Narrative:

On aug/xx/94, at or about XL00, I returned from a flight and parked on the ramp at (FBO) cak, ohio. I was ready to leave again, in approximately 20 min. I was approached by a man who declared he wanted to 'ramp check' my airplane as I was ready to leave. I complied and it turned out to be 2 men who said they were FAA although they never offered names or credentials to substantiate that. They acted in a flippant and arrogant manner that seemed to exude a show of authority/authorized and self esteem rather than a helpful govt employee. They claimed to find several things wrong with my plane, although minor, and said they were going to give me a 'crabsheet' so I may determine whether to have them looked at. This was to happen 'rather quickly, so I could be on my way.' note: the aircraft was not tagged in or out, as to not be airworthy. After checking the list, I complied with items #4 and #5. Item #7, rev through 9 were onboard before flight. Item #8 was being printed. Conferring with 3 different mechanics of the remaining 'crabs,' I, as PIC determined the aircraft to be safe for flight and scheduled the remaining repairs to be done aug/xx/94. Please note attached crab sheet with answers! I made the 2ND flight of the day with no problems. When I landed at approximately XC00 pm the same 2 men were there to greet me! They asked what I had done to the aircraft prior to this flight. I told them and they walked away. Should any more arise from this, I want it documented that this aircraft was annualed xx/xx/94 and a ramp check performed approximately may-june time frame. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that this matter had been concluded with a warning letter from the FAA stating that he had operated an unairworthy aircraft. He now recognizes that the attitude of the FAA inspectors caused him to over react to their findings by him flying the aircraft a short time after he had been given notice of the ramp inspection findings that had not all been taken care of before his post inspection flight. He now believes that had the FAA inspectors explained their findings, and given him ore time to answer their questions, and of course, notwithstanding his flight shortly after the inspection, this would never have been elevated to a violation action. He also realizes now that he has a safer and more airworthy aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT FLIES HIS SMA SEL SHORTLY AFTER FAA INSPECTORS' RAMP INSPECTION RESULTING IN UNAIRWORTHY ITEMS NOT ALL CORRECTED PRIOR TO FLT.

Narrative: ON AUG/XX/94, AT OR ABOUT XL00, I RETURNED FROM A FLT AND PARKED ON THE RAMP AT (FBO) CAK, OHIO. I WAS READY TO LEAVE AGAIN, IN APPROX 20 MIN. I WAS APCHED BY A MAN WHO DECLARED HE WANTED TO 'RAMP CHK' MY AIRPLANE AS I WAS READY TO LEAVE. I COMPLIED AND IT TURNED OUT TO BE 2 MEN WHO SAID THEY WERE FAA ALTHOUGH THEY NEVER OFFERED NAMES OR CREDENTIALS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT. THEY ACTED IN A FLIPPANT AND ARROGANT MANNER THAT SEEMED TO EXUDE A SHOW OF AUTH AND SELF ESTEEM RATHER THAN A HELPFUL GOVT EMPLOYEE. THEY CLAIMED TO FIND SEVERAL THINGS WRONG WITH MY PLANE, ALTHOUGH MINOR, AND SAID THEY WERE GOING TO GIVE ME A 'CRABSHEET' SO I MAY DETERMINE WHETHER TO HAVE THEM LOOKED AT. THIS WAS TO HAPPEN 'RATHER QUICKLY, SO I COULD BE ON MY WAY.' NOTE: THE ACFT WAS NOT TAGGED IN OR OUT, AS TO NOT BE AIRWORTHY. AFTER CHKING THE LIST, I COMPLIED WITH ITEMS #4 AND #5. ITEM #7, REV THROUGH 9 WERE ONBOARD BEFORE FLT. ITEM #8 WAS BEING PRINTED. CONFERRING WITH 3 DIFFERENT MECHS OF THE REMAINING 'CRABS,' I, AS PIC DETERMINED THE ACFT TO BE SAFE FOR FLT AND SCHEDULED THE REMAINING REPAIRS TO BE DONE AUG/XX/94. PLEASE NOTE ATTACHED CRAB SHEET WITH ANSWERS! I MADE THE 2ND FLT OF THE DAY WITH NO PROBS. WHEN I LANDED AT APPROX XC00 PM THE SAME 2 MEN WERE THERE TO GREET ME! THEY ASKED WHAT I HAD DONE TO THE ACFT PRIOR TO THIS FLT. I TOLD THEM AND THEY WALKED AWAY. SHOULD ANY MORE ARISE FROM THIS, I WANT IT DOCUMENTED THAT THIS ACFT WAS ANNUALED XX/XX/94 AND A RAMP CHK PERFORMED APPROX MAY-JUNE TIME FRAME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THIS MATTER HAD BEEN CONCLUDED WITH A WARNING LETTER FROM THE FAA STATING THAT HE HAD OPERATED AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT. HE NOW RECOGNIZES THAT THE ATTITUDE OF THE FAA INSPECTORS CAUSED HIM TO OVER REACT TO THEIR FINDINGS BY HIM FLYING THE ACFT A SHORT TIME AFTER HE HAD BEEN GIVEN NOTICE OF THE RAMP INSPECTION FINDINGS THAT HAD NOT ALL BEEN TAKEN CARE OF BEFORE HIS POST INSPECTION FLT. HE NOW BELIEVES THAT HAD THE FAA INSPECTORS EXPLAINED THEIR FINDINGS, AND GIVEN HIM ORE TIME TO ANSWER THEIR QUESTIONS, AND OF COURSE, NOTWITHSTANDING HIS FLT SHORTLY AFTER THE INSPECTION, THIS WOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN ELEVATED TO A VIOLATION ACTION. HE ALSO REALIZES NOW THAT HE HAS A SAFER AND MORE AIRWORTHY ACFT.

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.