety, not enhancing it.

Maybe it is time for a major FAA overhaul, and an in-depth examination of what it's mission and authority should be. A lot of what it does is probably unconstitutional anyway.

[mvivion]

Christina,

I'd hesitate to suggest that without knowing all the facts in the case. Not to suggest the FAA shouldn't be re-organized. Understand, though, that the FAA HAS been re-organized a number of times, and there is the FAA and the FAA, as in many different offices.

In any case, my experience was quite different from what Alex appears to be faced with.

But I can tell you that if you have an accident or one of your students or ex students has an accident, in Alaska, involving loss of control on the surface, you will probably get a visit from your friendly local FAA.

MTV

[Alex Clark]

Chairman Mike,
I do not have a problem taking a check ride. (I said that)...
Nor do I have a problem with the inspector (whom I have not yet met) since it would appear that he is buried under a mountain of work. (I said that too.)....

I started this thread to ask about other folks experiences. Some of them (in PMs) have not been good, some have. I have not heard any from you yet.

I am somewhat annoyed that what was a priority situation one month ago (I was told to be ready by the end of that week) , has now turned into no return calls, no mail, just wait..,,, It makes planning and income gathering rather difficult.

I am also aware of how the system works or doesn't. I spent 20 years dealing within the State and 28 years with dealing with the military's lack of mental flexibility.

I also know what will happen if I push buttons to make it happen. Folks with titles and positions tend to get puffy chested when they get pushed or questioned. I used to...
But , that was back when I used to end my e-mails with my position title.

[Christina Young]

But I can tell you that if you have an accident or one of your students or ex students has an accident, in Alaska, involving loss of control on the surface, you will probably get a visit from your friendly local FAA.



That's what I mean. That is simply wrong. Where does the liability end?

If someone has an accident on the road driving a car, do the cops hunt down his driving instructor from high school and possibly take away the instructor's livelihood? If a doctor makes a mistake, should his medical school be charged and their accreditation possibly pulled? These scenarios could be applied to teachers of any subject, not just flight instructors. If there are no limits, then the risk is simply too high to pursue these professions.

The FAA does not have the constitutional authority to singlehandly take away Alex's livelihood without due process by being cop, judge and jury. He should be allowed to instruct until the FAA proves otherwise. Where is the due process in shutting him down and depriving him of income until it gets its act together to schedule a ride with him? Mike, would you like to answer this?

Alex, maybe you need to get an attorney.


P.S. Mike, since you seem to be defending FAA policy, can you tell me the rational behind the regulation that prevents people from taking certified aircraft and making them experimental without all sorts of restrictions on where and when you can fly them, even though homebuilts don't have the same restrictions?

[Alex Clark]

In this particular case the FAA is right to want me to do a check ride. They want to make sure I was not instructing my friend to do something un-safe. (Like locking up one brake and going into a ditch) I was CFI number 3 or 4, but I was the last one..
I do not have a problem with that. And if the FAA sticks to their own policy it should be a fast ride. If not , you will hear about it here..
There have been other cases where folks have reported having to do check rides for non-accidents.
Why,
well during the last seaplane safety seminar I asked about getting more DPEs. I was contacted off to the side by a very nice FAA guy who said that basically they had 30 FAA inspectors/examiners with nothing to do and projected budget and personnel cuts. So they would appreciate using the FAA folks instead of the DPEs.
This does not jive with what I see, with my inspector being super busy. But who knows, in a big circus the manager seldom knows what the elephant handler has for a work load.

Hey at least they are not the TSA...

[mvivion]

Christina,

Whoaaaaa!!! Don't for a moment think I'm defending FAA policy, because I'm not.

I stated a fact: If you or one of your students has a ground accident in Alaska, you can expect a visit from the FAA. The reason: HALF of our accidents, as in HALF of ALL accidents in Alaska, according to the Medallion Foundation and the FAA, are loss of control on the ground type accidents. Like the initiative on runway incursions, this is bound to generate some focus by the regulatory agency involved, and it has. I did not say, nor did I imply that this is fair. I simply stated a fact. From the sounds of it, Alex is involved at some level in one of those.

Also, don't believe for a moment that your ability to fly an airplane is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Note that the FAA does not work within our court system, they have their own. Flying and flight instructing is a priviledge, NOT a Constitutional right. The FAA can grant that priviledge, and they can rescind it. Same goes for converting a certified airplane to an experimental. Read the rules, by the way, there is a way to do that, but it severely restricts what you can do with the plane. With certification and maintenance AND liability what they are these days, I'm not sure that the rule preventing you from converting back and forth from Exp to Standard category is such a bad thing.

You are absolutely correct regarding liability for flight instructors, in my book, but that's the way it is. You are a CFI, you put your name in my book, I do something wrong, you will probably get talked to. Hopefully, it will be kept in an information gathering vein, but.... I agree that the liability issues for flight instructors is awful. How about for mechanics, though? Their certificates, livelihoods, and savings are at risk every time they touch an airplane. Nobody said it was fair. This is, however, one of the problems I see with the aviation industry, and I'd sure like to hear ideas on how to fix it.

Alex,

Did you not read my previous post? I stated clearly that I recently completed a 709 ride. I did not send a PM to you, I posted it here. My experience was a positive thing, as noted earlier.

I assume that you received a letter from the FAA regarding your ride. What did the letter say? Did the letter say you are prohibited from conducting any flight activity or flight instruction until you complete the 709 ride? Read it again. I believe that they use a pretty stock letter format. That format (at least the one I got) simply said that I needed to contact an inspector within 10 days to arrange for a ride. It did not say I was grounded, nor did it imply that I could not conduct business as usual.

I in fact asked the FAA Ops inspector involved if I could continue to flight instruct and fly as usual, and his response, in writing, was yes, I could continue all my usual flight activities. Perhaps that is an unusual case, but I don't think so.

As to going up the chain: There are ways to elevate things without causing friction. Again, tell them you need to get on with life, illustrate to them you have a positive attitude (and I don't mean to imply that you haven't already done so) and that you are willing to accept a ride from whomever they deem qualified, including perhaps a DPE that you could recommend. Who knows, they might be happy to have it off their plate.

My point wasn't very well elucidated, apparently. My point was that I think there are things you can do to speed the process. Further, I don't believe a pending 709 ride disqualifys you from earning a living by flight instructing, UNLESS the letter you received specifically said YOU ARE GROUNDED.

