Visit from an FAA "Geographic Inspector"

RotorAndWing said:
As with most stories there is usually more here than meets the eye. I would like to see the story from the other side.

Sorry, after doing this stuff for a living I'm ver suspect of one sided stories.
Click to expand...

The docket is online. It's all there if you want to dig through the 45 documents for a walk-away accident. An epic effort of governmental CYA that included 5 revisions of the "factual" as well as the involvement of my congressman.

As to your BS innuendo.... I've been doing this stuff for a while myself as well... and know what is in the heart of most government workers and agency's.

The OP would be well advised to err on the side of caution here... AOPA legal plan is cheap.
 
Last edited:
Jeff K said:
The docket is online. It's all there if you want to dig through the 45 documents for a walk-away accident. An epic effort of governmental CYA then included 5 revisions of the "factual" as well as the involvement of my congressman.

As to your BS innuendo.... I've been doing this stuff for a while myself... and know what is in the heart of most government workers and agency's.
Click to expand...

Donuts and discount hookers?
 
Jeff K said:
What's "amusing" is at least two of the commentator's here saying don't worry be happy have connections to the FAA.

And you may be the nicest guy in the world.... but you can take my certificate. Excuse me if I'm going to be on my defensive... but I've got good reason to be that way. Your agency plays by it's own rules... one need look no further then the Oshkosh debacle if the personal testimony's don't mean anything. I'm sorry... it's not personal, but I don't trust your ex-employer.

Bottom line. The FAA called the OP out of the blue wanting to look at his maintenance records. That's a bit more then coffee.
Click to expand...

Yes, it's his job. And he has the right to examine those records whether you like it or not. At least the Inspector was being courteous and giving a phone call.

A nice social visit and a record check or a LOI and a formal investigation? Personally I would choose the first. Besides, if the Inspector really wanted to go for blood he would show up unannounced and get down to business.

Previous to my employment with the agency I had a lot of dealings with the FSDO (I owned a business and 141 school). I'm glad I built trust and friendship with the Inspectors and it was always enjoyable when they stopped by. A few times I needed something I would just call and they would help me out.

BTW, I offer my past experience as an example that not all of the people working there are out for blood. A little common courtesy goes a long way.
 
Jeff K said:
The docket is online. It's all there if you want to dig through the 45 documents for a walk-away accident. An epic effort of governmental CYA that included 5 revisions of the "factual" as well as the involvement of my congressman.

As to your BS innuendo.... I've been doing this stuff for a while myself as well... and know what is in the heart of most government workers and agency's.

The OP would be well advised to err on the side of caution here... AOPA legal plan is cheap.
Click to expand...

There are 3 sides to every story, yours, his and the truth in between.
 
RotorAndWing said:
There are 3 sides to every story, yours, his and the truth in between.
Click to expand...

And court transcripts only show the "facts" that were relevant to a particular side of the issue.

The first time I ever had to go to court to testify to my part in an investigation I had a serious case of "WTF", when I learned what I could and could not say. It vaguely tracked with the training I'd gotten at FLETC, but... I'll just say that in my experience the case that gets argued before a jury in a criminal trial is a pale reflection of the reality.
 
RotorAndWing said:
If they really want to see your airplane all that is needed is a LOI (letter of investigation) specifying a time and date to see the airplane.

If you fail to comply they can revoke your airworthiness certificate until you do and possibly your pilot certificate. Carefully read 44709.
Click to expand...

Without cause, I'd take that one to a real court, not the kangaroo kind. Pretty sure at some point a real judge with a real understanding of law would quash it(lacking cause again).

Sorry, but like all the others, this 'we are all friends' stuff can go south so fast it'll drill a hole in the ground deeper than we can see. Just another method of 'if you have nothing to hide'. I have a lot to hide, but it's all in the frame of reference. Ask Bob Hoover, or a myriad of other pilots/owners how things went when they chose to cooperate.

