Pilot of an small aircraft photo flight was turned in to FAA for a low altitude flight.

Attributes
ACN	320020
Time
Date	199509
Day	Wed
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lbb
State Reference	TX
Altitude	msl bound lower : 4300 msl bound upper : 4500
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	general aviation : instructional
Make Model Name	Any Unknown or Unlisted Aircraft Manufacturer
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 91
Flight Phase	cruise other other
Flight Plan	None
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 15000
ASRS Report	320020
Person 2
Affiliation	Other
Function	observation : observer
Qualification	other other : other
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe other anomaly other
Independent Detector	other controllera other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	faa : assigned or threatened penalties faa : investigated
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

A photo flight over the university campus to determine a means of relief for traffic congestion between classes. 4300- 4500 ft MSL was maintained, and a half mi slant range from the ktxt tower. A lady called the FSDO complaining that there was an aircraft flying low over her backyard spying on her. She obviously was not used to seeing airplanes fly for an hour or so over her house and became paranoid. A local FSDO representative called me to discuss her complaint, and stated that radar indicated we were at 4000 ft MSL or 800 ft AGL. I explained that the encoder was inaccurate, and had been so reported the week before by another pilot. He said he was going to file a report that I was below 1000 ft, and that nobody but he and I had to know about it, that I was to write a letter to him stating that I would not fly below 1000 ft AGL over the city again. So what I thought was a simple verification of the purpose of the flight and an assurance from a professional pilot that the proper clrncs were maintained and that there was no reason to deviated from the FARS, now began to sound like an entrapment technique. This is the reason for filing this report, the fact that there is no sufficient proof of a deviation from the FARS due to a faulty encoder, and the attitude of the FSDO representative wanting a letter of confession of wrongdoing. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he was surprised that the FAA inspector requested for him to submit a letter of guilt when he did not believe that he was operating contrary to the FARS. He did not submit a letter but did receive one from the FAA regarding investigation of this matter. However, he has not heard anything further from the FAA. He did state that he had the encoding altimeter checked and it was found to be out of calibration. He was advised to contact the FAA to learn what the disposition of his case has been.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA PHOTO FLT WAS TURNED IN TO FAA FOR A LOW ALT FLT.

Narrative: A PHOTO FLT OVER THE UNIVERSITY CAMPUS TO DETERMINE A MEANS OF RELIEF FOR TFC CONGESTION BTWN CLASSES. 4300- 4500 FT MSL WAS MAINTAINED, AND A HALF MI SLANT RANGE FROM THE KTXT TWR. A LADY CALLED THE FSDO COMPLAINING THAT THERE WAS AN ACFT FLYING LOW OVER HER BACKYARD SPYING ON HER. SHE OBVIOUSLY WAS NOT USED TO SEEING AIRPLANES FLY FOR AN HR OR SO OVER HER HOUSE AND BECAME PARANOID. A LCL FSDO REPRESENTATIVE CALLED ME TO DISCUSS HER COMPLAINT, AND STATED THAT RADAR INDICATED WE WERE AT 4000 FT MSL OR 800 FT AGL. I EXPLAINED THAT THE ENCODER WAS INACCURATE, AND HAD BEEN SO RPTED THE WEEK BEFORE BY ANOTHER PLT. HE SAID HE WAS GOING TO FILE A RPT THAT I WAS BELOW 1000 FT, AND THAT NOBODY BUT HE AND I HAD TO KNOW ABOUT IT, THAT I WAS TO WRITE A LETTER TO HIM STATING THAT I WOULD NOT FLY BELOW 1000 FT AGL OVER THE CITY AGAIN. SO WHAT I THOUGHT WAS A SIMPLE VERIFICATION OF THE PURPOSE OF THE FLT AND AN ASSURANCE FROM A PROFESSIONAL PLT THAT THE PROPER CLRNCS WERE MAINTAINED AND THAT THERE WAS NO REASON TO DEVIATED FROM THE FARS, NOW BEGAN TO SOUND LIKE AN ENTRAPMENT TECHNIQUE. THIS IS THE REASON FOR FILING THIS RPT, THE FACT THAT THERE IS NO SUFFICIENT PROOF OF A DEV FROM THE FARS DUE TO A FAULTY ENCODER, AND THE ATTITUDE OF THE FSDO REPRESENTATIVE WANTING A LETTER OF CONFESSION OF WRONGDOING. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS SURPRISED THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR REQUESTED FOR HIM TO SUBMIT A LETTER OF GUILT WHEN HE DID NOT BELIEVE THAT HE WAS OPERATING CONTRARY TO THE FARS. HE DID NOT SUBMIT A LETTER BUT DID RECEIVE ONE FROM THE FAA REGARDING INVESTIGATION OF THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT HEARD ANYTHING FURTHER FROM THE FAA. HE DID STATE THAT HE HAD THE ENCODING ALTIMETER CHKED AND IT WAS FOUND TO BE OUT OF CALIBRATION. HE WAS ADVISED TO CONTACT THE FAA TO LEARN WHAT THE DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE HAS BEEN.

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.