Narrative:

Runway 36R dfw. Aborted takeoff because of compressor stall on #2 engine. Crosswind present. Ran up #2 while into wind to no avail. Brake cooling chart required return to gate. FAA maintenance inspector on jump seat. Maintenance checked out engine and brakes. We had done a run-up on taxiway on each engine with no compressor stall. I told maintenance this and they wrote in book that they had done an engine run. FAA looked at this and became upset. Maintenance told him they were just trying to save time. I told FAA that an engine inspection was not required but I just ask them to take a look at it since we had to return for the brakes. He and maintenance became upset with each other and maintenance decided to take the aircraft OTS rather than risk their ticket. In my opinion the situation was handled badly by the FAA inspector and not very well by maintenance. We had to move all the people to a new aircraft when the one we had was fine. I am not happy when non flying FAA inspectors come on board to give us a line check. They never seem to know what is going on but seem determined to make their presence known. I talked to tulsa and dispatch as well as FAA inspector, trying to work the situation out but to no avail. The inspector admitted he jumped the gun but it was too late. Supplemental information from acn 384974: maintenance used poor wordage in the logbook by stating they had done an engine run and it checked ok -- when in fact it was the aircrew who did the engine run on the way back to the gate.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLC OF B727 ABORTS TKOF DUE TO A COMPRESSOR STALL ON #2 ENG. TAXI BACK TO GATE FOR BRAKE COOLING AND MAINT INSPECTION. FAA INSPECTOR ON BOARD.

Narrative: RWY 36R DFW. ABORTED TKOF BECAUSE OF COMPRESSOR STALL ON #2 ENG. XWIND PRESENT. RAN UP #2 WHILE INTO WIND TO NO AVAIL. BRAKE COOLING CHART REQUIRED RETURN TO GATE. FAA MAINT INSPECTOR ON JUMP SEAT. MAINT CHKED OUT ENG AND BRAKES. WE HAD DONE A RUN-UP ON TXWY ON EACH ENG WITH NO COMPRESSOR STALL. I TOLD MAINT THIS AND THEY WROTE IN BOOK THAT THEY HAD DONE AN ENG RUN. FAA LOOKED AT THIS AND BECAME UPSET. MAINT TOLD HIM THEY WERE JUST TRYING TO SAVE TIME. I TOLD FAA THAT AN ENG INSPECTION WAS NOT REQUIRED BUT I JUST ASK THEM TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT SINCE WE HAD TO RETURN FOR THE BRAKES. HE AND MAINT BECAME UPSET WITH EACH OTHER AND MAINT DECIDED TO TAKE THE ACFT OTS RATHER THAN RISK THEIR TICKET. IN MY OPINION THE SIT WAS HANDLED BADLY BY THE FAA INSPECTOR AND NOT VERY WELL BY MAINT. WE HAD TO MOVE ALL THE PEOPLE TO A NEW ACFT WHEN THE ONE WE HAD WAS FINE. I AM NOT HAPPY WHEN NON FLYING FAA INSPECTORS COME ON BOARD TO GIVE US A LINE CHK. THEY NEVER SEEM TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON BUT SEEM DETERMINED TO MAKE THEIR PRESENCE KNOWN. I TALKED TO TULSA AND DISPATCH AS WELL AS FAA INSPECTOR, TRYING TO WORK THE SIT OUT BUT TO NO AVAIL. THE INSPECTOR ADMITTED HE JUMPED THE GUN BUT IT WAS TOO LATE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 384974: MAINT USED POOR WORDAGE IN THE LOGBOOK BY STATING THEY HAD DONE AN ENG RUN AND IT CHKED OK -- WHEN IN FACT IT WAS THE AIRCREW WHO DID THE ENG RUN ON THE WAY BACK TO THE 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.