FSDO followups on equipment probkems reported to ATC?

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.

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...1.3.10&idno=14
|
| Thanks.
|

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/