I'm betting it didn't. More than likely all it says is that you are to be re-examined on yada yada portions of the commercial and/or CFI PTS. That in and of itself does not imply you are grounded.

So, first, READ THE LETTER. Then, if there is still a question, ask the FSDO Ops Inspector who you are coordinating with that question: Are you grounded? If you can't get in touch with him or her, it shouldn't ruffle any feathers at all if you request to speak to another Ops inspector in that office, and ask them that question. It is a legitimate question.

If you still can't get an answer, contact AOPA headquarters, and speak with the technical and legal folks there. They can certainly answer that question as well. Have the letter in hand when you call.

Then, if you can legally fly and instruct, where's the problem, other than nobody likes something like this hanging over their heads?

Sorry if I came on too hard on this, but you have a lot of options, without getting anyone's underwear in a knot, and it doesn't sound like you've been exploring those options.

My point was that a discussion on this forum won't fix your problem, but you do have options. I should have been more specific in describing those options earlier.

Sorry if I offended, but explore some of these things. I think you'll find that things aren't as bad as you're letting on.

MTV

[Christina Young]

Also, don't believe for a moment that your ability to fly an airplane is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. Note that the FAA does not work within our court system, they have their own. Flying and flight instructing is a priviledge, NOT a Constitutional right. The FAA can grant that priviledge, and they can rescind it. Same goes for converting a certified airplane to an experimental. Read the rules, by the way, there is a way to do that, but it severely restricts what you can do with the plane. With certification and maintenance AND liability what they are these days, I'm not sure that the rule preventing you from converting back and forth from Exp to Standard category is such a bad thing.



Mike, you are absolutely wrong. Our constitution defines a government of enumerated powers, and as far as I know, controlling who can fly and who can't, and giving people "privileges" to fly is not one of them. Please, tell me where it says so in the Constitution. Also, the 9th Amendment to the Bill of Rights states


The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

That means that just because flying is not stated as a right in the Constitution, doesn't mean it isn't one (is it a right that people can travel around freely without applying to the govt for permission just like in the old Soviet Union? After all, it isn't stated anywhere in the Constitution...).

Did you know that the whole body of administrative law, which most of the government now uses to function, kept being thrown out as unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court until FDR intimidated the court and threatened to stack it with his cronies?

Of course, the FAA functions under administrative law, with itself being lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one. Also violating the constitutional separation of powers and prohibition on Congress ceding its lawmaking authority to another body, by the way....

[JP]

My goodness, a strict constructionalist! Christina--are you the long lost daughter of US Supreme Court Justice Black? He used to carry a copy of the Constitution around in his pocket and when asked a question he'd dig it out and say "Sorry, I just can't find it in the Constitution"!

As for administrative law (and FDR aside), it grew out of delegated power to any given agency by acts of congress (which Congress is allowed to do under the Constitution's separation of powers act). And let's be clear--Congress makes the law. Not the agency. The agency (in this case the FAA) makes the rules, administers them and enforces them.

That does not mean that you are not -- repeat, not -- without protection from abusive/inconsisitent/incongruent application of the rules by those administering them.

The protction is actually written into the Constitution in the form of a Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, which apply to all things Federal in nature. The drafters were very wise, as if they could see what was coming, and left a couple of neat ways to ensure that you have recourse to the judicial system should you be deprived of a fair and equal process, particularly in application.

State legislators do this, too, and you will find that most state constitutions mimic the federal constitution to also ensure access to the judicial system should their be and administrative abuse or mis-use of discretion--or acting beyond the scope of their discretion.

The Constitution--priceless!

[mvivion]

JP,

Thanks for the excellent clarification. Your point that agencies don't pass laws, but rather promulgate regulations under those laws is one that is often misunderstood.

It is worthy of note that the FAA is a little different than most government entities, in that if you feel you've been wronged in a proceeding, about your only recourse is to go to the NTSB, and through that thrash. They almost always favor the FAA, though. If that fails, you are pretty much out of luck. Of course, the FAA isn't going to put you in jail over any of this stuff, so its not criminal law in any case.

And, like it or not, nobody ever said government has to be fair :-? .

MTV

[JP]

MTV:

You raise a really interesting and important point. The FAA is a sub-agency of another agency, so you've got gobs of hoops to go through. The trick is catching the agency at being unfair/inconsisiten/abusing discretion at a level sufficient to lift yourself into Federal Court in order to obtain relief from administrative hooligans.

From my days in the arena I feel there are three agencies that are very difficult to deal with. US Customs (now merged into DHS), the EPA and the FAA. They can create a lot of trouble and they know that most people cannot afford to take them on when they are up to no good. Customs especially seemed to be a law unto itself, with almost unfettered discretion to do innane things inimical to everything this nation stands for.

It is a sad fact that the more money you have, the better your chances of securing justice against federal agencies and their rogue employees.

[Alex Clark]

And, like it or not, nobody ever said government has to be fair

Actually they (the 55 signers) did. That was the whole point.

That is why during my two decades of public service (3 if I count military stuff which I still do) I always remind/reminded myself that I worked for everyone I talk with, not a faceless government or the paperwork weenies back at headquarters. And I had that job only through their trust. Not because I was better than them, but because it freed them up to pursue other activities.
As Americans, they were all equally empowered.


No, I am not suspended from flight or teaching.
However, my primary income is summer float instruction and I am stuck on wheels since I must use a tailwheel for the check ride. Nobody else wants to let me use theirs after they heard the feds were involved.
I explained my income loss concerns after the incident a month ago and the fact that I am willing to go where-ever they need me. .
As far as this forum, I simply asked about other folks experiences and stated that I am dutifully waiting.

Based upon some of the PMs I received, plus recent actions against a couple of pilots and a noted DPE, I would not say that I am without concern.

[diggler]

delete

[Christina Young]

Geez, Diggler, you assume that I have the time to wade through all that stuff! Can you summarize the point you want to get across to me?

[JP]

You build it; you responsible for it. We don't wanna deal with it. Go govern yourselves.

Great rule. No other country has ever come close.

The rules--or lack thereof--governing experimentals are pretty simple. LSA takes it the next step. In a miracle practically unheard of in this day and age a federal agency almost totally deregulated an emerging sector of sport aviation. That's really quite progressive.

Why? In a democracy we tend to get exactly what we deserve. Our government and all its ilk is a reflection of ourselves. Rules and regulations are a reflection of our concerns. For example, when we started to blame others for the everyday woes of life, and abdicated personal responsibility we got more rules, lawsuits, expense and entire institutions working to save us from ourselves.

