I know of two accidents. In neither accident was anyone injured but in
both the plane was substantially damaged or totalled. The FAA sighted
the owner operator in both cases for violations involving the aircraft
logging. In one case they did not like the wording of the last annual
and in the other they did not like the wording or compliance (I am not
sure which) of an AD.

I wonder, does the FAA just automatically ask for the owners logbooks,
then peruse them until they find a violation? Or are these cases
unusual. In the case of the wording of the last annual, it had NOTHING
to do with the accident (he landed short, in the mud and flipped,
pilot error). The second, I am not sure, the engine failed, so
maintenance might be an issue.

Is there anywhere where an owner/operator can go to get his logbooks
"audited". Find deficiencies and the rectify them?

Is it approved to just keep the stickers from work done loose and not
pasted in and then paste them in later?

"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
> I know of two accidents. In neither accident was anyone injured but in
> both the plane was substantially damaged or totalled. The FAA sighted
> the owner operator in both cases for violations involving the aircraft
> logging. In one case they did not like the wording of the last annual
> and in the other they did not like the wording or compliance (I am not
> sure which) of an AD.
>
> I wonder, does the FAA just automatically ask for the owners logbooks,
> then peruse them until they find a violation? Or are these cases
> unusual. In the case of the wording of the last annual, it had NOTHING
> to do with the accident (he landed short, in the mud and flipped,
> pilot error). The second, I am not sure, the engine failed, so
> maintenance might be an issue.
>
> Is there anywhere where an owner/operator can go to get his logbooks
> "audited". Find deficiencies and the rectify them?
>
> Is it approved to just keep the stickers from work done loose and not
> pasted in and then paste them in later?

No matter what you do the FAA will find something wrong even if they have to
change the rules to do so.

Ask around, or call the local FSDO for when you can bring your plane and log
books to a PACE program event.

These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane and log
books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being fined
or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.








"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
>I know of two accidents. In neither accident was anyone injured but in
> both the plane was substantially damaged or totalled. The FAA sighted
> the owner operator in both cases for violations involving the aircraft
> logging. In one case they did not like the wording of the last annual
> and in the other they did not like the wording or compliance (I am not
> sure which) of an AD.
>
> I wonder, does the FAA just automatically ask for the owners logbooks,
> then peruse them until they find a violation? Or are these cases
> unusual. In the case of the wording of the last annual, it had NOTHING
> to do with the accident (he landed short, in the mud and flipped,
> pilot error). The second, I am not sure, the engine failed, so
> maintenance might be an issue.
>
> Is there anywhere where an owner/operator can go to get his logbooks
> "audited". Find deficiencies and the rectify them?
>
> Is it approved to just keep the stickers from work done loose and not
> pasted in and then paste them in later?

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
>
> These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane and log
> books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being fined
> or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.

Sounds great, but... The risk is not being fined or cited, the risk
is that you'll never be able to fly your plane home after the audit.
It's quite possible that a nitpicky inspector could ground your
airplane because of ancient paperwork issues (not safety related ones,
either). As far as I'm concerned, this program is like taking your
last 5 years of financial data to the IRS and asking them if they can
find a violation. Do you really want to open that can of worms?

When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace event.
If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out who
got fired.

OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane was
seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log problems,
I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But it
would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want to
ignore.

If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.



"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> >...
>>
>> These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane and
>> log
>> books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being
>> fined
>> or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.
>
> Sounds great, but... The risk is not being fined or cited, the risk
> is that you'll never be able to fly your plane home after the audit.
> It's quite possible that a nitpicky inspector could ground your
> airplane because of ancient paperwork issues (not safety related ones,
> either). As far as I'm concerned, this program is like taking your
> last 5 years of financial data to the IRS and asking them if they can
> find a violation. Do you really want to open that can of worms?
>
> When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
> you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)
>
> John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Dude" > wrote in message
...
> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace
event.
> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out who
> got fired.
>
> OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
> because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane
was
> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log
problems,
> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But it
> would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want to
> ignore.

There are very few FAA people that can tell an airworthy airframe from one
that is unairworthy. They can look over paperwork but beyond that don't
expect much..

