"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)