Narrative:

On july, I flew an small aircraft from I-21 to 3EV, and returned to I-21 later that evening. I have been tipped off that the FAA is investigating these flts, probably due to my aircraft loading, which is the reason for submitting this. My comments below pertain to the return flight (because that's when the FAA tracked me on radar). The morning flight involved similar circumstances. At takeoff, the aircraft had the following loading: factory installed seats, pilot, passenger, 6 month old infant, baggage compartment. Front part, 3 yr old child with seat and seat belts, and luggage. Rear part, 5 yr old child, with seat and seat belts. Fuel, 15 gals (3.1 hour at 2500 RPM and 5000', 45 plus mins reserve). Oil, 5 qts. Empty aircraft. Total, which is within operating envelope, 1579 pounds, 15.94 moment. The aircraft has 2 additional seat belts installed in the baggage area which were in use throughout the flight. Far 91.14 does not require the infant to be belted. At departure the temperature was in the upper 80's and the humidity was high. We climbed to 5500', and the aircraft was still climbing at 200 plus FPM at full throttle, lean mixture, and 80 plus mph IAS. Had the plane been overloaded, such performance would have been impossible in an small aircraft. To the best of my knowledge, no FAA regulations were violated. Also, I do not believe any safety hazard existed; rather, I am filing this per my attorney's advise due to potential FAA enforcement action. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter states that FAA was notified by an anonymous phone call. Says FAA no longer questions the weight and balance. All installations were compliance with tso. FAA now looking at the fact that the mechanic did not sign the appropriate 337 form.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA PLT HAD EXTRA SEATS AND SEATBELTS INSTALLED. FAA QUESTIONS WEIGHT AND BALANCE.

Narrative: ON JULY, I FLEW AN SMA FROM I-21 TO 3EV, AND RETURNED TO I-21 LATER THAT EVENING. I HAVE BEEN TIPPED OFF THAT THE FAA IS INVESTIGATING THESE FLTS, PROBABLY DUE TO MY ACFT LOADING, WHICH IS THE REASON FOR SUBMITTING THIS. MY COMMENTS BELOW PERTAIN TO THE RETURN FLT (BECAUSE THAT'S WHEN THE FAA TRACKED ME ON RADAR). THE MORNING FLT INVOLVED SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES. AT TKOF, THE ACFT HAD THE FOLLOWING LOADING: FACTORY INSTALLED SEATS, PLT, PAX, 6 MONTH OLD INFANT, BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT. FRONT PART, 3 YR OLD CHILD WITH SEAT AND SEAT BELTS, AND LUGGAGE. REAR PART, 5 YR OLD CHILD, WITH SEAT AND SEAT BELTS. FUEL, 15 GALS (3.1 HR AT 2500 RPM AND 5000', 45 PLUS MINS RESERVE). OIL, 5 QTS. EMPTY ACFT. TOTAL, WHICH IS WITHIN OPERATING ENVELOPE, 1579 LBS, 15.94 MOMENT. THE ACFT HAS 2 ADDITIONAL SEAT BELTS INSTALLED IN THE BAGGAGE AREA WHICH WERE IN USE THROUGHOUT THE FLT. FAR 91.14 DOES NOT REQUIRE THE INFANT TO BE BELTED. AT DEP THE TEMP WAS IN THE UPPER 80'S AND THE HUMIDITY WAS HIGH. WE CLBED TO 5500', AND THE ACFT WAS STILL CLBING AT 200 PLUS FPM AT FULL THROTTLE, LEAN MIXTURE, AND 80 PLUS MPH IAS. HAD THE PLANE BEEN OVERLOADED, SUCH PERFORMANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN IMPOSSIBLE IN AN SMA. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, NO FAA REGS WERE VIOLATED. ALSO, I DO NOT BELIEVE ANY SAFETY HAZARD EXISTED; RATHER, I AM FILING THIS PER MY ATTORNEY'S ADVISE DUE TO POTENTIAL FAA ENFORCEMENT ACTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATES THAT FAA WAS NOTIFIED BY AN ANONYMOUS PHONE CALL. SAYS FAA NO LONGER QUESTIONS THE WEIGHT AND BALANCE. ALL INSTALLATIONS WERE COMPLIANCE WITH TSO. FAA NOW LOOKING AT THE FACT THAT THE MECH DID NOT SIGN THE APPROPRIATE 337 FORM.

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.