Narrative:

While flying with a student pilot/ATC controller, I performed two low approachs in order to demonstrate ground effect, and assist the student in acquiring the perspective necessary for safe lndgs. In both cases the maneuvers were well within the aircraft's performance and pilot's capabilities. Despite the fact that prior permission was received and clearance issued, an FAA inspector approached me after landing requesting to see my documents. I presented my certificates to the inspector and asked the nature of his inquiry. He was unclr as to the reasons for inspecting my certificates. He stated that my departure procedures were questionable (not specifically illegal) and that I would receive a letter from the FAA. When I tried to determine his specific objection he said that he was preoccupied and had to leave. I believe the inspector took objection to my departure procedure. Specifically pitching up and banking right to first, depart the pattern, and later to rejoin the downwind. In my opinion he probably thought the maneuver too abrupt and unnecessary for 'normal' flight. However, since this was specifically a training flight and required a low pass, I deemed it necessary to depart in this manner for 2 reasons. Firstly, if the climb was performed with a low gradient I would have been left in a poor situation should my power unit fail. Secondly, a low angle climb out would have caused me to possibly violate reasonable noise abatement procedures. The most significant problem with this situation was one of poor communication between myself and the inspector. Due to his rush (to perform a check ride) I was unable to explain the reasons and conditions surrounding my actions. He made, I am sure, some quick judgements concerning my actions, without taking the time to discuss the situation with me. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states his passenger was a friend as well as student. He has been having trouble with lndgs and reporter was demonstrating technique. They left the pattern to familiarize student with aircraft, then returned for practice. Reporter very distressed that FAA representative would not explain what fault he found with maneuvers. Inspector was leaving for a part 135 check ride which had already been delayed, so truly was in a hurry. Reporter was a wreck for a couple of weeks watching the mail box. He has heard nothing further to date.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR WITH STUDENT DEMONSTRATES GND EFFECT, APCHED BY FAA INSPECTOR. QUESTIONED REF DEP PROCS.

Narrative: WHILE FLYING WITH A STUDENT PLT/ATC CTLR, I PERFORMED TWO LOW APCHS IN ORDER TO DEMONSTRATE GND EFFECT, AND ASSIST THE STUDENT IN ACQUIRING THE PERSPECTIVE NECESSARY FOR SAFE LNDGS. IN BOTH CASES THE MANEUVERS WERE WELL WITHIN THE ACFT'S PERFORMANCE AND PLT'S CAPABILITIES. DESPITE THE FACT THAT PRIOR PERMISSION WAS RECEIVED AND CLRNC ISSUED, AN FAA INSPECTOR APCHED ME AFTER LNDG REQUESTING TO SEE MY DOCUMENTS. I PRESENTED MY CERTIFICATES TO THE INSPECTOR AND ASKED THE NATURE OF HIS INQUIRY. HE WAS UNCLR AS TO THE REASONS FOR INSPECTING MY CERTIFICATES. HE STATED THAT MY DEP PROCS WERE QUESTIONABLE (NOT SPECIFICALLY ILLEGAL) AND THAT I WOULD RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE FAA. WHEN I TRIED TO DETERMINE HIS SPECIFIC OBJECTION HE SAID THAT HE WAS PREOCCUPIED AND HAD TO LEAVE. I BELIEVE THE INSPECTOR TOOK OBJECTION TO MY DEP PROC. SPECIFICALLY PITCHING UP AND BANKING R TO FIRST, DEPART THE PATTERN, AND LATER TO REJOIN THE DOWNWIND. IN MY OPINION HE PROBABLY THOUGHT THE MANEUVER TOO ABRUPT AND UNNECESSARY FOR 'NORMAL' FLT. HOWEVER, SINCE THIS WAS SPECIFICALLY A TRAINING FLT AND REQUIRED A LOW PASS, I DEEMED IT NECESSARY TO DEPART IN THIS MANNER FOR 2 REASONS. FIRSTLY, IF THE CLB WAS PERFORMED WITH A LOW GRADIENT I WOULD HAVE BEEN LEFT IN A POOR SITUATION SHOULD MY PWR UNIT FAIL. SECONDLY, A LOW ANGLE CLB OUT WOULD HAVE CAUSED ME TO POSSIBLY VIOLATE REASONABLE NOISE ABATEMENT PROCS. THE MOST SIGNIFICANT PROBLEM WITH THIS SITUATION WAS ONE OF POOR COM BTWN MYSELF AND THE INSPECTOR. DUE TO HIS RUSH (TO PERFORM A CHK RIDE) I WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE REASONS AND CONDITIONS SURROUNDING MY ACTIONS. HE MADE, I AM SURE, SOME QUICK JUDGEMENTS CONCERNING MY ACTIONS, WITHOUT TAKING THE TIME TO DISCUSS THE SITUATION WITH ME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES HIS PAX WAS A FRIEND AS WELL AS STUDENT. HE HAS BEEN HAVING TROUBLE WITH LNDGS AND RPTR WAS DEMONSTRATING TECHNIQUE. THEY LEFT THE PATTERN TO FAMILIARIZE STUDENT WITH ACFT, THEN RETURNED FOR PRACTICE. RPTR VERY DISTRESSED THAT FAA REPRESENTATIVE WOULD NOT EXPLAIN WHAT FAULT HE FOUND WITH MANEUVERS. INSPECTOR WAS LEAVING FOR A PART 135 CHK RIDE WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN DELAYED, SO TRULY WAS IN A HURRY. RPTR WAS A WRECK FOR A COUPLE OF WKS WATCHING THE MAIL BOX. HE HAS HEARD NOTHING FURTHER TO DATE.

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.