Narrative:

Our company had been advised that we were going to have an inspection. Consequently, we were told to expect route checks and several pilots had already had an inspector ride with them during this week. I was not scheduled to have an inspector ride with me until about 2 weeks later. However, an FAA inspector had scheduled a ride on this flight through our dispatch although we did not know until the last minute that it was to be a route check rather than courtesy transportation. I showed up at flight control to call in position and check WX for the flight and found the inspector waiting for me. He showed me his form 110A and indicated he wished to perform a route check. Having been notified of this possibility, I was not alarmed or surprised. WX checked better than earlier forecast. We have numerous aircraft arriving at this hub every night. As I fly a run which originates at our home base, I am constantly switching aircraft at the hub to bring back aircraft needing routine maintenance. This evening I was swapping for an aircraft returning for an avionics inspection. I scanned the flight/maintenance log for any discrepancies which required attention prior to the flight and determined all paperwork to be in order. Everything was routine to this point. As I pwred up the systems preparing to taxi, the autoplt would not test out. Having flown the aircraft before, I knew immediately that this was only a temporary discrepancy. I knew that when the cabin temperature warmed sufficiently, the autoplt would test and function normally. Therefore, I elected to continue with the flight and departed with the autoplt off. About 10 mins into the flight the unit had warmed to the pilot that it tested successfully, but I continued to hand-fly the aircraft since I could not fully perform the system tests required before using the autoplt in flight. The rest of the flight went uneventfully. Upon arrival TA our destination, the inspector merely said that he wanted the autoplt written up and I complied with his request. The inspector went inside and met with company officials in a preliminary meeting. He mentioned the autoplt situation to them and in a subsequent debriefing, the chief pilot informed me that I had made an error in judgement by taxiing out and departing with the temporary discrepancy. Consequently, I was suspended from flight status and required to complete remedial recurrent ground school and far 135.293, .297 and .299 flight checks. This has been a painful and expensive lesson for me. In retrospect, I see that I made an error in judgement by considering the temporary nature of the autoplt problem and my personal knowledge of this quirk as not violating our acom procedures which state: 'the PIC is responsible for insuring that each mechanical irregularity that comes to his or her attention is recorded before, during, or after each flight...' my attitude has changed significantly with regards to operating with non safety oriented items not properly accounted for in order to be in compliance. My company has never advocated that we operate with broken aircraft and has been the best I've ever seen at actively requiring compliance with the far's and our acom. I had been operating with the attitude that non-safety oriented items could 'break' while en route to home base. I will now assume that I may have a surprise route check at any time and you can bet that my aircraft will be able to operate west/O question or it will not operate until correct. My license and my livelihood depend on it. As an aside, I know of no other profession held to such high standards that your job, license, and income are jeopardized by not dotting an 'I' or crossing a 'T.' if operating safely (the paramount criteria) and working with the FAA to improve the system are the issues, then such minor infractions do not merit such drastic measures by any company or certificate actions by the FAA. If political expediency is the issue, then fairness, justice and safety cannot be served. I know of no perfect pilots nor any perfect people. I feel that an error of judgement involving the safe movement of aircraft which jeopardizes property or life to bethe arena within which to take action against a certificate. I simply do not understand the rationale behind certificate actions against minor and technical violations. This only creates distrust and hostility within the industry and does not serve the public interest.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX SMT FLIES WITH INOPERATIVE AUTOPLT NOT WRITTEN UP IN LOG BOOK.

