Narrative:

On apr/fri/97 I flew my aircraft (1946 luscombe 8A) from home base at ane to lvn for a pre-scheduled medical flight test with FAA inspector of the FAA FSDO. In the preflight examination of my pilot credentials and the aircraft records, FAA inspector expressed concern over the aircraft records specifically related to: (documented to the best of my recollection, perception and understanding) 1) recent installation of an ELT into the aircraft, although documented by 337 and logbook entry, did not demonstrate to his satisfaction that the unit was satisfactorily installed and fully operational for use. 2) logbook entry for inspection and issuance of standard airworthiness certificate on aug/fri/96 did not demonstrate to his satisfaction appropriate and suitable validation/compliance with associated airworthiness directives, etc. Further, that since this logbook entry was not fully documented (including airworthiness directives, etc) it did not necessarily count as an annual inspection, even though it includes the clause 'next inspection due aug/97.' 3) logbook entry for latest 'annual inspection' indicates that it was performed in feb/96. However, this logbook entry did not demonstrate to his satisfaction that appropriate and suitable validation/compliance with associated airworthiness directives, etc had been done. Additionally, this last 'annual inspection,' whether complete/valid or not, is more than 12 calendar months ago. 4) mention was made that 1 specific airworthiness directive (#48-08-02) was due at (approximately) the current tach (hobbs meter) time based on a logbook entry of feb/96 (during the 'annual inspection'). On this basis, my check flight opportunity mft on apr/fri/97 was refused. My aircraft was grounded and I was informed that I was out of compliance on these points. Upon contacting FAA inspector at FSDO, I was offered a ferry permit enabling me to return my aircraft to home base (ane), after which these issues could be addressed. A follow-up meeting was scheduled with FAA inspector FSDO for apr/xf/97.the aircraft was returned to ane on apr/fri/97, under the conditions of this ferry permit, without further incident or event. The following actions/facts are also pertinent to this situation and should be considered: 1) this aircraft was imported to minnesota (united states) from canada in dec/95, under a ferry permit issued from FSDO, and was registered with the FAA by (the then owner) of FBO shortly thereafter. 2) this aircraft was given an annual inspection on feb/xx/96 (at 2025 total time) by FBO at ane and entries made in the aircraft logs to represent same. 3) since this aircraft came to united states from canada, it has canadian-style aircraft logs, for which the airworthiness directive list is in a separate book from the regular airframe logbook. (I do not believe that inspector of FAA appropriately considered those airworthiness directive records on apr/fri/97. 4) this aircraft was also inspected by XXX who is a dar on aug/yy/96 (at approximately 2025 total time) during which time a (new) standard airworthiness certificate was issued for the aircraft (normal category, no restrs). Logbook entry for this event signifies both inspection, issuance of certificate and also 'next inspection due aug/97.' 5) I purchased the aircraft from owner in sep/96 (shortly after inspection and issuance of the united states airworthiness certificate). 6) from the time that the aircraft was brought into united states (dec/95), and when I purchased it (sep/96) it accumulated no flight time, and only fractional hours of ground-running time. 7) the logbook entry made during the feb/96 annual (done at 2025 total time) mentions airworthiness directive #48-08-02 to be 'due by 2074 total time,' however the invoice for this service/inspection indicates that this airworthiness directive was complied with at that time/date. Based on details on this airworthiness directive, it should be due within 100 hours of operation (not 50). It appears that the 'due by' time noted in the logbook entry was miscalculated. 8) I had an ELT installed in the aircraft on apr/xx/97 atfbo at ane by a&P mechanic, with suitable logbook entries indicated. It is my position that the aircraft should not be grounded, is within its inspection period ('next inspection due 8/97'), and that the airworthiness directive #48-08-02 should be due at 2155 total time rather than 2074 total time. However, it is my intention to follow-up with mechanic regarding testing and logbook entry for the ELT such that they are appropriately reflected. I also intend to have airworthiness directive #48-08-02 addressed (re-done) and recorded in the aircraft logs to remove future questions. I will also meet with inspector of FAA on apr/zz/97 to gain his input/advice in the matter.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A LUSCOMB 8A WAS INFORMED DURING PREFLT BY AN FAA INSPECTOR THAT THE ACFT LOGBOOK RECORDS DID NOT SUFFICIENTLY INDICATE THAT THE ACFT HAD A CURRENT ANNUAL INSPECTION OR THAT ALL AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH. PLT ALSO THE OWNER OF ACFT. ALSO SEE ACN #366669 REGARDING CLASS B AIRSPACE.