I think we even got talk shows out of that movement, too.

Such is to be expected and culture and society change over time. And sometimes change is cyclical.

Of course, the right to swing our props around ends with whatever it is we hit...and what an agency giveth, an agency can taketh away.

[Christina Young]

As for administrative law (and FDR aside), it grew out of delegated power to any given agency by acts of congress (which Congress is allowed to do under the Constitution's separation of powers act). And let's be clear--Congress makes the law. Not the agency. The agency (in this case the FAA) makes the rules, administers them and enforces them.


I'm sorry JRussell, can you cite where it say that in the Constitution? There are no "Acts", just Articles, Sections and Ammendments.

Oh, here's another piece of interesting reading:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa312.html

Excerpt:



Such lawmaking by agencies is distinctly a second best to legislation by the people's elected representatives in Congress. It bureaucratically rather than democratically imposes compulsion or mandatory standards on the people. And while those agency processes for developing rules involve some roughly democratic elements--including open notice, limited participation by interested members of the public, responsible agency deliberation and explanation, and official publication--they should be clearly seen for what they are: lawmaking by other than the people's lawmakers.

Congress has built up a habit of delegating large chunks of its constitutionally entrusted lawmaking power to federal agencies. The pernicious result is to vest legislative authority in the hands of unelected administrators, who often brandish enforcement authority and wield adjudicative power as well. The protection of the separation of powers--a centerpiece of our Constitution--is debilitated.

[diggler]

delete.

[Christina Young]

You build it; you responsible for it. We don't wanna deal with it. Go govern yourselves.

Great rule. No other country has ever come close.



So why not the same rule for airplanes that were originally built as certified then changed to experimental??? THAT was my question.

Those airplanes had to undergo much more rigorous testing and standards required by the FAA... now they have to get special permission to fly to other than their home base each time they fly??? What is the rational behind that?

[Christina Young]

From my days in the arena I feel there are three agencies that are very difficult to deal with. US Customs (now merged into DHS), the EPA and the FAA. They can create a lot of trouble and they know that most people cannot afford to take them on when they are up to no good.

Yep, lawmaker, judge, jury and executioner. Can you tell me please how THAT is constitutional under "Separation of Powers"?? Did 55 people decide THAT was fair? Then why are these agencies around?

[mvivion]

Christina,

If you believe that the Constitution covers EVERY eventuality in our system of government, you need a big glass of wine, cause you are going to be disappointed. The Constitution is a framework, not a detailed description of how everything in our government works.

I'm sure there are folks here who can elucidate this way better than I can.

In case you hadn't noticed, there are several categories of "Experimental" aircraft, not the least of which is "for educational purposes". So, how does you deciding you want to operate under the Experimental category fit into "educational purposes"? Granted, those rules were composed by the FAA, under teh guidance of DOT, but they are absolutely THE MOST LIBERAL rules regarding light aircraft on the planet. Period. If you think the FAA is draconian, try going to any country in Europe, and ask aviators there how little airplane friendly their country is. I know a lot of Europeans, and they all marvel at how liberal our rules are. And, this in the country which is arguably the most litigious country in the world right now. Go figure.

Even in countries which we view as being pretty open minded, such as Australia, the rules governing general aviation are pretty draconian.

Again, I'm not defending our rulemaking ability, but I can tell you that compared to other countries, we have it pretty good.

As to converting a certified aircraft to Experimental category, why would the government even consider such a thing? So you don't have to comply with any of the safety regulations which allow us to continue to operate rather freely in this country? That makes no sense.

My understanding is that Canada has a policy that you can take your airplane out of the standard category, and do owner maintenance. As I understand it, though, when that happens, all parts of that airplane are no longer certified, and basically the airplane becomes a non certificated conglomeration of parts.

We have a pretty liberal system as is. I'd hate to see it get more strict.

For what its worth, the Constitution won't help you with this one, trust me,

MTV

[T.J.]

delete

[Christina Young]

If you believe that the Constitution covers EVERY eventuality in our system of government, you need a big glass of wine, cause you are going to be disappointed. The Constitution is a framework, not a detailed description of how everything in our government works.



Mike, I'm sorry, the Constitution grants specific powers to Congress, to the Executive branch, and to the courts. If an eventuality arises in our system which can't be handled undered the specific powers granted, there is a mechanism to address it. It's called the AMENDMENT.

[bob turner]

I'm glad I dropped in - this is one of the most interesting threads yet! My last "box" to fill in (other than maybe a PBY type rating) is to teach Constitutional Law. I think I have learned a few things here! Thanks!

[Christina Young]

P.S. Mike, I think it's insulting that you compare our nation and innovative limited form of government established almost 230 years ago to socialist countries run by bureaucrats that have never had a real republican form of government with much individual freedom at all and say "we have it good". Yeah, I guess you could also compare us to countries like Zimbabwe or Sudan and say that too...

Sorry, I better stop now or else this will end up in the R&R section!! :crazyeyes:

[mvivion]

Christina,

And, my point is that the things we are discussing here have been delegated by the Congress to the Executive Branch. Where is the inconsistency with the Constitution?

Now, if there is some clear breach of constitutional law here, I'd invite you to find an ACLU attorney, and attack it. I can tell you just about how far you'll get though.

Everything we've talked about is within the legal mandate of the Executive, as authorized by the Congress. In fact, as INSTRUCTED by the Congress.

Now, I'll grant you that the Congress didn't envision every single little nook and cranny of the regulations when they delegated the authority to DOT, but that is the nature of delegation.

You can take the strict constructionist approach if you like, but I doubt if you'll win it. You're sure welcome to take it to the courts, though.

Let us know how it comes out,

MTV
MTV

[55-PA18A]

Hey Alex,...I'll bet when you see a new post here you think it might be someone interested in answering your original question. Boy did someone's button get pushed !! I think maybe they should go mellow out and burn some avgas.

I groundlooped in August 1998. An FAA inspector asked to talk with me, but basically told me not to do it again. No 709 flight or anything. Mostly he just wanted to talk about flying his C-150 down to the beach for beachcombing. Pretty decent guy.

Jim

[Christina Young]

And, my point is that the things we are discussing here have been delegated by the Congress to the Executive Branch. Where is the inconsistency with the Constitution?



There is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to delegate it's lawmaking authority to the Executive Branch, and there is nothing in the Constitution that allows Congress to delegate the Court's judicial authority to the Executive Branch. Can you show me where it allows that?

