37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 124116 |
Time | |
Date | 198909 |
Day | Mon |
Local Time Of Day | 0601 To 1200 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | airport : otz |
State Reference | AK |
Altitude | agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0 |
Aircraft 1 | |
Operator | general aviation : personal |
Make Model Name | Small Aircraft, High Wing, 1 Eng, Fixed Gear |
Flight Phase | ground : preflight |
Person 1 | |
Affiliation | Other |
Function | other personnel |
Qualification | other other : other |
ASRS Report | 124116 |
Person 2 | |
Affiliation | government : faa |
Function | other personnel other |
Qualification | other other : other |
Events | |
Anomaly | non adherence : far |
Independent Detector | other other : unspecified |
Resolutory Action | none taken : anomaly accepted |
Consequence | faa : investigated |
Supplementary | |
Primary Problem | Airport |
Air Traffic Incident | other |
Narrative:
During the summer of 1989 I modified a helio in accordance with the attached service descriptions. I contacted my local FSDO (01 fairbanks) prior to beginning the project and advised them throughout as to the progress. Upon completion, I approached them for approval, and the problems began. After discussion with them and anchorage airworthiness and certification, I began to research the matter myself. After careful study of the far's I came to the conclusion that a major alteration had not occurred. I returned the aircraft to service as provided in far 43. During this period 6 FSDO's were contacted, and 6 distinctly different answers received. 'Standardization' was anything but standard, and there was an almost universal misunderstanding of the far's, and a total misunderstanding of the 'intent' of the far's. Due to the 'opinions' I received from FAA standardization I feel that it is a distinct possibility that I will be violated in this matter, however, I remain convinced that I have fully complied with the far's.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: COMPLAINT ABOUT CERTIFICATION PROC AT VARIOUS FSDO FACS.
Narrative: DURING THE SUMMER OF 1989 I MODIFIED A HELIO IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ATTACHED SERVICE DESCRIPTIONS. I CONTACTED MY LOCAL FSDO (01 FAIRBANKS) PRIOR TO BEGINNING THE PROJECT AND ADVISED THEM THROUGHOUT AS TO THE PROGRESS. UPON COMPLETION, I APCHED THEM FOR APPROVAL, AND THE PROBLEMS BEGAN. AFTER DISCUSSION WITH THEM AND ANCHORAGE AIRWORTHINESS AND CERTIFICATION, I BEGAN TO RESEARCH THE MATTER MYSELF. AFTER CAREFUL STUDY OF THE FAR'S I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A MAJOR ALTERATION HAD NOT OCCURRED. I RETURNED THE ACFT TO SERVICE AS PROVIDED IN FAR 43. DURING THIS PERIOD 6 FSDO'S WERE CONTACTED, AND 6 DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT ANSWERS RECEIVED. 'STANDARDIZATION' WAS ANYTHING BUT STANDARD, AND THERE WAS AN ALMOST UNIVERSAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE FAR'S, AND A TOTAL MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE 'INTENT' OF THE FAR'S. DUE TO THE 'OPINIONS' I RECEIVED FROM FAA STANDARDIZATION I FEEL THAT IT IS A DISTINCT POSSIBILITY THAT I WILL BE VIOLATED IN THIS MATTER, HOWEVER, I REMAIN CONVINCED THAT I HAVE FULLY COMPLIED WITH THE FAR'S.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.