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

[RocketAviator]

Relax, Gary. Lacee's ride is this morning, apparently in ABQ on Mountain time (zulu -7).

I'm surprised that he is looking at a full ride with all maneuvers just because he missed dropping the gear.

Me too.

[mike_elliott]

Interesting... Is he/she also doing a 709? Was there a discussion of who was PIC (just curious)?

 

I am sure the FAA has a very special program planned for the CFI

[RocketAviator]

Just heard from the FSDO, he and a maintenance FSDO are on their way, apparently they will review my aircraft logs, do a ramp check of my airplane first then oral followed by the flight!...

[Marauder]

Just heard from the FSDO, he and a maintenance FSDO are on their way, apparently they will review my aircraft logs, do a ramp check of my airplane first then oral followed by the flight!...

Good luck! You won't need it...

[RocketAviator]

I am sure the FAA has a very special program planned for the CFI

As far as I know the CFII has not had any communications with the FAA, the FSDO in OKC who initialled contacted me for the 709 ride now handling the incident said once I completed the 709 the file would be closed.  I have spoken to the CFII a couple times and he states he has not heard from the FAA.

[DonMuncy]

This may be a dumb question, but was the CFI actively giving instruction, as opposed to just riding along (like a friend).

[scottfromiowa]

I had similar scenario. CFI also had to do 709 ride. Both were "non-events". I did not do mine in my aircraft as it was still down at time of 709 ride. I used an Arrow.

[Marauder]

Wonder how that works. That sounds like they are treating it as you were the PIC and the instructor was a passenger. I can't believe the process doesn't involve the instructor.

[mike_elliott]

With the FAA's current thinking that GA incidents and accident rates are not reducing like commercial and military because of the quality of training, this is very unusual, Lacee. Don't get me wrong, I am very pleased to hear this. The FAA feels that training is so poor in GA they are re-writing the PTS for private, instrument and CFI.

[scottfromiowa]

Mine was actively giving instruction. BFR following an hour of instrument instruction. She pulled power (simulated engine loss) in pattern (midfield downwind). Runway had displaced threshold. Last words before "crunch" in flare were "beautiful"...

_ _ I T HAPPENS...

Get an audible gear alarm.

[scottfromiowa]

Wonder how that works. That sounds like they are treating it as you were the PIC and the instructor was a passenger. I can't believe the process doesn't involve the instructor.

Consistently inconsistent?

[RocketAviator]

Mine was actively giving instruction. BFR following an hour of instrument instruction. She pulled power (simulated engine loss) in pattern (midfield downwind). Runway had displaced threshold. Last words before "crunch" in flare were "beautiful"...

_ _ I T HAPPENS...

Get an audible gear alarm.

Scott,

Got / had audible gear alarm.... plus AOA with audio....  I was also being provided active instructions, had also just completed my BFR in the same flight and was about to start the an IPC....

[RocketAviator]

This may be a dumb question, but was the CFI actively giving instruction, as opposed to just riding along (like a friend).

He was actively giving instruction

[DonMuncy]

More dumb questions. In the communications with the FAA, (1) was it all verbal, or did you file/send them anything in writing. (2) Was it clearly communicated that the CFI was involved.

The reason I am being so nosey is I can't believe they are not on the CFI's case.

Be aware I am not being critical of you. You only made a simple mistake, not unlike many others have done and will continue to do. And I forgive the mistake even more because you were "under the control of the CFI".  I know when I am doing a BFR, IPC, etc., I am doing my best to do what the CFI wants, rather than what I would be doing otherwise.

What I am trying to say is, because you did it while doing a BFR has virtually no relation to whether you are ever likely to do it while you are "flying on your own mission".

[mike_elliott]

Mine was actively giving instruction. BFR following an hour of instrument instruction. She pulled power (simulated engine loss) in pattern (midfield downwind). Runway had displaced threshold. Last words before "crunch" in flare were "beautiful"...

_ _ I T HAPPENS...

Get an audible gear alarm.

 

Power off precision landing practice is one area a gear up is more likely to happen. You are busy trying to make the standard, and gear didn't get put down when it normally would. I have "caught" about 6 students now about to make Dmax rich on short final practicing this commercial manuever. It generally shakes them up enough they wont do that again.

[scottfromiowa]

Power off precision landing practice is one area a gear up is more likely to happen. You are busy trying to make the standard, and gear didn't get put down when it normally would. I have "caught" about 6 students now about to make Dmax rich on short final practicing this commercial manuever. It generally shakes them up enough they wont do that again.

Wish you had been in my plane that day Mike. I had spent an hour under the hood (different instructor up front...other instructor(his girlfriend) in back for that hour. Dropped him off did BFR that included a simulated emergency with decent and identification of a landding area...power on/off stalls clean and dirty...and ending with six touch and go landings in pattern in Iowa City on a now closed runway...I was mentally and physcially fatigued and expecting to do a full stop "drop her off" landing and return to CID. I got a completely different and VERY profound "learning experience" on that day....

Only metal and pride bent. If it doesn't kill you and you learn from it it's just "a liffe lesson" I guess

[RocketAviator]

More dumb questions. In the communications with the FAA, (1) was it all verbal, or did you file/send them anything in writing. (2) Was it clearly communicated that the CFI was involved.

The reason I am being so nosey is I can't believe they are not on the CFI's case.

Be aware I am not being critical of you. You only made a simple mistake, not unlike many others have done and will continue to do. And I forgive the mistake even more because you were "under the control of the CFI".  I know when I am doing a BFR, IPC, etc., I am doing my best to do what the CFI wants, rather than what I would be doing otherwise.

