Jump to content

I'm off for the dreaded 44709 check ride tomorrow!


RocketAviator

Recommended Posts

I belly landed my m20j last July, with instructor, while performing a power off precision landing, the gear warning horn was later found to be intermittent....still no excuse. It sucked! I was 2 days away from my commercial check ride. Good news was no one hurt, and minimal engine and belly damage. I see how easy it can be, now that I've done it. I used to look down my nose at people who had this happen to them...never again

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belly landed my m20j last July, with instructor, while performing a power off precision landing, the gear warning horn was later found to be intermittent....still no excuse. It sucked! I was 2 days away from my commercial check ride. Good news was no one hurt, and minimal engine and belly damage. I see how easy it can be, now that I've done it. I used to look down my nose at people who had this happen to them...never again

 

 

I don't look down my nose at anyone that's had a gear up landing.  You hear about them so much, so you know it can happen to anyone.  I'm glad it hasn't happened to me, but I know I'm potentially one distraction away.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I belly landed my m20j last July, with instructor, while performing a power off precision landing, the gear warning horn was later found to be intermittent....still no excuse. It sucked! I was 2 days away from my commercial check ride. Good news was no one hurt, and minimal engine and belly damage. I see how easy it can be, now that I've done it. I used to look down my nose at people who had this happen to them...never again

 

"Those who have, and Those who will."

The loudest critics among us have a short memory of their close calls and mistakes. Or they don't yet have enough experience/knowledge to know that they are one minor distraction away from a gotcha moment building up to an accident/incident.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 years later...

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but just found out a friend has a 44709 check ride next week.  The 44709 resulted from a successful IFR flight that terminated in a T-Storm (40-50mph winds) and approach to minimums.  The initial approach was not successful and he was diverted to his alternate where he successfully landed but could not get off the runway due to visibility.  It took 30 min for a car to find him on the runway and guide him to parking.

The FAA sent him a letter saying they have 'reason to believe that your competence to be the holder of an airman certificate is in question'.  There is not a specific reason given for there concern.  He has thousands of hours in multiple aircraft, type rated and more than current - obviously has many years experience.  He met with them initially and the FAA examiners spent 2-3 hours ridiculing and laughing at him then scheduled a check ride.  He was not offered remedial training or other options.

...AOPA legal advised go do the check ride, a bit disappointing in my opinion.  So, do you folks have any words of advice or options?  Can he do anything else at this point?  Request another examiner?  Let FSDO Safety director know of unprofessional behavior?  (he is concerned since the exam also based on his attitude, he does not want to create a bad atmosphere prior to the 44709.  But, if he waits until after and there is an issue it will look like whining...)

Ok - thanks for letting me vent.  Constructive help appreciated!  Thanks

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, BP03 said:

Sorry to resurrect this old thread but just found out a friend has a 44709 check ride next week.  The 44709 resulted from a successful IFR flight that terminated in a T-Storm (40-50mph winds) and approach to minimums.  The initial approach was not successful and he was diverted to his alternate where he successfully landed but could not get off the runway due to visibility.  It took 30 min for a car to find him on the runway and guide him to parking.

The FAA sent him a letter saying they have 'reason to believe that your competence to be the holder of an airman certificate is in question'.  There is not a specific reason given for there concern.  He has thousands of hours in multiple aircraft, type rated and more than current - obviously has many years experience.  He met with them initially and the FAA examiners spent 2-3 hours ridiculing and laughing at him then scheduled a check ride.  He was not offered remedial training or other options.

...AOPA legal advised go do the check ride, a bit disappointing in my opinion.  So, do you folks have any words of advice or options?  Can he do anything else at this point?  Request another examiner?  Let FSDO Safety director know of unprofessional behavior?  (he is concerned since the exam also based on his attitude, he does not want to create a bad atmosphere prior to the 44709.  But, if he waits until after and there is an issue it will look like whining...)

