Narrative:

During an FAA base inspection of our air taxi a number of discrepancies were found by the FAA inspector on a C402 that I had last flown the previous day. Since I was last to have flown the aircraft it has been alleged that I had flown an unairworthy aircraft. The discrepancies include: 1) a leaking hydraulic ram under the left landing gear, 2) a crushed bulkhead and deformed skin around the tail tie down ring/loop, 3) a bent xbrace in the nose gear well, 4) red residue on top of the left engine nacelle. From the outset let me make a statement that my practice is to do a thorough preflight prior to each flight. If I had knowledge of the discrepancies I would have grounded the aircraft in question and sought out corrective measures to remedy the situation. Explanations: we have been experiencing extremely low temperatures (-40 degrees C) here in nome. The C402 was sitting on the ground out in the cold and was pulled into the hangar where the leak were discovered. The leaking apparently started after the airplane came into the hangar. Our ramp is asphalt covered by snow that has been graded for removal. After the leak was noted I checked outside on the ramp and saw no red drops or puddles of hydraulic fluid. This seems to confirm that the leaking started after it was in the hangar and was most likely due to the extreme cold temperatures. The aircraft is occasionally loaded with cargo inside the hangar due to the extreme cold and dark conditions out on the ramp. The loading is generally done by the cargo personnel. The apparent crushing damage in the tail could have taken place if the cargo handlers had loaded the airplane tail heavy and while pushing it out of or pulling it into the hangar the tail hit the ground since the ramp is both steep and slippery due to the covering snow and ice. The airplane was loaded for a flight the day of the inspection but was then unloaded to facilitate the base inspection's requirements. The damage done did not happen from a hard landing because there have not been any and the pattern of the damage does not appear to be the result of a scraping nature. The bent xtube in the nose gear well appears to be something new since the metal is shiny where the damage occurred. Nome, alaska, is right on the coast of the bering sea and the salt air tends to tarnish and discolor any exposed fresh metal scratches. The damage appears to have resulted from the nose gear not fully extending after takeoff prior to being retracted into the gear well. This was probably due to the extreme temperatures where the nitrogen volume contracts and can leak out with the hydraulic fluid. Red residue, I am not sure where it came from. It should be noted that there is a hydraulic pump on the accessory case of the left engine. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that the FAA is not going to take pilot certificate action as they believe that the discrepancies were more the responsibilities of the company's maintenance procedures together with the cargo handlers.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA INSPECTION OF AN AIR TAXI CARGO OPERATOR DISCLOSED THAT A C402C UTILINER HAD DISCREPANCIES WHICH GNDED THE ACFT. THE FAA HELD THE LAST PLT TO FLY THE ACFT, THE RPTR, IN NON COMPLIANCE OF FLYING AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT.

Narrative: DURING AN FAA BASE INSPECTION OF OUR AIR TAXI A NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND BY THE FAA INSPECTOR ON A C402 THAT I HAD LAST FLOWN THE PREVIOUS DAY. SINCE I WAS LAST TO HAVE FLOWN THE ACFT IT HAS BEEN ALLEGED THAT I HAD FLOWN AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT. THE DISCREPANCIES INCLUDE: 1) A LEAKING HYD RAM UNDER THE L LNDG GEAR, 2) A CRUSHED BULKHEAD AND DEFORMED SKIN AROUND THE TAIL TIE DOWN RING/LOOP, 3) A BENT XBRACE IN THE NOSE GEAR WELL, 4) RED RESIDUE ON TOP OF THE L ENG NACELLE. FROM THE OUTSET LET ME MAKE A STATEMENT THAT MY PRACTICE IS TO DO A THOROUGH PREFLT PRIOR TO EACH FLT. IF I HAD KNOWLEDGE OF THE DISCREPANCIES I WOULD HAVE GNDED THE ACFT IN QUESTION AND SOUGHT OUT CORRECTIVE MEASURES TO REMEDY THE SIT. EXPLANATIONS: WE HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING EXTREMELY LOW TEMPS (-40 DEGS C) HERE IN NOME. THE C402 WAS SITTING ON THE GND OUT IN THE COLD AND WAS PULLED INTO THE HANGAR WHERE THE LEAK WERE DISCOVERED. THE LEAKING APPARENTLY STARTED AFTER THE AIRPLANE CAME INTO THE HANGAR. OUR RAMP IS ASPHALT COVERED BY SNOW THAT HAS BEEN GRADED FOR REMOVAL. AFTER THE LEAK WAS NOTED I CHKED OUTSIDE ON THE RAMP AND SAW NO RED DROPS OR PUDDLES OF HYD FLUID. THIS SEEMS TO CONFIRM THAT THE LEAKING STARTED AFTER IT WAS IN THE HANGAR AND WAS MOST LIKELY DUE TO THE EXTREME COLD TEMPS. THE ACFT IS OCCASIONALLY LOADED WITH CARGO INSIDE THE HANGAR DUE TO THE EXTREME COLD AND DARK CONDITIONS OUT ON THE RAMP. THE LOADING IS GENERALLY DONE BY THE CARGO PERSONNEL. THE APPARENT CRUSHING DAMAGE IN THE TAIL COULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE IF THE CARGO HANDLERS HAD LOADED THE AIRPLANE TAIL HVY AND WHILE PUSHING IT OUT OF OR PULLING IT INTO THE HANGAR THE TAIL HIT THE GND SINCE THE RAMP IS BOTH STEEP AND SLIPPERY DUE TO THE COVERING SNOW AND ICE. THE AIRPLANE WAS LOADED FOR A FLT THE DAY OF THE INSPECTION BUT WAS THEN UNLOADED TO FACILITATE THE BASE INSPECTION'S REQUIREMENTS. THE DAMAGE DONE DID NOT HAPPEN FROM A HARD LNDG BECAUSE THERE HAVE NOT BEEN ANY AND THE PATTERN OF THE DAMAGE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE THE RESULT OF A SCRAPING NATURE. THE BENT XTUBE IN THE NOSE GEAR WELL APPEARS TO BE SOMETHING NEW SINCE THE METAL IS SHINY WHERE THE DAMAGE OCCURRED. NOME, ALASKA, IS RIGHT ON THE COAST OF THE BERING SEA AND THE SALT AIR TENDS TO TARNISH AND DISCOLOR ANY EXPOSED FRESH METAL SCRATCHES. THE DAMAGE APPEARS TO HAVE RESULTED FROM THE NOSE GEAR NOT FULLY EXTENDING AFTER TKOF PRIOR TO BEING RETRACTED INTO THE GEAR WELL. THIS WAS PROBABLY DUE TO THE EXTREME TEMPS WHERE THE NITROGEN VOLUME CONTRACTS AND CAN LEAK OUT WITH THE HYD FLUID. RED RESIDUE, I AM NOT SURE WHERE IT CAME FROM. IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT THERE IS A HYD PUMP ON THE ACCESSORY CASE OF THE L ENG. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE FAA IS NOT GOING TO TAKE PLT CERTIFICATE ACTION AS THEY BELIEVE THAT THE DISCREPANCIES WERE MORE THE RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE COMPANY'S MAINT PROCS TOGETHER WITH THE CARGO HANDLERS.

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.