Narrative:

Upon being cleared for approach and landing mco runway 36R, it was reported to me 2 days later that FAA inspector had written a report saying that he thought that at 200 ft AGL, I was too far left of centerline to land safely. Perhaps, being a maintenance inspector (and not a pilot type), he was overwhelmed with what a low approach to minimums and then landing out of it looks like. My copilot called 'rabbit' at 200 ft AGL and then 'runway to the right.' I went visual when I saw end of runway lights (terminating bar), centerline lights and runway lights (ie, runway environment). I said 'in sight, landing.' I corrected with approximately 5 degrees bank and whatever required rudder to land approximately 1000 ft down the runway on centerline. The landing was a very smooth touchdown and, with minimum reversing/braking, turnoff was accomplished to the right at B6. Comments when we arrived at the gate were nil but he did say, 'as my son would say, that was cool.' as a result of verbal report 2 days after the fact, my chief pilot pulled me off my afternoon flight and has scheduled me to fly my morning trip with company check airman. My feelings are this: I do not feel that I can possibly be too far left of course to make a safe landing if at 200 ft AGL on GS I am able to put the airplane down on centerline 1000 ft down the runway. If it was as far left as he says at 200 ft AGL on GS, I wouldn't even see the runway, say nothing make a smooth landing in touchdown zone. I feel I was mistreated and after 36+ yrs of flying I know that when I see a runway visually, it is my job to make a safe landing on it! That's what I did! Having written the first page of this report on feb/xa/99 (the date that it was verbally reported to me that a 'maintenance type' FAA inspector was questioning my judgement about landing my airplane) I am now at home re-thinking what a 'lousy hand I was dealt.' it is a sorry day when the FAA's budget does not allow enough room in it to purchase a ticket for a 'maintenance type' inspector. He should ride in the passenger compartment. A maintenance inspector has no business riding on my jump seat unless he is a qualified and current pilot. On feb/xa/99, I was forced to prove myself qualified by having to fly two legs with company check airman and two legs with FAA 'pilot' inspector. I received a 'clean bill of health' as a PIC from both, however, to be pulled off my scheduled flts on feb/xa/99 in front of my peers was a humiliating and humbling experience for me and my co-pilot. After 36+ years and 20,000 hours (ie: over 2 yrs and 8 months in an airplane seat in the air) I was 'written up' by an individual who doesn't have one hour as a pilot. To summarize -- my suggestion would be this: tell the FAA to keep their maintenance people off of our far 121 jumpseat unless they are there to evaluate some system on the airplane. It is my opinion that they have no business being there to evaluate anything to do with 'pilot performance.' I suspect that, in my case, no written report will surface. I also suspect that he doesn't have the knowledge about pilot procedure to write such a report.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FAA MAINT INSPECTOR BELIEVES THAT THE CAPT OF A B737-200 USED POOR JUDGEMENT IN CONTINUING TO LAND AFTER BREAKING OUT OF LOW CEILING SLIGHTLY L OF RWY CTRLINE.