You've also expressed an unusual form or statement about 'rights' which tells me quite clearly that you don't understand the concept of a right as it's applied to citizens. Of course, it's all the rage now with the process of having a ruler rather than one who serves, so you fit right in with the new totalitarians. ;)
 
RotorAndWing said:
Yes, it's his job. And he has the right to examine those records whether you like it or not. At least the Inspector was being courteous and giving a phone call.
Click to expand...

And I never said he didn't have a right to see those records. But according to the OP's wife... a bit more then that was expected.


RotorAndWing said:
BTW, I offer my past experience as an example that not all of the people working there are out for blood.
Click to expand...

And how does the OP know he is getting one of the good ones??

There is nothing wrong with preparing for the worst but expecting the best. The OP should get all his records in order BEFORE he meets with the FAA. And close his hanger door unless the FAA wants to give a reason for the interest AND run it by his attorney first.
 
docmirror said:
Without cause, I'd take that one to a real court, not the kangaroo kind. Pretty sure at some point a real judge with a real understanding of law would quash it(lacking cause again).

Sorry, but like all the others, this 'we are all friends' stuff can go south so fast it'll drill a hole in the ground deeper than we can see. Just another method of 'if you have nothing to hide'. I have a lot to hide, but it's all in the frame of reference. Ask Bob Hoover, or a myriad of other pilots/owners how things went when they chose to cooperate.

You've also expressed an unusual form or statement about 'rights' which tells me quite clearly that you don't understand the concept of a right as it's applied to citizens. Of course, it's all the rage now with the process of having a ruler rather than one who serves, so you fit right in with the new totalitarians. ;)
Click to expand...


Doc, go read the US Code that pertains to aviation and what the FAA has a "right to do" and your "rights" as a person certificated by them and your aircraft' s certificate issued by them.

Title 49, subtitle VII, Part A, subpart iii, Chapter 447, 44709.

(a) Reinspection and Reexamination.— The Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration may reinspect at any time a civil aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, appliance, design organization, production certificate holder, air navigation facility, or air agency, or reexamine an airman holding a certificate issued under section 44703 of this title.
(b) Actions of the Administrator.— The Administrator may issue an order amending, modifying, suspending, or revoking—
(1) any part of a certificate issued under this chapter if—
(A) the Administrator decides after conducting a reinspection, reexamination, or other investigation that safety in air commerce or air transportation and the public interest require that action
 
docmirror said:
Without cause, I'd take that one to a real court, not the kangaroo kind. Pretty sure at some point a real judge with a real understanding of law would quash it(lacking cause again).

Sorry, but like all the others, this 'we are all friends' stuff can go south so fast it'll drill a hole in the ground deeper than we can see. Just another method of 'if you have nothing to hide'. I have a lot to hide, but it's all in the frame of reference. Ask Bob Hoover, or a myriad of other pilots/owners how things went when they chose to cooperate.

You've also expressed an unusual form or statement about 'rights' which tells me quite clearly that you don't understand the concept of a right as it's applied to citizens. Of course, it's all the rage now with the process of having a ruler rather than one who serves, so you fit right in with the new totalitarians. ;)
Click to expand...


Which court is going to hear your case disputing getting a 44709 ride until after you have declined and the FAA had to send the USMS to come collect the certificate you did not return to them?

You may not like the fact that the FAA can 709 you at any time for any reason, but that's one of the responsibilities that comes with having the certificate. If you don't want to deal with the FAA, don't get a license.

As for this particular instance, it's most likely checking up on the RVSM stuff.
 
RW, don't bother.

While I often wish that the USA was the way Doc wishes it was, it isn't, and hasn't been for probably 80+ years.

To the OP, I hope your experience turns out pleasant. In fact I'll bet $10 bucks against Doc that it does, if he cares to take the bet.
 
RotorAndWing said:
There are 3 sides to every story, yours, his and the truth in between.
Click to expand...

