Visit from an FAA "Geographic Inspector"

[KTMeyer]

I got an odd phone message today on my home phone in Arizona. As it happens, I'm in Hawaii, but the message reached me by email.

The message was from a guy at our local FSDO, saying he was going to be up in our rural area of Arizona today and was wondering if we'd be available so he could stop by "and take a look at your aircraft."

We called him back and told him we're away for a couple of weeks and arranged to call him on our return. He mentioned something about being an FAA geographic inspector, saying that he just wanted to introduce himself, tell us what he does, and see how we're maintaining our plane.

In 24 years of owning airplanes, this is the first time the FAA has called and asked to come visit . Any insight?

Ken

 

[Jim Logajan]

Getting on your local Inspector's bad side is not the way to a long and happy flying career. Coffee and doughnuts are a much better idea. Then listen to find out what the story is before you dig yourself a hole out of which you may have a lot of trouble crawling.

How can declining that kind of request cause any problems except where the Inspector outright lied about the purpose of the visit or that FAA Inspectors are inevitably petty and will abuse their authority when they feel personally rebuffed?

Basically I'd like to understand the background on which you base your advise that doesn't involve one of those two possibilities.

 

[Jim Logajan]

What exactly cannot the FAA ask for?

What are you having for lunch?
What's in the fridge?
Are you now have you ever been a member of the Communist Party?
Are you going to eat all that?
Where's the body buried?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
What happens when an unstoppable force meets and immovable object?

Well actually I guess they can ask all those - what can they do if you don't answer?

 

[Jim Logajan]

Yes, you can refuse to allow the 44709 inspection, but then they just decertify your airplane and at that point, you have no viable legal recourse whatsoever

Maybe I don't understand what you mean by no viable legal recourse whatsoever - how are paragraphs (c), (d), (e), and (f) of 44709 not viable forms of recourse?:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/49/44709

(you can certainly sue, but you will certainly lose in court).

I don't understand how it is possible to "certainly lose in court" - doesn't that make the entire judicial system pointless? I thought such a determination depended on the facts of the case.

 

[Jim Logajan]

The last thing you want to do when faced with a lion, is to slap the lion.

I think the advice is to not mistake it for a kitten because it has pretty lush fur and seems to be purring.

 

[Jim Logajan]

You are not operating in the civil court system, you are in administrative law where you are guilty until proven innocent.

That isn't correct because it is incomplete. What is missing is the requirement to present evidence that is either uncontested or stands up to contest that supports the claim of the plaintiff. If the FAA claims your aircraft is unairworthy it must present evidence that it isn't.