Narrative:

The FAA inspector arrived in the cockpit shortly after I did and immediately asked for airmen certificates before any of our duties could be accomplished on our non routine and non standard operation. (This crew was removed from our regular flight with a 2 hour early call and aircraft APU was inoperative.) the inspector was rather insistent, indicating it was necessary to ensure our legality before we were even seated. At this point I feel it is more important to meet and brief a new cabin team, ensure air carts are available, review maintenance logs and preflight. Instead it was necessary to take the time to placate a widebody transport qualified inspector who was more interested in 'compliance and enforcement' than any of our immediate duties. This set the tone for his inspection which continued to be very vigilant. After reaching cruise he alerted us to an arinc call on #2 VHF that is not normally monitored. Also, during the 5 1/2 hours, he was only absent from the cockpit for about 2 mins. On approach we had an abnormal procedure situation. An left.east. Flap asymmetry EICAS message alerted us to a possible asymmetry condition. A change of PF duties was required so that the first officer could locate the checklist and accomplish the procedure. The problem was solved simply as in the past at step 1--cycle the alternate flap southwest. We apparently appeared too busy on the final approach and the 3-PLT qualified inspector had critical comments. I would like to commend our very pleasant and excellent cabin team and first officer for making a stressful flight tolerable. In the future I shall exercise scd prerogative and deny cockpit entry under similar circumstances in the interest of flight safety.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW COMPLAINT ABOUT ACR INSPECTOR'S ATTITUDE AND PROC.

Narrative: THE FAA INSPECTOR ARRIVED IN THE COCKPIT SHORTLY AFTER I DID AND IMMEDIATELY ASKED FOR AIRMEN CERTIFICATES BEFORE ANY OF OUR DUTIES COULD BE ACCOMPLISHED ON OUR NON ROUTINE AND NON STANDARD OPERATION. (THIS CREW WAS REMOVED FROM OUR REGULAR FLT WITH A 2 HR EARLY CALL AND ACFT APU WAS INOP.) THE INSPECTOR WAS RATHER INSISTENT, INDICATING IT WAS NECESSARY TO ENSURE OUR LEGALITY BEFORE WE WERE EVEN SEATED. AT THIS POINT I FEEL IT IS MORE IMPORTANT TO MEET AND BRIEF A NEW CABIN TEAM, ENSURE AIR CARTS ARE AVAILABLE, REVIEW MAINT LOGS AND PREFLT. INSTEAD IT WAS NECESSARY TO TAKE THE TIME TO PLACATE A WDB QUALIFIED INSPECTOR WHO WAS MORE INTERESTED IN 'COMPLIANCE AND ENFORCEMENT' THAN ANY OF OUR IMMEDIATE DUTIES. THIS SET THE TONE FOR HIS INSPECTION WHICH CONTINUED TO BE VERY VIGILANT. AFTER REACHING CRUISE HE ALERTED US TO AN ARINC CALL ON #2 VHF THAT IS NOT NORMALLY MONITORED. ALSO, DURING THE 5 1/2 HRS, HE WAS ONLY ABSENT FROM THE COCKPIT FOR ABOUT 2 MINS. ON APCH WE HAD AN ABNORMAL PROC SITUATION. AN L.E. FLAP ASYMMETRY EICAS MESSAGE ALERTED US TO A POSSIBLE ASYMMETRY CONDITION. A CHANGE OF PF DUTIES WAS REQUIRED SO THAT THE F/O COULD LOCATE THE CHKLIST AND ACCOMPLISH THE PROC. THE PROB WAS SOLVED SIMPLY AS IN THE PAST AT STEP 1--CYCLE THE ALTERNATE FLAP SW. WE APPARENTLY APPEARED TOO BUSY ON THE FINAL APCH AND THE 3-PLT QUALIFIED INSPECTOR HAD CRITICAL COMMENTS. I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND OUR VERY PLEASANT AND EXCELLENT CABIN TEAM AND F/O FOR MAKING A STRESSFUL FLT TOLERABLE. IN THE FUTURE I SHALL EXERCISE SCD PREROGATIVE AND DENY COCKPIT ENTRY UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF FLT SAFETY.

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.