Narrative:

On the xx of october the FAA were here at company a aviation, incorporated. To check us for certificate renewal. This is an far part 141 flight school and I am the chief flight instructor. I assisted the inspectors in their necessary process to renew the certificate when it was pointed out to me that I apparently had falsified the flight instructor's standardization documents by saying that on the date that I completed the process with the instructors that I had flown or the assistant chief had flown with the instructor in aircraft on that particular date. I understand where they are coming from, but when I was appointed the chief flight instructor, the inspector in charge of the school had me change the form that we used previously and asked me to develop a new one. I did that and faxed several times to him for his approval which he finally gave. We went over the process for standardizing and concluded that since our instructors were brought up in the far 141 school, that was to be considered part of the process, then when they get CFI checkride that I standardize them in the tco's and record keeping, which I did. At that time, on the form where it says 'date accomplished' I put the date. That is where they say that I was wrong. Since december 1988 I have made no decisions regarding far's unless that I have confirmed it with the FSDO. I would like to add now that there is a conflict on going between the flight school and the FAA where there is a 1.5 million dollar lawsuit, but I am not involved in this dispute. I believe that there is something going on with the FAA since march of 1988 towards our flight school where they have continuously tried to close us down for one reason or the other. A recent incident involving one of my instructors, mr 'B', who filed a report with you, had a 609 ride just only a month after his initial CFI checkride. Tells me an analyst of your center has full details. This also brought down a 609 ride for me as well questioning my qualifications as chief instructor. We both took the rides and passed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter was called for additional information. No significant change to the information provided in the reporter's narrative was elicited, save that the reporter is now unemployed and that the flight school is now being operated under part 61 of the far's, instead of part 141. The reporter has retained a lawyer, and is shortly to appear in court to respond to the violation filed against him by an FAA inspector.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR FOR TRAINING SCHOOL RUNS AFOUL OF OVERZEALOUS OFFICIAL OF THE FAA OVER PAPERWORK.

Narrative: ON THE XX OF OCTOBER THE FAA WERE HERE AT COMPANY A AVIATION, INC. TO CHECK US FOR CERTIFICATE RENEWAL. THIS IS AN FAR PART 141 FLT SCHOOL AND I AM THE CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR. I ASSISTED THE INSPECTORS IN THEIR NECESSARY PROCESS TO RENEW THE CERTIFICATE WHEN IT WAS POINTED OUT TO ME THAT I APPARENTLY HAD FALSIFIED THE FLT INSTRUCTOR'S STANDARDIZATION DOCUMENTS BY SAYING THAT ON THE DATE THAT I COMPLETED THE PROCESS WITH THE INSTRUCTORS THAT I HAD FLOWN OR THE ASSISTANT CHIEF HAD FLOWN WITH THE INSTRUCTOR IN ACFT ON THAT PARTICULAR DATE. I UNDERSTAND WHERE THEY ARE COMING FROM, BUT WHEN I WAS APPOINTED THE CHIEF FLT INSTRUCTOR, THE INSPECTOR IN CHARGE OF THE SCHOOL HAD ME CHANGE THE FORM THAT WE USED PREVIOUSLY AND ASKED ME TO DEVELOP A NEW ONE. I DID THAT AND FAXED SEVERAL TIMES TO HIM FOR HIS APPROVAL WHICH HE FINALLY GAVE. WE WENT OVER THE PROCESS FOR STANDARDIZING AND CONCLUDED THAT SINCE OUR INSTRUCTORS WERE BROUGHT UP IN THE FAR 141 SCHOOL, THAT WAS TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE PROCESS, THEN WHEN THEY GET CFI CHECKRIDE THAT I STANDARDIZE THEM IN THE TCO'S AND RECORD KEEPING, WHICH I DID. AT THAT TIME, ON THE FORM WHERE IT SAYS 'DATE ACCOMPLISHED' I PUT THE DATE. THAT IS WHERE THEY SAY THAT I WAS WRONG. SINCE DECEMBER 1988 I HAVE MADE NO DECISIONS REGARDING FAR'S UNLESS THAT I HAVE CONFIRMED IT WITH THE FSDO. I WOULD LIKE TO ADD NOW THAT THERE IS A CONFLICT ON GOING BETWEEN THE FLT SCHOOL AND THE FAA WHERE THERE IS A 1.5 MILLION DOLLAR LAWSUIT, BUT I AM NOT INVOLVED IN THIS DISPUTE. I BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SOMETHING GOING ON WITH THE FAA SINCE MARCH OF 1988 TOWARDS OUR FLT SCHOOL WHERE THEY HAVE CONTINUOUSLY TRIED TO CLOSE US DOWN FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. A RECENT INCIDENT INVOLVING ONE OF MY INSTRUCTORS, MR 'B', WHO FILED A REPORT WITH YOU, HAD A 609 RIDE JUST ONLY A MONTH AFTER HIS INITIAL CFI CHECKRIDE. TELLS ME AN ANALYST OF YOUR CENTER HAS FULL DETAILS. THIS ALSO BROUGHT DOWN A 609 RIDE FOR ME AS WELL QUESTIONING MY QUALIFICATIONS AS CHIEF INSTRUCTOR. WE BOTH TOOK THE RIDES AND PASSED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE REPORTER WAS CALLED FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO THE INFO PROVIDED IN THE REPORTER'S NARRATIVE WAS ELICITED, SAVE THAT THE REPORTER IS NOW UNEMPLOYED AND THAT THE FLT SCHOOL IS NOW BEING OPERATED UNDER PART 61 OF THE FAR'S, INSTEAD OF PART 141. THE REPORTER HAS RETAINED A LAWYER, AND IS SHORTLY TO APPEAR IN COURT TO RESPOND TO THE VIOLATION FILED AGAINST HIM BY AN FAA INSPECTOR.

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.