It's pretty much in black and white... stories aren't going to be different in that part of my adventure. If you really are interested, a FOIA should get the part that didn't end up in the docket.

But let me concede your attempt at innuendo to you so it's not an issue. Why is it so hard for you to believe a FAA inspector might have a personal agenda or might not be as kind hearted as apparently you were? The OP simply doesn't' know the unstated agenda here.

A one hour consult with an AOPA attorney is free as part of the plan (I think about $100) and he could real advise here from a aviation attorney as opposed to folks who have connections to the FAA such as yourself or myself who had a bad experience.
 
Jeff K said:
And I never said he didn't have a right to see those records. But according to the OP's wife... a bit more then that was expected.




And how does the OP know he is getting one of the good ones??

There is nothing wrong with preparing for the worst but expecting the best. The OP should get all his records in order BEFORE he meets with the FAA. And close his hanger door unless the FAA wants to give a reason for the interest AND run it by his attorney first.
Click to expand...


The Inspector called, gave the reason for a visit, a "heads up" that he would like to stop by. All that is needed is "We'll Sir, I'll be happy to meet with you. Exactly what will you need to see?"

Sounds to me like the OP would have plenty of time to prepare.
 
TMetzinger said:
RW, don't bother.

While I often wish that the USA was the way Doc wishes it was, it isn't, and hasn't been for probably 80+ years.

To the OP, I hope your experience turns out pleasant. In fact I'll bet $10 bucks against Doc that it does, if he cares to take the bet.
Click to expand...

Agreed.
 
TMetzinger said:
RW, don't bother.

While I often wish that the USA was the way Doc wishes it was, it isn't, and hasn't been for probably 80+ years.

To the OP, I hope your experience turns out pleasant. In fact I'll bet $10 bucks against Doc that it does, if he cares to take the bet.
Click to expand...

If someone is making book, I bet if you've got the plane in condition that you represent here and everything is all worked out on the RVsM and MEL side, you'll have a pleasant encounter.
 
Jeff K said:
Something is up. It very well may be nothing... or not even related to you but once you drop your shorts there is no going back.

Lock your hanger. Also make sure you don't have a prevision in your lease that allows them to let in local law enforcement.

If they had a legitimate reason to inspect your aircraft in a locked building they will get a warrant and it will spell out the reason. In the mean time you'll need to provide any other paperwork they request. Sign up for the AOPA legal plan.
Click to expand...

Too late to sign up for the plan for this call, I think, but what you've read above is what AOPA will tell you. Don't volunteer anything. Don't offer more than asked. Be polite.

I will tell you things can work out well when this happens or poorly. I think it mainly depends on what they find. Some inspectors are jerks just like anyone, but most are great and do this because they love aviation.

My DPE was retired from the FAA and has been a great resource for me for enforcement actions. She loves aviation and keeps working as a DPE because of it.
 
I am in the camp of Tim , Ron and R&W......

I must be lucky living in Wyoming, but the FSFO in Casper has some of the nicest and professional FAA guys I have ever met.. During the multi year build of my highly modified experimental, I got nothing less then GREAT service / feedback from Bruce Hanson, the boss and Mike Maglioni... They did their job politely and treated me with respect...

I had not seen either one for a few years until last month when the RV-7 crashed and I was hired by the NTSB to dig through the wreckage.... Bruce worked the crash from the FAA side of things and during the 2 days he was here , both him and the NTSB gal, Zoe restored my faith in government workers...:yes:..

My answer to the OP is to extend a welcome to the inspector and treat him with respect........ My bet is he will turn out to be a nice guy without an axe to grind...IMHO.... YMMV...;)
 
Looks like plenty of people should research the term 'Quisling'. I know, I know - I am a bad, bad person for insisting on my independence and personal responsibility. Not sure if it's really been 80 years, but it's certainly be about 30 or so since we were the masters of our own destiny. Access to the NAS system has gotten so adverse that there are laws on the books that certainly violate the letter, and the intent of the constitution. Me - being a person who cares about that kind of stuff are like throwbacks, living a life of desperation, trapped in a 21st century country which I used to have faith in.

