Narrative:

After completing a flight to take photographs of a construction site I returned to the airport that I departed from ffz. Upon my return I was informed that a complaint had been placed with the FBO that I had rented from in reference to my flight. The complaint was placed by a ground observer that felt that my flight was below the 1000 ft minimum for flight over a populated area. I am confident that I was not below 1000 ft, but I also see the need for myself as a pilot to check and double-check all aspects of my flts including altitude. I will be doing just that, and in the future perhaps this type of possible misunderstanding will not take place. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that this matter has been investigated by the FAA and as a result he has received an FAA letter proposing a 180 day pilot certificate suspension of which he is not pleased. He would rather have a civil penalty than a suspension. He says that there is reason for him to believe that he could have gone up to a couple of hundred ft lower, but that it was not deliberate. He further stated that the FAA was charging him with violation of being below 1000 ft over a congested area and with careless and reckless. Also, that the complainant has been critical of aircraft flying over the area and is looking for someone to use as an example for the FAA.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PVT PLT OF AN SMA SEL IS ACCUSED OF FLYING BELOW THE MSA OVER A HOUSING PROJECT.

Narrative: AFTER COMPLETING A FLT TO TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS OF A CONSTRUCTION SITE I RETURNED TO THE ARPT THAT I DEPARTED FROM FFZ. UPON MY RETURN I WAS INFORMED THAT A COMPLAINT HAD BEEN PLACED WITH THE FBO THAT I HAD RENTED FROM IN REF TO MY FLT. THE COMPLAINT WAS PLACED BY A GND OBSERVER THAT FELT THAT MY FLT WAS BELOW THE 1000 FT MINIMUM FOR FLT OVER A POPULATED AREA. I AM CONFIDENT THAT I WAS NOT BELOW 1000 FT, BUT I ALSO SEE THE NEED FOR MYSELF AS A PLT TO CHK AND DOUBLE-CHK ALL ASPECTS OF MY FLTS INCLUDING ALT. I WILL BE DOING JUST THAT, AND IN THE FUTURE PERHAPS THIS TYPE OF POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDING WILL NOT TAKE PLACE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THIS MATTER HAS BEEN INVESTIGATED BY THE FAA AND AS A RESULT HE HAS RECEIVED AN FAA LETTER PROPOSING A 180 DAY PLT CERTIFICATE SUSPENSION OF WHICH HE IS NOT PLEASED. HE WOULD RATHER HAVE A CIVIL PENALTY THAN A SUSPENSION. HE SAYS THAT THERE IS REASON FOR HIM TO BELIEVE THAT HE COULD HAVE GONE UP TO A COUPLE OF HUNDRED FT LOWER, BUT THAT IT WAS NOT DELIBERATE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE FAA WAS CHARGING HIM WITH VIOLATION OF BEING BELOW 1000 FT OVER A CONGESTED AREA AND WITH CARELESS AND RECKLESS. ALSO, THAT THE COMPLAINANT HAS BEEN CRITICAL OF ACFT FLYING OVER THE AREA AND IS LOOKING FOR SOMEONE TO USE AS AN EXAMPLE FOR THE FAA.

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.