Narrative:

I reported for duty as first officer as company a, a small island commuter air carrier. The aircraft involved was a small transport with a passenger capacity of 9, 8 with a first officer. On this day the seats were to have been removed to make a cargo flight. Company has a contract to do this flight every weekday, mon-fri. After preflting the aircraft, the captain taxied to another location on the airport to pick up the cargo. I remained behind to get the aircraft log book that had been locked in the main office, which would not be unlocked until G:00 am. After loading the cargo the captain returned to company hangar to deseat the plane and pick me up. Returning with the captain were 2 FAA officials, mr. X and mr. Y. When mr. X got out of the aircraft he asked me how I did the weight and balance and for a copy of the one for this flight. I said that I had not yet done the one for this flight (I could not do it until I knew how much cargo we would have), but I would take the weight and moment for the empty aircraft, both pilots, the fuel, the cargo and divide the moment by the weight to see if it was within the cg limits and if it was under maximum gross takeoff weight. He cut me off before finishing my explanation. He then asked how I obtained the weight for the cargo. I explained that we estimate the weight since the company does not provide us with a scale. The amount of cargo carried on this contract is never more than 200#. It has since been brought to my attention that a tag with the weight is on each package that is loaded. If I had known this, I certainly would have used the correct weight for the weight and balance. The captain later told me he knew this. The second issue was that the captain had taxied the aircraft with the 2 FAA officials in the aircraft west/O the cargo being tied down. After mr. X asked me about the weight and balance, he asked why we did not have regular cargo tie-down equipment. I replied that to my knowledge the company did not provide tie-down equipment. The captain did, however, tie down the cargo with his own equipment after the seats had been removed. Mr. X had already gotten off the aircraft. Mr X said that they had been watching the operation for the past few days and that the aircraft was departing every day west/O the cargo being properly tied down. Mr. X then took all the aircraft papers; i.e., manual, registration, radio license, etc, off the aircraft and proceeded to the pilot's room at company with me alone, and was going to go through all the aircraft documents when he asked if we were a 'scheduled flight,' to which I replied, 'yes, the aircraft is supposed to off the ground by G:00 a.M.' mr. X then slammed the books closed and said that the captain and I were to report in his office at X a.M. The next day, 3/back course/90, because he could not hold up a scheduled flight. He later gave me his business card and told me to call him at home that evening, 3/AC/90, when I returned from the flight. I called mr. X that evening at his home. He lectured me about how bad company a is and that they did not care one bit what happens to me. I asked him if I could make the office visit 3/ad/90 instead of 3/AC/90, because I would again be on the same flight that day. He said that he could see he had wasted his breath talking to me and that he saw no alternative to violating me. He said the papers would be in the mail and hung up. I feel this is unfair treatment and harassment, and I cannot see that any violation has been made by me. 1) the aircraft did not begin the flight west/O the cargo being tied down. 2) the aircraft did not begin the flight west/O a weight and balance being completed. This is the captain's responsibility. He completed the form (and a copy was left at the office). I do not know how he obtained the weight of the cargo. 3) I was not a 'required' crew members. The operations manual states that a second in command is required only in IMC conditions when the autoplt is not working or the PIC has not had the far 135.297 proficiency check within 6 months. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter states the gentleman she was having a problem with was not the regular FAA inspector. On his return the regular inspector apologized for mr. X's behavior. Rptrstates several other female pilots and flight instrument's have received similar treatment form this particular inspector. One bad apple, apparently. No further action has occurred.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA ACR INSPECTOR GIVES FO A ROUGH TIME REGARDING CARGO HANDLING AND WEIGHT AND BALANCE PRIOR TO DEP OF SCHEDULED FLT.

