An FAA maintenance inspector conducting a ramp check questioned the crew prior to their preflight ab...

Narrative:

Upon arrival at the aircraft and getting settled in, the csa's began the boarding process. As this created a bit of congestion at the door, I elected to do the exterior preflight and then return to the flight deck to complete the document review and remainder of the cockpit setup. Upon my return the FAA inspector presented his credentials and asked to see the logbook. Captain handed him the logbook and clearly stated that neither of us had, as of yet, the opportunity to review it. The FAA inspector handed the logbook back to captain indicating a discrepancy on page number XXXX where a non air carrier mechanic had not entered his FAA certificate number in ZZZ on a signoff from the day before. At this time the FAA inspector (aci) asked us if we thought the aircraft was in an airworthy condition. The captain called maintenance control and spoke to a supervisor who walked him through a procedure to return the logbook to compliance and reinstate the airworthiness of the aircraft. The aci continued his query to us as to whether or not the aircraft was airworthy and who authority/authorized it as so. The captain called maintenance control a second time and she indicated that the aircraft was indeed now airworthy in accordance with the gpm. FAA inspector also proceeded to close the flight deck door and query each of us to whether or not we thought we would have caught the error had he not brought it to our attention. The captain reminded him that his review of the logbook preceded ours. We had not yet had a chance to see it. The FAA inspector's assumption was that since we were both seated, we had had a chance to review the logbook and did not catch the error. Captain asked the inspector if he would like a copy of the logbook page in question and took him into operations to make him a copy. Our flight departed ZZZ 20 mins behind schedule and the FAA inspector's lack of knowledge of our procedures was a direct contributor to our late departure. The captain and I also felt strongly that the FAA inspection was done in a very accusatory manner and his assumptions were incorrect all creating an uncomfortable atmosphere and did not in any way contribute to the safety of our flight.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR CONDUCTING A RAMP CHK QUESTIONED THE CREW PRIOR TO THEIR PREFLT ABOUT AN INCOMPLETE LOGBOOK SIGNOFF. HIS PERSISTENCE MADE THE CREW UNCOMFORTABLE AND DELAYED THE FLT.

Narrative: UPON ARR AT THE ACFT AND GETTING SETTLED IN, THE CSA'S BEGAN THE BOARDING PROCESS. AS THIS CREATED A BIT OF CONGESTION AT THE DOOR, I ELECTED TO DO THE EXTERIOR PREFLT AND THEN RETURN TO THE FLT DECK TO COMPLETE THE DOCUMENT REVIEW AND REMAINDER OF THE COCKPIT SETUP. UPON MY RETURN THE FAA INSPECTOR PRESENTED HIS CREDENTIALS AND ASKED TO SEE THE LOGBOOK. CAPT HANDED HIM THE LOGBOOK AND CLRLY STATED THAT NEITHER OF US HAD, AS OF YET, THE OPPORTUNITY TO REVIEW IT. THE FAA INSPECTOR HANDED THE LOGBOOK BACK TO CAPT INDICATING A DISCREPANCY ON PAGE NUMBER XXXX WHERE A NON ACR MECH HAD NOT ENTERED HIS FAA CERTIFICATE NUMBER IN ZZZ ON A SIGNOFF FROM THE DAY BEFORE. AT THIS TIME THE FAA INSPECTOR (ACI) ASKED US IF WE THOUGHT THE ACFT WAS IN AN AIRWORTHY CONDITION. THE CAPT CALLED MAINT CTL AND SPOKE TO A SUPVR WHO WALKED HIM THROUGH A PROC TO RETURN THE LOGBOOK TO COMPLIANCE AND REINSTATE THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. THE ACI CONTINUED HIS QUERY TO US AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY AND WHO AUTH IT AS SO. THE CAPT CALLED MAINT CTL A SECOND TIME AND SHE INDICATED THAT THE ACFT WAS INDEED NOW AIRWORTHY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE GPM. FAA INSPECTOR ALSO PROCEEDED TO CLOSE THE FLT DECK DOOR AND QUERY EACH OF US TO WHETHER OR NOT WE THOUGHT WE WOULD HAVE CAUGHT THE ERROR HAD HE NOT BROUGHT IT TO OUR ATTN. THE CAPT REMINDED HIM THAT HIS REVIEW OF THE LOGBOOK PRECEDED OURS. WE HAD NOT YET HAD A CHANCE TO SEE IT. THE FAA INSPECTOR'S ASSUMPTION WAS THAT SINCE WE WERE BOTH SEATED, WE HAD HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE LOGBOOK AND DID NOT CATCH THE ERROR. CAPT ASKED THE INSPECTOR IF HE WOULD LIKE A COPY OF THE LOGBOOK PAGE IN QUESTION AND TOOK HIM INTO OPS TO MAKE HIM A COPY. OUR FLT DEPARTED ZZZ 20 MINS BEHIND SCHEDULE AND THE FAA INSPECTOR'S LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF OUR PROCS WAS A DIRECT CONTRIBUTOR TO OUR LATE DEP. THE CAPT AND I ALSO FELT STRONGLY THAT THE FAA INSPECTION WAS DONE IN A VERY ACCUSATORY MANNER AND HIS ASSUMPTIONS WERE INCORRECT ALL CREATING AN UNCOMFORTABLE ATMOSPHERE AND DID NOT IN ANY WAY CONTRIBUTE TO THE SAFETY OF OUR FLT.

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.

Attributes
ACN	633822
Time
Date	200410
Day	Tue
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : san.airport
State Reference	CA
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-900
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : preflight ground : parked
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : first officer
ASRS Report	633822
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
ASRS Report	633826
Events
Anomaly	maintenance problem : improper documentation non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure non adherence other
Independent Detector	other other : 4
Resolutory Action	other
Consequence	faa : reviewed incident with flight crew Other
Supplementary
Problem Areas	FAA Flight Crew Human Performance Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	FAA

An FAA maintenance inspector conducting a ramp check questioned the crew prior to their preflight about an incomplete logbook signoff. His persistence made the crew uncomfortable and delayed the flight.