An atx C402 fails to pass a ramp check by the FAA because of improper cargo net restraint system.

Attributes
ACN	320417
Time
Date	199511
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : lit
State Reference	AR
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	VMC
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Cessna 402/402C/B379 Businessliner/Utiliner
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 135
Flight Phase	ground : parked ground : preflight
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : instrument pilot : commercial
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 220 flight time total : 1350 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	320417
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : single pilot
Qualification	pilot : commercial pilot : instrument
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 220 flight time total : 1350 flight time type : 500
ASRS Report	320430
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : far non adherence other
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : anomaly accepted
Consequence	faa : investigated
Supplementary
Primary Problem	Aircraft
Air Traffic Incident	Pilot Deviation

Narrative:

Upon parking the aircraft I was confronted by the FAA and advised that I didn't have the proper cargo net apparatus. I have since corrected to the FAA specifications however, the type of restraints and system of securing those restraints is very ambiguous or at least a very grey area. Supplemental information from acn 320430: after completing a part 135 freight haul I was confronted on the ground by a representative of the FAA. After inspecting my aircraft, I was informed by the FAA official that (he thought) my cargo netting system was not an approved restraining device for the particular aircraft that I was flying. This came as a total shock to me because as far as I knew I was in total compliance with 135 regulations. Whether the fault of my employer who supplies the aircraft with the net or myself for not fully understanding the restraining system, I feel this was an honest and 100 percent unintentional mistake. However, I do feel compelled to record this in your files. Corrective action has been made on my part since this encounter.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ATX C402 FAILS TO PASS A RAMP CHK BY THE FAA BECAUSE OF IMPROPER CARGO NET RESTRAINT SYS.

Narrative: UPON PARKING THE ACFT I WAS CONFRONTED BY THE FAA AND ADVISED THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE PROPER CARGO NET APPARATUS. I HAVE SINCE CORRECTED TO THE FAA SPECS HOWEVER, THE TYPE OF RESTRAINTS AND SYS OF SECURING THOSE RESTRAINTS IS VERY AMBIGUOUS OR AT LEAST A VERY GREY AREA. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 320430: AFTER COMPLETING A PART 135 FREIGHT HAUL I WAS CONFRONTED ON THE GND BY A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE FAA. AFTER INSPECTING MY ACFT, I WAS INFORMED BY THE FAA OFFICIAL THAT (HE THOUGHT) MY CARGO NETTING SYS WAS NOT AN APPROVED RESTRAINING DEVICE FOR THE PARTICULAR ACFT THAT I WAS FLYING. THIS CAME AS A TOTAL SHOCK TO ME BECAUSE AS FAR AS I KNEW I WAS IN TOTAL COMPLIANCE WITH 135 REGS. WHETHER THE FAULT OF MY EMPLOYER WHO SUPPLIES THE ACFT WITH THE NET OR MYSELF FOR NOT FULLY UNDERSTANDING THE RESTRAINING SYS, I FEEL THIS WAS AN HONEST AND 100 PERCENT UNINTENTIONAL MISTAKE. HOWEVER, I DO FEEL COMPELLED TO RECORD THIS IN YOUR FILES. CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN MADE ON MY PART SINCE THIS ENCOUNTER.

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.