Narrative:

Upon the completion of my third full stop landing, I taxied to the transient parking where my passenger to be was waiting. Immediately upon my passenger's entry into my parked rental plane, an FAA inspector pulled up in his car. He asked me to step out of the plane for an FAA ramp check. When asked for the rental plane's airworthiness certificate, I provided what I found in the plastic pouch at my left ankle in the cockpit. The inspector's reaction to its presentation was that the certificate was invalid due to the fact it wasn't the original, but a photocopy. He advised me that was a violation, but I was not asked to sign a violation complaint. I asked if he would ticket me if I taxied the rental plane back to where it belonged. He hesitated and finally said no he wouldn't. According to far 91.203 A1 'an appropriate and current airworthiness certificate is required.' if the opposite of appropriate is inappropriate, then I'd like to know where in the FARS it says a photocopy is not appropriate. To take it another step, where does it say in the FARS that an original is the only acceptable form of a current airworthiness certificate? I suggest that the far be amended to reflect either a photocopy or original be acceptable proof, especially when the next sentence says a copy of a special flight permit is ok. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had not been contacted further by the FAA regarding this matter and that the incident happened at the montgomery field airport, san diego, ca. After reiterating the point regarding the lack of clarification in the far for the original airworthiness certificate only, he was advised that FAA legal has made this interpretation to help prevent bogus certificates.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA NIGHT RAMP INSPECTION OF THE PLT AND ACFT FOR PROPER DOCUMENTATION REVEALED THAT THERE WAS ONLY A COPY, AND NOT THE ORIGINAL, OF THE ACFT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE CARRIED IN THE C172.

Narrative: UPON THE COMPLETION OF MY THIRD FULL STOP LNDG, I TAXIED TO THE TRANSIENT PARKING WHERE MY PAX TO BE WAS WAITING. IMMEDIATELY UPON MY PAX'S ENTRY INTO MY PARKED RENTAL PLANE, AN FAA INSPECTOR PULLED UP IN HIS CAR. HE ASKED ME TO STEP OUT OF THE PLANE FOR AN FAA RAMP CHK. WHEN ASKED FOR THE RENTAL PLANE'S AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, I PROVIDED WHAT I FOUND IN THE PLASTIC POUCH AT MY L ANKLE IN THE COCKPIT. THE INSPECTOR'S REACTION TO ITS PRESENTATION WAS THAT THE CERTIFICATE WAS INVALID DUE TO THE FACT IT WASN'T THE ORIGINAL, BUT A PHOTOCOPY. HE ADVISED ME THAT WAS A VIOLATION, BUT I WAS NOT ASKED TO SIGN A VIOLATION COMPLAINT. I ASKED IF HE WOULD TICKET ME IF I TAXIED THE RENTAL PLANE BACK TO WHERE IT BELONGED. HE HESITATED AND FINALLY SAID NO HE WOULDN'T. ACCORDING TO FAR 91.203 A1 'AN APPROPRIATE AND CURRENT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE IS REQUIRED.' IF THE OPPOSITE OF APPROPRIATE IS INAPPROPRIATE, THEN I'D LIKE TO KNOW WHERE IN THE FARS IT SAYS A PHOTOCOPY IS NOT APPROPRIATE. TO TAKE IT ANOTHER STEP, WHERE DOES IT SAY IN THE FARS THAT AN ORIGINAL IS THE ONLY ACCEPTABLE FORM OF A CURRENT AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE? I SUGGEST THAT THE FAR BE AMENDED TO REFLECT EITHER A PHOTOCOPY OR ORIGINAL BE ACCEPTABLE PROOF, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE NEXT SENTENCE SAYS A COPY OF A SPECIAL FLT PERMIT IS OK. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD NOT BEEN CONTACTED FURTHER BY THE FAA REGARDING THIS MATTER AND THAT THE INCIDENT HAPPENED AT THE MONTGOMERY FIELD ARPT, SAN DIEGO, CA. AFTER REITERATING THE POINT REGARDING THE LACK OF CLARIFICATION IN THE FAR FOR THE ORIGINAL AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE ONLY, HE WAS ADVISED THAT FAA LEGAL HAS MADE THIS INTERP TO HELP PREVENT BOGUS CERTIFICATES.

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.