Narrative:

After my shift I was advised by my flight manager that the FAA intended to violate me for proceeding on a flight with a known discrepancy. This came as a surprise to me. It seems that a passenger who had advised me that some red fluid was leaking out of our wing, turned out to be an FAA inspector. As the passengers departed the aircraft, one remained behind. He advised me that some 'red fluid' was streaming off the trailing edge of our flaps. I asked him to show me where he saw this fluid and he pointed to the left flap area. I thanked him for his concern and asked my first officer to take a look at the wing with me. As we inspected the aircraft we noticed red fluid all along the entire length of the wing. The ailerons and the flaps aft of the hinge gap were coated with red fluid. My first officer immediately knew what it was. 'That's residual deice fluid from this morning', he stated. I knew the aircraft had been deiced before the previous leg but I was surprised to see so much fluid had remained on the wing. Further investigation was warranted, so we checked the right wing. Identical red fluid streaks were observed along the right wing as well. My first officer also noticed similar streaks along the elevators. Finally we checked the underwing flap actuator drain ports and the fluid levels. The drain ports showed no evidence of leakage and the hydraulic levels were full. My first officer told me that the deice fluid was rather thick. We decided that deice fluid had pooled in the hinge areas of the wings and stabilizer and had blown back during the previous flight. We departed and flew to our next destination west/O incident. When the aircraft returned to the hub 4 hours later with another crew, the FAA was waiting. They wanted to know if the hydraulic leak had been fixed. Our maintenance personnel did't know what they were talking about. Apparently 'the passenger', actually an FAA inspector, had told some other feds about the 'leak' and they ramp checked the aircraft when it returned. They told our maintenance personnel that an FAA inspector had directed the previous captain (me) to write-up the aircraft. This of course was not true. My first officer and I thought this was a case of an uninformed passenger expressing concern about 'some red fluid'. We determined the fluid to be residual deice fluid and took no further action. During this ramp check the FAA asked our maintenance personnel to inspect the left wing for leaks. Coincidentally a small undetectable leak was found at the flap actuator. The b-nut was tightened and the aircraft was released. The fact that a leak was found was all the FAA needed to go after me. To them, it seemed like I had flagrantly disregarded an inspector's request. Actually, my first officer and I had used our best judgement to assess the situation. And with a combined total of over 12000 hours of experience between us had no reason to believe a hydraulic leak existed. Callback with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter stated that the FAA dropped their efforts to violate the reporter when it became obvious that the leak discovered by maintenance would not have produced any noticeable fluid that would have been visible during a walk around inspection. Reporter said that it appears that the aggressive attitude on the part of the FAA inspector was motivated by the inspector's trying to impress some of his cohorts who were traveling with him. The only stipulation that the FAA placed in consideration of dropping the matter was that the company 'talk to their pilot'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW OF LTT COMMUTER ACR IS ACCUSED OF OPERATING AN ACFT WITH A HYDRAULIC LEAK BY AN FAA INSPECTOR WHO DID NOT IDENTIFY HIMSELF AS SUCH. WHAT WAS THOUGHT TO BE HYDRAULIC OIL WAS ACTUALLY DEICING FLUID.

