Narrative:

During an FAA flight check, the 'Y' connector extension cord (radio shack part) which is needed on our aircraft for the FAA to monitor radio and intercom calls because there is no spare headphone jack, failed. This cord failed before takeoff and the FAA inspector gave the go-ahead to continue the flight, which we did. We could sense that she, the inspector, was a little 'put out' that she couldn't be a part of the 'crew.' after engine shutdown, maintenance was notified and they replaced the extension cord. Now, 1 day later, we find out that the inspector is upset and threatening a violation of both the pilots and mechanic because the failure of the headset extension cord was not entered into the aircraft logbook, and that the mechanic did not sign off the work he did (swapping the bad cord for a new one). I guess my failure as the captain was not realizing that failure of the radio shack extension cord was a part of the aircraft and should be entered into the logbook (I still don't think it should be)! Obviously, there was no safety compromised here. I feel that safety is compromised by the FAA's adversarial relationship with the working pilot community. These people, probably only a small percentage, don't operate in the 'real world.' in my job, I continually see pilots, myself included, spending more time trying to figure out what the FAA wants, instead of spending time on the safety aspects of flight. Doesn't the FAA have something more important to do than nitpicking pilots about tiny items? They have inspectors with 1000 hours and all the ratings (paperwork) trying to tell 15000 hour carrier pilots how to do their job. What happened to kinder and gentler and I'm here to help? What happened to common sense?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: COMMUTER ACFT WITH ACR INSPECTOR ABOARD HAS FAULTY CONNECTOR 'Y' TO THE THIRD HEADSET FOR INSPECTOR. CONTINUED FLT AT INSPECTOR'S REQUEST, EXCHANGED CONNECTORS AT NEXT STOP. ACI IS GOING TO WRITE A VIOLATION AS NO LOGBOOK ENTRY OR MAINT SIGN-OFF.

Narrative: DURING AN FAA FLT CHK, THE 'Y' CONNECTOR EXTENSION CORD (RADIO SHACK PART) WHICH IS NEEDED ON OUR ACFT FOR THE FAA TO MONITOR RADIO AND INTERCOM CALLS BECAUSE THERE IS NO SPARE HEADPHONE JACK, FAILED. THIS CORD FAILED BEFORE TKOF AND THE FAA INSPECTOR GAVE THE GO-AHEAD TO CONTINUE THE FLT, WHICH WE DID. WE COULD SENSE THAT SHE, THE INSPECTOR, WAS A LITTLE 'PUT OUT' THAT SHE COULDN'T BE A PART OF THE 'CREW.' AFTER ENG SHUTDOWN, MAINT WAS NOTIFIED AND THEY REPLACED THE EXTENSION CORD. NOW, 1 DAY LATER, WE FIND OUT THAT THE INSPECTOR IS UPSET AND THREATENING A VIOLATION OF BOTH THE PLTS AND MECH BECAUSE THE FAILURE OF THE HEADSET EXTENSION CORD WAS NOT ENTERED INTO THE ACFT LOGBOOK, AND THAT THE MECH DID NOT SIGN OFF THE WORK HE DID (SWAPPING THE BAD CORD FOR A NEW ONE). I GUESS MY FAILURE AS THE CAPT WAS NOT REALIZING THAT FAILURE OF THE RADIO SHACK EXTENSION CORD WAS A PART OF THE ACFT AND SHOULD BE ENTERED INTO THE LOGBOOK (I STILL DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE)! OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS NO SAFETY COMPROMISED HERE. I FEEL THAT SAFETY IS COMPROMISED BY THE FAA'S ADVERSARIAL RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WORKING PLT COMMUNITY. THESE PEOPLE, PROBABLY ONLY A SMALL PERCENTAGE, DON'T OPERATE IN THE 'REAL WORLD.' IN MY JOB, I CONTINUALLY SEE PLTS, MYSELF INCLUDED, SPENDING MORE TIME TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE FAA WANTS, INSTEAD OF SPENDING TIME ON THE SAFETY ASPECTS OF FLT. DOESN'T THE FAA HAVE SOMETHING MORE IMPORTANT TO DO THAN NITPICKING PLTS ABOUT TINY ITEMS? THEY HAVE INSPECTORS WITH 1000 HRS AND ALL THE RATINGS (PAPERWORK) TRYING TO TELL 15000 HR CARRIER PLTS HOW TO DO THEIR JOB. WHAT HAPPENED TO KINDER AND GENTLER AND I'M HERE TO HELP? WHAT HAPPENED TO COMMON SENSE?

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.