What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On June 02, 2022 at 18:15 local time, a Maule M-4 aircraft, privacy data omitted, that is currently unregistered, and privacy data omittedan individual with a surrendered pilot certificate, received minor damage following a loss of directional control while landing at the Gladwin Zettel memorial airport (gdw), Gladwin, Michigan. Following the incident, law enforcement was called to the scene where the officer states the pilot was confrontational and refused to answer any questions other than his name and date of birth. The individual did state to the officer he was not flying the aircraft, but was only taxiing when the incident occurred. Witness statements to the officer contradict the pilots stating the aircraft had been in flight around the airport prior to the incident. Pictures of the aircraft show damage consistent with a ground loop and subsequent prop strike.
A few days following the incident, the airport manager called the FAA iic stating they (the airport staff) have had a number of issues with the individual in the past due to his noncompliant behavior and complete disregard for safety of himself, other pilots, or the community. The manager stated he was meeting with the village counsel shortly to have the individual and his aircraft removed from the airport property permanently.
An FAA inspector did interview the pilot by telephone, the pilot admitted to flying the aircraft, but ?I had no intention of flying, the aircraft just started to fly during a fast taxi.? The pilot also stated he had a passenger onboard during the incident flight.
As the FAA filed it
ON JUNE 02, 2022 AT 18:15 LOCAL TIME, A MAULE M-4 AIRCRAFT, ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^, THAT IS CURRENTLY UNREGISTERED, AND ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^AN INDIVIDUAL WITH A SURRENDERED PILOT CERTIFICATE, RECEIVED MINOR DAMAGE FOLLOWING A LOSS OF DIRECTIONAL CONTROL WHILE LANDING AT THE GLADWIN ZETTEL MEMORIAL AIRPORT (GDW), GLADWIN, MICHIGAN. FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, LAW ENFORCEMENT WAS CALLED TO THE SCENE WHERE THE OFFICER STATES THE PILOT WAS CONFRONTATIONAL AND REFUSED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS OTHER THAN HIS NAME AND DATE OF BIRTH. THE INDIVIDUAL DID STATE TO THE OFFICER HE WAS NOT FLYING THE AIRCRAFT, BUT WAS ONLY TAXIING WHEN THE INCIDENT OCCURRED. WITNESS STATEMENTS TO THE OFFICER CONTRADICT THE PILOTS STATING THE AIRCRAFT HAD BEEN IN FLIGHT AROUND THE AIRPORT PRIOR TO THE INCIDENT. PICTURES OF THE AIRCRAFT SHOW DAMAGE CONSISTENT WITH A GROUND LOOP AND SUBSEQUENT PROP STRIKE.
A FEW DAYS FOLLOWING THE INCIDENT, THE AIRPORT MANAGER CALLED THE FAA IIC STATING THEY (THE AIRPORT STAFF) HAVE HAD A NUMBER OF ISSUES WITH THE INDIVIDUAL IN THE PAST DUE TO HIS NONCOMPLIANT BEHAVIOR AND COMPLETE DISREGARD FOR SAFETY OF HIMSELF, OTHER PILOTS, OR THE COMMUNITY. THE MANAGER STATED HE WAS MEETING WITH THE VILLAGE COUNSEL SHORTLY TO HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL AND HIS AIRCRAFT REMOVED FROM THE AIRPORT PROPERTY PERMANENTLY.
AN FAA INSPECTOR DID INTERVIEW THE PILOT BY TELEPHONE, THE PILOT ADMITTED TO FLYING THE AIRCRAFT, BUT ?I HAD NO INTENTION OF FLYING, THE AIRCRAFT JUST STARTED TO FLY DURING A FAST TAXI.? THE PILOT ALSO STATED HE HAD A PASSENGER ONBOARD DURING THE INCIDENT FLIGHT.