Narrative: AFTER MY SHIFT I WAS ADVISED BY MY FLT MGR THAT THE FAA INTENDED TO VIOLATE ME FOR PROCEEDING ON A FLT WITH A KNOWN DISCREPANCY. THIS CAME AS A SURPRISE TO ME. IT SEEMS THAT A PAX WHO HAD ADVISED ME THAT SOME RED FLUID WAS LEAKING OUT OF OUR WING, TURNED OUT TO BE AN FAA INSPECTOR. AS THE PAXS DEPARTED THE ACFT, ONE REMAINED BEHIND. HE ADVISED ME THAT SOME 'RED FLUID' WAS STREAMING OFF THE TRAILING EDGE OF OUR FLAPS. I ASKED HIM TO SHOW ME WHERE HE SAW THIS FLUID AND HE POINTED TO THE L FLAP AREA. I THANKED HIM FOR HIS CONCERN AND ASKED MY F/O TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE WING WITH ME. AS WE INSPECTED THE ACFT WE NOTICED RED FLUID ALL ALONG THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE WING. THE AILERONS AND THE FLAPS AFT OF THE HINGE GAP WERE COATED WITH RED FLUID. MY F/O IMMEDIATELY KNEW WHAT IT WAS. 'THAT'S RESIDUAL DEICE FLUID FROM THIS MORNING', HE STATED. I KNEW THE ACFT HAD BEEN DEICED BEFORE THE PREVIOUS LEG BUT I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE SO MUCH FLUID HAD REMAINED ON THE WING. FURTHER INVESTIGATION WAS WARRANTED, SO WE CHKED THE R WING. IDENTICAL RED FLUID STREAKS WERE OBSERVED ALONG THE R WING AS WELL. MY F/O ALSO NOTICED SIMILAR STREAKS ALONG THE ELEVATORS. FINALLY WE CHKED THE UNDERWING FLAP ACTUATOR DRAIN PORTS AND THE FLUID LEVELS. THE DRAIN PORTS SHOWED NO EVIDENCE OF LEAKAGE AND THE HYDRAULIC LEVELS WERE FULL. MY F/O TOLD ME THAT THE DEICE FLUID WAS RATHER THICK. WE DECIDED THAT DEICE FLUID HAD POOLED IN THE HINGE AREAS OF THE WINGS AND STABILIZER AND HAD BLOWN BACK DURING THE PREVIOUS FLT. WE DEPARTED AND FLEW TO OUR NEXT DEST W/O INCIDENT. WHEN THE ACFT RETURNED TO THE HUB 4 HRS LATER WITH ANOTHER CREW, THE FAA WAS WAITING. THEY WANTED TO KNOW IF THE HYDRAULIC LEAK HAD BEEN FIXED. OUR MAINT PERSONNEL DID'T KNOW WHAT THEY WERE TALKING ABOUT. APPARENTLY 'THE PAX', ACTUALLY AN FAA INSPECTOR, HAD TOLD SOME OTHER FEDS ABOUT THE 'LEAK' AND THEY RAMP CHKED THE ACFT WHEN IT RETURNED. THEY TOLD OUR MAINT PERSONNEL THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR HAD DIRECTED THE PREVIOUS CAPT (ME) TO WRITE-UP THE ACFT. THIS OF COURSE WAS NOT TRUE. MY F/O AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS A CASE OF AN UNINFORMED PAX EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT 'SOME RED FLUID'. WE DETERMINED THE FLUID TO BE RESIDUAL DEICE FLUID AND TOOK NO FURTHER ACTION. DURING THIS RAMP CHK THE FAA ASKED OUR MAINT PERSONNEL TO INSPECT THE L WING FOR LEAKS. COINCIDENTALLY A SMALL UNDETECTABLE LEAK WAS FOUND AT THE FLAP ACTUATOR. THE B-NUT WAS TIGHTENED AND THE ACFT WAS RELEASED. THE FACT THAT A LEAK WAS FOUND WAS ALL THE FAA NEEDED TO GO AFTER ME. TO THEM, IT SEEMED LIKE I HAD FLAGRANTLY DISREGARDED AN INSPECTOR'S REQUEST. ACTUALLY, MY F/O AND I HAD USED OUR BEST JUDGEMENT TO ASSESS THE SITUATION. AND WITH A COMBINED TOTAL OF OVER 12000 HRS OF EXPERIENCE BTWN US HAD NO REASON TO BELIEVE A HYDRAULIC LEAK EXISTED. CALLBACK WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA DROPPED THEIR EFFORTS TO VIOLATE THE RPTR WHEN IT BECAME OBVIOUS THAT THE LEAK DISCOVERED BY MAINT WOULD NOT HAVE PRODUCED ANY NOTICEABLE FLUID THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN VISIBLE DURING A WALK AROUND INSPECTION. RPTR SAID THAT IT APPEARS THAT THE AGGRESSIVE ATTITUDE ON THE PART OF THE FAA INSPECTOR WAS MOTIVATED BY THE INSPECTOR'S TRYING TO IMPRESS SOME OF HIS COHORTS WHO WERE TRAVELING WITH HIM. THE ONLY STIPULATION THAT THE FAA PLACED IN CONSIDERATION OF DROPPING THE MATTER WAS THAT THE COMPANY 'TALK TO THEIR PLT'.

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.