Narrative:

The problem concerns operating an aircraft with out-of-date airport and approach charts. An FAA aviation safety inspector boarded my aircraft and requested to see our approach charts for ontario, ca. The date of the ramp check was thurs/mar/90 and the most current charts (which we did not have in our possession) were dated previous sunday/mar/90. Contributing factors to the problem of flying with outdated charts are: slow or inefficient distribution system. Difficulty in determining if your charts are out of date. Unrealistic expectation for crews to be aware of changes. Is it the judgement of the FAA that you are in violation of far's as soon as a change is published or do you have a certain amount of time to comply? The last change in our manual was made sun/mar/90 and the change we did not have was dated following fri/mar/90. Does that mean on sat/mar/90, are we flying illegally? What about nos charts which are published every 56 days? What about computer data bases in aircraft such as large transport's? Are they in violation as soon as a change is made? The corrective action taken by my company to avoid future violations is to put the date of the last revision on the flight departure papers. When we check our manuals during preflight, if our revisions are out of date we can obtain the proper charts prior to departure. Supplemental information from acn 140829. The inspector never asked to see the revision page but it showed the previous revision was made only 12 days earlier. Therefore, there was not much chance of the crew knowing the most current revision had not been made. The inspector openly showed he was upset with the crew and our company, and advised violation action would be taken. This is normally a busy time for the F/east and this was complicated as the inspector continued questioning me about the logbook and the condition of the aircraft on the previous flight. While I tried to catch up on my duties, the inspector asked me to trace through how I determined the fuel quantity in a tank with an inoperative gauge. With my attention split, I turned to the wrong chart in trying to comply with the inspector's request. It appeared the aircraft was misfueled until I conferred with the mechanic who fueled the aircraft. At this point I found the mistake and confirmed the appropriate fuel was onboard. I do not feel the vindictive attitude of the inspector was conducive to safety on this 'ramp check'. His threats included remarks such as 'the next crew to get caught will get two months on the beach'.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: FLT CREW REPORTS OF AN INADEQUATE ACR PROC FOR FILING TIMELY REVISIONS IN APCH CHART MANUAL. ERROR FOUND BY ACI ON RAMP CHECK PRIOR TO DEP. FLT CREW NOT TOO HAPPY RE ACI'S ATTITUDE AND HOSTILITY.

Narrative: THE PROB CONCERNS OPERATING AN ACFT WITH OUT-OF-DATE ARPT AND APCH CHARTS. AN FAA AVIATION SAFETY INSPECTOR BOARDED MY ACFT AND REQUESTED TO SEE OUR APCH CHARTS FOR ONTARIO, CA. THE DATE OF THE RAMP CHK WAS THURS/MAR/90 AND THE MOST CURRENT CHARTS (WHICH WE DID NOT HAVE IN OUR POSSESSION) WERE DATED PREVIOUS SUNDAY/MAR/90. CONTRIBUTING FACTORS TO THE PROB OF FLYING WITH OUTDATED CHARTS ARE: SLOW OR INEFFICIENT DISTRIBUTION SYS. DIFFICULTY IN DETERMINING IF YOUR CHARTS ARE OUT OF DATE. UNREALISTIC EXPECTATION FOR CREWS TO BE AWARE OF CHANGES. IS IT THE JUDGEMENT OF THE FAA THAT YOU ARE IN VIOLATION OF FAR'S AS SOON AS A CHANGE IS PUBLISHED OR DO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO COMPLY? THE LAST CHANGE IN OUR MANUAL WAS MADE SUN/MAR/90 AND THE CHANGE WE DID NOT HAVE WAS DATED FOLLOWING FRI/MAR/90. DOES THAT MEAN ON SAT/MAR/90, ARE WE FLYING ILLEGALLY? WHAT ABOUT NOS CHARTS WHICH ARE PUBLISHED EVERY 56 DAYS? WHAT ABOUT COMPUTER DATA BASES IN ACFT SUCH AS LGT'S? ARE THEY IN VIOLATION AS SOON AS A CHANGE IS MADE? THE CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN BY MY COMPANY TO AVOID FUTURE VIOLATIONS IS TO PUT THE DATE OF THE LAST REVISION ON THE FLT DEP PAPERS. WHEN WE CHK OUR MANUALS DURING PREFLT, IF OUR REVISIONS ARE OUT OF DATE WE CAN OBTAIN THE PROPER CHARTS PRIOR TO DEP. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 140829. THE INSPECTOR NEVER ASKED TO SEE THE REVISION PAGE BUT IT SHOWED THE PREVIOUS REVISION WAS MADE ONLY 12 DAYS EARLIER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NOT MUCH CHANCE OF THE CREW KNOWING THE MOST CURRENT REVISION HAD NOT BEEN MADE. THE INSPECTOR OPENLY SHOWED HE WAS UPSET WITH THE CREW AND OUR COMPANY, AND ADVISED VIOLATION ACTION WOULD BE TAKEN. THIS IS NORMALLY A BUSY TIME FOR THE F/E AND THIS WAS COMPLICATED AS THE INSPECTOR CONTINUED QUESTIONING ME ABOUT THE LOGBOOK AND THE CONDITION OF THE ACFT ON THE PREVIOUS FLT. WHILE I TRIED TO CATCH UP ON MY DUTIES, THE INSPECTOR ASKED ME TO TRACE THROUGH HOW I DETERMINED THE FUEL QUANTITY IN A TANK WITH AN INOPERATIVE GAUGE. WITH MY ATTN SPLIT, I TURNED TO THE WRONG CHART IN TRYING TO COMPLY WITH THE INSPECTOR'S REQUEST. IT APPEARED THE ACFT WAS MISFUELED UNTIL I CONFERRED WITH THE MECH WHO FUELED THE ACFT. AT THIS POINT I FOUND THE MISTAKE AND CONFIRMED THE APPROPRIATE FUEL WAS ONBOARD. I DO NOT FEEL THE VINDICTIVE ATTITUDE OF THE INSPECTOR WAS CONDUCIVE TO SAFETY ON THIS 'RAMP CHK'. HIS THREATS INCLUDED REMARKS SUCH AS 'THE NEXT CREW TO GET CAUGHT WILL GET TWO MONTHS ON THE BEACH'.

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.