No bet it'll will "probably/likely" turn out fine. Sadly, few people understand the concept of prior restraint. Restrictions on basically all aspects of human behavior are the New Democracy - kind of like the Peoples Democratic republic of blah-blah-blah. Like the new "Affordable Care Act", etc. Enjoy your authorized, validated, selected, and supervised freedom. At one time in this country, it was a nice place. Now you've all phucked it up entirely.

Buh-bye.
 
KTMeyer said:
It's an Eclipse, and though we operate under Part 91, we have an RVSM manual and an MEL, nominally approved by the local FSDO (it's been our only interaction with them to date).

I'm wondering if we're somehow in the gray zone of an "almost-135" operation because we have RVSM and MEL paperwork with them; maybe they simply stuck us in their list of inspectees.
Click to expand...

You are in the same 'gray zone' as a part 61 flight school or someone who holds a LOA to conduct scenic flights. Not really a certificate that creates formal supervision by a designated POI but the name may end up on one of the inspectors lists.
The decision is now whether you want a cooperative or antagonistic relationship with the inspector assigned to your operation.

Do you live in a nice place ? Some of them need to fly for currency and will use any excuse to spend a day out of the office in a rental plane doing their milk-run.
 
RotorAndWing said:
The Inspector called, gave the reason for a visit, a "heads up" that he would like to stop by. All that is needed is "We'll Sir, I'll be happy to meet with you. Exactly what will you need to see?"
Click to expand...


You missed a few comments from the OP. It went beyond records inspection. Let me summarize for you:

  • "so he could stop by "and take a look at your aircraft."
  • "see how we're maintaining our plane."
  • "We got almost no useful information from the inspector over the phone."
  • "see how you're maintaining your plane." (message to wife)

RotorAndWing said:
Sounds to me like the OP would have plenty of time to prepare.
Click to expand...

And we agree on that point.... what I don't agree is on anyone downplaying this. The OP isn't betting $10... he is betting his certificate.

That said, the OP should expect the best... but he should prepare for the worst. Be friendly with the FAA inspector, talk over coffee and donuts (Henning can bring the hookers :rolleyes: ) but do it from knowledge... not advice from posters with a bias (both of us) on the blue board.

https://pilot-protection-services.aopa.org/
 
docmirror said:
Looks like plenty of people should research the term 'Quisling'. I know, I know - I am a bad, bad person for insisting on my independence and personal responsibility. Not sure if it's really been 80 years, but it's certainly be about 30 or so since we were the masters of our own destiny. Access to the NAS system has gotten so adverse that there are laws on the books that certainly violate the letter, and the intent of the constitution. Me - being a person who cares about that kind of stuff are like throwbacks, living a life of desperation, trapped in a 21st century country which I used to have faith in.

No bet it'll will "probably/likely" turn out fine. Sadly, few people understand the concept of prior restraint. Restrictions on basically all aspects of human behavior are the New Democracy - kind of like the Peoples Democratic republic of blah-blah-blah. Like the new "Affordable Care Act", etc. Enjoy your authorized, validated, selected, and supervised freedom. At one time in this country, it was a nice place. Now you've all phucked it up entirely.

Buh-bye.
Click to expand...

OK. Go move somewhere else, or leave this **** in the Spin zone. It's funny in that I share many of your complaints about the country, but you seem to blame "the government" for everything bad, rather than yourself and your fellow citizens. And you seem to think that anyone who works for the government is therefore out to get you.
 
Tom-D said:
Are you a A&P?, IA?

Hi, I'm from the FAA, and I'm here to help.

ask the questions,

who are you?
what is this about?
why me?

Be polite, don't get verbal diarrhea, and volunteer info that was not asked for.