What I am trying to say is, because you did it while doing a BFR has virtually no relation to whether you are ever likely to do it while you are "flying on your own mission".

Understand and yes I had to give them a written statement.

[Marauder]

Well!!! How did it go?

[RocketAviator]

Some good some not so good so far, looks lik the saga continues....  First the good news, I passed the oral and flying portion of the 44709.  The flying portion consisted of steep right – left 180 turns holding altitude, landing configuration full stall to wing break, clean configuration to stall horn (the examiner never heard the stall horn) and I understand that somewhat the stall horn is hard to hear not very loud but he did hear my audio gear down system!  Back to the pattern for a visual approach to land, then he wanted me to do one utilizing the ILS 22 glide slope!   He did tell me he wanted to see the G500 / GTN 750 & 650 as it was the first one he had ever seen.  At that point I think the flight was for his benefit.  However when we punched up the ILS the Garmin data gave the WRONG Freq for the ILS..... with the right Airport identifier!! He was not impressed and said he might just send Garmin or Jeppesen a little letter...  Fortunately we had paper approach plates and caught it.  I loaded the approach again just to confirm... and off we went for another round in the pattern inbound using the ILS 22 glideslope!

 

Now for the not so good news depending on several unresolved issues it appears that I may be facing a possible enforcement action for possibly overflying an AD!!  The reoccurring AD in question is for a visual inspection of the exhaust cross over exhaust tube, therefore the FAA maintenance FSDO grounded the airplane.  I had the local shop do the inspection (which took 1.5 hrs), we did not get to fly the 44709 check ride until almost 4:00 pm... A grueling day up to this point to say the least!

 

Since it appears according to the Tach time alone there might have been 55.5 hrs put on the aircraft since the last inspection.... the FAA maintenance FSDO is allowing me to go back over all the log books and my flight time and all the shop work time and see if there are any times the Tach was running but the plane was not in service.... Not sure how all that is going to work out.  The FAA now wants complete copies of the work orders so who knows what else will come through all this.

 

The saga continues….

Thanks for everyone’s support.

Fly safe all, oh and check everything…. It sure can come back to bite you in the tail…   

[jetdriven]

Fishing expedition.  Investigation over a gear up landing turns into a separate matter over an AD.   OK, here's something. The FAA's own AC 43-9 says tach time is only an approximation of time in service.   Read this:

 

"8.

RECORDING TACHOMETERS.

a. Time-in-service recording devices sense such things as electrical power on, oil pressure, wheels on the ground, etc. ,and from these conditions provide an indication of time-in-service. With the exception of those that sense aircraft lift-off and touchdown,the indications are approximate.

 

b. Some owners and operators mistakenly believe these  devices may be used in lieu of keeeing time-in-service in the maintenance record. While they are of great assistance in arriving at the time-in-service, such instruments, alone, do not meet the requirements of section 91.417.

For example, when the device fails and requires change, it is necessary to enter time-in-service and the instrument reading at the change. Otherwise, record continuity is lost. "

 

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgAdvisoryCircular.nsf/0/cfb1221d9b8038b9862569c40075c77f/$FILE/AC43-9C.pdf

 

I can totally see how a conscientious and cautious safe pilot takes extra time to taxi out and do a good warmup period and runup (none of which is time-in-service), then crusies at maximum RPM (Such as 2625) even though he has a 2300 RPM recording tachometer.  The tach time recorded can exceed the actual flight time. Want more proof? I have a log sheet from my plane where the tach time EXCEEDS the hobbs time.  Lacee, PM me, this isn't over.

 

Byron

[Marauder]

Sorry to hear about the additional challenges. Just keep plugging through them. You'll get through them as well.

[M016576]

About the CFI not getting a letter from the FSDO/FAA: it all depends on how the FSDO found out about your gear up. It's possible that they didn't know their was a CFI involved... If that's the case, then it's a measure of oversight (shortcoming) on the part of the FAA, not willful discrimination. I'm willing to bet this is the case, as typically the FAA is hard on CFI/CFII's.

On a seperate note, did you file a NASA safety report after your gear up? Could have helped to show a conscientious pilot to the examiner. Sorry I'm late to this "party" and really sorry about how the maintenance inspector may be pushing for more action

[N601RX]

It sounds to me like he is trying to leave you a out by letting you go back through your logs and verify. Surely you must have accidentally left something on at some point or perhaps extremely long runups.

The pipes would have been looked at as the engine was reinstalled, but they wouldn't have necessary made the log entry for the AD.

[RocketAviator]

About the CFI not getting a letter from the FSDO/FAA: it all depends on how the FSDO found out about your gear up. It's possible that they didn't know their was a CFI involved... If that's the case, then it's a measure of oversight (shortcoming) on the part of the FAA, not willful discrimination. I'm willing to bet this is the case, as typically the FAA is hard on CFI/CFII's.

On a seperate note, did you file a NASA safety report after your gear up? Could have helped to show a conscientious pilot to the examiner. Sorry I'm late to this "party" and really sorry about how the maintenance inspector may be pushing for more action

Yes they knew from the beginning there was a CFI it as in the original report and the FSDO mentioned it again today.  And yes I filled a NASA safety report.

[RocketAviator]

So sorry to hear this, Lacee.

Note to self. If ever in this situation, take check ride in rental aircraft.

Jim

Another wise man suggested I do that but I did not head his sound counsel & advice..... now I pay!!