Ok - thanks for letting me vent.  Constructive help appreciated!  Thanks

It's hard to provide advice since the details are known by the pilot and the FAA. Something transpired on that IFR flight that caused the FSDO to get notified. Could have been a number of things but the FSDO usually doesn't get involved unless there is some sort of pilot deviation that was reportable by ATC. Could have been a number of different things but hopefully a controller on our site could provide the things they would have been required to report.

Based on what you said the letter stated, if it was worded this way, they felt he did something that caused them to question his decision making or his actions commanding that flight. Again, without knowing how/what occurred on the flight it is hard to say what they are concerned about.

Did your friend tell you what they were going to do on the check ride? If he is a competent pilot as you say, the check ride will prove that out. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Marauder - thanks for the quick reply, we are having the same problem understanding the FAA - they did not provide any details of the infraction(s) just questioned his competence...the FAA did list 8 different subject areas and gave him 80+ pages of documentation they want to cover in depth but they are all broad in nature.  I'm concerned because they could use almost any infraction without addressing a specific issue/concern.  If something did transpire on the flight shouldn't the FAA divulge the problem(s) they are investigating?

Topics FAA provided for the check ride are: Preflight Prep, Preflight Procedures, ATC Clearance & Procedures, Flight by reference to instruments, Navigation systems, Instrument Approach Procedures, Emergency Operations, Post flight Procedures

And this was on a successful flight!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that they are questioning his preflight planning, especially checking weather at destination and alternate, and why he chose to land at the alternate when visibility was so low that he couldn't see to taxi. That last part would be covered under ATC Clearances & Procedures, Flight By Reference to Instruments, Navigation Systems, Instrument Approach Procedures and Emergency Operations; not being able to taxi would be Post Flight Procedures. It's just investigation into his thought process . . . which only the pilot knows, nobody else, not even The Shadow.

  • when do you divert?
  • how low can you go?
  • how do you navigate the approach? what are the deviation limits?
  • what do you do if you deviate too far to the side?
  • what do you do at DH / MDA?
  • when do you go missed? how do you navigate / fly a missed approach? what is the purpose of a missed approach?
  • what are the ceiling and visibility limits for an approach? how do you determine what the visibility actually is?
  • what do you do after landing? Did he stop on the runway and sit there, or did he exit and block a taxiway instead? Was there other traffic on approach that had to hold or divert because he couldn't taxi in?
  • etc., etc., etc.
Edited by Hank
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, BP03 said:

Marauder - thanks for the quick reply, we are having the same problem understanding the FAA - they did not provide any details of the infraction(s) just questioned his competence...the FAA did list 8 different subject areas and gave him 80+ pages of documentation they want to cover in depth but they are all broad in nature.  I'm concerned because they could use almost any infraction without addressing a specific issue/concern.  If something did transpire on the flight shouldn't the FAA divulge the problem(s) they are investigating?

Topics FAA provided for the check ride are: Preflight Prep, Preflight Procedures, ATC Clearance & Procedures, Flight by reference to instruments, Navigation systems, Instrument Approach Procedures, Emergency Operations, Post flight Procedures

And this was on a successful flight!

Their definition of a successful flight might differ dramatic from your pilot friend's definition. As Hank pointed out, they are questioning his decision making and preparation through the whole IFR flight process. This wasn't a "he busted altitude" discussion. Like I said before, your friend and the FAA know the whole story. From the additional information you provided, something noteworthy happened on that flight that caught their attention. And since they don't sit in the ATC hubs listening for problems, something transpired that caused it to be reported.

Edited by Marauder
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, BP03 said:

Marauder - thanks for the quick reply, we are having the same problem understanding the FAA - they did not provide any details of the infraction(s) just questioned his competence...the FAA did list 8 different subject areas and gave him 80+ pages of documentation they want to cover in depth but they are all broad in nature.  I'm concerned because they could use almost any infraction without addressing a specific issue/concern.  If something did transpire on the flight shouldn't the FAA divulge the problem(s) they are investigating?

Topics FAA provided for the check ride are: Preflight Prep, Preflight Procedures, ATC Clearance & Procedures, Flight by reference to instruments, Navigation systems, Instrument Approach Procedures, Emergency Operations, Post flight Procedures

And this was on a successful flight!

