Narrative:

On the day of 10/91, I was dispatched to give a training lesson to mr X, from fok. We landed at fisher's island and we were approached by 2 FAA personnel. They believed the flight was under 135 operations when in fact the flight was a lesson (training flight) for X's rating. Supplemental information from acn 193975. As an owner operator of a single pilot single engine 135 air taxi, and FBO/flight school. I believe my local FSDO believes I am operating and maintaining aircraft in a manner not acceptable to the administrator and in violation of FARS. However, in discussions with my FSDO's head of maintenance, my pmi, and aviation safety inspectors, I have been refused and any answer's to my questions further details are attached. On oct/91 an small aircraft ramp checked at fisher's island, ny, identifier is OB8 by 2 aviation safety inspectors. Inspector #1, my X and inspector #2, mr Y are their names. The purpose of the flight was flight training for mr Z. In conjunction, his job as school teacher requires mr Z to travel to fisher's island on occasion, so it was elected training to and from fisher's island would be an acceptable comprise. Inspector #1 has made several statements to the effect that this was solely a commercial operation under far 135 and training had nothing to do with the flight, even though logbook evidence shows the contrary. The flight instructor was mr a, who to date has been unable to see where there is any conflict with far 135 since it stipulates that student training is exempt from far part 135. As owner and operator, I elected to speak with inspector #1. I specifically asked what if any was the violation, discrepancies or conflicts, or do any presently exist with said flts, and why didn't he make an effort to discuss the events with all the parties involved, and why he insists that the flight was under far 135. In fact, he refused to answer any of my questions. To date, I still own and operate 2 airplanes which engage in flight training to meet the needs for pilot certification and the student's individual needs. Inspector #2 checked the aircraft and the records and found them to be in compliance with the airworthiness of the aircraft. The acfts are maintained by myself and my facility, and have had no problems mechanically. However, still there is a definite feeling of hostility towards my operation and myself. Whether the problem can be resolved locally or not, I made several inquiries to the FAA regional office to explain my operation and my actions in the matter, and they appear to be in favor of my operation and are looking into my plight.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR WITH STUDENT RAMP CHKED.

Narrative: ON THE DAY OF 10/91, I WAS DISPATCHED TO GIVE A TRAINING LESSON TO MR X, FROM FOK. WE LANDED AT FISHER'S ISLAND AND WE WERE APCHED BY 2 FAA PERSONNEL. THEY BELIEVED THE FLT WAS UNDER 135 OPS WHEN IN FACT THE FLT WAS A LESSON (TRAINING FLT) FOR X'S RATING. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 193975. AS AN OWNER OPERATOR OF A SINGLE PLT SINGLE ENG 135 AIR TAXI, AND FBO/FLT SCHOOL. I BELIEVE MY LCL FSDO BELIEVES I AM OPERATING AND MAINTAINING ACFT IN A MANNER NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR AND IN VIOLATION OF FARS. HOWEVER, IN DISCUSSIONS WITH MY FSDO'S HEAD OF MAINT, MY PMI, AND AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTORS, I HAVE BEEN REFUSED AND ANY ANSWER'S TO MY QUESTIONS FURTHER DETAILS ARE ATTACHED. ON OCT/91 AN SMA RAMP CHKED AT FISHER'S ISLAND, NY, IDENTIFIER IS OB8 BY 2 AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTORS. INSPECTOR #1, MY X AND INSPECTOR #2, MR Y ARE THEIR NAMES. THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT WAS FLT TRAINING FOR MR Z. IN CONJUNCTION, HIS JOB AS SCHOOL TEACHER REQUIRES MR Z TO TRAVEL TO FISHER'S ISLAND ON OCCASION, SO IT WAS ELECTED TRAINING TO AND FROM FISHER'S ISLAND WOULD BE AN ACCEPTABLE COMPRISE. INSPECTOR #1 HAS MADE SEVERAL STATEMENTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THIS WAS SOLELY A COMMERCIAL OP UNDER FAR 135 AND TRAINING HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE FLT, EVEN THOUGH LOGBOOK EVIDENCE SHOWS THE CONTRARY. THE FLT INSTRUCTOR WAS MR A, WHO TO DATE HAS BEEN UNABLE TO SEE WHERE THERE IS ANY CONFLICT WITH FAR 135 SINCE IT STIPULATES THAT STUDENT TRAINING IS EXEMPT FROM FAR PART 135. AS OWNER AND OPERATOR, I ELECTED TO SPEAK WITH INSPECTOR #1. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED WHAT IF ANY WAS THE VIOLATION, DISCREPANCIES OR CONFLICTS, OR DO ANY PRESENTLY EXIST WITH SAID FLTS, AND WHY DIDN'T HE MAKE AN EFFORT TO DISCUSS THE EVENTS WITH ALL THE PARTIES INVOLVED, AND WHY HE INSISTS THAT THE FLT WAS UNDER FAR 135. IN FACT, HE REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY OF MY QUESTIONS. TO DATE, I STILL OWN AND OPERATE 2 AIRPLANES WHICH ENGAGE IN FLT TRAINING TO MEET THE NEEDS FOR PLT CERTIFICATION AND THE STUDENT'S INDIVIDUAL NEEDS. INSPECTOR #2 CHKED THE ACFT AND THE RECORDS AND FOUND THEM TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. THE ACFTS ARE MAINTAINED BY MYSELF AND MY FACILITY, AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS MECHANICALLY. HOWEVER, STILL THERE IS A DEFINITE FEELING OF HOSTILITY TOWARDS MY OP AND MYSELF. WHETHER THE PROBLEM CAN BE RESOLVED LOCALLY OR NOT, I MADE SEVERAL INQUIRIES TO THE FAA REGIONAL OFFICE TO EXPLAIN MY OP AND MY ACTIONS IN THE MATTER, AND THEY APPEAR TO BE IN FAVOR OF MY OP AND ARE LOOKING INTO MY PLIGHT.

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.