Narrative: OUR COMPANY HAD BEEN ADVISED THAT WE WERE GOING TO HAVE AN INSPECTION. CONSEQUENTLY, WE WERE TOLD TO EXPECT RTE CHKS AND SEVERAL PLTS HAD ALREADY HAD AN INSPECTOR RIDE WITH THEM DURING THIS WK. I WAS NOT SCHEDULED TO HAVE AN INSPECTOR RIDE WITH ME UNTIL ABOUT 2 WKS LATER. HOWEVER, AN FAA INSPECTOR HAD SCHEDULED A RIDE ON THIS FLT THROUGH OUR DISPATCH ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT KNOW UNTIL THE LAST MINUTE THAT IT WAS TO BE A RTE CHK RATHER THAN COURTESY TRANSPORTATION. I SHOWED UP AT FLT CTL TO CALL IN POS AND CHK WX FOR THE FLT AND FOUND THE INSPECTOR WAITING FOR ME. HE SHOWED ME HIS FORM 110A AND INDICATED HE WISHED TO PERFORM A RTE CHK. HAVING BEEN NOTIFIED OF THIS POSSIBILITY, I WAS NOT ALARMED OR SURPRISED. WX CHKED BETTER THAN EARLIER FORECAST. WE HAVE NUMEROUS ACFT ARRIVING AT THIS HUB EVERY NIGHT. AS I FLY A RUN WHICH ORIGINATES AT OUR HOME BASE, I AM CONSTANTLY SWITCHING ACFT AT THE HUB TO BRING BACK ACFT NEEDING ROUTINE MAINT. THIS EVENING I WAS SWAPPING FOR AN ACFT RETURNING FOR AN AVIONICS INSPECTION. I SCANNED THE FLT/MAINT LOG FOR ANY DISCREPANCIES WHICH REQUIRED ATTN PRIOR TO THE FLT AND DETERMINED ALL PAPERWORK TO BE IN ORDER. EVERYTHING WAS ROUTINE TO THIS POINT. AS I PWRED UP THE SYSTEMS PREPARING TO TAXI, THE AUTOPLT WOULD NOT TEST OUT. HAVING FLOWN THE ACFT BEFORE, I KNEW IMMEDIATELY THAT THIS WAS ONLY A TEMPORARY DISCREPANCY. I KNEW THAT WHEN THE CABIN TEMP WARMED SUFFICIENTLY, THE AUTOPLT WOULD TEST AND FUNCTION NORMALLY. THEREFORE, I ELECTED TO CONTINUE WITH THE FLT AND DEPARTED WITH THE AUTOPLT OFF. ABOUT 10 MINS INTO THE FLT THE UNIT HAD WARMED TO THE PLT THAT IT TESTED SUCCESSFULLY, BUT I CONTINUED TO HAND-FLY THE ACFT SINCE I COULD NOT FULLY PERFORM THE SYS TESTS REQUIRED BEFORE USING THE AUTOPLT IN FLT. THE REST OF THE FLT WENT UNEVENTFULLY. UPON ARR TA OUR DEST, THE INSPECTOR MERELY SAID THAT HE WANTED THE AUTOPLT WRITTEN UP AND I COMPLIED WITH HIS REQUEST. THE INSPECTOR WENT INSIDE AND MET WITH COMPANY OFFICIALS IN A PRELIMINARY MEETING. HE MENTIONED THE AUTOPLT SITUATION TO THEM AND IN A SUBSEQUENT DEBRIEFING, THE CHIEF PLT INFORMED ME THAT I HAD MADE AN ERROR IN JUDGEMENT BY TAXIING OUT AND DEPARTING WITH THE TEMPORARY DISCREPANCY. CONSEQUENTLY, I WAS SUSPENDED FROM FLT STATUS AND REQUIRED TO COMPLETE REMEDIAL RECURRENT GND SCHOOL AND FAR 135.293, .297 AND .299 FLT CHKS. THIS HAS BEEN A PAINFUL AND EXPENSIVE LESSON FOR ME. IN RETROSPECT, I SEE THAT I MADE AN ERROR IN JUDGEMENT BY CONSIDERING THE TEMPORARY NATURE OF THE AUTOPLT PROB AND MY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THIS QUIRK AS NOT VIOLATING OUR ACOM PROCS WHICH STATE: 'THE PIC IS RESPONSIBLE FOR INSURING THAT EACH MECHANICAL IRREGULARITY THAT COMES TO HIS OR HER ATTN IS RECORDED BEFORE, DURING, OR AFTER EACH FLT...' MY ATTITUDE HAS CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY WITH REGARDS TO OPERATING WITH NON SAFETY ORIENTED ITEMS NOT PROPERLY ACCOUNTED FOR IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE. MY COMPANY HAS NEVER ADVOCATED THAT WE OPERATE WITH BROKEN ACFT AND HAS BEEN THE BEST I'VE EVER SEEN AT ACTIVELY REQUIRING COMPLIANCE WITH THE FAR'S AND OUR ACOM. I HAD BEEN OPERATING WITH THE ATTITUDE THAT NON-SAFETY ORIENTED ITEMS COULD 'BREAK' WHILE ENRTE TO HOME BASE. I WILL NOW ASSUME THAT I MAY HAVE A SURPRISE RTE CHK AT ANY TIME AND YOU CAN BET THAT MY ACFT WILL BE ABLE TO OPERATE W/O QUESTION OR IT WILL NOT OPERATE UNTIL CORRECT. MY LICENSE AND MY LIVELIHOOD DEPEND ON IT. AS AN ASIDE, I KNOW OF NO OTHER PROFESSION HELD TO SUCH HIGH STANDARDS THAT YOUR JOB, LICENSE, AND INCOME ARE JEOPARDIZED BY NOT DOTTING AN 'I' OR XING A 'T.' IF OPERATING SAFELY (THE PARAMOUNT CRITERIA) AND WORKING WITH THE FAA TO IMPROVE THE SYS ARE THE ISSUES, THEN SUCH MINOR INFRACTIONS DO NOT MERIT SUCH DRASTIC MEASURES BY ANY COMPANY OR CERTIFICATE ACTIONS BY THE FAA. IF POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY IS THE ISSUE, THEN FAIRNESS, JUSTICE AND SAFETY CANNOT BE SERVED. I KNOW OF NO PERFECT PLTS NOR ANY PERFECT PEOPLE. I FEEL THAT AN ERROR OF JUDGEMENT INVOLVING THE SAFE MOVEMENT OF ACFT WHICH JEOPARDIZES PROPERTY OR LIFE TO BETHE ARENA WITHIN WHICH TO TAKE ACTION AGAINST A CERTIFICATE. I SIMPLY DO NOT UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE BEHIND CERTIFICATE ACTIONS AGAINST MINOR AND TECHNICAL VIOLATIONS. THIS ONLY CREATES DISTRUST AND HOSTILITY WITHIN THE INDUSTRY AND DOES NOT SERVE THE PUBLIC INTEREST.

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.