When you are asked to sign ANYTHING have your Aviation Lawyer look it over, if it is not correct in every way don't sign it. If it is wrong the chase back to FSDO may not be worth their troubles.
Click to expand...
:mad2:
Try your a public servant working for me. O maybe that might not work well.
 
David7700 said:
Too late to sign up for the plan for this call, I think, but what you've read above is what AOPA will tell you. Don't volunteer anything. Don't offer more than asked. Be polite. .
Click to expand...

I signed up the day after my accident. I was able to get 1.5 hours of "Free" advice and a discounted rate after that. Things may have changed since then but I think they normally cover 25 hrs.

As nothing technically has happened it may not be too late... and most certainly anything he needs to know could be covered in a 1 hour consult.
 
Jeff K said:
I signed up the day after my accident. I was able to get 1.5 hours of "Free" advice and a discounted rate after that. Things may have changed since then but I think they normally cover 25 hrs.

As nothing technically has happened it may not be too late... and most certainly anything he needs to know could be covered in a 1 hour consult.
Click to expand...

Generally half an hour, I think. I'll check tomorrow at the office. And I generally give a discounted rate to pilots. But if you get the plan after an event, I believe AOPA will refer you to an attorney and you and the attorney work out the arrangements. I spoke to a pilot last month where that was the case.
 
David7700 said:
Generally half an hour, I think. I'll check tomorrow at the office. And I generally give a discounted rate to pilots. But if you get the plan after an event, I believe AOPA will refer you to an attorney and you and the attorney work out the arrangements. I spoke to a pilot last month where that was the case.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you are right, I just looked at the current plan. Half hour free advice (for $39) and if a certificate action results they will defend that.

And in my case the "event" was the accident... so I clearly didn't qualify as I joined after it ( I still got the free consult though). I'm not sure in the case of the OP this qualifies as an "event" but even if so, it's well worth it. They also review purchase contracts. It's a good reason to belong to AOPA.

My AOPA board attorney charged me his AOPA compensated rate.... as he extended that courtesy himself to me and wasn't obligated (to that rate) since my event occurred before joining.
 
Jeff K said:
Yeah, you are right, I just looked at the current plan. Half hour free advice (for $39) and if a certificate action results they will defend that.

And in my case the "event" was the accident... so I clearly didn't qualify as I joined after it ( I still got the free consult though). I'm not sure in the case of the OP this qualifies as an "event" but even if so, it's well worth it. They also review purchase contracts. It's a good reason to belong to AOPA.

My AOPA board attorney charged me his AOPA compensated rate.... as he extended that courtesy himself to me and wasn't obligated (to that rate) since my event occurred before joining.
Click to expand...

I think charging the AOPA rate to pilots who aren't covered is pretty typical.
 
Henning said:
Especially when it's 25% more than 'off the street'....:rofl:
Click to expand...

The AOPA rate (2010) was $167/hr vs. $200/hr at his regular rate (midwest prices). I can't see anything the OP needs here at this point taking more then the free 1/2 hour consult. IMHO it's really going to boil down to some coaching on making sure his paper work is in order and what the FAA can and cannot ask for.
 
Jeff K said:
The AOPA rate (2010) was $167/hr vs. $200/hr at his regular rate (midwest prices). I can't see anything the OP needs here at this point taking more then the free 1/2 hour consult. IMHO it's really going to boil down to some coaching on making sure his paper work is in order and what the FAA can and cannot ask for.
Click to expand...

What exactly cannot the FAA ask for?
 
Henning said:
What exactly cannot the FAA ask for?
Click to expand...

They can ask for whatever they want I imagine.... but if you are legally required to comply is the question for the attorney.

Sometimes you might even be able to negotiate with them for greater access... for example the OP said they wouldn't tell him why they were asking to inspect his aircraft... but if they told the OP they were investigating a mechanic using counterfeit parts it might make the OP more cooperative. But in that case I'd definitely have an attorney involved.
 