While it's concerning that we haven't heard the process being approached like a training and remediation opportunity, which is supposed to be the approach of the new-fangled FAA, I would hardly call an IFR flight that terminates in a thunderstorm, going ahead with the approach to minimums anyway and diverting to an alternate which had insufficient ground visibility to taxi off the runway a "successful" IFR flight?  :o

  • Like 7
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It might have something to do with closing the runway for 30 minutes. I would expect that to attract some attention. While visibility is determined by the PIC and rarely can be disputed by anyone not in the cockpit at the time, not being able to leave the runway because of visibility is likely a dead give away that the visibility wasn't 200 and a half mile.

I guess if the definition of "successful" is no one died, then ok. But I'd expect the FAA's definition is a bit different. 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, gsxrpilot said:

It might have something to do with closing the runway for 30 minutes. I would expect that to attract some attention. While visibility is determined by the PIC and rarely can be disputed by anyone not in the cockpit at the time, not being able to leave the runway because of visibility is likely a dead give away that the visibility wasn't 200 and a half mile.

I guess if the definition of "successful" is no one died, then ok. But I'd expect the FAA's definition is a bit different. 

I suppose I can see a situation where rainfall is so heavy that the splashes and droplets near the ground obscure runway markings if your on the ground, but not in the air.

But still, given the big picture of a story with a number of features that make me go :o, I think my advice for the OP's friend would be to adjust my attitude and commit to making the experience an opportunity for learning, improvement and development ("how could I have done better?"), rather than sticking to the mantra of "I didn't violate any regs and nobody died."  At this point, the FAA is not going to change the outcome because they are dazzled by my knowledge or skill--they're going to be making a decision based on my attitude.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, jaylw314 said:

I suppose I can see a situation where rainfall is so heavy that the splashes and droplets near the ground obscure runway markings if your on the ground, but not in the air.

But still, given the big picture of a story with a number of features that make me go :o, I think my advice for the OP's friend would be to adjust my attitude and commit to making the experience an opportunity for learning, improvement and development ("how could I have done better?"), rather than sticking to the mantra of "I didn't violate any regs and nobody died."  At this point, the FAA is not going to change the outcome because they are dazzled by my knowledge or skill--they're going to be making a decision based on my attitude.

I knew an instructor once who had his license suspended. People who flew with him thought his approach to teaching was impeccable and well prepared. Only after he did an off field landing in his own plane due to fuel exhaustion did his history of multiple priority handling for fuel emergencies come out. Apparently he was good at teaching others to "do what I say, not what I do".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...you're correct, i'm getting a little defensive for my friend.  The only planes that landed after him were air force pilots that landed on a parallel runway.  We had another pilot at the airport land, after this incident, without dropping the gear and closed the runway for 1+ hrs with a student on his first solo circling while the runway was cleared.  The FAA basically shrugged with no repercussions after $70K+ damage, etc. thus part of my comparison basis for successful...my friend was in a bad situation that developed while in flight and ended it with no damage or anyone hurt, but should have turned back or landed sooner.

I will share your feedback with him as he preps - he is older and does not want to end his flying career like this.  Hopefully they will be reasonable on the check ride while ensuring he is still safe.  Having never been through this it is alarming on several levels.  Thanks for your thoughts!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think@Hank nailed it above. I am sure you'll find the material to test the pilot on is an exact extract from the ACS or PTS depending on his certificate. (I've been involved in giving remedial training for pilots who have deviated and the requirements stem directly from the pilots ACS or PTS). I suspect the oral portion is going to be the real test and would suggest he be prepared to discuss in addition to his pre-flight panning procedures, his equivalent of the CARE checklist aloft and his selection of an alternate and especially 91.175 in detail - since it appears he violated that one pretty good. Of course everything else listed is fair game but from the background presented those seem to be some of the key elements that the FAA is concerned about. I doubt the FAA has any concern on his ability to fly an ILS to minimums but probably suspects his poor judgement could have resulted in a much different outcome. His attitude will be critical to success and sorry to say, but right now the first interview isn't predictive of a positive outcome.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah I’m guessing it’s a “what defines a legal alternate” issue...plus assuming ATC was advising him of current TS activity on the first approach...maybe a careless / reckless issue.Im betting since the final landing occurred at a joint use runway (Air Force use)they may have instigated the complaint.One thing about 709 checkride...they are free!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