Yes, you are definitely arguing against those that authored the Constitution. Your position wasn't accepted until the 1930's when FDR exceeded his authority and intimidated the courts into ignoring the will and meaning of the Founders. We've lost a lot of freedom as individuals and as a nation since then.

Fortunately, I think that as the president appoints more judges that interpret the Constitution as the Founders intended to the Federal courts, this may change. Does not bode well for those government dependents though.

[Christina Young]

I groundlooped in August 1998. An FAA inspector asked to talk with me, but basically told me not to do it again.

Like you did it on purpose??

[Alex Clark]

Mine just called tonight and said he was too busy to get back to me sooner. (guess what happens if you don't call them back right away) Then he told me he has to leave the State for some training.
Now I have to call his boss tomorrow and get another inspector assigned , who knows how to fly tail-wheel and who can do a CFI / Commercial check ride. Plus one who is light enough to put in a cub.
This guy seems to be a descent person who just happens to work in a weird outfit. I guess it does not matter now,, who knows what will happen next.

[diggler]

delete

[Alex Clark]

I proposed that I go on floats now (last month actually) and then do the ride in the fall. I asked if I could have a DPE do it.
Nope, to both,, they wanted to make sure I was not teaching bad habits. So it was important that I do it right away. Oh course "right away" means different things in different parts of the universe, (insert Bill Clinton accent here)

OK, then why not do the check ride the day after the incident.
At least then you would have some idea about my skills.
A month (or two) later I could learn all sorts of new things. Or forget everything.

[Steve Pierce]

I had to do a 709 ride 3 years ago as a result of a midair collision. The local FSDO was very accomidating as I deal with the maintenance side a lot. Did the ride three years ago, had my last informal meeting with the FAA lawyers over a year ago. Still waiting for the other shoe to drop. I can still fly though. It does always bug you though wondering what will happen. It is disheartening to know that the fAA employees more lawyers than anything or so I am told.

[JP]

Christina:

Guess we are going to differ on some elements of constitutional law as much as we differ on certain areas of economics! :lol:

I will say this much--it doesn't matter what I think and believe about the US Constitution and how I interpret it.

What is important is what the judge thinks. Federal judges. I'll stake my federal court record on that one.

My all time favorite was the time I defended a media company that was sued in US District Court for refusing to provide cable television services to a customer with a demonstrated history of refusing to pay for them. In essence, her complaint alleged a "Constitutional Right to Cable Television".

I think that is the only time I ever, ever saw a judge play strict constructionalist in the real world of the Federal Judiciary--the judge lowered her reading glasses and threw the case out.... :P

Now, as for Alex, he's gotta deal with a bureaucracy. So, Alex, we are with you on this one.

Be persisitent: call every day.
Be polite: being nice gets you a lot
Be professional: the old let's work together to resolve this
Explain the predicament: i'd really like to make a living this year, can you help me out?
Em-power the bureaucrat: they actually like to feel as though they can make a difference. Acknowledge that to them early and often.

[Christina Young]

Be persisitent: call every day.
Be polite: being nice gets you a lot
Be professional: the old let's work together to resolve this
Explain the predicament: i'd really like to make a living this year, can you help me out?
Em-power the bureaucrat: they actually like to feel as though they can make a difference. Acknowledge that to them early and often.

JRussell,
You forgot one. Grease the bureaucrat's palm. Can work wonders in a Soviet-style govt agency like the FAA, and can be cheaper and less of a hassle than going to an attorney.

From the sound of it, these particular bureaucrats that Alex is dealing with have some kind of vindictive attitude against him, and know full well that they are punishing him by depriving him of his livelihood.

[JP]

JRussell,
You forgot one. Grease the bureaucrat's palm. Can work wonders in a Soviet-style govt agency like the FAA, and can be cheaper and less of a hassle than going to an attorney.

True! But a felony, nonetheless. DJFraudman--are you still out there to comment on that one?? Bribes work better in other countries.

From the sound of it, these particular bureaucrats that Alex is dealing with have some kind of vindictive attitude against him, and know full well that they are punishing him by depriving him of his livelihood.[/quote]

Agreed. And if we can show that the reasons they are giving him for the delay are pretextual, whamo, up into the Federal Court we go!

Not only is a Constitution priceless, it is a living, breathing, evolving document.

See you at LHV. I'll be conducting Cub Therapy tentside. My rates are cheap, too. :lol:

[Christina Young]

Not only is a Constitution priceless, it is a living, breathing, evolving document.


Yes, it is meant to be a living document by virtue of its "amendment" mechanism. So far we are on version 18.0 (the articles plus the first 10 amendments are version 1.0 - and the Constitution has been modified 17 times since then).

[JP]

Not only is a Constitution priceless, it is a living, breathing, evolving document.


Yes, it is meant to be a living document by virtue of its "amendment" mechanism. So far we are on version 18.0 (the articles plus the first 10 amendments are version 1.0 - and the Constitution has been modified 17 times since then).

As a practical matter it evolves everyday as the judicial branch "interprets" it.....

[Christina Young]

As a practical matter it evolves everyday as the judicial branch "interprets" it.....

Oh, you mean "legislates from bench"...

[JP]

As a practical matter it evolves everyday as the judicial branch "interprets" it.....

Oh, you mean "legislates from bench"...

Nope. Interprets. The legislative branch makes the laws. The judicial branch interprets them. When the legislative branch makes lousy law, you get lousy interpretations. There is a distinction between shaping and making law. Subtle, but it exists. Dancing with the other angels on the head of a pin. Lots of gray out there--very little black and white.

[Alex Clark]

Geeze now you have me doing it...

I think her point is that the Judicial Branch has been illegally legislating from the Bench in a rather obvious violation of the separation of powers. Yes in some cases it is because of murky legislation. However there are several cases of Judges placing themselves on high as potentates.
It's hard for a traveler to get a square and level deal in these dark times. I can't get the damned FAA guy to answer his phone, so I will go flying and seek some light.

[JP]

Yeah, this is supposed to be about YOU. :lol: Go flying and get the fix you need for what has undoubtably been a very frustrating week. There is another one coming up and may the gods of all things aviation smile upon you and deliver you some relief.

[Longwinglover]

ok, Ok, OK, O KAY!

JP, at Sentimental Journey you park/camp at the west end of the field near the museum.

Christina, you park at the east end of the field near the T hangers.