I believe strongly in the 'have all the information the other guy does' school of dealing with the government.

So - its a free phone call from Hawaii . . . .

"Hi, its Ken, we spoke last week . . . . yada yada yada . . ..

"Can you give me an idea what docs or records you might want to take a look at? I'd like to be sure that we have what you need . . . . ."

End of story- he either tells you and solves your questions, or doesn't [or says something like "i'll let you know when I get there"] which is a different conclusion altogether in which case you should get the chief mechanic from the shop that did the 24 month on board and have HIM do the inspection with the guy . . . at that point - you don't need a lawyer, just someone who speaks A&P and can keep you out of it.

The shop that did that kind of work should be willing to do that - its common for Part 135 ops -
 
If he was after anything, he'd just show up with a warrant. I'm not too concerned here, I would just ask what he's interested in so you can make sure to have things in order, find a mutually convenient time, and go ahead and meet him. I need the FSDO's help on things, so I'd like to have friends there.

How do you like the Eclipse? It's one of those planes that really intrigues me and is on my "want" list one day. :)
 
I used to work at the Federal Reserve in Supervision and Regulation and now in my practice I deal with the IRS on a consistent basis.

While I do not have substantial direct experience with the FAA, every time I have dealt with them they have been quite helpful. I have learned that folks that work for the government are more likely to give you less hassle if you treat them courteously and professionally; give them only what the want without undue delay ( after you run the request by a professional) and don't volunteer information. But, like I said, I am a newbie with the FAA
 
I remain in the camp that these guys bring their pre-existing prejudices with them - and like most government employees can be jealous of those who operate aircraft they themselves cannot afford to operate - or are operated by people whose professions they lack respect for.

Like Jeff, after my accident I refused to say anything to anyone until the next day. This angered the police [who had a report to fill out] and the FSDO guys - who showed up pretty fast.

After a couple of weeks it became clear there was a metal fatigue issue with where the steering rod clipped into the knuckle of the gear steering housing, which caused the off runway excursion. There was also surveillance video of a perfectly positioned aircraft for landing - on centerline, flared, reasonable speed . . . . with the nose gear canted off to the left. I had no chance. . . . .

This changed the position of these guys from 'obviously' pilot error to 'maybe there was a mechanical fault.' But it was definitely begun from the position that "we've seen this before and its always pilot error.' The attitude was obvious.

They required a 709 ride that the inspector botched [and I have discussed elsewhere] and which was never an issue that I passed - which directed the inquiry back to the airframe and discovered the metal fatigue cracks.

The FAA simply refused for 3 months to acknowledge that their original conclusion was simply wrong, and not supported by the objective facts. My simply agreeing to a 709 ride and doing it eliminated whatever they could do about it - and we moved on. Eventually, they closed the file because "I was cooperative," instead of because the airplane broke. . . .

Cops and government officials hate lawyers and anyone else who knows what they HAVE to do, versus what they want us to do . . . . I am cooperative - on my terms. Its not like they can string me up by my thumbs . . .
 
Henning said:
What exactly cannot the FAA ask for?
Click to expand...

What are you having for lunch?
What's in the fridge?
Are you now have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Are you going to eat all that?
Where's the body buried?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object?

Well actually I guess they can ask all those - what can they do if you don't answer?
 
comanchepilot said:
I remain in the camp that these guys bring their pre-existing prejudices with them - and like most government employees can be jealous of those who operate aircraft they themselves cannot afford to operate - or are operated by people whose professions they lack respect for.
.
Click to expand...

"like most government employees". That's a mighty wide brush you're using there. Is that the same as saying "99% of all lawyers make the rest look bad"?

:rolleyes2:
 
Simple answer forget to call the guy back. Forgetting some non family non business call while you were on vacation is plausible. If the guy reconnects then make sure you know what he is looking for then decide how to play.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top