Narrative:

I am an a and P mechanic with an inspection authorization issued with the GADO teterboro, nj. My ratings have been revoked by a FAA legal personnel, an assistant counsel at jfk, because she and an inspector X of the teterboro district office inspected the airframe and power plant logbooks to my airplane. They concluded that I violated the FARS section 43.12 A-1 and section 43.12 A-3 fraudulent alteration of record. Please note that I have been an a and P mechanic since 1974, and an ia since 1986 and have had no problems with my ratings, due to any violations. I own a small FBO which employs 2 other mechanics, and I understand, and obey the rules. Aircraft was ramp checked at teterboro airport by inspector X and he noted that log entries pertaining to a 100 hour inspection on 4/X/91, specifically the airframe log, had a false tach time. Also he noted that on 7/X/91 I made an alteration on the date to demonstrate regulatory compliance. The same comments were made with reference to the aircraft engine logbook. I have made this report to explain that no intent to conceal or falsely indicate logbook entries were made by this mechanic. The maintenance performed on those dates, was performed by me. I entered the tach time and dates, and then discovered an error on the tach and date, and made the proper entry, and signing the logbook, along with my a and P number. This is my job as an a and P mechanic, as an inspector authorization holder per far 43.9 A-2 and 3. Finally revocation of all my ratings for this oversight/is harsh, and vindictive action by the assistant counsel at jfk, and certainly does not warrant an emergency order of revocation. Action of this type by the administrator only contributes to extreme hardship to this mechanic and his family, loss of employment and home. It is recommended that a more careful evaluation and a hearing be the least afforded to the technician, before putting him or her into the street without a job. The FAA inspector also stated to me that he did not take any action against me personally, but that it was directed at my company, the FBO with 2 employees that I own and operate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A AND P MECH FBO OWNER HAS A RAMP CHK BY FAA AND DISCREPANCIES FOUND WITH LOGBOOK ENTRIES. RATINGS WERE REVOKED.

Narrative: I AM AN A AND P MECH WITH AN INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION ISSUED WITH THE GADO TETERBORO, NJ. MY RATINGS HAVE BEEN REVOKED BY A FAA LEGAL PERSONNEL, AN ASSISTANT COUNSEL AT JFK, BECAUSE SHE AND AN INSPECTOR X OF THE TETERBORO DISTRICT OFFICE INSPECTED THE AIRFRAME AND PWR PLANT LOGBOOKS TO MY AIRPLANE. THEY CONCLUDED THAT I VIOLATED THE FARS SECTION 43.12 A-1 AND SECTION 43.12 A-3 FRAUDULENT ALTERATION OF RECORD. PLEASE NOTE THAT I HAVE BEEN AN A AND P MECH SINCE 1974, AND AN IA SINCE 1986 AND HAVE HAD NO PROBLEMS WITH MY RATINGS, DUE TO ANY VIOLATIONS. I OWN A SMALL FBO WHICH EMPLOYS 2 OTHER MECHS, AND I UNDERSTAND, AND OBEY THE RULES. ACFT WAS RAMP CHKED AT TETERBORO ARPT BY INSPECTOR X AND HE NOTED THAT LOG ENTRIES PERTAINING TO A 100 HR INSPECTION ON 4/X/91, SPECIFICALLY THE AIRFRAME LOG, HAD A FALSE TACH TIME. ALSO HE NOTED THAT ON 7/X/91 I MADE AN ALTERATION ON THE DATE TO DEMONSTRATE REGULATORY COMPLIANCE. THE SAME COMMENTS WERE MADE WITH REF TO THE ACFT ENG LOGBOOK. I HAVE MADE THIS RPT TO EXPLAIN THAT NO INTENT TO CONCEAL OR FALSELY INDICATE LOGBOOK ENTRIES WERE MADE BY THIS MECH. THE MAINT PERFORMED ON THOSE DATES, WAS PERFORMED BY ME. I ENTERED THE TACH TIME AND DATES, AND THEN DISCOVERED AN ERROR ON THE TACH AND DATE, AND MADE THE PROPER ENTRY, AND SIGNING THE LOGBOOK, ALONG WITH MY A AND P NUMBER. THIS IS MY JOB AS AN A AND P MECH, AS AN INSPECTOR AUTHORIZATION HOLDER PER FAR 43.9 A-2 AND 3. FINALLY REVOCATION OF ALL MY RATINGS FOR THIS OVERSIGHT/IS HARSH, AND VINDICTIVE ACTION BY THE ASSISTANT COUNSEL AT JFK, AND CERTAINLY DOES NOT WARRANT AN EMER ORDER OF REVOCATION. ACTION OF THIS TYPE BY THE ADMINISTRATOR ONLY CONTRIBUTES TO EXTREME HARDSHIP TO THIS MECH AND HIS FAMILY, LOSS OF EMPLOYMENT AND HOME. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A MORE CAREFUL EVALUATION AND A HEARING BE THE LEAST AFFORDED TO THE TECHNICIAN, BEFORE PUTTING HIM OR HER INTO THE STREET WITHOUT A JOB. THE FAA INSPECTOR ALSO STATED TO ME THAT HE DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION AGAINST ME PERSONALLY, BUT THAT IT WAS DIRECTED AT MY COMPANY, THE FBO WITH 2 EMPLOYEES THAT I OWN AND OPERATE.

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.