John Galban > wrote:
: When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
: you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)

Or it's corollary:
"We're not happy, 'till you're not happy."

-Cory
--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Dave Stadt > wrote:
: There are very few FAA people that can tell an airworthy airframe from one
: that is unairworthy. They can look over paperwork but beyond that don't
: expect much..

... and if you look hard enough at *ANY* aircraft, you will conclude that it
unairworthy. One piece of non MIL-spec'd heat shrink tubing or wire end. One
lightbulb gotten at AutoZone rather than a PMA'd one. That one screw on the spinner
that wasn't torqued with a calibrated torque wrench. The list is long, but in true
leagaleaze, anything not done according to approved data is unacceptable.

I've heard horror stories about going to the FSDO for a CFI-checkride and
having the FAA droids comb over your aircraft. Alegedly one guy came in with a
plane that had a pin-head sized air bubble in the wet compass that couldn't be seen
without putting your head down on the floor and looking up at it. *POOF* unairworthy
(no air is acceptable). If you're lucky they'll let you ferry it home.

Again, "We're with the FAA and we're here to help..."

-Cory

--

************************************************** ***********************
* Cory Papenfuss *
* Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
* Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
************************************************** ***********************

Dude wrote:
>
> If a plane was
> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log problems,
> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out.

Nobody at the Teterboro FSDO is capable of determining this -- that's what your local
IA is supposed to do every year. PACE events are intended to uncover problems with
the paperwork; nothing more.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

Sure, we have all heard those stories, and I have been a victim of a similar
case of the letter over any sense whatsoever type of judgement.

However, NOT AT A PACE EVENT.

And, that is what's important. The FAA gives you can opportunity to get
their opinion with no penalty, so you can pencil whip or fix problems on
your own time without being grounded.



> wrote in message
...
> Dave Stadt > wrote:
> : There are very few FAA people that can tell an airworthy airframe from
> one
> : that is unairworthy. They can look over paperwork but beyond that don't
> : expect much..
>
> ... and if you look hard enough at *ANY* aircraft, you will conclude that
> it
> unairworthy. One piece of non MIL-spec'd heat shrink tubing or wire end.
> One
> lightbulb gotten at AutoZone rather than a PMA'd one. That one screw on
> the spinner
> that wasn't torqued with a calibrated torque wrench. The list is long,
> but in true
> leagaleaze, anything not done according to approved data is unacceptable.
>
> I've heard horror stories about going to the FSDO for a CFI-checkride and
> having the FAA droids comb over your aircraft. Alegedly one guy came in
> with a
> plane that had a pin-head sized air bubble in the wet compass that
> couldn't be seen
> without putting your head down on the floor and looking up at it. *POOF*
> unairworthy
> (no air is acceptable). If you're lucky they'll let you ferry it home.
>
> Again, "We're with the FAA and we're here to help..."
>
> -Cory
>
> --
>
> ************************************************** ***********************
> * Cory Papenfuss *
> * Electrical Engineering candidate Ph.D. graduate student *
> * Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University *
> ************************************************** ***********************
>

At our last PACE event, the FAA examiners were actually inspecting the
planes as well..

Whether it did any good or not... ???


"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Dude wrote:
>>
>> If a plane was
>> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log
>> problems,
>> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out.
>
> Nobody at the Teterboro FSDO is capable of determining this -- that's what
> your local
> IA is supposed to do every year. PACE events are intended to uncover
> problems with
> the paperwork; nothing more.
>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace event.
> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out who
> got fired.

Fired? That's a good one!
>
> OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
> because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane was
> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log problems,
> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But it
> would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want to
> ignore.

As far as the FAA is concerned, paperwork is what makes a plane fly.
The interpretation of the regs appears to be at the whim of the
inspector and varies from FSDO to FSDO (and even between inspectors in
the same FSDO). Let's suppose an inspector found something, say an
STC, that wasn't properly logged (in his opinion). According to the
regs, your airplane would not be airworthy in paperwork sense. Are
we supposed to trust that the FAA is going to look the other way as we
climb into our unairworthy (on paper) airplane and fly it home to the
shop? Most of the FSDO inspectors that I know would not put their
butts on the line like that. More likely, you'd have to jump through
the hoops required for a ferry permit.

