FAA violations and accidents

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?