• If You Are Having Trouble Logging In with Your Old Username and Password, Please use this Forgot Your Password link to get re-established.
  • Hey! Be sure to login or register!

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

Alex Clark

Registered User
Life Long Alaskan
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....
 
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:
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
709 (609) ride lately

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
 
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.
 
709 (609) ride lately

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
 
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:
 
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/
 
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
 
709 ride

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
 
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
 
mvivion said:
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
 
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.
 
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
 
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.
 
mvivion said:
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?
 
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...
 
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
 
mvivion said:
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....
 
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!
 
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
 
Back
Top