Legal issues, financial policies and alternative fuels will only be discussed with a large crowd of shaparones. If y'all cause a scene, you have to wash and wax each others plane! :o :lol:

John Scott

[JP]

:lol: :lol: ...sounds like a plan! All I'm gonna talk about is flying, food and beer anyway. :wink:

[jnorris]

So why not the same rule for airplanes that were originally built as certified then changed to experimental??? THAT was my question.

Those airplanes had to undergo much more rigorous testing and standards required by the FAA... now they have to get special permission to fly to other than their home base each time they fly??? What is the rational behind that?

Christina,

I'm going to avoid the discussion on the Constitution and related issues and stick to comments on experimental aircraft certification, in order to attempt to answer your question on that subject.

First, it's important to understand a few general items of info, so that further comment can be better understood. This could get kind of long, so be prepared!

Experimental airworthiness certificates are allowed by 14 CFR 21.191. Note that there is no such thing as "just experimental". Every experimental airworthiness certificate is issued for some purpose, as outlined in §21.191. There are currently 9 different purposes for which an experimental aircraft can be certificated.

When someone refers to an "experimental" aircraft, what they're usually referring to is an aircraft that's commonly called a "homebuilt". These aircraft are actually certificated under §21.191(g), for the purpose of "operating an amateur built aircraft". This certification is often referred to as "experimental/amateur-built" or simply "amateur-built". In order to qualify for amateur-built certification, the applicant must be able to document that the major portion of the aircraft was fabricated and assembled by amateur-builders. This "major portion" requirement is what is often referred to as the "51% rule", due to the fact that the FAA defines "major portion" as "greater than 50%".

Amateur-built is the least restrictive of all the experimental purposes for the standpoint of operational freedom. Further, amateur-built is one of only four experimental certifications for which airworthiness certificates of an unlimited duration are issued (the others being exhibition, air racing, and operating light-sport aircraft). The other 5 purposes are limited-duration certificates, typically 1 year.

Now, with that as basic knowledge, let's talk about taking a standard category aircraft an moving it into an experimental category. Each experimental purpose is designed to answer a specific need, and each one carries it's own specific restrictions and limitations. Which certification purpose would fit the situation best is decided depending on the desired outcome of the "experiment".

For example, if a person installs an engine on an airframe which is not listed on it's type certificate, the purpose might be to ultimately approve the combination under an STC. In this case, a certificate for the purpose of research and development (21.191(a)) might be appropriate, or perhaps market surveys (21.191(f)). Both of these certificates would be issued for 1 year, after which the aircraft would either be returned to it's type-certificated configuration or a new experimental certificate application would have to be processed.

Now, if a person makes the same modification to a type-certificated aircraft, but they don't care to go through the process of approving the aircraft for a standard category certificate, then they have to make a different choice. Since they did not perform the major portion of the fabrication and assembly tasks, the aircraft does not qualify for amateur-built certification. Their only viable option is experimental/exhibition, since this is the only unlimited-duration certificate that the aircraft would qualify for (and it's far less restrictive than R&D or market surveys).

What the applicant has to realize in this case is that the exhibition purpose was not intended for the certification of aircraft being used in the same way as amateur-built aircraft are used. Amateur-built aircraft are specifically certificated for "education and recreation", which exhibition aircraft are certificated for, well, exhibition! The exhibition purpose covers everything from aerobatic competition aircraft to ex-military jets and piston aircraft (including helicopters), as well as other aircraft that do not have a US type certificate. The operating limitations for the exhibition category need to address the public safety over a very broad spectrum of aircraft and operations, and thus are not nearly as liberal as the operating limitations for amateur-built aircraft.

Quite frankly, many people think they'd like to move their aircraft from standard to experimental category just so they could do their own maintenance (without the oversight of an A&P) and possibly avoid having to comply with ADs. That won't work either, because 14 CFR Part 43 (Maintenance, Rebuilding, and Alteration) still applies in it's entirety to an aircraft that was originally certificated in standard category, even after it's moved into an experimental category. Thus, the aircraft still has to be maintained as if it's still in standard category, but would have to be operated in accordance with its restrictive experimental operating limitations. Not much benefit in that!

As to why these modified standard category aircraft don't get the same operational and maintenance freedom as homebuilts, the answer is simple; the FAA doesn't want it that way! If this were made possible, many people would gladly exchange their standard airworthiness certificate for an experimental one, and the FAA feels that this would be an overall reduction in public safety (due in large part to the obvious reduction in maintenance oversight). The rules are specifically structured so as to discourage people from trying to out-maneuver the requirements of maintaining a standard category aircraft.

The bottom line is, if you want the freedom that an amateur-built aircraft provides, you need to build or buy an amateur-built aircraft. You can't take a shortcut by modifying an existing standard category aircraft. In other words, you don't get something for nothing.

See, I told you this would get long! I hope it was worth the effort. (My fingers are tired now!! <grin>)

Joe

[diggler]

delete

[JP]

Superb!

A friend of mine just asked why he shouldn't make his SC into an experimental --now I don't have to get into a lengthy discussion! Joe, you are a godsend.

[CaptFox]

This is going back to Alex's problem,

How long does it take to put on and take off the floats on a cub? Day, Half day, few hours???? :wink:

Why not put on the floats and instruct till the Fed's can schedule the ride and then a few days before put the wheels back on practice and do the ride, then bolt the floats back on. I know there will likely be some extra expense for that but wouldnt the working revenue be worth it in the mean time instead of loosing business? 8)

If this was suggested before sorry but there is too much constitutioinal mumbo jumbo in this thread to read all of it..... :agrue:

Good Luck.

David.

[JP]

Where else but on SC.org could one get constitutional mumbo jumbo!! :lol:

Even MTV got in on the act! Amazing--Constitutional Cub Pilots!

I rest my case that this site is unique and will likely give SJ grey hairs.

[jnorris]

I rest my case that this site is unique and will likely give SJ grey hairs.

I agree wholeheartedly on both points!! :wink:

JOe

[bob turner]

Even MTV? Actually I thought he and Jrussell did a superb job!

I can see Christina's frustration - two examples spring to mind: Strobes - you can get some really neat, inexpensive strobe systems if you don't mind non-PMA parts. The experimentals can use them for night flight, but a lowly J-3 cannot. Attitude reference systems - the new non-certified EFIS systems can be used in an experimental and flown (I think, anyway) under real IFR, but again, your IFR Supercub must use the older gyros and that pesky vacuum pump. That's assuming you can get the 337 approved.

I know there is a field approval process, and that it used to be easy - but it is now broken, and the only hope is a Smiths cub or the equivalent, if you want the good stuff for less than a million bucks.

