Visit from an FAA "Geographic Inspector"

[RotorAndWing]

Followup? Where are you reading that?? You might want to re-read the OP's first post.

The OP stated he had RVSM approval and a MEL.

Unless someone else is issuing RVSM and MEL's now, that falls under the FSDO and an Inspector. And yes the Inspector will follow up after issuing these, it's part of his approved work program.

 

[Ted]

Sigh.

And we've probably driven away a new member to PoA. Again.

 

[Bill]

Yet in the following week, speaking with the NTSB, I pointed out a few shortcomings in the investigation and a theory I had as to the cause of the accident. Enough so that he wanted to come

Seriously? They were done with you but you insisted on poking the bear? And then complain when the bear came back and shat on your life?

Seriously?

 

[ClimbnSink]

Seriously? They were done with you but you insisted on poking the bear? And then complain when the bear came back and shat on your life?

Seriously?

Is air safety served by having inaccurate crash reports? Besides if you believe the gov't is a bear all the more reason for the OP to avoid interacting with them. Timmy Treadwell returned a bear's phone call, remember how that turned out(I do not condone hitting FAA employees with a frying pan.)

 

[Bill]

Is air safety served by having inaccurate crash reports?

It is not, however telling the NTSB/FAA their investigation is faulty is not exactly in one's best interest.

"Oh, he didn't like our investigation, eh? Ok, we'll show him an investigation..."

 

[poadeleted21]

It is not, however telling the NTSB/FAA their investigation is faulty is not exactly in one's best interest.

"Oh, he didn't like our investigation, eh? Ok, we'll show him an investigation..."

This is OK with you? That is that their are vengeful people in positions like this?

 

[Bill]

This is OK with you? That is that their are vengeful people in positions like this?

I'm just saying *I* wouldn't poke the bear. Just like any audit/investigation, asked and answered.

 

[poadeleted20]

I clearly cannot get my signal through all the tinfoil, so I'm out of this one.

 

[Jeff K]

"Why are you so against the OP getting legal advice before speaking with a representative of the FAA?"

Why are you so adamant that he does?

Because it's cheap and the prudent thing to do. It shouldn't impact the FAA investigator either way.

Now can we get back to my question?

 

[Jeff K]

Seriously? They were done with you but you insisted on poking the bear? And then complain when the bear came back and shat on your life?

Seriously?

Absolutely and in hindsight I agree with you 100%. Unfortunately it was a foresight I didn't have at the time. I had the misconception the NTSB was interested in developing accurate safety recommendations for general aviation and not just closing out reports with as little work as possible ("Desk Investigation"). I wouldn't quite say "shat on" but an incredible waste of my time and money for ultimately nothing.

And yes, if I had to do it again I'd do it much different... as I did the next time when I had to interact with the NTSB. We had an accident at an airport I regularly visit (I landed 15 minutes before another aircraft that ended up having a fatal crash... I wasn't involved) and they interviewed me. Asked me to reduce my comments to writing, which I promptly did. Then they wouldn't acknowledge receipt of them. Repeatedly. This time I didn't' wait 6+ months to get my congressman involved. Called my congressman after 2 weeks of being stonewalled and had him deliver my statement (although they stonewalled him for another 5 weeks). Finally they accepted and acknowledge it.

Call me a "tin foil hat wearing conspiracy theorist" but it's my experience most government employees want to do as little work as possible. And their agencies are mostly concerned with funding and CYA. Their actual duty to the public is almost secondary. That being said, I do know government employees who honestly care about their work and don't have an agenda. Bringing this back to the OP's question.... all I'm saying is he doesn't know this inspector or even the reason for the interest. Making sure all your ducks are in a row and not willing letting the inspector overreach is just prudent. As some posters are saying... they might just end up singing Kumbaya over a cup of coffee.... or maybe not. I just don't like to roll the dice... and would rather be pleasantly surprised then caught with my shorts down.

 

[PPC1052]

Man, at Treasury we don't get either one.

Man, how is that even possible? Collectively, we send substantial coin to Treasury. I know my checks alone should cover quite a bit.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Yeah we all in agreement. Well mostly, it is just a question of avoid the bear or feed the bear donuts. But at least we all agree we are dealing with a large unpredictable omnivore.

 

[KTMeyer]

How do you like the Eclipse? It's one of those planes that really intrigues me and is on my "want" list one day.

I forgot to answer this one--

Great plane; I've had it 5-1/2 years (during which time the FSDO never checked on my RVSM and MEL by the way). As a jet, it gets the advantages of quiet cabin with no vibration, weather-topping, high cruise speed (370 knots) and system redundancy.

Because it is small and fuel efficient, the direct operating cost (by which I mean fuel plus maintenance) has been about the same per mile as I was paying when I flew a Cessna 340. The fixed costs (capital and insurance mostly) are of course higher than a twin Cessna. And then there is the matter of the periodic engine costs (hot section and overhaul, which are certainly higher than for a twin Cessna).

But it's a pretty cost-effective jet that is very reliable and a blast to fly. With the side stick, you can quite easily feel like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. And there is something pretty cool about flying in airliner country:

Thanks, everybody, for the words of advice. If anything unusual comes out of our meeting, I'll post it here.

Ken

 

[Ted]

I forgot to answer this one--

Great plane; I've had it 5-1/2 years (during which time the FSDO never checked on my RVSM and MEL by the way). As a jet, it gets the advantages of quiet cabin with no vibration, weather-topping, high cruise speed (370 knots) and system redundancy.

Because it is small and fuel efficient, the direct operating cost (by which I mean fuel plus maintenance) has been about the same per mile as I was paying when I flew a Cessna 340. The fixed costs (capital and insurance mostly) are of course higher than a twin Cessna. And then there is the matter of the periodic engine costs (hot section and overhaul, which are certainly higher than for a twin Cessna).

But it's a pretty cost-effective jet that is very reliable and a blast to fly. With the side stick, you can quite easily feel like Tom Cruise in Top Gun. And there is something pretty cool about flying in airliner country:

Thanks, everybody, for the words of advice. If anything unusual comes out of our meeting, I'll post it here.

Ken

Your comments about direct operating costs per mile being about equal to the 340 are what I had thought might be the case when I was looking at the specs. That's rather impressive for going more than 50% faster and having what looks to be relatively similar interior room. It looks to me like a very appealing package.