Piedmont Training Dept.
 

Evidently there has been a shake-up in the Piedmont Training Dept. New hires are being yelled at in the sim and being told that if they fail a checkride they will have to do a 709 ride. Not sure if that's legal or not?

That doesn't sound like a shakeup to me. Sounds exactly like my training in 2007

What crap. A CFI who can't quite hack 121 training does nut justify a 709. I'd finish training (don't want to quit and have to explain later) and then immediately take a job with another regional. To hell with PDT.

Agree. I was at Piedmont in 2011. AQP training is hard at this regional. Is JF still the senior check airman there?

Not sure what legal issues can arise from the company though. I don't think any.

I have to say the 709 ride is a new one. When I went through initial it was EXTREMELY common for crews to be let go for issues during sims.

First of all being yelled at inside of the simulator can be very disconcerting and frustrating to someone that has never seen it before. I don't understand why sim instructors do this it can absolutely destroy a prospective pilot and make him feel about an inch tall. Second if you fail the checkride anyway you should walk away. How could they impose a 709 ride after the fact? I thought 709 rides where for when you screw up GA or as a pilot already on the line. And third if all this about piedmont is true avoid them like the plague.No sense it possibly destroying your hopes and dreams and hard work just because a sim instructor wants to get macho and see what you do.

Only the FAA can request a reexamination (709) of an airman usually as a result of an accident or incident where his competency was in question. If someone is having difficulty during training perhaps the organization needs to look within itself first.

APDs, DPEs, etc. act as the FAA in the 121 flight training world. It's not out of the realm to have them issue a 709 ride. In the case of PDT, I'd have to believe it isn't justified. My guess is it's way over the top for what would essentially be a non event. I don't know for sure because I'm not there and I'm not I. The know. Just my assumptions after having been through training with them, and my treatment in sims.

PDT training is not for the faint of heart or those with easily hurt feelings.

Designees cannot "issue" 709 rides. It has to come from the administrator (FAA) in any world including 121.

Only as outlined in their letters, and imposing a 709 ride is light years beyond anything that is in any DE letter.

It sounds like somebody at PDT is like the TSA underwear checker who thinks that they are now part of the FBI.

Only the FAA can "assign" a 709 ride. Presumably PDT training folks are talking out their arses. The big issue is that they are even threatening this, totally out of line in 121 training.

However...depending on the personalities involved with the POI it's not totally inconceivable that a 121 instructor/DPE could whisper in a fed's ear. I suppose in exceedingly rare cases it might even be the right thing to do. But not as a training harassment tool.

In the current climate, I'd suggest not taking a job there, plenty of other regionals will hire at the drop of a hat. Get the word out.

All of this, except the definition of Administrator comes from: VOLUME 5 AIRMAN CERTIFICATION

CHAPTER 7 REEXAMINATION OF AN AIRMAN

Which can be found here: http://fsims.faa.gov/PICDetail.aspx?docId=6B5517EC9C4A91258525734F00766 681


Authority. Under Title 49 of the United States Code (49 U.S.C.) § 44709 (formerly § 609 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FA Act)), the Administrator is authorized to reexamine any airman at any time.

Administrator. The Federal Aviation Administrator or any person to whom he has delegated his authority in the matter concerned.


I always understood APDs DPEs etc to be acting on behalf of the Administrator. So they therefore could request a 709 ride.


B. Basis for Reexamination. The reexamination of an airman on the basis of lack of competency is never to be undertaken lightly. There must be ample or probable cause for requesting the reexamination. In most cases a reexamination will result from the inspector’s investigation of an accident or incident where the pilot’s competence was the apparent cause of the occurrence.

Obviously this isn't the case for new hires. I don't think at any point in time competency should be judged on this level. If a new hire can't handle training dismiss them. Obviously it's more challenging than that post Colgan rulings.

5-1419 BASIS OF REEXAMINATION TEST. When an inspector has sufficient reason to believe that an airman may not be qualified to exercise the privileges of a particular certificate or rating, a reexamination may be required. The inspector reaches this conclusion either through reliable reports, personal knowledge, or on the basis of evidence obtained through an accident, incident, or enforcement investigation.

I see this playing into the above post. Maybe someone has a voice with the FAA to get a 709 ride pushed through, assuming they cannot issue it themselves.

5-1422 INSPECTOR QUALIFICATIONS. Inspectors must be qualified in the aircraft. An inspector conducting a reexamination test shall hold the same aircraft category and class ratings that the airman is being tested on. (A Designated Pilot Examiner (DPE) shall not conduct a reexamination test.)


Pretty self explanatory. The DPE can not administer the test. Only a FAA inspector can.

I did find it interesting that the document changed from an Administrator to an Inspector from one paragraph to the next. Typical FAA I suppose. I'm not privy to the finer details of a 709 ride and it's proceedings. Nor do I ever hope to be.

I know while I was there, a CA was downgraded and after awhile put up for a 709 ride. I don't know who issued it. It was always my assumption that the head of training or one of his close henchmen was responsible.

I would imagine this to be an empty threat by the training dept. I do know that those guys don't mess around and they have no issues failing and firing new hires. So in those regards be careful.

Well crap. After all that work I noticed that the initial paragraph it only says "to reexamine" no request or anything like that. So yeah I would imagine only true FAA can initiate the 709 process. The kicker being 5-1419 reliable reports.

Oh the things you learn commuting at the crack of oh dark thirty!

Yes, the PDT is way out of control...I have been here and am looking to jump ship. We need new hires and unfortunately they are dropping like flies from what I hear. The current class started with 10 and is now down to 5. Very sad and the PDT training department enjoys making other pilots miserable. JK, MM and JF need to retire or get the boot...

That's what I was saying. Now I do know that some 709s originate with a DPE who becomes aware of an issue and then communicates that to the FAA, and in most cases it's probably appropriate.

But to use it as terror tool against helpless new-hires just to satisfy the deep personal insecurities of some under-endowed lifer loser in a regional training dept...that's just wrong.

This is exactly what's been wrong with training for years.....threats, yelling, intimidation....because the Instructor lacks the professional skills to be be a good teacher and/or evaluator.

I've only heard of Piedmont throwing a 709 ride at someone once since I've been here, but the general attitude is correct. Several of the more entrenched members of the training department seem to use fear tactics to keep the group in line. They even seem to be able to override the decisions of several other people because "they don't agree" with something and can apparently take unilateral action accordingly.
Best bet, keep your head down and your mouth shut, and do what you can to move on.

PDT training department needs to stop thinking they are above the FAA and quit the intimidation within the sim. In fact there is one who works in training who thinks he is F.Lee Bailey. (hint hint counselor)