[WhiskeyMike]

As far as I'm concerned it all started downhill after Doyne put a nosewheel on a Cessna 170. When my folks saw it they laughed themselves silly. Then Cessna came out with "Land-O Matic" so everyone could fly. The result was that the skill level - and commitment -necessary to fly small planes was greatly reduced. It was good for marketing, perhaps for the growth of aviation. Whenever my banner tow pilot candidates bitch about something I require them do, I simply reply, "I never ask you to do anything my mother didn't have to do when flying." Shut up ot leave.

After WW2 there were a large number of knoweldgable and qualified people with direct hands-on experience in aviation -learned during military service. The old guys in the FAA - chartered to "foster and further air commerce" had a lot of knowledge to contribute. The CAM manual 8 has specific useful information on how to build and maintain all sorts of systems, like hopper and aux fuel tanks, as well as exhaust systems etc. $100 cash says only 1 in 500 inspectors ever heard of it -yet it is still valid. I learned a lot from my old PMI -but he of course, is retired. These people have mostly retired.

The problem is that FAA people like all of us want to put food on the table, and live under difficult rules and threatening supervisors. We on this web-site generally have a lot more freedom in our lives. Add to that anyone, who isn't really commited to aviation, and you've got a tough uphill battle. It is difficult to educate people who must live by manuals, not common sense, and whose bosses often push them to stick to a hard - if incorrect line.

One thing is for certain. the atmosphere in the USA has become very anti-aviation. Those in the deep woods may see less, but this thread is a good example of the threats and challenges that lie ahead. Ask anyone in the banner towing business. Not only have they banned flights at public events, but now they have banned whole categories of aircraft -specifically, the Grumman AgCat. Not for cause, but because some badly misinformed inspector got into a pi--ing match with an operator, and the operator had to go to his congressman for relief. Now they waived the magic wand and said -No more AgCats. Just who has the time to go and sort this out? I could, but don't have the time nor money.

Very, very tough situation. Despite my sarcasm, maybe New Hampshire has it right on the license plates -Live Free or Die. :agrue:

[mvivion]

Well said, all folks. And some great dissertations on the state of aviation in this country. And the threats to avaiation in this country.

Alex: The supervisor of that office is one Hugh McGlaughlin. I'd contact him in a positive manner, explain to him that you are losing revenue and that this is critical to your survival in the business, and you are almost wetting your pants to have the opportunity to go fly with one of his inspectors.

It can't hurt, if done in a positive manner, to ping the boss a little, and remind him that there are all sorts of priorities out there. A gentle reminder can sometimes get priorities rearranged. I think if you explain to Hugh your concerns, and the amount of time you've waited, willingly and patiently, perhaps he can re-arrange one of his inspectors priorities.

And, again, done right, that shouldn't ruffle anyone's feathers.

I had a field approval situation a few years ago that went this route. I called the office manager, explained the situation, and asked him to look into it. The next day, the situation was resolved, amicably.

Sometimes the supervisors simply don't know what their customer service is like.

Sounds like these guys aren't doing that well.

Alternatively, I'd take the approach offered a couple posts back: Put the floats on, and get on with life. When they call you and tell you its time to take the ride, tell them you'll have to schedule maintenance. Put the monkey on their back then, and let them see how it feels. If it takes a week, so be it. Maybe a month. Maybe they'll just tell you it'll happen in the fall.

MTV

[Alex Clark]

Actually I called Jim Wilkinson. Who is the boss of the inspector crowd.
He assigned the case to Charlotte Luckett, who called me right away. I am scheduled to fly up there next Thursday morning. A two hour flight in the PA-11.
Since one of our local 135 outfits just busted another plane, I thought thats somebody might have to come here again.
Anyway I will be there at zero dark hundred as long as the weather holds.
I just came back from King Salmon and the weather was going bad FAST out there.

[mvivion]

Alex,

Good deal, and good luck.

MTV

[JP]

Great! The entire Cub Community sends its collective Cub Kharma your way for the ride. :lol:

And as far as I'm concerned, not only is MTV a respected and learned master pilot, he's also a bona-fide adjunct professor of law. :P When he speaks, we all should listen. We're lucky to enjoy his wit, wisdom and observations on this site.

[Christina Young]

Sounds like these guys aren't doing that well.



Mike, is there anyway to get them fired? Because that's what they really deserve. And their pay should be docked by the number of days that Alex was out of service, and the money given to him.

The thing that really irks me is the master-serf relationship between unaccountable bureaucrats and citizens who haven't done anything wrong, in which the former have the right to deny "permission" to fly on a whim. Customer service??? There isn't anything "customer" or "service" about it. It is completely antithetical to the principals upon which our nation was founded.

[diggler]

delete

[Alex Clark]

Ok,
I got the
8710 ready
the planes log books
my log books
the nasty letter from the FAA ( I have been taking notes on it)
My license
My medical
My CFI ticket
a little model J-3 on wheels
a little model C-150 on wheels with lead shot in the engine compartment
(Both of the above for demonstration of teaching techniques for landings)
Weight and balance for the plane in the plane
Air worthiness and registration in the plane


Any of you folks who I asked, can you think of anything I am missing?

[T.J.]

A lawyer?

[mvivion]

Alex,

Sounds like you are prepared. Aircraft registration and A/W certificate, of course.

Hope it goes well.

Christina: It might just be that these guys really are busy, as in overloaded. It may also be that they didn't fully understand Alex's situation up front.

Who knows, but I don't see a "master-serf" relationship between the FAA and pilots, and never have.

Not every interaction with the government is a crisis. I've had many positive exchanges with the FAA over the years. I've also had a couple that I'd put into the category of "rather not have". One of those was not of my doing at all. It was resolved fairly quickly, in a rather bizarre manner, but nonetheless, resolved, and it only cost me $50. Falls into the category of a story to tell other pilots over a beer.

The other "rather not have" experience was the result of an aircraft accident. I was the driver, therefore I was responsible. I just couldn't find anyone else to blame.

There is a process in those cases, and we followed that process. If you have an accident in an airplane there are consequences, Christina. It is in the best interest of all of us for someone to take a look at those things. The FAA is the agency which has been assigned to that task. I'm betting they don't care much for it either, for the most part.

Nonetheless, my experience in that case was very positive, AND I learned something, from a guy with several thousand hours PIC in C-46's. You don't get much more taildragger attitude than one of those.

