709 ride?!

My buddy (a non-JC member) recently received a letter from the Feds that he is being ordered to surrender his ticket to the FSDO. They stated that his examiner was reportedly falsifying documents. He is currently in the military and out of the country for a few years. He can't really fly back and take the 709 ride immediately. Has anyone heard of a situation like this?

That sounds weird. When this happens don't they usually verify the airmen's eligibility for the certificate first?

I would think so. Seems as though, as long as he had his training well documented in the logbook and was eligible for the certificate then he shouldn't have to surrender his ticket. He was not involved in any accidents or incidents, 709 right off the bat seems inappropriate.

He should get in touch with a lawyer (one who understands aviation).

I hope he has AOPA legal services, otherwise he certificate will be revoked. I have seen threads like this, and they never end well. Even with letters from commanding officers that he is over seas, some FSDO's just don''t give a flip.

I hate saying it, but he absolutely needs to seek out a legal help. I don't say it much for a reason.

Why this guy has to be penalized for the Examiners wrongdoing??

Have him call this attorney:

Alan Armstrong
(770) 451-0313

He's in Atlanta, but since your buddy is out of the country, he probably doesn't care where his attorney is, and I know this guy knows his stuff when it comes to certificate action cases. Trying to handle this case himself without an attorney would be a mistake. It's worth the expense.

Because when something like this happens there are questions about whether or not the people who are unfortunately associated with it meet the standards.

A while back a mechanic examiner was caught up in something similar and hundreds of mechanics had to retest for their certificates YEARS after the fact... Not a small thing.

Good luck to the guy.



Sent from 1865 by telegraph....

This is something @Houston may be able to help with.

There was similar situation discussed on the APC forum a year or so ago (http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/aviation-law/66772-709-letter.html ). In that case YMMV, the FAA accepted a temprary surrender while the pilot was on active duty with the military and deferred the ride.

This one might be different. For one thing, the OP reports he was ordered to surrender his certificate, which does not sound like 709 language (no way to tell what it was without seeing the letter, which is a god reason for not giving advice on a forum).

But the real point is that that other soldier/pilot got an attorney who was able to work it out for him.

Thanks for the vote of confidence, but I couldn't add much beyond what MidlifeFlyer wrote.

An emergency revocation (surrender your certificate now) is a very serious matter. It's not something the FAA takes lightly.

I can think of two examiner falsification cases that might relate. One is the mechanic school in Florida around 1995. In that case the FAA did a statistically significant sampling of the graduates and found that their performance was commensurate with other mechanics who had been out of training for a similar amount of time. Based upon that finding, they took no further action and everyone kept their certificate. In the other case an examiner was doing some falsification in order to make the percent of disapproved applications (failed checkrides) appear larger than it really was. In that case, the examiner had his authority terminated, but nobody was retested.

I would tell your friend not to become overly concerned. The absolute worst thing that is going to happen to him is that he will have to retake the entire checkride. While none of us enjoys checkrides, it's not that big a deal for someone who is qualified.

I would like to say that the FAA is reasonable and understanding and will work with the airman. The problem is that while that is true 98% of the time, the other 2% don't wear signs, so you do want to proceed with caution.

I thought a 709 ride was after a "situation" solely tied to airmanship happened (such as accident/incident or fultiple failures for a new cert/type).

Get the lawyers involved.

Sorta yes and sorta no. The FAA has the legal authority to reexamine any certificate holder at any time, and no reason is required. That certificate holder could be a pilot, mechanic, repair station, 141 school, etc., etc. However, in practice, something has to start the ball rolling. For a pilot that could be an accident or running afoul of ATC. I know of a couple cases where flight instructors underwent a 44709 reexamination after DPEs made complaints about the students or the paperwork they were receiving from that instructor.

Well I'll stand corrected. Still seems odd to have a gun to your head via the other side of the world defending the country.

It's unfortunate, and I'm sure that some kind of compromise will be worked out if he actually pursues it, but being on the other side of the world defending the country doesn't excuse you from anything. The folks back home have jobs to do too.

Not that it's not appreciated.

Here's my thought: If you're worried about taking a 709 ride, you shouldn't have a cert. in the first place. I generally dont agree with most of the things that the FAA does, but if you're taking a 709 ride or facing an emergency revocation, you probably scewed the pooch big time in the first place. If you didnt, then you have nothing to worry about. Just take the ride and get it over with.

I'm not sure I agree with this. I take checkrides on a regular basis as this is my career. However what if my initial instrument examiner had an issue like this and I was asked to take a checkride? I'd be scared to death. I have absolutely no desire to take a checkride with the FAA, much less one that I think I have proven my competency in. Perhaps they wouldn't do that, but just saying...

As long as they want to do it in an airplane I'm current and qualified in, I can go do a multi instrument checkride(ATP, 135/121 recurrent, whatever) tomorrow with no prep at all. As a professional, anything less is unacceptable.
However, as a non often flying pilot or ppl only holder, it's an entirely different story, and I would expect them to cover all the costs involved to be honest, although I'm sure it's on you.

No. It's true that most do arise out of a "situation." But that's for a pretty obvious reason - how else does the FAA know about it? - than as a matter of law or policy.

I'm curious whether you read the original post.

While you're not entirely wrong, this is analogous to the attitude of simply allowing the police to search your house or your car because you "have nothing to hide." A 709 ride is still pretty invasive and cumbersome to deal with, especially for a recreational/hobby pilot. Additionally, anytime you're dealing with a government agent who has the power to take something from you, extreme caution should be exercised. There are some "bad apples" out there in the FAA who are just looking to screw someone over.