Narrative:

I was informed by the gate agent that an FAA inspector was scheduled to ride my jumpseat. I was familiar with this inspector. 5 months prior, I had been given a line check by him. That line check was irregular and disruptive to my cockpit environment. I submitted a written report to my supervisor. Now that I had the same inspector again, I felt it best to contact my supervisor before the flight began. My supervisor requested the inspector call him at this time. I explained to the inspector that I was not denying him entry into the cockpit, but I was uncomfortable and concerned with him riding in the cockpit as a result of our last chkride. I asked the inspector if he would call my supervisor at this given #. The inspector refused to do so, but suggested he would give only a cabin line check which would also allow an off line jumpseater to ride. After arrival in destination, the inspector expressed his concern of me understanding far 121.548 because I had denied him entry into the cockpit twice at the origination station. I told him that I did not deny him entry into the cockpit at any time, and re-iterated that I was uncomfortable with him in the cockpit, and why. The inspector was, in fact, in the cockpit on the ground to record license and medical certificate data. The inspector stayed in the cockpit to observe all cockpit checks, checklists and other cockpit procedure to be performed. The jumpseater was then briefed and the inspector took his seat in the cabin. The inspector made no attempt to enter the cockpit in-flight. I believe that the manner in which the first chkride was conducted caused this problem. Possibility, after this type of previous problem, another inspector would be used on subsequent checks. Hopefully, this type of data will help eliminate delicate situations like this at departure gate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT INSPECTION ACTIVITY CREATES A CONFLICT BTWN THE PIC AND THE ACI DURING PLT TECHNIQUE PREFLT PROC.

Narrative: I WAS INFORMED BY THE GATE AGENT THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS SCHEDULED TO RIDE MY JUMPSEAT. I WAS FAMILIAR WITH THIS INSPECTOR. 5 MONTHS PRIOR, I HAD BEEN GIVEN A LINE CHK BY HIM. THAT LINE CHK WAS IRREGULAR AND DISRUPTIVE TO MY COCKPIT ENVIRONMENT. I SUBMITTED A WRITTEN RPT TO MY SUPVR. NOW THAT I HAD THE SAME INSPECTOR AGAIN, I FELT IT BEST TO CONTACT MY SUPVR BEFORE THE FLT BEGAN. MY SUPVR REQUESTED THE INSPECTOR CALL HIM AT THIS TIME. I EXPLAINED TO THE INSPECTOR THAT I WAS NOT DENYING HIM ENTRY INTO THE COCKPIT, BUT I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE AND CONCERNED WITH HIM RIDING IN THE COCKPIT AS A RESULT OF OUR LAST CHKRIDE. I ASKED THE INSPECTOR IF HE WOULD CALL MY SUPVR AT THIS GIVEN #. THE INSPECTOR REFUSED TO DO SO, BUT SUGGESTED HE WOULD GIVE ONLY A CABIN LINE CHK WHICH WOULD ALSO ALLOW AN OFF LINE JUMPSEATER TO RIDE. AFTER ARR IN DEST, THE INSPECTOR EXPRESSED HIS CONCERN OF ME UNDERSTANDING FAR 121.548 BECAUSE I HAD DENIED HIM ENTRY INTO THE COCKPIT TWICE AT THE ORIGINATION STATION. I TOLD HIM THAT I DID NOT DENY HIM ENTRY INTO THE COCKPIT AT ANY TIME, AND RE-ITERATED THAT I WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH HIM IN THE COCKPIT, AND WHY. THE INSPECTOR WAS, IN FACT, IN THE COCKPIT ON THE GND TO RECORD LICENSE AND MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATA. THE INSPECTOR STAYED IN THE COCKPIT TO OBSERVE ALL COCKPIT CHKS, CHKLISTS AND OTHER COCKPIT PROC TO BE PERFORMED. THE JUMPSEATER WAS THEN BRIEFED AND THE INSPECTOR TOOK HIS SEAT IN THE CABIN. THE INSPECTOR MADE NO ATTEMPT TO ENTER THE COCKPIT INFLT. I BELIEVE THAT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE FIRST CHKRIDE WAS CONDUCTED CAUSED THIS PROBLEM. POSSIBILITY, AFTER THIS TYPE OF PREVIOUS PROBLEM, ANOTHER INSPECTOR WOULD BE USED ON SUBSEQUENT CHKS. HOPEFULLY, THIS TYPE OF DATA WILL HELP ELIMINATE DELICATE SITUATIONS LIKE THIS AT DEP GATE.

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.