So, spout all the anti government rhetoric you like, but it is the system we have, and when one screws up, it is the system you HAVE to deal with. And there's a reason for that system to be there.

I hope you never have to go through a 709 ride, but if you do, I hope you go into it with the attitude that you may actually learn something, and the hope that it could actually be a positive experience.

As I said earlier, I'll volunteer to take a checkride with anybody anytime, cause I sure don't know it all, nor do I have the skills that some folks do. But I'm always open to learning. And, its still flying, after all.

MTV

[Christina Young]

There is a process in those cases, and we followed that process. If you have an accident in an airplane there are consequences, Christina. It is in the best interest of all of us for someone to take a look at those things.

Mike, the system is wrong, and it needs to be changed. How to initiate?

This is where a one-size-fits-all solution is imposed on everyone. Not every little ground loop in which no one was hurt needs to be investigated like a crash in which people die. There already is an inherent consequence in place - the guy lost value in his airplane from the damage, and the insurance company gets into the act. No property or other aircraft were damaged, and no one was hurt.

Can you imagine what would happen if we imposed the same high-overhead system on car accidents? With the cops chasing down your old driving instructor etc every time there was a little fender bender?

[diggler]

delete

[mvivion]

Diggler: YOU DA MAN!!

Christina: I think you are making a lot of assumptions here, since you don't know all the particulars, or maybe you do. I don't, so I'm not going to make those assumptions.

And, a 709 ride is SPECIFICALLY tailored to remediate/re-examine those skills or judgement items which appeared to have been found wanting based on the accident/incident.

Further, I don't believe that 709 rides are typically initiated as a result of incidents, but I could be wrong there.

In any case, as I noted earlier, 50 % of Alaska accidents (that's half of ALL Alaska accidents, including all the air carrier, floatplane, etc.) involve loss of control of the aircraft on the surface. Almost all of these are ground loop accidents.

The authorities are VERY concerned about this accident record, as they should be, and as WE should be. I can tell you right now that if this continues into the future, insurance will become the regulator of this pastime, not the FAA.

Believe me, the FAA is a lot fairer than the insurance industry, and there are at least some remedies one can seek when the FAA is unfair to you.

I don't presume to know what the particulars of Alex's problem were, but he mentioned something about loss of control on the surface.

Right now, those are magic words, and like "runway incursion", they will elicit a reaction from the regulators.

Again, my 709 ride was a very positive experience, with a guy who knows a LOT about flying tailwheel airplanes, and several other things. I would'nt have chosen to take that ride voluntarily, but it wasn't a negative experience at all, and I am a better pilot because of it.

Not to mention that I have a one on one experience with one more FAA inspector and my knowledge of him gives me a better feeling for the FAA and its personnel.

Any system as large as the FAA could certainly use some improvement. But the system isn't totally broke, and there are good people within that system. Going into these interactions with a positive mindset is really important, as well, though.

That's my experience, which certainly may not be characteristic.

Anyone had an ugly 709 ride?

MTV

[Scooter7779h]

Alex:

Don't forget to check that you have a current sectional and Alaska Supplement in the plane too. A lot of people find this is their crack into further review and letters on ramp inspections.

A current GPS database card doesn't cover these requirements, but on the flip side a current GPS database card is not required for a VFR flight to be legal either (although there was a bit of debate about that recently).

[T.J.]

I'm not a CFI, so I may be wrong , but I don't think you are required to have a current Sectional and AK. Supplement in the plane. I think a current Sectional or WAC will cover it.

[Alex Clark]

They even sent me an e-mail about havig a POH. Ok, its a 1946 and does not require one, but I will bring something along. They asked if I had a transponder to go over to Goose Bay. I said, nope, I don't even have electricity or a starter. Things got kinda quite after that.

Years ago I went from Lake Hood to Goose Bay without a transponder, is there something new about that??

I guess I will need to go up to Birchwood to do pattern work from Lake Hood along the highway.

I wonder if Girdwood is closer??

I will check on the sectionals and supplements. I am usually all up to date. I keep old ones for students. I write (FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY) on the old ones. Maybe I should pull those out of there. I have 4 or 5 in the truck that I give away.

[mvivion]

Alex,

You don't need a transponder to go to Goose Bay. You also don't need a transponder to go to Lake Hood Strip or Merrill Field.

I'd for sure get rid of ALL out of date publications, at least from the airplane.

I think there's quite a bit of debate as to whether you are required to be in possession of charts. The regs say you have to inform yourself of the particulars of the route of flight, but I have never seen anything that specifically requires a map to do so. If you've flown the route from Homer to Anchorage twice weekly for twenty years, is a chart really necessary? Again, I think there are opposing viewpoints on this one, I'd get at least a sectional for the area.

Your airplane doesn't have a POH, of course, but check the TCDS to find out if in fact it has a flight manual. That's different from a POH. The ops inspector I flew with was VERY impressed that I had one for my airplane. He said most planes he sees don't have one aboard. He didn't say whether that would end a ride, but it should, since its required equipment IF the manufacturer specified it. Not sure if your particular airplane requires one. It may be serial number specific, in old airplanes.

MTV

[Scooter7779h]

Alex,

Just a tip.. You might want to review the Anchorage Terminal VFR chart and the published VFR arrival and departure routes if you don't fly up here (Anchorage area) much. Undoubtably the Examiner will know all of the published routes. As far as the supplement, some of the data is in there. Remember the FAR about preflight "make yourself familiar with all resources needed to safely make the flight". That is where checking daily NOTAMS, published VFR arrival/departure routes and checkpoints etc. come into play in their view of complying. I would think it would be really hard to argue your point that you have been flying into the area for 20 years. Things change, and they change fast.

For example: If I asked you what the impact of the CARTEE Special Use airspace is on operations at Merrill Field or Lake Hood could you answer it? (Hint: this is SUA that is in operation this summer while they rebuild runway 05 at Elmendorf). Or: Do you know the current ATIS frequency at Merrill Field? (Hint: they changed it this spring and it wasn't on the charts, and still is not on the WAC chart). Or: When and where and how does the Seward Segment effect operations into Lake Hood? If you don't have the answers, you are sunk on your checkride, especially if you can't pull something out in the airplane that has the answers in it.

But to answer question: No big changes. You can go north out of Lake Hood airstrip and stay under 1,200 feet and not need a transponder. Out of Merrill Field you have to stay under 600 until past midchannel, then under 1,400. The floor of the Class C airspace north of Pt. MeKenzie is 1,400'.