Narrative: ON APR/FRI/97 I FLEW MY ACFT (1946 LUSCOMBE 8A) FROM HOME BASE AT ANE TO LVN FOR A PRE-SCHEDULED MEDICAL FLT TEST WITH FAA INSPECTOR OF THE FAA FSDO. IN THE PREFLT EXAM OF MY PLT CREDENTIALS AND THE ACFT RECORDS, FAA INSPECTOR EXPRESSED CONCERN OVER THE ACFT RECORDS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO: (DOCUMENTED TO THE BEST OF MY RECOLLECTION, PERCEPTION AND UNDERSTANDING) 1) RECENT INSTALLATION OF AN ELT INTO THE ACFT, ALTHOUGH DOCUMENTED BY 337 AND LOGBOOK ENTRY, DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE UNIT WAS SATISFACTORILY INSTALLED AND FULLY OPERATIONAL FOR USE. 2) LOGBOOK ENTRY FOR INSPECTION AND ISSUANCE OF STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE ON AUG/FRI/96 DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TO HIS SATISFACTION APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE VALIDATION/COMPLIANCE WITH ASSOCIATED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, ETC. FURTHER, THAT SINCE THIS LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS NOT FULLY DOCUMENTED (INCLUDING AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, ETC) IT DID NOT NECESSARILY COUNT AS AN ANNUAL INSPECTION, EVEN THOUGH IT INCLUDES THE CLAUSE 'NEXT INSPECTION DUE AUG/97.' 3) LOGBOOK ENTRY FOR LATEST 'ANNUAL INSPECTION' INDICATES THAT IT WAS PERFORMED IN FEB/96. HOWEVER, THIS LOGBOOK ENTRY DID NOT DEMONSTRATE TO HIS SATISFACTION THAT APPROPRIATE AND SUITABLE VALIDATION/COMPLIANCE WITH ASSOCIATED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVES, ETC HAD BEEN DONE. ADDITIONALLY, THIS LAST 'ANNUAL INSPECTION,' WHETHER COMPLETE/VALID OR NOT, IS MORE THAN 12 CALENDAR MONTHS AGO. 4) MENTION WAS MADE THAT 1 SPECIFIC AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (#48-08-02) WAS DUE AT (APPROX) THE CURRENT TACH (HOBBS METER) TIME BASED ON A LOGBOOK ENTRY OF FEB/96 (DURING THE 'ANNUAL INSPECTION'). ON THIS BASIS, MY CHK FLT OPPORTUNITY MFT ON APR/FRI/97 WAS REFUSED. MY ACFT WAS GNDED AND I WAS INFORMED THAT I WAS OUT OF COMPLIANCE ON THESE POINTS. UPON CONTACTING FAA INSPECTOR AT FSDO, I WAS OFFERED A FERRY PERMIT ENABLING ME TO RETURN MY ACFT TO HOME BASE (ANE), AFTER WHICH THESE ISSUES COULD BE ADDRESSED. A FOLLOW-UP MEETING WAS SCHEDULED WITH FAA INSPECTOR FSDO FOR APR/XF/97.THE ACFT WAS RETURNED TO ANE ON APR/FRI/97, UNDER THE CONDITIONS OF THIS FERRY PERMIT, WITHOUT FURTHER INCIDENT OR EVENT. THE FOLLOWING ACTIONS/FACTS ARE ALSO PERTINENT TO THIS SIT AND SHOULD BE CONSIDERED: 1) THIS ACFT WAS IMPORTED TO MINNESOTA (UNITED STATES) FROM CANADA IN DEC/95, UNDER A FERRY PERMIT ISSUED FROM FSDO, AND WAS REGISTERED WITH THE FAA BY (THE THEN OWNER) OF FBO SHORTLY THEREAFTER. 