FSDO followups on equipment probkems reported to ATC?

Dale wrote:

He requested that I stop by the FSDO with the aircraft logs and my logs.


Sorry I would have asked who is going to pay for my time and expense.

And asked for the request in writing. (In case of later litigation for
unwarranted expense. You will not ever get the "requests" in writing.)

But I have an attitude.

I have seen them without their pants on. And am pretty fed up.

If you curtail a flight and TELL big brother that there was an
underlying equipment problem that caused it, I would hardly be surprised
about the follow up call.

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.

I've cancelled an IFR plan and diverted once, and ATC quickly asked what
the problem was.. in my case it wasn't mechanical, rather it was "human
factors".. bladder pressure was approaching redline.. ATC chuckled and
said my new destination was pretty small, and probably only had a shrub,
let alone a tree. (He was wrong.. the local casino had a NICE
hospitality setup on field for their jet-setters).

I know of at least one other local pilot who actually told approach they
had a mechanical problem and landed at an uncontrolled field, at which
the pilot (who happened to be an A&P) addressed the problem and resumed
the flight.

The FSDO came back later (this was a few years back) and conducted their
own investigation, and was eventually satisfied with the outcome.

Is it a pain in the ass? I'm sure it can be. Can you imagine how much
more painful it would be when the same plane goes back in the air,
unrepaired, and goes down in a crowded neighborhood... and the
all-knowing media asks the FAA... didn't you guys already know this
plane had a "problem"? Why didn't you do something about it?

At this point, I'm a renter, not an owner (but am also a builder).. and
I have no problem grounding a plane (including AWAY from home) over a
safety issue (and away from home can get pricey, depending on the rental
agreement).. 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.

Dave

Larry Dighera wrote:
On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:20:38 -0500, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
r2Rxg.84249$ZW3.23051@dukeread04::


FAR 91 under IFR requires reports on many things, unforecast
weather and equipment failure are two.


I found this:

§ 91.187 Operation under IFR in controlled airspace: Malfunction
reports.
(a) The pilot in command of each aircraft operated in controlled
airspace under IFR shall report as soon as practical to ATC any
malfunctions of navigational, approach, or communication equipment
occurring in flight.

I suppose an inoperative/malfunctioning directional gyro would
qualify.

However, I don't see any mention of having the FSDO inspector signoff
before return to service.

There is some mention of reporting inoperative equipment in this
appendix:

Appendix A to Part 91—Category II Operations: Manual, Instruments,
Equipment, and Maintenance

But I wouldn't think that applicable in this case.

Perhaps you'd be good enough to locate the citation that mandates FSDO
contacting the pilot when he mentions a DG malfunction:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...1.3.10&idno=14

Thanks.

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/

Andrew Gideon wrote:

But I have never heard of this before. I wonder how well this
long-standing policy handles subtleties like a VFR flight in an aircraft
with a too-quickly precessing DG. And what are the possible sanctions?

I can tell you I've told ATC of a number of problems while VFR (some
within class B) and never heard anything about it including:

1. inoperative transponder
2. total electrical failure
3. smell of smoke in the cockpit
4. plugged static system

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:43:08 -0400, Andrew Gideon
wrote:


One of our club aircraft was recently on an IFR flight plan in VMC. The
instrument student and his instructor noted that the DG was precessing
excessively. They eventually canceled the flight plan and returned to
their point of origin VFR.

In canceling with ATC, they mentioned something about the DG having a
problem.

Later that day, the club received a call from the FSDO about the "vacuum
failure" experienced by one of our aircraft.

I've since chatted with the [nice] fellow from the FSDO myself (as one of
the people involved in aircraft maintenance in the club). He explained
that this was a part of a long-standing policy. Equipment failures that
are reported to ATC are reported by ATC to the local FSDO. The FSDO
checks into this, confirming that the problem was "resolved" by a mechanic
before the aircraft flies again.

The example he used was that of an RG with a flickering gear light.
Assume the pilot reports the light to the tower. Further assume that the
landing is uneventful (ie. the gear holds) and the flickering stops after
landing. In this case, the FSDO is going to check that the aircraft
received maintenance before it was flown again.

I asked about the case where the above landing occurred at a field w/o
services. He said that a mechanic should be brought in before the plane
is flown to confirm that the gear is down and locked.

There was a significant level of ambiguity in what I was told. He
mentioned several times in the explanation that part of the trigger in the
case of our aircraft was cancellation of the flight plan. I pointed out
that I'd canceled IFR flight plans plenty of times. He then said that the
difference was that my cancellations were typically when starting a visual
approach to my intended airport, and the event under discussion involved
an airplane not reaching its original destination.

I pointed out that, once I was VFR, nobody knows where I land. He agreed
with a little confusion.

I know that the FAA has an interest in assuring that aircraft with
problems are repaired. So do pilots.

But I have never heard of this before. I wonder how well this
long-standing policy handles subtleties like a VFR flight in an aircraft
with a too-quickly precessing DG. And what are the possible sanctions?

I was a little afraid to ask about that last point laugh.

Is anyone familiar with this policy? I'd love to see some of the gaps
filled in.

Thanks...

Andrew
http://flyingclub.org/

I used to never have FSDO follow-up (and I've been flying for about 35
years). One year I had to replace five generators. I've had in-flight
vacuum failures. I've declared emergencies for a variety of other
equipment issues over the years with never a call from ATC.

About a year ago, I declared an emergency and landed about twenty minutes
after takeoff because of a fluctuating oil pressure indication.
Troubleshooting revealed a blown Garlock seal on an oil scavenger pump. It
was repaired. I received a followup call from FSDO (Portland, ME). I
asked and was told that the reporting and followup had been "policy" for
years.

Needless to say the answer did not make sense to me in light of my previous
experiences.





Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)