Narrative:

While I was preparing for a local photography flight, an FAA inspector arrived and proceeded to do a 'ramp check' on the aircraft to be used. The 2 camera operators were placing the camera securely north the airplane and completed the task of securing the camera. After the FAA inspector completed his inspection, the authority/authorized to complete the flight was given and the inspector departed. Later in the day, the inspector called back and changed his mind about the status of the aircraft. However, the mission was already completed. Today, the FAA inspector called and told me that he was citing me for a violation of some description that would be a part of my record for 2 yrs. I respectfully submit that if the 'ramp check' had determined there was some problem with the aircraft and it was insufficient in any way, that the verbal release should not have been given and subsequently I would have never left in the aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had received an administration warning letter from the FAA regarding a violation of operating an unairworthy aircraft. The lack of approval of special camera equipment installed and operated in the aircraft attached by seatbelts without any documented approval caused the infraction. The reporter further started that his company's mechanic is establishing drawings and data for submitting to the FAA requesting approval. Reporter commented that he would not fly the aircraft under these conditions until FAA approval was given.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C172 PLT OPERATED ACFT WHEN IT DID NOT MEET AIRWORTHINESS REQUIREMENTS DUE TO PHOTOGRAPHIC EQUIP STRAPPED DOWN BY THE ACFT SEATBELTS AND DID NOT HAVE INSTALLATION APPROVAL SIGNED OFF IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK.

Narrative: WHILE I WAS PREPARING FOR A LCL PHOTOGRAPHY FLT, AN FAA INSPECTOR ARRIVED AND PROCEEDED TO DO A 'RAMP CHK' ON THE ACFT TO BE USED. THE 2 CAMERA OPERATORS WERE PLACING THE CAMERA SECURELY N THE AIRPLANE AND COMPLETED THE TASK OF SECURING THE CAMERA. AFTER THE FAA INSPECTOR COMPLETED HIS INSPECTION, THE AUTH TO COMPLETE THE FLT WAS GIVEN AND THE INSPECTOR DEPARTED. LATER IN THE DAY, THE INSPECTOR CALLED BACK AND CHANGED HIS MIND ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE ACFT. HOWEVER, THE MISSION WAS ALREADY COMPLETED. TODAY, THE FAA INSPECTOR CALLED AND TOLD ME THAT HE WAS CITING ME FOR A VIOLATION OF SOME DESCRIPTION THAT WOULD BE A PART OF MY RECORD FOR 2 YRS. I RESPECTFULLY SUBMIT THAT IF THE 'RAMP CHK' HAD DETERMINED THERE WAS SOME PROB WITH THE ACFT AND IT WAS INSUFFICIENT IN ANY WAY, THAT THE VERBAL RELEASE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AND SUBSEQUENTLY I WOULD HAVE NEVER LEFT IN THE ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD RECEIVED AN ADMINISTRATION WARNING LETTER FROM THE FAA REGARDING A VIOLATION OF OPERATING AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT. THE LACK OF APPROVAL OF SPECIAL CAMERA EQUIP INSTALLED AND OPERATED IN THE ACFT ATTACHED BY SEATBELTS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTED APPROVAL CAUSED THE INFRACTION. THE RPTR FURTHER STARTED THAT HIS COMPANY'S MECH IS ESTABLISHING DRAWINGS AND DATA FOR SUBMITTING TO THE FAA REQUESTING APPROVAL. RPTR COMMENTED THAT HE WOULD NOT FLY THE ACFT UNDER THESE CONDITIONS UNTIL FAA APPROVAL WAS GIVEN.

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.