Narrative:

On jun/xx/94 an avionics installation was completed in a cessna C-172P consisting of the following: audio panel, navigation receiver with GS and navigation indicator and indicator, GPS rack and harness converter connecting the GPS output to the navigation indicator. The work was completed along with a 100 hour inspection. I made the entries in the aircraft logbook, including: installation, weight and balance update and equipment change. Form 337 was completed in duplicate. Transponder, pitot and static inspections were performed by X from FBO a instrument repair station and entered in the maintenance record. The aircraft was test flown and returned to service on jun/wed/94. It returned to rental operation the morning of jun/thu/94. On jun/fri/94 late morning, I received a call from X (the avionics installer) indicating that inspector Y of FSDO had been to see him with numerous questions about the installation. It was discovered that some of the references I listed on the form 337 were incorrect. That 337 was voided and a corrected copy submitted. I had borrowed old installation manuals for the weight and balance information. X had already prepared a 337 with the proper references and I called avionics manufacturer to verify the information on the forms. In the meantime, inspector Y arrived and informed me that the pitot static and transponder inspection performed by X was invalid because an outdated manual was used at FBO a. The pitot, static and transponder inspections were immediately redone by another repair station and confirmed to be within specifications. Jun/mon/94 the principal inspector for FBO a verified that their manuals were correct and the transponder bench check was valid. Inspector Y went on to say that any electrical work done to the aircraft was considered a major repair requiring form 337 to be completed. He also stated that the plane was flying in violation of the regulations, since he had not approved the form 337 in question by completing section 3, prior to the ia signing section 7, returning the plane to service. While this describes a field approval which is necessary in many cases, the inspector indicates that it is always required. I feel that standard procedures were followed and that no effort was made to contravene the FAA regulations. The plane was in the shop for 19 days undergoing extensive renovations. All the information at the time indicated that all proper steps had been taken prior to the plane being returned to service. There was no danger to the safety of flight and no accident or incident resulted from the error in the paperwork. The miami FSDO is investigating this situation and afs 500 in washington, dc, has been notified. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter is in charge of maintenance for an far part 141 flight school with about 40 aircraft. He has noted that the miami FSDO has recently taken the attitude of 'violate first, ask questions later.' apparently there are some new inspectors with very little small aircraft experience who are giving FBO's a lot of trouble. The radio installation alluded to in the report is a group of standard aircraft radios that are in widespread use with standard installation procedures. The mia FSDO was upset because the reporter did not submit a form 337 for approval before the work was initiated. The inspector required that an altimeter be certified to 50000 ft even though it was only manufactured and certified to 20000 ft. The reporter states that this matter is in the hands of his attorneys. He believes that there will be no violation filed, but that the reporter will have to take the avionics portion of the aircraft mechanics license written examination over. The reporter is in the process of filing a formal complaint with the FAA. The reporter recited an incident that occurred at an far part 135 operator where the owner was told that his operations chief would have to be let go for there to be peace with the FAA. Initially, the operator refused to do this, but, after the harassment continued for some time, costing a lot of money and wasted effort, the operator finally had to let his employee go. There were other anecdotes similar to this.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A MAINT CHIEF FOR AN FAR PART 151 SCHOOL RPTS DIFFICULTIES WITH THE MIA FSDO.

