Narrative:

Upon landing at ZZZ on jun/wed/04, an FAA inspector approached my aircraft while my passenger were deplaning. He informed me I was being ramp checked. As he requested, I brought my passenger into the terminal and I returned to my aircraft. I was operating under a part 135 operator. When I returned, the inspector was sitting on the ground underneath my aircraft. For the following 20 mins (approximately) the inspector was looking very deeply into the condition of the aircraft. He pointed out a few cracks and missing screws. He asked me what I was going to do about them. Seeing that the aircraft was still airworthy and no structural components were either inoperative or endangered, I replied that I would write up the concerns when I returned to our home base. I asked if anything needed to be done right away at ZZZ or if I was in trouble. The inspector told me to 'follow my company's procedure for this circumstance.' I said that as PIC, I deemed the aircraft airworthy for the flight home, but I would call our director of maintenance to verify. Immediately following the ramp check, I contacted our director of maintenance, who was also in operational control that day because our chief pilot was out. Our director of maintenance asked what the inspector pointed out. I told him a few screws were missing and a couple cracks were passed their drill stops. He decided it was still airworthy and could be flown home with passenger. The FAA inspector never led me to believe that was improper. He told me to 'follow company procedures.' that is what I did. Our owner told us to contact maintenance whenever there is a concern before writing something up. That is what I did. The inspector never told me the aircraft was unairworthy or grounded. I have also not been informed by the FAA that the incident is being investigated or that I have received any violation. During the same ramp check, the inspector's FAA counterpart mr Y pointed out that our 3 C402's at the airport all had permanent ballast. On our weight sheets, it is included in the basic empty weight. It was not listed as 'standard ballast' because it was weighed with the empty aircraft. Mr Y said this was unacceptable. I brought this up with our director of maintenance in the same phone call after the ramp check. Our director of maintenance told me that the weighing procedure of the aircraft with the 'standard ballast' was approved by the local FSDO, and therefore acceptable. I continued my flight home, wrote up the list I had taken down with the inspector. I have yet to be informed by the FAA of any pending action.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C402 CAPT RPTS BEING RAMP CHKED BY 2 FAA SAFETY INSPECTORS. INSPECTORS FOUND SCREWS MISSING AND CRACKS BEYOND STOP DRILL HOLES. ALSO NOTED, REQUIRED BALLAST WAS LISTED WITH EMPTY ACFT WT.

Narrative: UPON LNDG AT ZZZ ON JUN/WED/04, AN FAA INSPECTOR APCHED MY ACFT WHILE MY PAX WERE DEPLANING. HE INFORMED ME I WAS BEING RAMP CHKED. AS HE REQUESTED, I BROUGHT MY PAX INTO THE TERMINAL AND I RETURNED TO MY ACFT. I WAS OPERATING UNDER A PART 135 OPERATOR. WHEN I RETURNED, THE INSPECTOR WAS SITTING ON THE GND UNDERNEATH MY ACFT. FOR THE FOLLOWING 20 MINS (APPROX) THE INSPECTOR WAS LOOKING VERY DEEPLY INTO THE CONDITION OF THE ACFT. HE POINTED OUT A FEW CRACKS AND MISSING SCREWS. HE ASKED ME WHAT I WAS GOING TO DO ABOUT THEM. SEEING THAT THE ACFT WAS STILL AIRWORTHY AND NO STRUCTURAL COMPONENTS WERE EITHER INOP OR ENDANGERED, I REPLIED THAT I WOULD WRITE UP THE CONCERNS WHEN I RETURNED TO OUR HOME BASE. I ASKED IF ANYTHING NEEDED TO BE DONE RIGHT AWAY AT ZZZ OR IF I WAS IN TROUBLE. THE INSPECTOR TOLD ME TO 'FOLLOW MY COMPANY'S PROC FOR THIS CIRCUMSTANCE.' I SAID THAT AS PIC, I DEEMED THE ACFT AIRWORTHY FOR THE FLT HOME, BUT I WOULD CALL OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT TO VERIFY. IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWING THE RAMP CHK, I CONTACTED OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT, WHO WAS ALSO IN OPERATIONAL CTL THAT DAY BECAUSE OUR CHIEF PLT WAS OUT. OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT ASKED WHAT THE INSPECTOR POINTED OUT. I TOLD HIM A FEW SCREWS WERE MISSING AND A COUPLE CRACKS WERE PASSED THEIR DRILL STOPS. HE DECIDED IT WAS STILL AIRWORTHY AND COULD BE FLOWN HOME WITH PAX. THE FAA INSPECTOR NEVER LED ME TO BELIEVE THAT WAS IMPROPER. HE TOLD ME TO 'FOLLOW COMPANY PROCS.' THAT IS WHAT I DID. OUR OWNER TOLD US TO CONTACT MAINT WHENEVER THERE IS A CONCERN BEFORE WRITING SOMETHING UP. THAT IS WHAT I DID. THE INSPECTOR NEVER TOLD ME THE ACFT WAS UNAIRWORTHY OR GNDED. I HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN INFORMED BY THE FAA THAT THE INCIDENT IS BEING INVESTIGATED OR THAT I HAVE RECEIVED ANY VIOLATION. DURING THE SAME RAMP CHK, THE INSPECTOR'S FAA COUNTERPART MR Y POINTED OUT THAT OUR 3 C402'S AT THE ARPT ALL HAD PERMANENT BALLAST. ON OUR WT SHEETS, IT IS INCLUDED IN THE BASIC EMPTY WT. IT WAS NOT LISTED AS 'STANDARD BALLAST' BECAUSE IT WAS WEIGHED WITH THE EMPTY ACFT. MR Y SAID THIS WAS UNACCEPTABLE. I BROUGHT THIS UP WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT IN THE SAME PHONE CALL AFTER THE RAMP CHK. OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT TOLD ME THAT THE WEIGHING PROC OF THE ACFT WITH THE 'STANDARD BALLAST' WAS APPROVED BY THE LCL FSDO, AND THEREFORE ACCEPTABLE. I CONTINUED MY FLT HOME, WROTE UP THE LIST I HAD TAKEN DOWN WITH THE INSPECTOR. I HAVE YET TO BE INFORMED BY THE FAA OF ANY PENDING ACTION.

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.