This won't help with your axe grinding OP, which is obviously something specific and strange -- but we had one with a renter pilot who iced up his carb and chose to orbit the field and attempt to troubleshoot in the air instead of landing to sort it out. I don't believe he violated/deviated anything but common sense.
After he planted the thing in a nearby industrial park and flipped it, the feds summoned him for the 709 ride and a lighthearted discussion of decision-making. I understand that conversation went poorly enough that we didn't hear about it again and I don't know what the final outcome was. No lawyers were involved.
Cheeky bugger wanted to rent another of our planes the day after. I think the expletive he received still rings in his ears. Our insurance gave him a check for $75k to help stop his bloody nose, and that injustice still rings in MY ears.
Can someone give any example of how it could happen? A 709 being needed when the pilot had no violations or deviations?
7009 rides are about competence. Sometimes associated with a deviation sometimes not.
While you may not be told everything that’s “going on”, what makes you think it won’t be a fair re-examination?
Have you discussed this with an aviation attorney rather than "a few people"? So you get some reliable information? Do you know , for example, that if you are worried about bias from you local FSDO, you can request a different one for the re-exam? That successful 709 rides are treated as "No Action" under FAA enforcement policy guidelines? That successful 709s are expunged after a certain period (I forget whether 30 or 90 days)? That 709s are not reportable in PRIA?
There are some limits on the FAA authority to request one, but really not much. There must be a "reasonable basis" for the FAA to question competence. Something related has happened to lead the FAA to question competence. That's a matter of both law and practicality. But it's a really low standard although the scope of the exam has to be related. That CFI poor preflight I mentioned? The engine quit on takeoff. The 709 consisted of the CFI "teaching" an ASI a preflight inspection.Dang. All kinds of things can get ya a 709. They could probably cruise around here and other forums and give one for bad atittude.
Yes, it's always a good ide for the attorney one consults to be competent.
I refer you to NTSB records for your own research efforts. Bigger picture, I offer a quote from IFR Magazine, regarding the PBR from 2019:
FSDOs can be different on that score. Some ASIs just hide. Others are fine talking to a pilot's counsel. @brcase mentioned this and I've had both experiences. In one, I specifically asked the ASI whether they need to involve FAA counsel. They checked and the answer was for the ASI to deal with me directly. Maybe that inquiry is part of your delay? Dunno.
That has happened when an Examiner has been investigated. Examiner accused of something like pencil-whipping checkrides. The applicants they pass sometimes have to do a re-examination although they have done nothing other than use the "bad" examiner.
