Narrative:

My interpretation of an LOA with the company was that only 1 jump seater could be carried with 2 life rafts on the flight deck. I called the pilots union and was told I was correct and the life rafts should be put in the belly. I talked to the company twice and was told that maintenance should have put the rafts in the belly. I told the company that I would put the rafts in the belly in order to accommodate their desire to put 2 mgrs on the jump seats. The assistant chief pilot I talked to in louisville did not disagree with that plan. Nothing was mentioned about the requirement for a service order to remove the rafts from the flight deck. Maintenance, a contract mechanic, put the rafts in the belly. He made no mention of the requirement for a service order and made no entry in the logbook. Upon landing in guayaquil, equador, I made an entry in the logbook that the rafts were placed in the belly so the captain of the next flight would be sure to notice that the rafts were not on the flight deck. The next flight was from guayaquil to miami. Upon arrival at guayaquil, a chief pilot in mia told me that I had violated 3 FARS: flying with an open logbook, flying the aircraft in a nonstandard confign, and flying the aircraft with hazmat in the belly without proper documentation. I was never instructed that the hazmat in the rafts were not covered under some sort of exemption, nor did the mechanic, the gateway or the louisville assistant chief pilot say anything about special handling of the rafts. The sdf chief pilots were not familiar with the requirements of the LOA. The contract mechanic was not familiar with the required action if rafts are removed from the flight deck of the B757 cargo confign and the pilots union and the company have differing interps of the LOA. I felt I did what the company wanted and actually told me was ok to accommodate their jump seaters.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757 CAPT, WITH COMPANY AND UNION APPROVAL, HAD 2 LIFT RAFTS REMOVED FROM THE FLT DECK AND PLACED IN THE CARGO HOLD. IN DOING SO, IT WAS FOUND OUT LATER HE VIOLATED 3 FARS.

Narrative: MY INTERP OF AN LOA WITH THE COMPANY WAS THAT ONLY 1 JUMP SEATER COULD BE CARRIED WITH 2 LIFE RAFTS ON THE FLT DECK. I CALLED THE PLTS UNION AND WAS TOLD I WAS CORRECT AND THE LIFE RAFTS SHOULD BE PUT IN THE BELLY. I TALKED TO THE COMPANY TWICE AND WAS TOLD THAT MAINT SHOULD HAVE PUT THE RAFTS IN THE BELLY. I TOLD THE COMPANY THAT I WOULD PUT THE RAFTS IN THE BELLY IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR DESIRE TO PUT 2 MGRS ON THE JUMP SEATS. THE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT I TALKED TO IN LOUISVILLE DID NOT DISAGREE WITH THAT PLAN. NOTHING WAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SVC ORDER TO REMOVE THE RAFTS FROM THE FLT DECK. MAINT, A CONTRACT MECH, PUT THE RAFTS IN THE BELLY. HE MADE NO MENTION OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SVC ORDER AND MADE NO ENTRY IN THE LOGBOOK. UPON LNDG IN GUAYAQUIL, EQUADOR, I MADE AN ENTRY IN THE LOGBOOK THAT THE RAFTS WERE PLACED IN THE BELLY SO THE CAPT OF THE NEXT FLT WOULD BE SURE TO NOTICE THAT THE RAFTS WERE NOT ON THE FLT DECK. THE NEXT FLT WAS FROM GUAYAQUIL TO MIAMI. UPON ARR AT GUAYAQUIL, A CHIEF PLT IN MIA TOLD ME THAT I HAD VIOLATED 3 FARS: FLYING WITH AN OPEN LOGBOOK, FLYING THE ACFT IN A NONSTANDARD CONFIGN, AND FLYING THE ACFT WITH HAZMAT IN THE BELLY WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTATION. I WAS NEVER INSTRUCTED THAT THE HAZMAT IN THE RAFTS WERE NOT COVERED UNDER SOME SORT OF EXEMPTION, NOR DID THE MECH, THE GATEWAY OR THE LOUISVILLE ASSISTANT CHIEF PLT SAY ANYTHING ABOUT SPECIAL HANDLING OF THE RAFTS. THE SDF CHIEF PLTS WERE NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE LOA. THE CONTRACT MECH WAS NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE REQUIRED ACTION IF RAFTS ARE REMOVED FROM THE FLT DECK OF THE B757 CARGO CONFIGN AND THE PLTS UNION AND THE COMPANY HAVE DIFFERING INTERPS OF THE LOA. I FELT I DID WHAT THE COMPANY WANTED AND ACTUALLY TOLD ME WAS OK TO ACCOMMODATE THEIR JUMP SEATERS.

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.