Narrative:

I was the captain of a PA31-350 dispatched from sus to stl to pick up a load of freight from air carrier X and drop in dsm. After landing at dsm, and taxiing to the east cargo ramp, I was met by 2 FAA FSDO inspectors that observed while I unloaded the aircraft. After off loading the freight, the inspectors proceeded to ramp check me and quiz me on my flight. I answered all their questions and provided the necessary documents. They inquired why the cargo net was not stretched over the freight. I stated the cargo was of such a nature in size and weight that the net overhead would have created a greater hazard to reaching the aft stair door than just securing cargo straps between the forward cabinetry in the event of an emergency. I had loaded the freight with a walk aisle down the center and placed next day envelope bags there to keep the freight on either side, plus you could easily walk around on the envelope bags. Also by securing cargo straps laterally between the fwd cabinetry the cargo could not possibly shift forward to obstruct the pilots accessibility. The inspector then focused on a slight oil trace on the left engine nacelle. Granted, the trace was more evident than on the right nacelle. Having flown this particular aircraft for over 1 yr with similar oil patterns, I concluded there was not an airworthiness problem. The inspector recommended we remove the cowlings and do a visual inspection. I then called my company's director of maintenance and told him about the situation. He tried to explain to the inspector that these engines had leaked since rebuilt. That the lycoming tio-540 had a slight inherent leak and with its up flow cooling, made a small leak appear worse. Nonetheless, we complied with the inspector's request and removed the cowlings and made a visual inspection. Then re-positioned the aircraft to use a solvent cleaner to clean the engine and accessories. Since I had a company mechanic onboard, we taxied out to do an engine runup. As requested, I wrote up the discrepancy and our mechanic signed it off on the spot to return to sus. The only oil leak we detected was slightly around the magneto gasket and the oil temperature probe, no airworthiness issues. Our company operations manual states that only airworthiness items have to be wrote up on the spot. Needless to say, but the inspector involved made a normal trip into his fun day at the airport. If the airplane is sound and has all the required paperwork, let them do their job. Bored inspectors need to stay in the office and process paperwork, not harass working aviation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: RPTR EXPERIENCES DIFFICULTY SATISFYING FAA RAMP CHK.

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT OF A PA31-350 DISPATCHED FROM SUS TO STL TO PICK UP A LOAD OF FREIGHT FROM ACR X AND DROP IN DSM. AFTER LNDG AT DSM, AND TAXIING TO THE E CARGO RAMP, I WAS MET BY 2 FAA FSDO INSPECTORS THAT OBSERVED WHILE I UNLOADED THE ACFT. AFTER OFF LOADING THE FREIGHT, THE INSPECTORS PROCEEDED TO RAMP CHK ME AND QUIZ ME ON MY FLT. I ANSWERED ALL THEIR QUESTIONS AND PROVIDED THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. THEY INQUIRED WHY THE CARGO NET WAS NOT STRETCHED OVER THE FREIGHT. I STATED THE CARGO WAS OF SUCH A NATURE IN SIZE AND WT THAT THE NET OVERHEAD WOULD HAVE CREATED A GREATER HAZARD TO REACHING THE AFT STAIR DOOR THAN JUST SECURING CARGO STRAPS BTWN THE FORWARD CABINETRY IN THE EVENT OF AN EMER. I HAD LOADED THE FREIGHT WITH A WALK AISLE DOWN THE CTR AND PLACED NEXT DAY ENVELOPE BAGS THERE TO KEEP THE FREIGHT ON EITHER SIDE, PLUS YOU COULD EASILY WALK AROUND ON THE ENVELOPE BAGS. ALSO BY SECURING CARGO STRAPS LATERALLY BTWN THE FWD CABINETRY THE CARGO COULD NOT POSSIBLY SHIFT FORWARD TO OBSTRUCT THE PLTS ACCESSIBILITY. THE INSPECTOR THEN FOCUSED ON A SLIGHT OIL TRACE ON THE L ENG NACELLE. GRANTED, THE TRACE WAS MORE EVIDENT THAN ON THE R NACELLE. HAVING FLOWN THIS PARTICULAR ACFT FOR OVER 1 YR WITH SIMILAR OIL PATTERNS, I CONCLUDED THERE WAS NOT AN AIRWORTHINESS PROB. THE INSPECTOR RECOMMENDED WE REMOVE THE COWLINGS AND DO A VISUAL INSPECTION. I THEN CALLED MY COMPANY'S DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND TOLD HIM ABOUT THE SIT. HE TRIED TO EXPLAIN TO THE INSPECTOR THAT THESE ENGS HAD LEAKED SINCE REBUILT. THAT THE LYCOMING TIO-540 HAD A SLIGHT INHERENT LEAK AND WITH ITS UP FLOW COOLING, MADE A SMALL LEAK APPEAR WORSE. NONETHELESS, WE COMPLIED WITH THE INSPECTOR'S REQUEST AND REMOVED THE COWLINGS AND MADE A VISUAL INSPECTION. THEN RE-POSITIONED THE ACFT TO USE A SOLVENT CLEANER TO CLEAN THE ENG AND ACCESSORIES. SINCE I HAD A COMPANY MECH ONBOARD, WE TAXIED OUT TO DO AN ENG RUNUP. AS REQUESTED, I WROTE UP THE DISCREPANCY AND OUR MECH SIGNED IT OFF ON THE SPOT TO RETURN TO SUS. THE ONLY OIL LEAK WE DETECTED WAS SLIGHTLY AROUND THE MAGNETO GASKET AND THE OIL TEMP PROBE, NO AIRWORTHINESS ISSUES. OUR COMPANY OPS MANUAL STATES THAT ONLY AIRWORTHINESS ITEMS HAVE TO BE WROTE UP ON THE SPOT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, BUT THE INSPECTOR INVOLVED MADE A NORMAL TRIP INTO HIS FUN DAY AT THE ARPT. IF THE AIRPLANE IS SOUND AND HAS ALL THE REQUIRED PAPERWORK, LET THEM DO THEIR JOB. BORED INSPECTORS NEED TO STAY IN THE OFFICE AND PROCESS PAPERWORK, NOT HARASS WORKING AVIATION.

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.