What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
An anonymous call was received at the wichita flight standards district office on June 14, 2011. The complainant stated that he was scheduled to fly a rental aircraft based at the westport airport, wichita, KS, and upon the preflight, it was noted that the left wingtip was damaged. By reference to the schedule book in the maintenance office, it was noted the last entry dated April 18, 2011, showed the pilot's name. The complainant informed inspectors that he knew the pilot and he provided a phone number. Inspectors were dispatched to westport airport to examine the aircraft. Photographs were taken and the damage on the left wingtip verified. Photographs of the tachometer and hobbs meter readings were also taken and a copy of the schedule book was obtained. In a telephone interview with the pilot, she stated that she was receiving practical exam for the private airman certificate from a local designated pilot examiner, and was performing a soft field takeoff from runway 17 at Wellington municipal airport, Wellington, KS (EGT), when the tail tie down point contacted the runway, which required the examiner to take control of the aircraft. The aircraft was subsequently landed and examined for damage. The pilot further stated that the only damage on the aircraft was a scrape on the tail tie down point. The aircraft was then flown back to westport airport and tied down. When the pilot was informed that the tachometer and hobbs meter times entered in the schedule book matched those on the instruments in the aircraft and it appeared she was the last person to fly the aircraft, she adamantly responded that she did not know how the aircraft damage occurred, because it was not damaged while she had it. A telephone interview with the examiner netted similar results. His statements were very similar to the pilot's and added that the damage to the aircraft absolutely did not occur on their flight. Using the schedule book as a basis, the most likely person operating the aircraft at the time of the damage was the pilot while taking a check ride from an examiner. However, both adamantly deny that the aircraft was damaged on that flight. The time interval from the last logged flight and FAA knowledge of the damage was almost two months, and it is technically possible to disable the recording tachometer and hobbs hour meter, so the possibility exits that the aircraft was flown and the time not shown on those instruments. Consequently, it cannot be conclusively proven who was operating the aircraft at the time it was damaged.
As the FAA filed it
AN ANONYMOUS CALL WAS RECEIVED AT THE WICHITA FLIGHT STANDARDS DISTRICT OFFICE ON JUNE 14, 2011. THE COMPLAINANT STATED THAT HE WAS SCHEDULED TO FLY A RENTAL AIRCRAFT BASED AT THE WESTPORT AIRPORT, WICHITA, KS, AND UPON THE PREFLIGHT, IT WAS NOTED THAT THE LEFT WINGTIP WAS DAMAGED. BY REFERENCE TO THE SCHEDULE BOOK IN THE MAINTENANCE OFFICE, IT WAS NOTED THE LAST ENTRY DATED APRIL 18, 2011, SHOWED THE PILOT'S NAME. THE COMPLAINANT INFORMED INSPECTORS THAT HE KNEW THE PILOT AND HE PROVIDED A PHONE NUMBER. INSPECTORS WERE DISPATCHED TO WESTPORT AIRPORT TO EXAMINE THE AIRCRAFT. PHOTOGRAPHS WERE TAKEN AND THE DAMAGE ON THE LEFT WINGTIP VERIFIED. PHOTOGRAPHS OF THE TACHOMETER AND HOBBS METER READINGS WERE ALSO TAKEN AND A COPY OF THE SCHEDULE BOOK WAS OBTAINED.IN A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH THE PILOT, SHE STATED THAT SHE WAS RECEIVING PRACTICAL EXAM FOR THE PRIVATE AIRMAN CERTIFICATE FROM A LOCAL DESIGNATED PILOT EXAMINER, AND WAS PERFORMING A SOFT FIELD TAKEOFF FROM RUNWAY 17 AT WELLINGTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT, WELLINGTON, KS (EGT), WHEN THE TAIL TIE DOWN POINT CONTACTED THE RUNWAY, WHICH REQUIRED THE EXAMINER TO TAKE CONTROL OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY LANDED AND EXAMINED FOR DAMAGE. THE PILOT FURTHER STATED THAT THE ONLY DAMAGE ON THE AIRCRAFT WAS A SCRAPE ON THE TAIL TIE DOWN POINT. THE AIRCRAFT WAS THEN FLOWN BACK TO WESTPORT AIRPORT AND TIED DOWN. WHEN THE PILOT WAS INFORMED THAT THE TACHOMETER AND HOBBS METER TIMES ENTERED IN THE SCHEDULE BOOK MATCHED THOSE ON THE INSTRUMENTS IN THE AIRCRAFT AND IT APPEARED SHE WAS THE LAST PERSON TO FLY THE AIRCRAFT, SHE ADAMANTLY RESPONDED THAT SHE DID NOT KNOW HOW THE AIRCRAFT DAMAGE OCCURRED, BECAUSE IT WAS NOT DAMAGED WHILE SHE HAD IT. A TELEPHONE INTERVIEW WITH THE EXAMINER NETTED SIMILAR RESULTS. HIS STATEMENTS WERE VERY SIMILAR TO THE PILOT'S AND ADDED THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE AIRCRAFT ABSOLUTELY DID NOT OCCUR ON THEIR FLIGHT.USING THE SCHEDULE BOOK AS A BASIS, THE MOST LIKELY PERSON OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT AT THE TIME OF THE DAMAGE WAS THE PILOT WHILE TAKING A CHECK RIDE FROM AN EXAMINER. HOWEVER, BOTH ADAMANTLY DENY THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS DAMAGED ON THAT FLIGHT. THE TIME INTERVAL FROM THE LAST LOGGED FLIGHT AND FAA KNOWLEDGE OF THE DAMAGE WAS ALMOST TWO MONTHS, AND IT IS TECHNICALLY POSSIBLE TO DISABLE THE RECORDING TACHOMETER AND HOBBS HOUR METER, SO THE POSSIBILITY EXITS THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS FLOWN AND THE TIME NOT SHOWN ON THOSE INSTRUMENTS. CONSEQUENTLY, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVELY PROVEN WHO WAS OPERATING THE AIRCRAFT AT THE TIME IT WAS DAMAGED.