I know dozens of airplane and FBO owners and no one (so far) has
ever seriously considered participating in this program. It has
nothing to do with whether an airplane is actually airworthy and
exposes you to the regulatory whims of your local FSDO. The best bet
for a good assesment of actual airworthiness is still an experienced
IA.
>
> If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.

I didn't actually give an example in my first post, just pointed out
possible pitfalls. Most owners I know think that the program is a
joke and wouldn't touch it with a ten foot pole. As I said in my first
post, it requires you to believe that the FAA is "here to help".

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

"Dude" > wrote
> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace event.
> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out who
> got fired.

I've heard about it. Nobody got fired.

> If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.

And so it is.

Michael

Well, tell us the details. Inquiring mids want to know.


"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote
>> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace
>> event.
>> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out
>> who
>> got fired.
>
> I've heard about it. Nobody got fired.
>
>> If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.
>
> And so it is.
>
> Michael

"Dude" > wrote in message >...
> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace event.
> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out who
> got fired.
>
> OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
> because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane was
> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log problems,
> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But it
> would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want to
> ignore.
>
> If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.
>
>
>
> "John Galban" > wrote in message
> om...
> > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > >...
> >>
> >> These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane and
> >> log
> >> books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being
> >> fined
> >> or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.
> >
> > Sounds great, but... The risk is not being fined or cited, the risk
> > is that you'll never be able to fly your plane home after the audit.
> > It's quite possible that a nitpicky inspector could ground your
> > airplane because of ancient paperwork issues (not safety related ones,
> > either). As far as I'm concerned, this program is like taking your
> > last 5 years of financial data to the IRS and asking them if they can
> > find a violation. Do you really want to open that can of worms?
> >
> > When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
> > you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)
> >
> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)


Well here's a data point from someone who has actually *participated*
in a PACE program:

The "inspectors" were just 'civilian' a/c owners (volunteers) with
30 yrs. in light civil a/c. The FAA guys hung out at the main hangar
with some exhibits as well coffee and donuts far from the
"inspections". The head of our FSDO is well respected in the
community as a straight shooter. I doubt he or his team got paid
extra to come out that Saturday. I learned a few things and thought
it was a great program.

Bob Miller
'65 M20C

"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
>...
> > Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace
event.
> > If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out
who
> > got fired.
> >
> > OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
> > because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane
was
> > seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log
problems,
> > I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But
it
> > would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want
to
> > ignore.
> >
> > If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.
> >
> >
> >
> > "John Galban" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > "Dude" > wrote in message
> > > >...
> > >>
> > >> These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane
and
> > >> log
> > >> books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being
> > >> fined
> > >> or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.
> > >
> > > Sounds great, but... The risk is not being fined or cited, the risk
> > > is that you'll never be able to fly your plane home after the audit.
> > > It's quite possible that a nitpicky inspector could ground your
> > > airplane because of ancient paperwork issues (not safety related ones,
> > > either). As far as I'm concerned, this program is like taking your
> > > last 5 years of financial data to the IRS and asking them if they can
> > > find a violation. Do you really want to open that can of worms?
> > >
> > > When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
> > > you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)
> > >
> > > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>
> Well here's a data point from someone who has actually *participated*
> in a PACE program:
>
> The "inspectors" were just 'civilian' a/c owners (volunteers) with
> 30 yrs. in light civil a/c. The FAA guys hung out at the main hangar
> with some exhibits as well coffee and donuts far from the
> "inspections". The head of our FSDO is well respected in the
> community as a straight shooter. I doubt he or his team got paid
> extra to come out that Saturday. I learned a few things and thought
> it was a great program.
>
> Bob Miller
> '65 M20C

So you are saying the people doing the inspections weren't even A&Ps and the
FAA guys sat around drinking coffee and eating donuts. I don't get it. How
can this be a great program?

It's looking once again like the different parts of the country are
experiencing differences in the FAA's approach.