2) THIS ACFT WAS GIVEN AN ANNUAL INSPECTION ON FEB/XX/96 (AT 2025 TOTAL TIME) BY FBO AT ANE AND ENTRIES MADE IN THE ACFT LOGS TO REPRESENT SAME. 3) SINCE THIS ACFT CAME TO UNITED STATES FROM CANADA, IT HAS CANADIAN-STYLE ACFT LOGS, FOR WHICH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE LIST IS IN A SEPARATE BOOK FROM THE REGULAR AIRFRAME LOGBOOK. (I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT INSPECTOR OF FAA APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED THOSE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE RECORDS ON APR/FRI/97. 4) THIS ACFT WAS ALSO INSPECTED BY XXX WHO IS A DAR ON AUG/YY/96 (AT APPROX 2025 TOTAL TIME) DURING WHICH TIME A (NEW) STANDARD AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE WAS ISSUED FOR THE ACFT (NORMAL CATEGORY, NO RESTRS). LOGBOOK ENTRY FOR THIS EVENT SIGNIFIES BOTH INSPECTION, ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE AND ALSO 'NEXT INSPECTION DUE AUG/97.' 5) I PURCHASED THE ACFT FROM OWNER IN SEP/96 (SHORTLY AFTER INSPECTION AND ISSUANCE OF THE UNITED STATES AIRWORTHINESS CERTIFICATE). 6) FROM THE TIME THAT THE ACFT WAS BROUGHT INTO UNITED STATES (DEC/95), AND WHEN I PURCHASED IT (SEP/96) IT ACCUMULATED NO FLT TIME, AND ONLY FRACTIONAL HRS OF GND-RUNNING TIME. 7) THE LOGBOOK ENTRY MADE DURING THE FEB/96 ANNUAL (DONE AT 2025 TOTAL TIME) MENTIONS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE #48-08-02 TO BE 'DUE BY 2074 TOTAL TIME,' HOWEVER THE INVOICE FOR THIS SVC/INSPECTION INDICATES THAT THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS COMPLIED WITH AT THAT TIME/DATE. BASED ON DETAILS ON THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE, IT SHOULD BE DUE WITHIN 100 HRS OF OP (NOT 50). IT APPEARS THAT THE 'DUE BY' TIME NOTED IN THE LOGBOOK ENTRY WAS MISCALCULATED. 8) I HAD AN ELT INSTALLED IN THE ACFT ON APR/XX/97 ATFBO AT ANE BY A&P MECH, WITH SUITABLE LOGBOOK ENTRIES INDICATED. IT IS MY POS THAT THE ACFT SHOULD NOT BE GNDED, IS WITHIN ITS INSPECTION PERIOD ('NEXT INSPECTION DUE 8/97'), AND THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE #48-08-02 SHOULD BE DUE AT 2155 TOTAL TIME RATHER THAN 2074 TOTAL TIME. HOWEVER, IT IS MY INTENTION TO FOLLOW-UP WITH MECH REGARDING TESTING AND LOGBOOK ENTRY FOR THE ELT SUCH THAT THEY ARE APPROPRIATELY REFLECTED. I ALSO INTEND TO HAVE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE #48-08-02 ADDRESSED (RE-DONE) AND RECORDED IN THE ACFT LOGS TO REMOVE FUTURE QUESTIONS. I WILL ALSO MEET WITH INSPECTOR OF FAA ON APR/ZZ/97 TO GAIN HIS INPUT/ADVICE IN THE MATTER.

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.