Narrative:

On tuesday after 4 days of heavy fog with outside air temperatures 28-30 degrees, I removed a substantial build-up of frost and ice from a cessna C208 using pressurized hot water followed by hand sprayed heated glycol. I then flew the caravan around the pattern, parked and then placed wing and tail covers on the aircraft. On wednesday outside air temperature 30 degree F. Following an ice pellet shower, the wing and tail covers of the C208 were removed (XH50 hours). Prior to passenger boarding, I climbed on top of the aircraft to visually inspect all of the upper surfaces of the C208 and found it to comply with far 135.227. During engine start, 2 FSDO inspectors walked behind the aircraft and claimed to have both reached up to the left elevator (height 6 ft, 9 inch) felt 'significant' roughness and saw icicles dangling from the trailing edge of the control surface. On return to the juneau airport 1 hour later, I was informed by 1 of the FAA inspectors that I had departed juneau in violation of far 135.227 and that this incident would be under investigation. 2 issues are of concern: first, if a situation that may have compromised the safety of my flight was observed prior to taxi, unknown to me, then why didn't these inspectors make any attempt to stop the flight so that the condition could be further examined and corrected, if required? Second, to assist the GA industry meet the challenges of deicing aircraft, why doesn't the FAA use their manpower and resources to develop and fund operational safety system, like airport deicing facilities, rather than attempting to seek compliance through adversarial paper chase. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter has 300 hours on the caravan but he has 4500 hours and 10 yrs experience flying the bush in alaska. He feels there was an interpersonal problem between himself and the aci, the aci accusing him of being argumentative. He alleges the aci was in a bad mood and was looking for trouble because the FBO has a bad reputation. He said that he and the ground crew that removed the wing/tail covers were satisfied that the aircraft was free of ice and airworthy. He climbed on top of the fuselage at the passenger entry door to make his inspection.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR IS ACCUSED OF FLYING AN ACFT HAVING ICE ON THE TAIL SURFACES IN VIOLATION OF FAR 135.227.

Narrative: ON TUESDAY AFTER 4 DAYS OF HVY FOG WITH OUTSIDE AIR TEMPS 28-30 DEGS, I REMOVED A SUBSTANTIAL BUILD-UP OF FROST AND ICE FROM A CESSNA C208 USING PRESSURIZED HOT WATER FOLLOWED BY HAND SPRAYED HEATED GLYCOL. I THEN FLEW THE CARAVAN AROUND THE PATTERN, PARKED AND THEN PLACED WING AND TAIL COVERS ON THE ACFT. ON WEDNESDAY OUTSIDE AIR TEMP 30 DEG F. FOLLOWING AN ICE PELLET SHOWER, THE WING AND TAIL COVERS OF THE C208 WERE REMOVED (XH50 HRS). PRIOR TO PAX BOARDING, I CLBED ON TOP OF THE ACFT TO VISUALLY INSPECT ALL OF THE UPPER SURFACES OF THE C208 AND FOUND IT TO COMPLY WITH FAR 135.227. DURING ENG START, 2 FSDO INSPECTORS WALKED BEHIND THE ACFT AND CLAIMED TO HAVE BOTH REACHED UP TO THE L ELEVATOR (HEIGHT 6 FT, 9 INCH) FELT 'SIGNIFICANT' ROUGHNESS AND SAW ICICLES DANGLING FROM THE TRAILING EDGE OF THE CTL SURFACE. ON RETURN TO THE JUNEAU ARPT 1 HR LATER, I WAS INFORMED BY 1 OF THE FAA INSPECTORS THAT I HAD DEPARTED JUNEAU IN VIOLATION OF FAR 135.227 AND THAT THIS INCIDENT WOULD BE UNDER INVESTIGATION. 2 ISSUES ARE OF CONCERN: FIRST, IF A SIT THAT MAY HAVE COMPROMISED THE SAFETY OF MY FLT WAS OBSERVED PRIOR TO TAXI, UNKNOWN TO ME, THEN WHY DIDN'T THESE INSPECTORS MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO STOP THE FLT SO THAT THE CONDITION COULD BE FURTHER EXAMINED AND CORRECTED, IF REQUIRED? SECOND, TO ASSIST THE GA INDUSTRY MEET THE CHALLENGES OF DEICING ACFT, WHY DOESN'T THE FAA USE THEIR MANPOWER AND RESOURCES TO DEVELOP AND FUND OPERATIONAL SAFETY SYS, LIKE ARPT DEICING FACILITIES, RATHER THAN ATTEMPTING TO SEEK COMPLIANCE THROUGH ADVERSARIAL PAPER CHASE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAS 300 HRS ON THE CARAVAN BUT HE HAS 4500 HRS AND 10 YRS EXPERIENCE FLYING THE BUSH IN ALASKA. HE FEELS THERE WAS AN INTERPERSONAL PROB BTWN HIMSELF AND THE ACI, THE ACI ACCUSING HIM OF BEING ARGUMENTATIVE. HE ALLEGES THE ACI WAS IN A BAD MOOD AND WAS LOOKING FOR TROUBLE BECAUSE THE FBO HAS A BAD REPUTATION. HE SAID THAT HE AND THE GND CREW THAT REMOVED THE WING/TAIL COVERS WERE SATISFIED THAT THE ACFT WAS FREE OF ICE AND AIRWORTHY. HE CLBED ON TOP OF THE FUSELAGE AT THE PAX ENTRY DOOR TO MAKE HIS INSPECTION.

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.