Narrative: I RPTED FOR DUTY AS F/O AS COMPANY A, A SMALL ISLAND COMMUTER ACR. THE ACFT INVOLVED WAS A SMT WITH A PAX CAPACITY OF 9, 8 WITH A F/O. ON THIS DAY THE SEATS WERE TO HAVE BEEN REMOVED TO MAKE A CARGO FLT. COMPANY HAS A CONTRACT TO DO THIS FLT EVERY WEEKDAY, MON-FRI. AFTER PREFLTING THE ACFT, THE CAPT TAXIED TO ANOTHER LOCATION ON THE ARPT TO PICK UP THE CARGO. I REMAINED BEHIND TO GET THE ACFT LOG BOOK THAT HAD BEEN LOCKED IN THE MAIN OFFICE, WHICH WOULD NOT BE UNLOCKED UNTIL G:00 AM. AFTER LOADING THE CARGO THE CAPT RETURNED TO COMPANY HANGAR TO DESEAT THE PLANE AND PICK ME UP. RETURNING WITH THE CAPT WERE 2 FAA OFFICIALS, MR. X AND MR. Y. WHEN MR. X GOT OUT OF THE ACFT HE ASKED ME HOW I DID THE WT AND BAL AND FOR A COPY OF THE ONE FOR THIS FLT. I SAID THAT I HAD NOT YET DONE THE ONE FOR THIS FLT (I COULD NOT DO IT UNTIL I KNEW HOW MUCH CARGO WE WOULD HAVE), BUT I WOULD TAKE THE WT AND MOMENT FOR THE EMPTY ACFT, BOTH PLTS, THE FUEL, THE CARGO AND DIVIDE THE MOMENT BY THE WT TO SEE IF IT WAS WITHIN THE CG LIMITS AND IF IT WAS UNDER MAX GROSS TKOF WT. HE CUT ME OFF BEFORE FINISHING MY EXPLANATION. HE THEN ASKED HOW I OBTAINED THE WT FOR THE CARGO. I EXPLAINED THAT WE ESTIMATE THE WT SINCE THE COMPANY DOES NOT PROVIDE US WITH A SCALE. THE AMOUNT OF CARGO CARRIED ON THIS CONTRACT IS NEVER MORE THAN 200#. IT HAS SINCE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTN THAT A TAG WITH THE WT IS ON EACH PACKAGE THAT IS LOADED. IF I HAD KNOWN THIS, I CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE USED THE CORRECT WT FOR THE WT AND BAL. THE CAPT LATER TOLD ME HE KNEW THIS. THE SECOND ISSUE WAS THAT THE CAPT HAD TAXIED THE ACFT WITH THE 2 FAA OFFICIALS IN THE ACFT W/O THE CARGO BEING TIED DOWN. AFTER MR. X ASKED ME ABOUT THE WT AND BAL, HE ASKED WHY WE DID NOT HAVE REGULAR CARGO TIE-DOWN EQUIP. I REPLIED THAT TO MY KNOWLEDGE THE COMPANY DID NOT PROVIDE TIE-DOWN EQUIP. THE CAPT DID, HOWEVER, TIE DOWN THE CARGO WITH HIS OWN EQUIP AFTER THE SEATS HAD BEEN REMOVED. MR. X HAD ALREADY GOTTEN OFF THE ACFT. MR X SAID THAT THEY HAD BEEN WATCHING THE OPERATION FOR THE PAST FEW DAYS AND THAT THE ACFT WAS DEPARTING EVERY DAY W/O THE CARGO BEING PROPERLY TIED DOWN. MR. X THEN TOOK ALL THE ACFT PAPERS; I.E., MANUAL, REGISTRATION, RADIO LICENSE, ETC, OFF THE ACFT AND PROCEEDED TO THE PLT'S ROOM AT COMPANY WITH ME ALONE, AND WAS GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL THE ACFT DOCUMENTS WHEN HE ASKED IF WE WERE A 'SCHEDULED FLT,' TO WHICH I REPLIED, 'YES, THE ACFT IS SUPPOSED TO OFF THE GND BY G:00 A.M.' MR. X THEN SLAMMED THE BOOKS CLOSED AND SAID THAT THE CAPT AND I WERE TO RPT IN HIS OFFICE AT X A.M. THE NEXT DAY, 3/BC/90, BECAUSE HE COULD NOT HOLD UP A SCHEDULED FLT. HE LATER GAVE ME HIS BUSINESS CARD AND TOLD ME TO CALL HIM AT HOME THAT EVENING, 3/AC/90, WHEN I RETURNED FROM THE FLT. I CALLED MR. X THAT EVENING AT HIS HOME. HE LECTURED ME ABOUT HOW BAD COMPANY A IS AND THAT THEY DID NOT CARE ONE BIT WHAT HAPPENS TO ME. I ASKED HIM IF I COULD MAKE THE OFFICE VISIT 3/AD/90 INSTEAD OF 3/AC/90, BECAUSE I WOULD AGAIN BE ON THE SAME FLT THAT DAY. HE SAID THAT HE COULD SEE HE HAD WASTED HIS BREATH TALKING TO ME AND THAT HE SAW NO ALTERNATIVE TO VIOLATING ME. HE SAID THE PAPERS WOULD BE IN THE MAIL AND HUNG UP. I FEEL THIS IS UNFAIR TREATMENT AND HARASSMENT, AND I CANNOT SEE THAT ANY VIOLATION HAS BEEN MADE BY ME. 1) THE ACFT DID NOT BEGIN THE FLT W/O THE CARGO BEING TIED DOWN. 2) THE ACFT DID NOT BEGIN THE FLT W/O A WT AND BAL BEING COMPLETED. THIS IS THE CAPT'S RESPONSIBILITY. HE COMPLETED THE FORM (AND A COPY WAS LEFT AT THE OFFICE). I DO NOT KNOW HOW HE OBTAINED THE WT OF THE CARGO. 3) I WAS NOT A 'REQUIRED' CREW MEMBERS. THE OPS MANUAL STATES THAT A SECOND IN COMMAND IS REQUIRED ONLY IN IMC CONDITIONS WHEN THE AUTOPLT IS NOT WORKING OR THE PIC HAS NOT HAD THE FAR 135.297 PROFICIENCY CHK WITHIN 6 MONTHS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: RPTR STATES THE GENTLEMAN SHE WAS HAVING A PROB WITH WAS NOT THE REGULAR FAA INSPECTOR. ON HIS RETURN THE REGULAR INSPECTOR APOLOGIZED FOR MR. X'S BEHAVIOR. RPTRSTATES SEVERAL OTHER FEMALE PLTS AND FLT INSTR'S HAVE RECEIVED SIMILAR TREATMENT FORM THIS PARTICULAR INSPECTOR. ONE BAD APPLE, APPARENTLY. NO FURTHER ACTION HAS OCCURRED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.