Narrative:

He immediately installed my original encoder which had been overhauled, and disconnected the KNS80 RNAV, saying he could not test an encoder with a DME on. The on/off knob was partially missing. He then tested the encoder and said it was reading ok, but did not complete the test as we had no more time. This left us with an uncertified encoder we could not use and the static system needed to be rechecked before further IFR flight. He got back in the airplane as I pushed it out onto the ramp and I thought he was reinstalling the KNS80. In actual fact he tightened the hold-in nut so tight it could not be put in the panel leaving us with this unit also inoperative. The inoperative units were placarded inoperative and deactivated. The airplane was preflted and we checked ATIS, clearance delivery and called ground control. They cleared us to taxi to runway 18R. Originally an IFR clearance was accepted, but canceled since the aircraft did not have a valid static check. The IFR training was not possible and PIC continued as PIC. They had cleared us to runway 18R and we requested runway 18L. Then the confusion began. Ground control said 'you have to return to FBO.' I asked why and was told 'the aircraft was unairworthy.' I stated the aircraft was airworthy. It only had an uncertified encoder, ie unusable. There was lots of confusion and taxi clearance was refused several times. Is it ground control's responsibility to determine whether an aircraft is airworthy? I think company ground personnel at FBO is not clear on what make an aircraft airworthy, nor is it his responsibility to advise ground control of his mistaken opinions. We took off runway 18R and proceeded VFR to greenville downtown. Company ground personnel was extremely rude and vindictive and so I'm filing this report to clarify matters. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that she did not believe that she operated an unairworthy aircraft (PA28-180 arrow) since she observed the altimeter tested and was an a&P rated to sign off the encoder as inoperative. She also stated that she received a letter of warning from the FAA for operating in class B airspace without an encoder. She believes that she did have ATC permission since she advised that the encoder was not working and was subsequently given a clearance for departure out of the class B airspace. She believes that the other pilot should have been considered as PIC since they could not file and operate IFR for training purposes as originally planned. The encoder was an ack- A30.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT OF SMA SEL DEPARTED INTO CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT OPERATING ENCODER ALTIMETER.

Narrative: HE IMMEDIATELY INSTALLED MY ORIGINAL ENCODER WHICH HAD BEEN OVERHAULED, AND DISCONNECTED THE KNS80 RNAV, SAYING HE COULD NOT TEST AN ENCODER WITH A DME ON. THE ON/OFF KNOB WAS PARTIALLY MISSING. HE THEN TESTED THE ENCODER AND SAID IT WAS READING OK, BUT DID NOT COMPLETE THE TEST AS WE HAD NO MORE TIME. THIS LEFT US WITH AN UNCERTIFIED ENCODER WE COULD NOT USE AND THE STATIC SYS NEEDED TO BE RECHECKED BEFORE FURTHER IFR FLIGHT. HE GOT BACK IN THE AIRPLANE AS I PUSHED IT OUT ONTO THE RAMP AND I THOUGHT HE WAS REINSTALLING THE KNS80. IN ACTUAL FACT HE TIGHTENED THE HOLD-IN NUT SO TIGHT IT COULD NOT BE PUT IN THE PANEL LEAVING US WITH THIS UNIT ALSO INOP. THE INOP UNITS WERE PLACARDED INOP AND DEACTIVATED. THE AIRPLANE WAS PREFLTED AND WE CHKED ATIS, CLRNC DELIVERY AND CALLED GND CTL. THEY CLRED US TO TAXI TO RWY 18R. ORIGINALLY AN IFR CLRNC WAS ACCEPTED, BUT CANCELED SINCE THE ACFT DID NOT HAVE A VALID STATIC CHECK. THE IFR TRAINING WAS NOT POSSIBLE AND PIC CONTINUED AS PIC. THEY HAD CLRED US TO RWY 18R AND WE REQUESTED RWY 18L. THEN THE CONFUSION BEGAN. GND CTL SAID 'YOU HAVE TO RETURN TO FBO.' I ASKED WHY AND WAS TOLD 'THE ACFT WAS UNAIRWORTHY.' I STATED THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY. IT ONLY HAD AN UNCERTIFIED ENCODER, IE UNUSABLE. THERE WAS LOTS OF CONFUSION AND TAXI CLRNC WAS REFUSED SEVERAL TIMES. IS IT GND CTL'S RESPONSIBILITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER AN ACFT IS AIRWORTHY? I THINK CGP AT FBO IS NOT CLR ON WHAT MAKE AN ACFT AIRWORTHY, NOR IS IT HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO ADVISE GND CTL OF HIS MISTAKEN OPINIONS. WE TOOK OFF RWY 18R AND PROCEEDED VFR TO GREENVILLE DOWNTOWN. CGP WAS EXTREMELY RUDE AND VINDICTIVE AND SO I'M FILING THIS RPT TO CLARIFY MATTERS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT SHE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT SHE OPERATED AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT (PA28-180 ARROW) SINCE SHE OBSERVED THE ALTIMETER TESTED AND WAS AN A&P RATED TO SIGN OFF THE ENCODER AS INOP. SHE ALSO STATED THAT SHE RECEIVED A LETTER OF WARNING FROM THE FAA FOR OPERATING IN CLASS B AIRSPACE WITHOUT AN ENCODER. SHE BELIEVES THAT SHE DID HAVE ATC PERMISSION SINCE SHE ADVISED THAT THE ENCODER WAS NOT WORKING AND WAS SUBSEQUENTLY GIVEN A CLRNC FOR DEP OUT OF THE CLASS B AIRSPACE. SHE BELIEVES THAT THE OTHER PLT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS PIC SINCE THEY COULD NOT FILE AND OPERATE IFR FOR TRAINING PURPOSES AS ORIGINALLY PLANNED. THE ENCODER WAS AN ACK- A30.

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.