If you have a choice in where you go, I would suggest Goose Bay airport. It is better strip for taildragger practice than 1R/19L at Birchwood. Birchwood has lots more activity with ultralights and the parallel paved runway. CTAF at Goose Bay is 122.90, it is 123.00 for Birchwood. When I was last at Birchwood (end of May) they were doing construction on the lighting system that confused the matter there with partial runway and taxiway closures.

BTW: Why aren't you doing the checkride in Homer or Soldotna? Their convienance?

Good luck.

[Alex Clark]

Yeap , It would appear that I must go there.

[Alex Clark]

Scooter thanks for the info. That is exactly what type of info I needed.
I am worried about some little thing tripping me up.

After what they did to a well known and liked DPE and commercial pilot in Talkeetna, my guts have been churning.

[mvivion]

Scooter,

Don't forget that coming out of Lake Hood strip there's an altitude restriction as well. All the FAR 93 stuff is on their web site, as well as in the supplement. If they let you get away with it, I'd simply request a deviation from SFAR 93. That gets you off the hook on that mess.

As to some of the other stuff Scooter listed, sure those things are important, and I didn't mean to imply that flying around Anchorage's very complex airspace should be taken lightly. That said, as was pointed out, a lot of the stuff you need to know isn't in one handy place.

Alex, don't make too many assumptions about other's experiences. There's almost always more to the story than the rest of us knows.

MTV

[bob turner]

Was the event involving the Talkeetna DPE recent?

Really old cubs have a document aboard that gives some AFM info - what is left of mine says OPERATIONS . . . and on another part ADDITIONAL OPERATIONS AUTHORIZED and THIS PLACARD MUST BE DISPLAYED IN VIEW OF THE PILOT. What little there is seems to be engine limits and weight and balance info. I have most of it on a plastic placard on the wing root. I carry a full weight and balance on board for every load possible - nobody has ever asked! Good Luck - I'm with Mike on this one; you may get a fed that loves Cubs! They exist!

By the by, I used to use WACs - they are useless, now, because they don't have uncontrolled field unicom info.

[Christina Young]

They even sent me an e-mail about havig a POH. Ok, its a 1946 and does not require one, but I will bring something along. They asked if I had a transponder to go over to Goose Bay. I said, nope, I don't even have electricity or a starter. Things got kinda quite after that.


Make sure you make them prop start it.

[Scooter7779h]

Mike Vivion: You are right that there is more going on than just Class C, with Part 93 airspace in the Anchorage bowl. I was just trying to keep it simple.

My recommendation of outbound from Lake Hood crossing below 1200 keeps you clear of the Part 93 airspace restriction as well as below the floor for the Class C. There are departure and arrival recommendations that the FAA recommends should be followed, and for Lake Hood West or East routes, they recommend outbound to climb to 900 ASAP and maintain 900' northbound to the slot between Pt. McKenzie and the Substation. But 1200' is legal, keeps you out of both Part 93 and Class C and it is the recommended inbound altitude for landing aircraft from the north. I don't like to swim and would like maximum glide if the fan quits, so depending on traffic load, I generally go to just below the 1,200' limit.

Here is the web link to the Anchorage Airspace stuff:

http://www.alaska.faa.gov/ata/local-proc.htm

[Alex Clark]

The DPE in question is a good friend of mine with whom I talked immediately after he got back on the ground. The same guy that the FAA praised at the float plane seminar for getting everyone back in one piece.
Maybe landing on a bumpy runway or snagging a power wire on the highway a few miles away from emergency medical treatment, might seem like a good idea a couple of months later,
But then again , if I was so good at telling the future I would have one less ex-wife.


As for the escape route across the water, I remember doing that route before. It seemed a tad low. But better than the 700 foot one for Merrill.
Anyway, at least there is no reason for a transponder.
I will print out a new Anchorage area pamphlet, the old one looks pretty nasty. the last time I was up there they were talking about name changes.
I only go there once a month or so. And most of that is straight in to Lake Hood, and leave two days later.

To bad it is not down here since I have my truck as my rolling office with lots of books and training aids. I am the type who always worrys about leaving something behind.

xx

[mvivion]

Scooter,

READ THE TEXT version: All aircraft north of the mid channel MUST remain clear of a band of altitudes between 1200 feet and 2000 feet. That IS 93 airspace, and the EDF approach corridor. Nothing advisory about it, it's regulatory.

Also, there's an admonition that all aircraft approaching LHD should remain at or above 600 feet till descent is necessary to land. THAT portion is advisory, to help quell the anti's who live near Lake Hood.

Man, the new web version is a mess. I hadn't looked at it in a while. Dead end links, notes that there are errors, but we'll fix them, and stuff scattered all over the place.

We've been pushing to get them to publish again, but they say it costs too much.

Very complex airspace, in any event. Sometimes I think that the best plan is to always ask for a deviation from Part 93.

MTV

[Ursa Major]

Maybe I'm being overly obvious here, but the Anchorage airspace bulletin is published in the back of the new supplement. Small type, but there.

[mvivion]

Ursa Major,

Yep, you're right, but small text and hard to find is part of the issue. The other is why publish a web site with information that they admit is out of date?

The supplement is probably the place to put this information, but the information is complex, and the timeline to change the Supplement so long, that it'll be hard to keep updated timely.

And, there's already so much stuff in the Supplement that it is hard to find anything you're looking for,

MTV

[Alex Clark]

I will study up on it. The letter said commercial and CFI maneuvers with emphasis on tail wheel landing operations. The first inspector said that I would probably just teach a ground lesson on tail wheel landings and take-off and then we would fly for about 30 minutes while I demonstrated from the back seat. OK.

But now the new inspector is talking about flying to another airport. I checked with the first one and he said that actually they could make me demonstrate anything they want once we get airborne. especially one not familiar with the case.
So I guess I will make sure my lazy eights are looking good, just in case. I am not worried about the flying part. And my books look very good. So I have to come up with something to worry about.

[SJ]

Alex,

I am not able to comment on the constitutional side of all this, and have never had a re-test myself, BUT, my understanding is is that if you help them make things go smoothly, the probably WON'T retest you on everything, just on the things related to the situation. They leave the option open if they have some kind of axe to grind with you.

It is actually the same on any checkride, they can re-check you on other things (like when you convert a single - multi commercial, etc) but usually they don't as it waste their time.

My advice is to quote Wilbur, "Just keep putting on lipstick and kissing their you know what" until you get through it.

sj

[Alex Clark]

I just want to to this right and get it behind me.