Narrative:

While preflting the aircraft for an upcoming flight, I was checking the documents on the aircraft. I searched the aircraft and could not find the airworthiness certificate. Since the aircraft was recently sold and had changed registration number, I found that a new airworthiness certificate would be needed with the new n-number. I called FSDO and set an appointment to obtain a replacement certificate. My meeting was quite contentious. There was intimidating tones about possible enforcement action and the 2 FSDO employees argued with me about the 'lost' airworthiness certificate. I say 'lost' because subsequently, the certificate was found in the aircraft. While reviewing the aircraft logbooks for cause to issue a new airworthiness certificate, the 2 FSDO employees said that the aircraft would need a complete phase 1-4 inspection before it would be issued a new airworthiness certificate. I disagreed and they cited a number of letters and I sited a number of examples. They then informed me that in addition to the airworthiness certificate, that the aircraft had been flown past an inspection interval of 24 hours. Discussions about who 'owned' this discrepancy, the previous owner or the current owner ensued. It became clear that they were sticking to their interpretation and that they were not going to issue a new airworthiness certificate. So I gathered my papers and prepared to leave when what appeared to be a senior FSDO employee came by our meeting room on the way to lunch and asked to review my paperwork. He totally disagreed with the other 2 FSDO men, cited differing opinions between the ZZZ FSDO and the YYY FSDO and said the aircraft was fine and to issue an airworthiness certificate. I then received a call from one of the FSDO employees that hinted that they had intentions to violate both myself and mr Y, the owner of company Y, for exceedance of the maintenance interval. I said that the aircraft had a phase 2 inspection on sep/mon/02, and that a licensed mechanic and a certificated inspection facility very familiar with king air inspection requirements had inspected the aircraft and said it met the requirements of the far's and the beechcraft maintenance schedule procedures. As a pilot, if all other required inspections (pitot/static, etc) had been performed then the aircraft was legal for use and I was not liable for a previous error or lapse of maintenance intervals, even though I contest that an illegal lapse occurred. He disagreed and due to the intimidating nature of both of these FSDO employee's zealous actions, I decided to file this report.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE20 PLT AND 2 FSDO INSPECTORS HAD A DISAGREEMENT ABOUT THE MAINT STATUS OF NEWLY PURCHASED ACFT.

Narrative: WHILE PREFLTING THE ACFT FOR AN UPCOMING FLT, I WAS CHKING THE DOCUMENTS ON THE ACFT. I SEARCHED THE ACFT AND COULD NOT FIND THE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. SINCE THE ACFT WAS RECENTLY SOLD AND HAD CHANGED REGISTRATION NUMBER, I FOUND THAT A NEW AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE WOULD BE NEEDED WITH THE NEW N-NUMBER. I CALLED FSDO AND SET AN APPOINTMENT TO OBTAIN A REPLACEMENT CERTIFICATE. MY MEETING WAS QUITE CONTENTIOUS. THERE WAS INTIMIDATING TONES ABOUT POSSIBLE ENFORCEMENT ACTION AND THE 2 FSDO EMPLOYEES ARGUED WITH ME ABOUT THE 'LOST' AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. I SAY 'LOST' BECAUSE SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CERTIFICATE WAS FOUND IN THE ACFT. WHILE REVIEWING THE ACFT LOGBOOKS FOR CAUSE TO ISSUE A NEW AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, THE 2 FSDO EMPLOYEES SAID THAT THE ACFT WOULD NEED A COMPLETE PHASE 1-4 INSPECTION BEFORE IT WOULD BE ISSUED A NEW AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. I DISAGREED AND THEY CITED A NUMBER OF LETTERS AND I SITED A NUMBER OF EXAMPLES. THEY THEN INFORMED ME THAT IN ADDITION TO THE AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE, THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN PAST AN INSPECTION INTERVAL OF 24 HRS. DISCUSSIONS ABOUT WHO 'OWNED' THIS DISCREPANCY, THE PREVIOUS OWNER OR THE CURRENT OWNER ENSUED. IT BECAME CLEAR THAT THEY WERE STICKING TO THEIR INTERP AND THAT THEY WERE NOT GOING TO ISSUE A NEW AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. SO I GATHERED MY PAPERS AND PREPARED TO LEAVE WHEN WHAT APPEARED TO BE A SENIOR FSDO EMPLOYEE CAME BY OUR MEETING ROOM ON THE WAY TO LUNCH AND ASKED TO REVIEW MY PAPERWORK. HE TOTALLY DISAGREED WITH THE OTHER 2 FSDO MEN, CITED DIFFERING OPINIONS BTWN THE ZZZ FSDO AND THE YYY FSDO AND SAID THE ACFT WAS FINE AND TO ISSUE AN AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE. I THEN RECEIVED A CALL FROM ONE OF THE FSDO EMPLOYEES THAT HINTED THAT THEY HAD INTENTIONS TO VIOLATE BOTH MYSELF AND MR Y, THE OWNER OF COMPANY Y, FOR EXCEEDANCE OF THE MAINT INTERVAL. I SAID THAT THE ACFT HAD A PHASE 2 INSPECTION ON SEP/MON/02, AND THAT A LICENSED MECH AND A CERTIFICATED INSPECTION FACILITY VERY FAMILIAR WITH KING AIR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS HAD INSPECTED THE ACFT AND SAID IT MET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE FAR'S AND THE BEECHCRAFT MAINT SCHEDULE PROCS. AS A PLT, IF ALL OTHER REQUIRED INSPECTIONS (PITOT/STATIC, ETC) HAD BEEN PERFORMED THEN THE ACFT WAS LEGAL FOR USE AND I WAS NOT LIABLE FOR A PREVIOUS ERROR OR LAPSE OF MAINT INTERVALS, EVEN THOUGH I CONTEST THAT AN ILLEGAL LAPSE OCCURRED. HE DISAGREED AND DUE TO THE INTIMIDATING NATURE OF BOTH OF THESE FSDO EMPLOYEE'S ZEALOUS ACTIONS, I DECIDED TO FILE THIS RPT.

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.