We had FAA doing the books, as well as the planes. However, the plane
inspection was also being used as an exercise for some of the FAA guys to
learn from the others.


"Bob Miller" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote in message
> >...
>> Well, I have never heard of anyone being held on the field at a Pace
>> event.
>> If that were to happen, then we should all hear about it, and find out
>> who
>> got fired.
>>
>> OTOH, the FAA is the FAA. I suspect that your example is misleading,
>> because that type of plane is exactly what they want to fix. If a plane
>> was
>> seriously dangerous due to physical imperfection, rather than log
>> problems,
>> I suppose someone might get strongly pressured to not fly it out. But it
>> would have to be an obvious hazard that no reasonable pilot would want to
>> ignore.
>>
>> If your example were real, the program would end up being a joke.
>>
>>
>>
>> "John Galban" > wrote in message
>> om...
>> > "Dude" > wrote in message
>> > >...
>> >>
>> >> These events are held regularly, and allow you to bring your plane and
>> >> log
>> >> books to the field for an audit and inspection with no risk of being
>> >> fined
>> >> or cited. Sort of like an amnesty program. And, it's free.
>> >
>> > Sounds great, but... The risk is not being fined or cited, the risk
>> > is that you'll never be able to fly your plane home after the audit.
>> > It's quite possible that a nitpicky inspector could ground your
>> > airplane because of ancient paperwork issues (not safety related ones,
>> > either). As far as I'm concerned, this program is like taking your
>> > last 5 years of financial data to the IRS and asking them if they can
>> > find a violation. Do you really want to open that can of worms?
>> >
>> > When they say, "I'm from the government and I'm here to help",
>> > you're not supposed to take 'em seriously :-)
>> >
>> > John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)
>
>
> Well here's a data point from someone who has actually *participated*
> in a PACE program:
>
> The "inspectors" were just 'civilian' a/c owners (volunteers) with
> 30 yrs. in light civil a/c. The FAA guys hung out at the main hangar
> with some exhibits as well coffee and donuts far from the
> "inspections". The head of our FSDO is well respected in the
> community as a straight shooter. I doubt he or his team got paid
> extra to come out that Saturday. I learned a few things and thought
> it was a great program.
>
> Bob Miller
> '65 M20C

"Dude" > wrote
> Well, tell us the details. Inquiring mids want to know.

The details were as follows:

The airplane was equipped with an autopilot not installed at the
factory. It was a factory option for that make and model. The
inspector decided that this particular model of autopilot was not
correct for that serial number of airplane - the idea being if it was
not offered prior to a given serial number, it was not approved for
any earlier serial number, even if there was actually no change to the
airplane. That made the autopilot installation (which had been in the
plane for years and worked fine) unapproved, and the plane unsafe to
fly since the flight controls had been tampered with. The fact that a
form 337 had been filed for the installation, reviewed and accepted by
the FAA, and on file at OK City cut no ice. The plane was grounded.

Neither the aircraft manufacturer nor the original manufacturer of the
autopilot (the aircraft manufacturer never actually manufactured any
autopilots; they were private label products of other manufacturers)
were interested in offering any support for a field approval, and the
position of the FSDO was that no field approval would be granted. The
FSDO suggested the owner get an STC.

The owner was going to remove the autopilot, but an acquaintance
directed him towards a shop in another FSDO that would arrange for a
field approval. Basically, a local IA had a FSDO guy in his pocket.
The owner flew the plane away (without insurance coverage, since it
was still techinically grounded - on paper it was trucked over) and
paid to have the field approval and relevant logbook entries
generated. The whole adventure cost him several hundred dollars and
weeks of downtime.

The interesting part of this is that neither FAA inspector actually
looked at the installation to determine if it was sound (which it was)
- everything was based solely on the paperwork. The floor panels
covering the servo were never removed. One (presumably honest)
inspector grounded the plane, and another (presumably crooked) got it
flying again, but both were strictly paperwork exercises.

In case you belive these are isolated events and the FAA is basically
a sound organization, check this out:

http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf

Michael

Well, that is enough for me. No more Pace events.

