Narrative:

I flew from 5w5 to fpr (ft pierce, fl) on 2/xx/90 for purposes of leaving the country for a short vacation. I flew to myeh, north eleathra, bahamas. On 2/xz/90 we returned through fpr. Customs examined the paperwork for the plane, my passenger and myself and found these to be in order. Customs looked under the tail of the aircraft, an small aircraft, and indicated I should have a metal plate there with the aircraft registration number. Customs indicated they were going to report this to the FAA. The aircraft is original and is a 19XX model. To the best of my knowledge it has never been modified or painted so as to remove any registration information. It was news to me that there should be a registration plate under the tail. Since this is a fabric airplane I do not know where one could be mounted. Notification to all owners of this regulation if it exists could prevent problems. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter indicated during callback that there was a data plate in the cockpit that was bolted in place, but that the customs agent would not accept any data plate not affixed to the after portion of the fuselage. The customs agent filed a report with the jax FSDO who contacted the reporter in about 4 days. The customs agent further noted that there are about 60 such incidents per month. The FAA inspector who handled the affair acknowledged that a data plate could not be riveted to the tail, but required the reporter to have a facsimile data plate be painted in place instead. He further required that a picture be taken of the completed art work, and sent to him as proof of compliance. The FAA inspector cited the reporter and informed him that a letter of reprimand would be maintained in the reporter's file for a period of 2 years. The reporter, who is legally knowledgeable, volunteered that he felt that prosecution of this and similar situations was draconian and counterproductive to all levels of cooperation between the aviation community and the federal aviation agency. He further indicated that the FAA inspector was apologetic, but was required to prosecute due to the weight of a complaint from another federal agency (customs service).

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CUSTOMS AGENT NABS SMA PLT AND OWNER FOR NOT HAVING A DATA PLATE RIVETED TO THE TAIL OF HIS FABRIC AIRPLANE.

Narrative: I FLEW FROM 5W5 TO FPR (FT PIERCE, FL) ON 2/XX/90 FOR PURPOSES OF LEAVING THE COUNTRY FOR A SHORT VACATION. I FLEW TO MYEH, NORTH ELEATHRA, BAHAMAS. ON 2/XZ/90 WE RETURNED THROUGH FPR. CUSTOMS EXAMINED THE PAPERWORK FOR THE PLANE, MY PAX AND MYSELF AND FOUND THESE TO BE IN ORDER. CUSTOMS LOOKED UNDER THE TAIL OF THE ACFT, AN SMA, AND INDICATED I SHOULD HAVE A METAL PLATE THERE WITH THE ACFT REGISTRATION NUMBER. CUSTOMS INDICATED THEY WERE GOING TO REPORT THIS TO THE FAA. THE ACFT IS ORIGINAL AND IS A 19XX MODEL. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE IT HAS NEVER BEEN MODIFIED OR PAINTED SO AS TO REMOVE ANY REGISTRATION INFO. IT WAS NEWS TO ME THAT THERE SHOULD BE A REGISTRATION PLATE UNDER THE TAIL. SINCE THIS IS A FABRIC AIRPLANE I DO NOT KNOW WHERE ONE COULD BE MOUNTED. NOTIFICATION TO ALL OWNERS OF THIS REG IF IT EXISTS COULD PREVENT PROBLEMS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE REPORTER INDICATED DURING CALLBACK THAT THERE WAS A DATA PLATE IN THE COCKPIT THAT WAS BOLTED IN PLACE, BUT THAT THE CUSTOMS AGENT WOULD NOT ACCEPT ANY DATA PLATE NOT AFFIXED TO THE AFTER PORTION OF THE FUSELAGE. THE CUSTOMS AGENT FILED A REPORT WITH THE JAX FSDO WHO CONTACTED THE REPORTER IN ABOUT 4 DAYS. THE CUSTOMS AGENT FURTHER NOTED THAT THERE ARE ABOUT 60 SUCH INCIDENTS PER MONTH. THE FAA INSPECTOR WHO HANDLED THE AFFAIR ACKNOWLEDGED THAT A DATA PLATE COULD NOT BE RIVETED TO THE TAIL, BUT REQUIRED THE REPORTER TO HAVE A FACSIMILE DATA PLATE BE PAINTED IN PLACE INSTEAD. HE FURTHER REQUIRED THAT A PICTURE BE TAKEN OF THE COMPLETED ART WORK, AND SENT TO HIM AS PROOF OF COMPLIANCE. THE FAA INSPECTOR CITED THE REPORTER AND INFORMED HIM THAT A LETTER OF REPRIMAND WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE REPORTER'S FILE FOR A PERIOD OF 2 YEARS. THE REPORTER, WHO IS LEGALLY KNOWLEDGEABLE, VOLUNTEERED THAT HE FELT THAT PROSECUTION OF THIS AND SIMILAR SITUATIONS WAS DRACONIAN AND COUNTERPRODUCTIVE TO ALL LEVELS OF COOPERATION BETWEEN THE AVIATION COMMUNITY AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION AGENCY. HE FURTHER INDICATED THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR WAS APOLOGETIC, BUT WAS REQUIRED TO PROSECUTE DUE TO THE WEIGHT OF A COMPLAINT FROM ANOTHER FEDERAL AGENCY (CUSTOMS SERVICE).

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 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.