|37000 Feet||Browse and search NASA's
Aviation Safety Reporting System
|Local Time Of Day||0601 To 1200|
|Locale Reference||airport : pbi|
|Altitude||agl bound lower : 0|
agl bound upper : 0
|Operator||common carrier : air carrier|
|Make Model Name||Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turboprop Eng|
|Flight Phase||ground : preflight|
ground : parked
|Affiliation||company : air carrier|
|Function||flight crew : captain|
oversight : pic
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
pilot : cfi
|Experience||flight time last 90 days : 270|
flight time total : 4500
flight time type : 3000
|Affiliation||government : faa|
|Function||observation : air carrier inspector|
|Qualification||pilot : atp|
|Anomaly||aircraft equipment problem : less severe|
non adherence : published procedure
|Independent Detector||other flight crewa|
|Resolutory Action||none taken : anomaly accepted|
|Air Traffic Incident||other|
While on ground in west palm beach, fort lauderdale FAA ramp checked us, made note of a few discrepancies on aircraft. These included a 6 inch delamination of left wing de-ice boot from wing by fuel cap, 3 cracks in plastic wall of cargo compartment and erosion of elevator de-ice boots. A local mechanic was called to make repairs which included speed taping the wing de-ice boot to make it flush with wing. FAA then insisted that an engineering order authorization be presented to ensure that aircraft is airworthy with speed tape on wing. Our director of maintenance then contacted the abq FSDO which holds our operation certificate, to validate the necessity of such a document. The abq FSDO said there was no need for such a request and that we only need to document repairs made in the log and we would be ok to continue operations. The fll agents shook their heads and continued to request documentation. I stated as PIC of the aircraft that I felt the repairs were satisfactory to me and we departed. I felt as if I was caught in the middle of a dispute between FSDO's, one saying that I'm ok to continue operations and the other saying that I am not. I, however, was comfortable with the repairs that were made and thus continued to fly the aircraft the remainder of the day. I have not heard anything to date as to the outcome of the dispute between the FSDO's, however, I am curious as to which one is correct.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS QUESTIONED IN REPAIRS MADE ON LTT OF MINOR ACFT EQUIP ADJUSTMENTS BY ACI IN RAMP CHK OF ACFT.
Narrative: WHILE ON GND IN WEST PALM BEACH, FORT LAUDERDALE FAA RAMP CHKED US, MADE NOTE OF A FEW DISCREPANCIES ON ACFT. THESE INCLUDED A 6 INCH DELAMINATION OF L WING DE-ICE BOOT FROM WING BY FUEL CAP, 3 CRACKS IN PLASTIC WALL OF CARGO COMPARTMENT AND EROSION OF ELEVATOR DE-ICE BOOTS. A LCL MECH WAS CALLED TO MAKE REPAIRS WHICH INCLUDED SPD TAPING THE WING DE-ICE BOOT TO MAKE IT FLUSH WITH WING. FAA THEN INSISTED THAT AN ENGINEERING ORDER AUTHORIZATION BE PRESENTED TO ENSURE THAT ACFT IS AIRWORTHY WITH SPD TAPE ON WING. OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT THEN CONTACTED THE ABQ FSDO WHICH HOLDS OUR OP CERTIFICATE, TO VALIDATE THE NECESSITY OF SUCH A DOCUMENT. THE ABQ FSDO SAID THERE WAS NO NEED FOR SUCH A REQUEST AND THAT WE ONLY NEED TO DOCUMENT REPAIRS MADE IN THE LOG AND WE WOULD BE OK TO CONTINUE OPS. THE FLL AGENTS SHOOK THEIR HEADS AND CONTINUED TO REQUEST DOCUMENTATION. I STATED AS PIC OF THE ACFT THAT I FELT THE REPAIRS WERE SATISFACTORY TO ME AND WE DEPARTED. I FELT AS IF I WAS CAUGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A DISPUTE BTWN FSDO'S, ONE SAYING THAT I'M OK TO CONTINUE OPS AND THE OTHER SAYING THAT I AM NOT. I, HOWEVER, WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THE REPAIRS THAT WERE MADE AND THUS CONTINUED TO FLY THE ACFT THE REMAINDER OF THE DAY. I HAVE NOT HEARD ANYTHING TO DATE AS TO THE OUTCOME OF THE DISPUTE BTWN THE FSDO'S, HOWEVER, I AM CURIOUS AS TO WHICH ONE IS CORRECT.
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.