Your link though just reinforced my belief that working for the government
is stupid. I have witnessed too many things like that by little mafias that
resulted in ruined lives. If you work with scum in the private world, you
take your 401k and leave. In the government, they take your retirement,
through in you jail, and worse.



"Michael" > wrote in message
om...
> "Dude" > wrote
>> Well, tell us the details. Inquiring mids want to know.
>
> The details were as follows:
>
> The airplane was equipped with an autopilot not installed at the
> factory. It was a factory option for that make and model. The
> inspector decided that this particular model of autopilot was not
> correct for that serial number of airplane - the idea being if it was
> not offered prior to a given serial number, it was not approved for
> any earlier serial number, even if there was actually no change to the
> airplane. That made the autopilot installation (which had been in the
> plane for years and worked fine) unapproved, and the plane unsafe to
> fly since the flight controls had been tampered with. The fact that a
> form 337 had been filed for the installation, reviewed and accepted by
> the FAA, and on file at OK City cut no ice. The plane was grounded.
>
> Neither the aircraft manufacturer nor the original manufacturer of the
> autopilot (the aircraft manufacturer never actually manufactured any
> autopilots; they were private label products of other manufacturers)
> were interested in offering any support for a field approval, and the
> position of the FSDO was that no field approval would be granted. The
> FSDO suggested the owner get an STC.
>
> The owner was going to remove the autopilot, but an acquaintance
> directed him towards a shop in another FSDO that would arrange for a
> field approval. Basically, a local IA had a FSDO guy in his pocket.
> The owner flew the plane away (without insurance coverage, since it
> was still techinically grounded - on paper it was trucked over) and
> paid to have the field approval and relevant logbook entries
> generated. The whole adventure cost him several hundred dollars and
> weeks of downtime.
>
> The interesting part of this is that neither FAA inspector actually
> looked at the installation to determine if it was sound (which it was)
> - everything was based solely on the paperwork. The floor panels
> covering the servo were never removed. One (presumably honest)
> inspector grounded the plane, and another (presumably crooked) got it
> flying again, but both were strictly paperwork exercises.
>
> In case you belive these are isolated events and the FAA is basically
> a sound organization, check this out:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf
>
> Michael

Michael wrote:

> In case you belive these are isolated events and the FAA is basically
> a sound organization, check this out:
>
> http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf

What was the result of that letter?

Remember the FAA's Slogan
"We're not happy 'till you're not happy!"

On Sun, 31 Oct 2004 23:45:32 GMT, "Dave Stadt" >
wrote:

>
>"Doug" > wrote in message
om...
>> I know of two accidents. In neither accident was anyone injured but in
>> both the plane was substantially damaged or totalled. The FAA sighted
>> the owner operator in both cases for violations involving the aircraft
>> logging. In one case they did not like the wording of the last annual
>> and in the other they did not like the wording or compliance (I am not
>> sure which) of an AD.
>>
>> I wonder, does the FAA just automatically ask for the owners logbooks,
>> then peruse them until they find a violation? Or are these cases
>> unusual. In the case of the wording of the last annual, it had NOTHING
>> to do with the accident (he landed short, in the mud and flipped,
>> pilot error). The second, I am not sure, the engine failed, so
>> maintenance might be an issue.
>>
>> Is there anywhere where an owner/operator can go to get his logbooks
>> "audited". Find deficiencies and the rectify them?
>>
>> Is it approved to just keep the stickers from work done loose and not
>> pasted in and then paste them in later?
>
>No matter what you do the FAA will find something wrong even if they have to
>change the rules to do so.
>

Darrel Toepfer > wrote
> > In case you belive these are isolated events and the FAA is basically
> > a sound organization, check this out:
> >
> > http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf
>
> What was the result of that letter?

Result? You mean like organizational changes, punishment of the
guilty, stuff like that?

You're funny.

Michael

Michael wrote:
> Darrel Toepfer > wrote
>
>>>In case you belive these are isolated events and the FAA is basically
>>>a sound organization, check this out:
>>>
>>>http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf
>>
>>What was the result of that letter?
>
> Result? You mean like organizational changes, punishment of the
> guilty, stuff like that?
>
> You're funny.

Thanks...