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.