On Thu, 27 Jul 2006 03:22:52 +0000, Dave S wrote:

It doesn't sound like a power trip, or bored inspector.. its a focus on
safety... I don't consider this portion of interacting with the FAA to be
an enforcement action.
[...]
The FSDO came back later (this was a few years back) and conducted their
own investigation, and was eventually satisfied with the outcome.

And what if the FSDO is not "satisfied"? Can it become an enforcement
action. Could this be construed to fall under 91.13 if I choose to fly
VFR with a excessively precessing DG?

[...]
but I also know how in rentals that sometimes squawks
either dont get addressed, or are quickly removed from the log, or just
"lost". I welcome that added layer of oversight that the FAA is making
sure a reported mechanical problem is at least addressed by the
responsible party.

Well, here I agree with you. I too have had "interesting" rentals. It is
one of several reasons I joined my club.

However, what concerns me is what discretion the FAA is taking away from
the part 91 pilot. Perhaps none, but without any formal description of
this policy, how can we know? And w/o a formal description of the policy,
what boundary is there on the FSDO staffer's authority in this matter?

- Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/