FSDO followups on equipment probkems reported to ATC?

[Andrew Gideon]

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/

[Larry Dighera]

I've never heard of that policy either.

I would have asked the FSDO inspector which section of the inspector's
handbook covers that policy. It would seem it should be covered by
FAR too.

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/
Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook, Order 8300.10

http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/
General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order 8700.1

http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/slc/audience/fsdo_pilots/
More FAA information

[Jim Macklin]

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

ATC is part of the FAA and the FSDO is the investigator.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| I've never heard of that policy either.
|
| I would have asked the FSDO inspector which section of the
inspector's
| handbook covers that policy. It would seem it should be
covered by
| FAR too.
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8300/
| Airworthiness Inspector's Handbook, Order 8300.10
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/library/manuals/examiners_inspectors/8700/
| General Aviation Operations Inspector's Handbook, Order
8700.1
|
|
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/field_offices/fsdo/slc/audience/fsdo_pilots/
| More FAA information

[Dale]

In article >,
Andrew Gideon > wrote:


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

Back about '93 I had the oil pressure flucuate on my 182. I was pretty
sure it wasn't a big deal but as I came into Merril Field (pretty much
in the middle of Anchorage) I explained the problem to the tower and
asked to stay high until I was over the field. He asked if I wanted to
declare an emergency or if I wanted equipment standing by both of which
I refused. Landed without incident. A week or so later a guy from FSDO
called up and wanted to know about "my landing due to no oil pressure".
I explained that my destination was MRI and that it had only flucuated.
He requested that I stop by the FSDO with the aircraft logs and my logs.
I called AOPA and was told that there was a "crack down" in Alaska at
the time due to "unauthorized owner maintenance". I took my logs in and
the only thing he looked for was my BFR and the a/c annual.

The tower had obviously reported the incident to FSDO.


Early in 2001 I cancelled an IFR flight and flightplan due to the
attitude indicator failing just after takeoff. I was talking to
approach at the time and told them the reason for the cancellation. I
never heard anything further about it.

[Newps]

ATC is required to call the regional office and log the event whenever a
for hire aircraft does something unusual, such as aborting a takeoff.
Reporting that their DG is busted and then cancelling does not meet that
requirement. At the facilities I've worked at we would never call FSDO
or the regional office because of what you said.



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/
>

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 16:20:38 -0500, Jim Macklin wrote:

> FAR 91 under IFR requires reports on many things, unforecast weather and
> equipment failure are two.
>
> ATC is part of the FAA and the FSDO is the investigator.

Yes, we pilots are required to report. I'm not quite sure that one cannot
cancel (assuming VMC) as an alternative to reporting an equipment failure,
but that's not really my question.

My question is more what occurs after we report. I've never heard of this
process whereby the FSDO must confirm that maintenance has been done.

- Andrew

[Andrew Gideon]

On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:37:51 -0600, Newps wrote:

> for hire aircraft

The situation that brought this to my attention involved a club aircraft,
but there was an instructor on board instructing. I cannot imagine how
TRACON would know about that, but - had they - would that cross the "for
hire" threshold such that you'd have to report an equipment problem?

Or do you mean something like a 135 or 121 flight?

- Andrew

[Larry Dighera]

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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1af766c50a8d47834140e40293d393f6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14

Thanks.

[Jim Macklin]

It may just be a regional office and an inspector with an
itch he can't scratch in public.




--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
| 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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1af766c50a8d47834140e40293d393f6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
|
| Thanks.
|

[Newps]

Andrew Gideon wrote:

> On Wed, 26 Jul 2006 15:37:51 -0600, Newps wrote:
>
>
>>for hire aircraft
>
>
> The situation that brought this to my attention involved a club aircraft,
> but there was an instructor on board instructing. I cannot imagine how
> TRACON would know about that, but - had they - would that cross the "for
> hire" threshold such that you'd have to report an equipment problem?
>
> Or do you mean something like a 135 or 121 flight?

Yes, part 121 or 135.

[Jules]

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.

[Dave S]

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/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=1af766c50a8d47834140e40293d393f6&rgn=div5&view=text&node=14:2.0.1.3.10&idno=14
>
> Thanks.
>

[Andrew Gideon]

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/

[Ron Natalie]

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

[Ron Rosenfeld]

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)