Narrative:

After returning from a skydiver drop from 11500' MSL, an FAA inspector and his coworker began inspecting my aircraft, an small aircraft Y type. They had been there before and had advised the owner of the aircraft to repair several items, which were repaired. This time he decided that the nose gear oleo strut was too flat, and the nose gear tire too bald for safe flight. This was the same time that was on the aircraft when they inspected it fully on the previous thurs. He also decided that our other aircraft, also an small aircraft Y type, was unairworthy. So we proceeded to have a licensed mechanic replace the tire and fill up the nose gear strut. While it was being worked on, he asked to see the airworthiness continuance and registration for my aircraft, and the packing log on the emergency parachute I wear. He then advised me that I was in violation of the far's for flying an aircraft in a commercial operation that was overdue for its 100 hours inspection. In fact, the 100 hour had been done, but it was not noted in the aircraft's log books. I did not know that it had not been done, and I had faith in the owner and his mechanic that all required inspections had been complied with. I also had only flight experience with newer aircraft, and I thought that the oleo strut was supposed to go up and down as it did. Both the owner and the pilot had flown it like that several times, so I had no idea that it needed to be filled. Also, the FAA inspector mentioned that the tire was only illegal if only cords were showing, and he proceeded to roll it around to look at the whole trend surface, and I didn't see any cords. He then said that we could fly jumpers for free if we fixed the strut and got a new time, so we fixed both of them and flew normally for the rest of the day with no problems. So, in my opinion, the aircraft in question was airworthy, and capable of safe flight, and all inspections were up to date, but just not properly noted in the aircraft logs. The owner did had a receipt showing that the 100 hour inspection had been completed. I did not feel that I was in violation of any far's during this incident.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA INSPECTOR CITES PLT ON UNWORTHY AIR ITEMS AND RECORD KEEPING.

Narrative: AFTER RETURNING FROM A SKYDIVER DROP FROM 11500' MSL, AN FAA INSPECTOR AND HIS COWORKER BEGAN INSPECTING MY ACFT, AN SMA Y TYPE. THEY HAD BEEN THERE BEFORE AND HAD ADVISED THE OWNER OF THE ACFT TO REPAIR SEVERAL ITEMS, WHICH WERE REPAIRED. THIS TIME HE DECIDED THAT THE NOSE GEAR OLEO STRUT WAS TOO FLAT, AND THE NOSE GEAR TIRE TOO BALD FOR SAFE FLT. THIS WAS THE SAME TIME THAT WAS ON THE ACFT WHEN THEY INSPECTED IT FULLY ON THE PREVIOUS THURS. HE ALSO DECIDED THAT OUR OTHER ACFT, ALSO AN SMA Y TYPE, WAS UNAIRWORTHY. SO WE PROCEEDED TO HAVE A LICENSED MECH REPLACE THE TIRE AND FILL UP THE NOSE GEAR STRUT. WHILE IT WAS BEING WORKED ON, HE ASKED TO SEE THE AIRWORTHINESS CONTINUANCE AND REGISTRATION FOR MY ACFT, AND THE PACKING LOG ON THE EMER PARACHUTE I WEAR. HE THEN ADVISED ME THAT I WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE FAR'S FOR FLYING AN ACFT IN A COMMERCIAL OPERATION THAT WAS OVERDUE FOR ITS 100 HRS INSPECTION. IN FACT, THE 100 HR HAD BEEN DONE, BUT IT WAS NOT NOTED IN THE ACFT'S LOG BOOKS. I DID NOT KNOW THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN DONE, AND I HAD FAITH IN THE OWNER AND HIS MECH THAT ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH. I ALSO HAD ONLY FLT EXPERIENCE WITH NEWER ACFT, AND I THOUGHT THAT THE OLEO STRUT WAS SUPPOSED TO GO UP AND DOWN AS IT DID. BOTH THE OWNER AND THE PLT HAD FLOWN IT LIKE THAT SEVERAL TIMES, SO I HAD NO IDEA THAT IT NEEDED TO BE FILLED. ALSO, THE FAA INSPECTOR MENTIONED THAT THE TIRE WAS ONLY ILLEGAL IF ONLY CORDS WERE SHOWING, AND HE PROCEEDED TO ROLL IT AROUND TO LOOK AT THE WHOLE TREND SURFACE, AND I DIDN'T SEE ANY CORDS. HE THEN SAID THAT WE COULD FLY JUMPERS FOR FREE IF WE FIXED THE STRUT AND GOT A NEW TIME, SO WE FIXED BOTH OF THEM AND FLEW NORMALLY FOR THE REST OF THE DAY WITH NO PROBS. SO, IN MY OPINION, THE ACFT IN QUESTION WAS AIRWORTHY, AND CAPABLE OF SAFE FLT, AND ALL INSPECTIONS WERE UP TO DATE, BUT JUST NOT PROPERLY NOTED IN THE ACFT LOGS. THE OWNER DID HAD A RECEIPT SHOWING THAT THE 100 HR INSPECTION HAD BEEN COMPLETED. I DID NOT FEEL THAT I WAS IN VIOLATION OF ANY FAR'S DURING THIS INCIDENT.

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.