Narrative:

I was assigned a flight as PIC going from ads to ftw to pick up freight in an lr-jet 25. The freight was to be delivered to the final destination of ZZZ. The fuel stop that was planned and used between fort worth and ZZZ was el paso, the last point of departure prior to landing at ZZZ. Although this series of flts began and ended without incident, I have reason to believe that these flts will be investigated. After completing the aforementioned flts, our aircraft was inspected at ZZZ (without crew present), by an FAA aviation inspector from the ZZZ FSDO. The inspector found, what he believed to be, fault with the aircraft that would render the aircraft unairworthy. No further operation of the aircraft, in stated condition, occurred once this inspection took place. It is my understanding that the FAA investigation may involve researching how my determination of airworthiness before flight was made. Before flight, I checked for any previously recorded discrepancies and found none that had not been corrected and signed off by a qualified mechanic. I also confirmed that all required documentation was aboard the aircraft, and that the aircraft status sheet showed that the aircraft was in full compliance with all required inspections. During this series of flts, I delegated preflight and postflt duties to my experienced first officer. No discrepancies were noted or reported to me after having completed the checks, and none were found by my first officer. There was never any intention to, nor was flight began with knowledge of any discrepancy that would render the aircraft unairworthy. If ever such a determination is made that there were pre-existing discrepancies I believe that having to perform the preflight and postflt inspections at night on unlighted and/or poorly lit ramp areas would have been a contributing factor. I also believe that, if ever such a determination is made that there were pre-existing discrepancies I believe that having to perform the preflight and postflt inspections at night on unlighted and/or poorly it ramp areas would have been a contributing factor. I also believe that, if ever such a determination is made that there were pre-existing discrepancies, that the aircraft's dirty exterior would have made it difficult to find, in normal preflight or postflt inspections, the discrepancies in question.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LEAR 25 WAS INSPECTED BY AN FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR WITHOUT THE CREW PRESENT. INSPECTOR FOUND DISCREPANCIES MAKING THE ACFT UNAIRWORTHY.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED A FLT AS PIC GOING FROM ADS TO FTW TO PICK UP FREIGHT IN AN LR-JET 25. THE FREIGHT WAS TO BE DELIVERED TO THE FINAL DEST OF ZZZ. THE FUEL STOP THAT WAS PLANNED AND USED BTWN FORT WORTH AND ZZZ WAS EL PASO, THE LAST POINT OF DEP PRIOR TO LNDG AT ZZZ. ALTHOUGH THIS SERIES OF FLTS BEGAN AND ENDED WITHOUT INCIDENT, I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THESE FLTS WILL BE INVESTIGATED. AFTER COMPLETING THE AFOREMENTIONED FLTS, OUR ACFT WAS INSPECTED AT ZZZ (WITHOUT CREW PRESENT), BY AN FAA AVIATION INSPECTOR FROM THE ZZZ FSDO. THE INSPECTOR FOUND, WHAT HE BELIEVED TO BE, FAULT WITH THE ACFT THAT WOULD RENDER THE ACFT UNAIRWORTHY. NO FURTHER OP OF THE ACFT, IN STATED CONDITION, OCCURRED ONCE THIS INSPECTION TOOK PLACE. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FAA INVESTIGATION MAY INVOLVE RESEARCHING HOW MY DETERMINATION OF AIRWORTHINESS BEFORE FLT WAS MADE. BEFORE FLT, I CHKED FOR ANY PREVIOUSLY RECORDED DISCREPANCIES AND FOUND NONE THAT HAD NOT BEEN CORRECTED AND SIGNED OFF BY A QUALIFIED MECH. I ALSO CONFIRMED THAT ALL REQUIRED DOCUMENTATION WAS ABOARD THE ACFT, AND THAT THE ACFT STATUS SHEET SHOWED THAT THE ACFT WAS IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH ALL REQUIRED INSPECTIONS. DURING THIS SERIES OF FLTS, I DELEGATED PREFLT AND POSTFLT DUTIES TO MY EXPERIENCED FO. NO DISCREPANCIES WERE NOTED OR RPTED TO ME AFTER HAVING COMPLETED THE CHKS, AND NONE WERE FOUND BY MY FO. THERE WAS NEVER ANY INTENTION TO, NOR WAS FLT BEGAN WITH KNOWLEDGE OF ANY DISCREPANCY THAT WOULD RENDER THE ACFT UNAIRWORTHY. IF EVER SUCH A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THERE WERE PRE-EXISTING DISCREPANCIES I BELIEVE THAT HAVING TO PERFORM THE PREFLT AND POSTFLT INSPECTIONS AT NIGHT ON UNLIGHTED AND/OR POORLY LIT RAMP AREAS WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, IF EVER SUCH A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THERE WERE PRE-EXISTING DISCREPANCIES I BELIEVE THAT HAVING TO PERFORM THE PREFLT AND POSTFLT INSPECTIONS AT NIGHT ON UNLIGHTED AND/OR POORLY IT RAMP AREAS WOULD HAVE BEEN A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR. I ALSO BELIEVE THAT, IF EVER SUCH A DETERMINATION IS MADE THAT THERE WERE PRE-EXISTING DISCREPANCIES, THAT THE ACFT'S DIRTY EXTERIOR WOULD HAVE MADE IT DIFFICULT TO FIND, IN NORMAL PREFLT OR POSTFLT INSPECTIONS, THE DISCREPANCIES IN QUESTION.

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.