It might have something to do with closing the runway for 30 minutes. I would expect that to attract some attention. While visibility is determined by the PIC and rarely can be disputed by anyone not in the cockpit at the time, not being able to leave the runway because of visibility is likely a dead give away that the visibility wasn't 200 and a half mile.

I guess if the definition of "successful" is no one died, then ok. But I'd expect the FAA's definition is a bit different. 

I have taxied into a rain line so thick that I had to stop because it was like trying to drive in a car wash without wipers. I had landed ahead of the storm, VFR.  Ceilings never approached anything close to IFR but the deluge reduced visibility during taxi to nearly zero. Without a stated deviation, this is a fishing expedition.

Edited by Shadrach
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dunno, I kind of see the FAA's point.  Could the pilot's preflight planning clued him in to the possibility of convective activity?  If so, why did he go?  He was supposed to have an hour's gas after he flew to his alternate, why couldn't he have flown somewhere else with better weather?  To be honest, it sounds like he lucked out in getting onto the ground in one piece.

Now, I fully realize that I could be wrong on all points.  The forecast could have been benign when he set up and deteriorated later.  He could have had legal visibility on the approach and landing only to have it close up later due to a fog bank.  I admit I don' know.  But on the surface it really appears that he had Murphy on his side big time.

Edited by steingar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have taxied into a rain line so thick that I had to stop because it was like trying to drive in a car wash with out wipers. I had landed ahead of the storm VFR.  Ceilings never approached anything close to IFR but the deluge reduced visibility during taxi to nearly zero. Without a stated deviation, this is a fishing expedition.

Agreed, and I am sure it's there but we have very few of the facts here and assuming way too much. The OP is certainly well intentioned but without all the facts our comments may be far from what the real concerns actually are.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It sounds like his skills are top notch.  He proved that by flying and landing in a thunderstorm, something most pilots would not survive.  But this reminds me of the quote hanging in the local FBO: "The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations that require him to demonstrate his superior skill."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think @kortopates nailed it. Without really knowing the facts (which I would NOT post on a public forum) we’ll really have no clue why he’s getting the 709 ride. It does sound unusual that they would spend 2-3 hours “ridiculing and laughing at him.” I’ve never been in that situation, but I think if I found myself in it I would terminate the session and have an attorney present for the next one. Sounds like he’s not off to a good start, for reasons that are unclear with the information given (and don’t give us more!).

Where is his CFI in the process? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) The FAA probably has a quota to fill...

2) How many check rides they want to perform...

3) there is nothing more dangerous to an IFR pilot than flying into a thunderstorm or icing...

4) If you set off a red flag, they want to talk with you...

5) Proper response, is to get prepared for the discussion.

6) There is another quota the FAA will want to fill in... that is following this up further with more detail...

7) Get ready for the conversation... got a copy of the flight track and the weather that day?... flight aware is pretty good at supplying incriminating evidence of flying into crummy weather...

8) bone up on having conversations with government agencies/employees...

9) practice the warm fuzzy conversation under stress... before you get there...

10) Search everywhere for check ride experience...

11) Expect the checkride to focus on the known things that went wrong on this flight... but know, anything on the planet can be asked... BFR questions for IFR pilots would be highly expected... 

12) Expect that the check ride will happen... another quota kind of thing... be familiar with the operation of everything in the plane... if something isn’t working, fix, remove, or placard properly...

13) Take it seriously, It won’t go away on its own...

14) Brush up, don’t go in cold...  

15) see what AOPA has on the subject...

Share the flightaware trail on MS...  ?

PP thoughts only, not a CFII...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.