Narrative:

An FAA inspector was onboard our aircraft for an in-flight route check. After we landed and passenger were off loaded, I asked him if he cared to comment on the flight. He indicated the flight was 'well done,' however the left torque gauge didn't have a yellow caution range marking. We checked the afm and under limitations the yellow marking is 100 percent to 110 percent. The right gauge was so marked. I told him I would advise our maintenance department. He seemed satisfied with that and when I notified maintenance they said they would look into it 'that night.' (our scheduled maintenance takes place after the last flight of the day). Since no mechanical irregularity existed and nothing was inoperative a 'write-up' was not required in my opinion and per our operations manual. It was my understanding an aircraft may have a combination of placards and the afm that denotes among other things the limitations of various system, and we complied with this requirement. My concern is that the inspector believed at that time the gauge should have been 'written up' and did not indicate that belief to me preferring instead to keep it secret and initiate a violation. If this is indeed his goal, it certainly seems contrary to a policy of honest and open communication between the FAA and commercial operators and pilots. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he was all amazed that he not only received an official letter of investigation from the FAA inspector for a possible violation, but was issued a letter of warning for not grounding the aircraft and writing up this discrepancy. He advised that the aircraft was a sa-227 metropolitan III airliner. The operator for which he was flying for had since ceased business and he is still working as a controller at a near by tower. He was really disappointed by the actions of the FAA inspector since he indicated that the lack of marking on the gauge was no big problem and then subsequently violated him for this small discrepancy!

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN LTT OPERATED ACFT WITH AN UNMARKED ENG TORQUE CAUTION INDICATOR WITHOUT WRITING UP THE DISCREPANCY IN THE ACFT LOG AND PLACARDING THE INST ACCORDINGLY.

Narrative: AN FAA INSPECTOR WAS ONBOARD OUR ACFT FOR AN INFLT RTE CHK. AFTER WE LANDED AND PAX WERE OFF LOADED, I ASKED HIM IF HE CARED TO COMMENT ON THE FLT. HE INDICATED THE FLT WAS 'WELL DONE,' HOWEVER THE L TORQUE GAUGE DIDN'T HAVE A YELLOW CAUTION RANGE MARKING. WE CHKED THE AFM AND UNDER LIMITATIONS THE YELLOW MARKING IS 100 PERCENT TO 110 PERCENT. THE R GAUGE WAS SO MARKED. I TOLD HIM I WOULD ADVISE OUR MAINT DEPT. HE SEEMED SATISFIED WITH THAT AND WHEN I NOTIFIED MAINT THEY SAID THEY WOULD LOOK INTO IT 'THAT NIGHT.' (OUR SCHEDULED MAINT TAKES PLACE AFTER THE LAST FLT OF THE DAY). SINCE NO MECHANICAL IRREGULARITY EXISTED AND NOTHING WAS INOP A 'WRITE-UP' WAS NOT REQUIRED IN MY OPINION AND PER OUR OPS MANUAL. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING AN ACFT MAY HAVE A COMBINATION OF PLACARDS AND THE AFM THAT DENOTES AMONG OTHER THINGS THE LIMITATIONS OF VARIOUS SYS, AND WE COMPLIED WITH THIS REQUIREMENT. MY CONCERN IS THAT THE INSPECTOR BELIEVED AT THAT TIME THE GAUGE SHOULD HAVE BEEN 'WRITTEN UP' AND DID NOT INDICATE THAT BELIEF TO ME PREFERRING INSTEAD TO KEEP IT SECRET AND INITIATE A VIOLATION. IF THIS IS INDEED HIS GOAL, IT CERTAINLY SEEMS CONTRARY TO A POLICY OF HONEST AND OPEN COM BTWN THE FAA AND COMMERCIAL OPERATORS AND PLTS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS ALL AMAZED THAT HE NOT ONLY RECEIVED AN OFFICIAL LETTER OF INVESTIGATION FROM THE FAA INSPECTOR FOR A POSSIBLE VIOLATION, BUT WAS ISSUED A LETTER OF WARNING FOR NOT GNDING THE ACFT AND WRITING UP THIS DISCREPANCY. HE ADVISED THAT THE ACFT WAS A SA-227 METRO III AIRLINER. THE OPERATOR FOR WHICH HE WAS FLYING FOR HAD SINCE CEASED BUSINESS AND HE IS STILL WORKING AS A CTLR AT A NEAR BY TWR. HE WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED BY THE ACTIONS OF THE FAA INSPECTOR SINCE HE INDICATED THAT THE LACK OF MARKING ON THE GAUGE WAS NO BIG PROB AND THEN SUBSEQUENTLY VIOLATED HIM FOR THIS SMALL DISCREPANCY!

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.