Narrative: ON JUN/XX/94 AN AVIONICS INSTALLATION WAS COMPLETED IN A CESSNA C-172P CONSISTING OF THE FOLLOWING: AUDIO PANEL, NAV RECEIVER WITH GS AND NAV INDICATOR AND INDICATOR, GPS RACK AND HARNESS CONVERTER CONNECTING THE GPS OUTPUT TO THE NAV INDICATOR. THE WORK WAS COMPLETED ALONG WITH A 100 HR INSPECTION. I MADE THE ENTRIES IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK, INCLUDING: INSTALLATION, WT AND BAL UPDATE AND EQUIP CHANGE. FORM 337 WAS COMPLETED IN DUPLICATE. XPONDER, PITOT AND STATIC INSPECTIONS WERE PERFORMED BY X FROM FBO A INST REPAIR STATION AND ENTERED IN THE MAINT RECORD. THE ACFT WAS TEST FLOWN AND RETURNED TO SVC ON JUN/WED/94. IT RETURNED TO RENTAL OP THE MORNING OF JUN/THU/94. ON JUN/FRI/94 LATE MORNING, I RECEIVED A CALL FROM X (THE AVIONICS INSTALLER) INDICATING THAT INSPECTOR Y OF FSDO HAD BEEN TO SEE HIM WITH NUMEROUS QUESTIONS ABOUT THE INSTALLATION. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT SOME OF THE REFS I LISTED ON THE FORM 337 WERE INCORRECT. THAT 337 WAS VOIDED AND A CORRECTED COPY SUBMITTED. I HAD BORROWED OLD INSTALLATION MANUALS FOR THE WT AND BAL INFO. X HAD ALREADY PREPARED A 337 WITH THE PROPER REFS AND I CALLED AVIONICS MANUFACTURER TO VERIFY THE INFO ON THE FORMS. IN THE MEANTIME, INSPECTOR Y ARRIVED AND INFORMED ME THAT THE PITOT STATIC AND XPONDER INSPECTION PERFORMED BY X WAS INVALID BECAUSE AN OUTDATED MANUAL WAS USED AT FBO A. THE PITOT, STATIC AND XPONDER INSPECTIONS WERE IMMEDIATELY REDONE BY ANOTHER REPAIR STATION AND CONFIRMED TO BE WITHIN SPECS. JUN/MON/94 THE PRINCIPAL INSPECTOR FOR FBO A VERIFIED THAT THEIR MANUALS WERE CORRECT AND THE XPONDER BENCH CHK WAS VALID. INSPECTOR Y WENT ON TO SAY THAT ANY ELECTRICAL WORK DONE TO THE ACFT WAS CONSIDERED A MAJOR REPAIR REQUIRING FORM 337 TO BE COMPLETED. HE ALSO STATED THAT THE PLANE WAS FLYING IN VIOLATION OF THE REGS, SINCE HE HAD NOT APPROVED THE FORM 337 IN QUESTION BY COMPLETING SECTION 3, PRIOR TO THE IA SIGNING SECTION 7, RETURNING THE PLANE TO SVC. WHILE THIS DESCRIBES A FIELD APPROVAL WHICH IS NECESSARY IN MANY CASES, THE INSPECTOR INDICATES THAT IT IS ALWAYS REQUIRED. I FEEL THAT STANDARD PROCS WERE FOLLOWED AND THAT NO EFFORT WAS MADE TO CONTRAVENE THE FAA REGS. THE PLANE WAS IN THE SHOP FOR 19 DAYS UNDERGOING EXTENSIVE RENOVATIONS. ALL THE INFO AT THE TIME INDICATED THAT ALL PROPER STEPS HAD BEEN TAKEN PRIOR TO THE PLANE BEING RETURNED TO SVC. THERE WAS NO DANGER TO THE SAFETY OF FLT AND NO ACCIDENT OR INCIDENT RESULTED FROM THE ERROR IN THE PAPERWORK. THE MIAMI FSDO IS INVESTIGATING THIS SIT AND AFS 500 IN WASHINGTON, DC, HAS BEEN NOTIFIED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR IS IN CHARGE OF MAINT FOR AN FAR PART 141 FLT SCHOOL WITH ABOUT 40 ACFT. HE HAS NOTED THAT THE MIAMI FSDO HAS RECENTLY TAKEN THE ATTITUDE OF 'VIOLATE FIRST, ASK QUESTIONS LATER.' APPARENTLY THERE ARE SOME NEW INSPECTORS WITH VERY LITTLE SMALL ACFT EXPERIENCE WHO ARE GIVING FBO'S A LOT OF TROUBLE. THE RADIO INSTALLATION ALLUDED TO IN THE RPT IS A GROUP OF STANDARD ACFT RADIOS THAT ARE IN WIDESPREAD USE WITH STANDARD INSTALLATION PROCS. THE MIA FSDO WAS UPSET BECAUSE THE RPTR DID NOT SUBMIT A FORM 337 FOR APPROVAL BEFORE THE WORK WAS INITIATED. THE INSPECTOR REQUIRED THAT AN ALTIMETER BE CERTIFIED TO 50000 FT EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ONLY MANUFACTURED AND CERTIFIED TO 20000 FT. THE RPTR STATES THAT THIS MATTER IS IN THE HANDS OF HIS ATTORNEYS. HE BELIEVES THAT THERE WILL BE NO VIOLATION FILED, BUT THAT THE RPTR WILL HAVE TO TAKE THE AVIONICS PORTION OF THE ACFT MECHS LICENSE WRITTEN EXAM OVER. THE RPTR IS IN THE PROCESS OF FILING A FORMAL COMPLAINT WITH THE FAA. THE RPTR RECITED AN INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT AN FAR PART 135 OPERATOR WHERE THE OWNER WAS TOLD THAT HIS OPS CHIEF WOULD HAVE TO BE LET GO FOR THERE TO BE PEACE WITH THE FAA. INITIALLY, THE OPERATOR REFUSED TO DO THIS, BUT, AFTER THE HARASSMENT CONTINUED FOR SOME TIME, COSTING A LOT OF MONEY AND WASTED EFFORT, THE OPERATOR FINALLY HAD TO LET HIS EMPLOYEE GO. THERE WERE OTHER ANECDOTES SIMILAR TO THIS.

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.