Narrative: UPON BEING CLRED FOR APCH AND LNDG MCO RWY 36R, IT WAS RPTED TO ME 2 DAYS LATER THAT FAA INSPECTOR HAD WRITTEN A RPT SAYING THAT HE THOUGHT THAT AT 200 FT AGL, I WAS TOO FAR L OF CTRLINE TO LAND SAFELY. PERHAPS, BEING A MAINT INSPECTOR (AND NOT A PLT TYPE), HE WAS OVERWHELMED WITH WHAT A LOW APCH TO MINIMUMS AND THEN LNDG OUT OF IT LOOKS LIKE. MY COPLT CALLED 'RABBIT' AT 200 FT AGL AND THEN 'RWY TO THE R.' I WENT VISUAL WHEN I SAW END OF RWY LIGHTS (TERMINATING BAR), CTRLINE LIGHTS AND RWY LIGHTS (IE, RWY ENVIRONMENT). I SAID 'IN SIGHT, LNDG.' I CORRECTED WITH APPROX 5 DEGS BANK AND WHATEVER REQUIRED RUDDER TO LAND APPROX 1000 FT DOWN THE RWY ON CTRLINE. THE LNDG WAS A VERY SMOOTH TOUCHDOWN AND, WITH MINIMUM REVERSING/BRAKING, TURNOFF WAS ACCOMPLISHED TO THE R AT B6. COMMENTS WHEN WE ARRIVED AT THE GATE WERE NIL BUT HE DID SAY, 'AS MY SON WOULD SAY, THAT WAS COOL.' AS A RESULT OF VERBAL RPT 2 DAYS AFTER THE FACT, MY CHIEF PLT PULLED ME OFF MY AFTERNOON FLT AND HAS SCHEDULED ME TO FLY MY MORNING TRIP WITH COMPANY CHK AIRMAN. MY FEELINGS ARE THIS: I DO NOT FEEL THAT I CAN POSSIBLY BE TOO FAR L OF COURSE TO MAKE A SAFE LNDG IF AT 200 FT AGL ON GS I AM ABLE TO PUT THE AIRPLANE DOWN ON CTRLINE 1000 FT DOWN THE RWY. IF IT WAS AS FAR L AS HE SAYS AT 200 FT AGL ON GS, I WOULDN'T EVEN SEE THE RWY, SAY NOTHING MAKE A SMOOTH LNDG IN TOUCHDOWN ZONE. I FEEL I WAS MISTREATED AND AFTER 36+ YRS OF FLYING I KNOW THAT WHEN I SEE A RWY VISUALLY, IT IS MY JOB TO MAKE A SAFE LNDG ON IT! THAT'S WHAT I DID! HAVING WRITTEN THE FIRST PAGE OF THIS RPT ON FEB/XA/99 (THE DATE THAT IT WAS VERBALLY RPTED TO ME THAT A 'MAINT TYPE' FAA INSPECTOR WAS QUESTIONING MY JUDGEMENT ABOUT LNDG MY AIRPLANE) I AM NOW AT HOME RE-THINKING WHAT A 'LOUSY HAND I WAS DEALT.' IT IS A SORRY DAY WHEN THE FAA'S BUDGET DOES NOT ALLOW ENOUGH ROOM IN IT TO PURCHASE A TICKET FOR A 'MAINT TYPE' INSPECTOR. HE SHOULD RIDE IN THE PAX COMPARTMENT. A MAINT INSPECTOR HAS NO BUSINESS RIDING ON MY JUMP SEAT UNLESS HE IS A QUALIFIED AND CURRENT PLT. ON FEB/XA/99, I WAS FORCED TO PROVE MYSELF QUALIFIED BY HAVING TO FLY TWO LEGS WITH COMPANY CHECK AIRMAN AND TWO LEGS WITH FAA 'PLT' INSPECTOR. I RECEIVED A 'CLEAN BILL OF HEALTH' AS A PIC FROM BOTH, HOWEVER, TO BE PULLED OFF MY SCHEDULED FLTS ON FEB/XA/99 IN FRONT OF MY PEERS WAS A HUMILIATING AND HUMBLING EXPERIENCE FOR ME AND MY CO-PLT. AFTER 36+ YEARS AND 20,000 HRS (IE: OVER 2 YRS AND 8 MONTHS IN AN AIRPLANE SEAT IN THE AIR) I WAS 'WRITTEN UP' BY AN INDIVIDUAL WHO DOESN'T HAVE ONE HOUR AS A PLT. TO SUMMARIZE -- MY SUGGESTION WOULD BE THIS: TELL THE FAA TO KEEP THEIR MAINT PEOPLE OFF OF OUR FAR 121 JUMPSEAT UNLESS THEY ARE THERE TO EVALUATE SOME SYSTEM ON THE AIRPLANE. IT IS MY OPINION THAT THEY HAVE NO BUSINESS BEING THERE TO EVALUATE ANYTHING TO DO WITH 'PLT PERFORMANCE.' I SUSPECT THAT, IN MY CASE, NO WRITTEN RPT WILL SURFACE. I ALSO SUSPECT THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE THE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT PLT PROC TO WRITE SUCH A RPT.

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.