Narrative:

We departed anc. The destination was ena. The WX was IFR due to continuous snow along our route of flight. The cruise altitude was 4000'. ILS approach to ena. We performed all checklists as procedures dictated and the airplane did not accumulate ice during any phase of the flight, but we popped the deice boots as a precautionay measure. The result was a small amount of impacted snow on the leading edge of the wing and the boots were popped to confirm it was only snow. Approximately 3-4 mi from the OM I slowed the airplane to 120 KTS. Approximately 1/2 mi from the OM I slowed to 100 KTS and called for 10 degrees of flaps and executed a 90 KT approach. The WX at ena was reported at 500' and 1/2 mi. At 600' MSL the first officer called approach lights in sight and to south visibility. I called for 20 degree of flaps and landed normally on runway 19. After the passengers deplaned, 2 men remained and one idented himself as a FAA inspector. In an abrasive manner he informed me I had executed an illegal approach to landing. He claimed there had been ice on the airplane and 10 degrees of flaps were the maximum allowable according to the flight manual. I contended that no icing had been encountered and even if there had been, we had landed according to the procedures in the flight manual. (Enclosed are procedures for landing in and after icing). He then argued that since it was snowing and the temperature on the ground was -2 degree C, we were in 'icing conditions' which dictated a 10 degree flap landing. Outside the airplane, I challenged him to find ice on the airplane. He still contended we had encountered and accumulated ice. I stated that since the temperature was -2 degree C, ice would still be on the airplane if we encountered ice. He could not find ice on the airplane and admitted the absence of ice. I asked him where it had gone since the temperature was below freezing. He could not explain this. Also, an small aircraft landed 7 mins behind us and reported 'negative icing.' subsequently, the inspector claims there was ice on the airplane during approach. Further, he said we were in icing conditions throughout the entire approach. The accumulation of ice is a basic assumption for the procedures set for the in the flight manual. The definition of 'icing conditions' used by the inspector and the flight manual are entirely different. Since ice was not encountered in flight, the inspector could not find ice on the aircraft obviously. He mistakenly idented snow as ice. Further supporting evidence of the inspectors error is the report by the small aircraft of 'negative icing.'

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT RESTRICTED TO 10 DEGREE FLAP IN ICING. FLT CREW ELECTED TO USE 20 DEGREE FLAP APCH AND LNDG WHEN NO ICE APPARENT ON ACFT.

Narrative: WE DEPARTED ANC. THE DEST WAS ENA. THE WX WAS IFR DUE TO CONTINUOUS SNOW ALONG OUR RTE OF FLT. THE CRUISE ALT WAS 4000'. ILS APCH TO ENA. WE PERFORMED ALL CHKLISTS AS PROCS DICTATED AND THE AIRPLANE DID NOT ACCUMULATE ICE DURING ANY PHASE OF THE FLT, BUT WE POPPED THE DEICE BOOTS AS A PRECAUTIONAY MEASURE. THE RESULT WAS A SMALL AMOUNT OF IMPACTED SNOW ON THE LEADING EDGE OF THE WING AND THE BOOTS WERE POPPED TO CONFIRM IT WAS ONLY SNOW. APPROX 3-4 MI FROM THE OM I SLOWED THE AIRPLANE TO 120 KTS. APPROX 1/2 MI FROM THE OM I SLOWED TO 100 KTS AND CALLED FOR 10 DEGS OF FLAPS AND EXECUTED A 90 KT APCH. THE WX AT ENA WAS RPTED AT 500' AND 1/2 MI. AT 600' MSL THE F/O CALLED APCH LIGHTS IN SIGHT AND TO S VIS. I CALLED FOR 20 DEG OF FLAPS AND LANDED NORMALLY ON RWY 19. AFTER THE PAXS DEPLANED, 2 MEN REMAINED AND ONE IDENTED HIMSELF AS A FAA INSPECTOR. IN AN ABRASIVE MANNER HE INFORMED ME I HAD EXECUTED AN ILLEGAL APCH TO LNDG. HE CLAIMED THERE HAD BEEN ICE ON THE AIRPLANE AND 10 DEGS OF FLAPS WERE THE MAX ALLOWABLE ACCORDING TO THE FLT MANUAL. I CONTENDED THAT NO ICING HAD BEEN ENCOUNTERED AND EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN, WE HAD LANDED ACCORDING TO THE PROCS IN THE FLT MANUAL. (ENCLOSED ARE PROCS FOR LNDG IN AND AFTER ICING). HE THEN ARGUED THAT SINCE IT WAS SNOWING AND THE TEMP ON THE GND WAS -2 DEG C, WE WERE IN 'ICING CONDITIONS' WHICH DICTATED A 10 DEG FLAP LNDG. OUTSIDE THE AIRPLANE, I CHALLENGED HIM TO FIND ICE ON THE AIRPLANE. HE STILL CONTENDED WE HAD ENCOUNTERED AND ACCUMULATED ICE. I STATED THAT SINCE THE TEMP WAS -2 DEG C, ICE WOULD STILL BE ON THE AIRPLANE IF WE ENCOUNTERED ICE. HE COULD NOT FIND ICE ON THE AIRPLANE AND ADMITTED THE ABSENCE OF ICE. I ASKED HIM WHERE IT HAD GONE SINCE THE TEMP WAS BELOW FREEZING. HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THIS. ALSO, AN SMA LANDED 7 MINS BEHIND US AND RPTED 'NEGATIVE ICING.' SUBSEQUENTLY, THE INSPECTOR CLAIMS THERE WAS ICE ON THE AIRPLANE DURING APCH. FURTHER, HE SAID WE WERE IN ICING CONDITIONS THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE APCH. THE ACCUMULATION OF ICE IS A BASIC ASSUMPTION FOR THE PROCS SET FOR THE IN THE FLT MANUAL. THE DEFINITION OF 'ICING CONDITIONS' USED BY THE INSPECTOR AND THE FLT MANUAL ARE ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. SINCE ICE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED IN FLT, THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT FIND ICE ON THE ACFT OBVIOUSLY. HE MISTAKENLY IDENTED SNOW AS ICE. FURTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THE INSPECTORS ERROR IS THE RPT BY THE SMA OF 'NEGATIVE ICING.'

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.