Narrative:

Heading back to stinson field (ssf) at 2500 ft MSL (approximately 1800 ft AGL), after a routine 1 hour training flight in the local practice area, in a cessna 150L, the aircraft engine started to vibrate and lose power. I took control of the aircraft from the student and proceeded to fly toward a landing site. Having come to the realization we would not be able to make it back to stinson (as there was inadequate power to maintain altitude), I decided to make a forced landing in a field approximately 15 NM southeast of san antonio. The landing on the field was uneventful - no damage to aircraft, people or property. After securing the aircraft on the ground and answering the law enforcement official's questions, we were told to wait at the site until the arrival of the FAA inspector. Once the inspector from the san antonio FSDO arrived, it was determined that the cause of power loss was mechanical. Upon the inspector's request, I produced the logbooks of the aircraft which he proceeded to check. The inspector informed me that, in the aircraft airframe logbook, and airworthiness directive had not been updated. The airworthiness directive in question was regarding siderails which had nothing to do with the engine or the forced landing. When I expressed unfamiliarity with this airworthiness directive, the inspector went into length about the discrepancy and the possibility of getting 'a warning' in my airman record. As far as I am aware, it is the mechanic's responsibility to make an entry into the aircraft's logbooks and not mine. Is the FAA expecting every pilot to know every airworthiness directive pertaining to every aircraft he, or she, flies every single time? As a pilot, I am aware of the basic maintenance requirements but I am not able to remain informed about every single airworthiness directive pertaining to every aircraft I fly. As PIC, I determined the aircraft was in airworthy condition by preflting and inspecting documents in the aircraft. The maintenance logbooks showed the 100 hours and the annual inspections were complied with. If the FAA requires the PIC to be responsible for airworthiness directives logged in the aircraft maintenance logbooks, they should specifically and explicitly instruct the aviation community. If this is not the case, the FAA inspectors should have a clear guideline to follow instead of having them come up with loose interps of the regulations.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT MAKES OFF ARPT FORCED LNDG AFTER THE ENG LOST SUFFICIENT PWR TO NOT MAKE IT BACK TO THE ARPT. THERE WAS NO ACFT DAMAGE OR PERSONAL INJURIES.

Narrative: HDG BACK TO STINSON FIELD (SSF) AT 2500 FT MSL (APPROX 1800 FT AGL), AFTER A ROUTINE 1 HR TRAINING FLT IN THE LCL PRACTICE AREA, IN A CESSNA 150L, THE ACFT ENG STARTED TO VIBRATE AND LOSE PWR. I TOOK CTL OF THE ACFT FROM THE STUDENT AND PROCEEDED TO FLY TOWARD A LNDG SITE. HAVING COME TO THE REALIZATION WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MAKE IT BACK TO STINSON (AS THERE WAS INADEQUATE PWR TO MAINTAIN ALT), I DECIDED TO MAKE A FORCED LNDG IN A FIELD APPROX 15 NM SE OF SAN ANTONIO. THE LNDG ON THE FIELD WAS UNEVENTFUL - NO DAMAGE TO ACFT, PEOPLE OR PROPERTY. AFTER SECURING THE ACFT ON THE GND AND ANSWERING THE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL'S QUESTIONS, WE WERE TOLD TO WAIT AT THE SITE UNTIL THE ARR OF THE FAA INSPECTOR. ONCE THE INSPECTOR FROM THE SAN ANTONIO FSDO ARRIVED, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CAUSE OF PWR LOSS WAS MECHANICAL. UPON THE INSPECTOR'S REQUEST, I PRODUCED THE LOGBOOKS OF THE ACFT WHICH HE PROCEEDED TO CHK. THE INSPECTOR INFORMED ME THAT, IN THE ACFT AIRFRAME LOGBOOK, AND AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE HAD NOT BEEN UPDATED. THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE IN QUESTION WAS REGARDING SIDERAILS WHICH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ENG OR THE FORCED LNDG. WHEN I EXPRESSED UNFAMILIARITY WITH THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE, THE INSPECTOR WENT INTO LENGTH ABOUT THE DISCREPANCY AND THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING 'A WARNING' IN MY AIRMAN RECORD. AS FAR AS I AM AWARE, IT IS THE MECH'S RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE AN ENTRY INTO THE ACFT'S LOGBOOKS AND NOT MINE. IS THE FAA EXPECTING EVERY PLT TO KNOW EVERY AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE PERTAINING TO EVERY ACFT HE, OR SHE, FLIES EVERY SINGLE TIME? AS A PLT, I AM AWARE OF THE BASIC MAINT REQUIREMENTS BUT I AM NOT ABLE TO REMAIN INFORMED ABOUT EVERY SINGLE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE PERTAINING TO EVERY ACFT I FLY. AS PIC, I DETERMINED THE ACFT WAS IN AIRWORTHY CONDITION BY PREFLTING AND INSPECTING DOCUMENTS IN THE ACFT. THE MAINT LOGBOOKS SHOWED THE 100 HRS AND THE ANNUAL INSPECTIONS WERE COMPLIED WITH. IF THE FAA REQUIRES THE PIC TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES LOGGED IN THE ACFT MAINT LOGBOOKS, THEY SHOULD SPECIFICALLY AND EXPLICITLY INSTRUCT THE AVIATION COMMUNITY. IF THIS IS NOT THE CASE, THE FAA INSPECTORS SHOULD HAVE A CLR GUIDELINE TO FOLLOW INSTEAD OF HAVING THEM COME UP WITH LOOSE INTERPS OF THE REGS.

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.