Air carrier flight crew reported feeling rushed as the required cargo arrived severely delayed and there was a mad rush to depart before the flight crew timed out. As a result; it was discovered during a Ramp Check that the DG tag was incorrectly filled in.
Synopsis
Air carrier flight crew reported feeling rushed as the required cargo arrived severely delayed and there was a mad rush to depart before the flight crew timed out. As a result; it was discovered during a Ramp Check that the DG tag was incorrectly filled in.
Narrative
Upon arrival in ZZZZ Airport our aircraft was met by inspectors (2 of them) for a Ramp Check. As the Captain of the flight I welcomed one inspector onboard the aircraft; accessed my Ramp Check checklist; and was informed that his colleague was joining the two first officers who were performing the postflight walkaround. Formalities were complied with as the inspector was provided with our crew; aircraft; and operations certification documentation. Upon inspection of the crew; aircraft; operational documentation including the trip envelope; General Declaration; NOTOC; maintenance log; etc. The inspector expressed his satisfaction with the findings as shown [on] the 'proof of ramp inspection form' sections flight deck; documentation; flight data; safety equipment; flight crew; and journey log book/technical log or equivalent.Shortly after; the remaining flight crew who had been doing the walkaround returned with inspector number two and provided inspector number one their aircrew certification credentials to his satisfaction. At this time the two convened with the Mechanic in the flight deck and began filling their paperwork.Inspector number one returned to the upper deck crew quarters to inform me that it would only be a few moments and they would finish their paperwork and that they had some remarks and 'findings' they needed to discuss with me prior to going to rest. Shortly thereafter; I was provided with the proof of ramp inspection sheet where it was discussed with the crew and I was obliged to sign it and retrieve a copy. The proof of inspection sheet detailed 6 remarks; 4 of which were categorized as 'general remarks; 1 that was categorized as category 1 'minor'; and one that was categorized as category 3 'major.' All of the remarks fell under the categories of 'general aircraft condition' and cargo 'Dangerous Goods (DG).'The 4 general remarks were all included in in the 'general aircraft condition' section and are listed below.Aircraft dirty especially on landing gear struts "shock absorbers." Engine #2 vanes displaying wear and discoloration (this is my interpretation of the explanation given; the handwriting is near impossible to read to be exact). Upon next leg departure Maintenance explained that the wear was well within limits.Left-hand static port paint "black" peeling off. Again; upon next leg departure Maintenance explained this is fine; not a critical area and the static port is clear.2 rub strips loose on Engine #2. This was explained to me as strips included in the thrust reverser "shroud." Everything in the picture shown by the inspector appeared to be in place and present. However; he insisted it felt loose and "wiggly" to the touch.The one remark that was marked category 1 "minor" is listed below.One missing screw on right wing root; and one missing rivet on Engine #1 thrust reverser cowl. This was marked and discussed with Maintenance as "corrective action before flight" as referenced on the form; causing further delay to operation.Unfortunately; there was one category 3 "major" finding as listed below.DG tag incorrectly filled in. Upon briefing inspector number one was verbally suggestive that this was not a "crew issue" but an "operator issue" and agreed with me that the NOTOC was correct and the loading of the engine we carried was correct and safely secured per Loadmaster procedure and flight crew verification. However; the issue was that the warehouse load personnel had neglected to properly fill the tag on the load with the DG classification Information to match the NOTOC. This was marked "information to authority and operator."I believe the cause of the issue was a rushed operation due to the flight crew being called out to an aircraft that was nowhere near ready for departure. We sat onboard the aircraft for many hours awaiting the payload and when we were close to timing out; it seemed like there was a lot of added operational pressure on the ground crew to protectthe flight by rushing to get the loading job done. This likely led to the rush and error of the warehouse personnel neglecting to adequately fill in the DG tag attached to the aircraft engine being loaded on the main deck.My suggestion going forward is simple. In the future; perfect the decision-making process on calling a crew out of rest to show to an aircraft. I truly believe that the operation; attention to detail; and integrity of procedures will be protected if we keep every department involved with the certification; loading; ground and flight operations in a less stress; less rushed environment so that errors like this can be more adequately mitigated."
Second reporter narrative
While parked at the gate in ZZZZ a ramp inspection was conducted which discovered a piece of cargo did not have the proper exterior Dangerous Goods (DG) markings. The NOTOC contained on the flight deck did have all proper codes and documentation for the DG cargo we carried.Cause: During the preflight phase while in ZZZ I was assigned pilot monitoring duties for the flight so I conducted my duties to get the flight deck ready. We were severely delayed and told over and over that the required cargo was in route. It finally arrived about five hours after our originally scheduled departure; then it was a mad rush from all parties to load the cargo so we could depart before our six-hour timeout. As a flight crew we tried to keep safety at the top of mind through the entire pre-departure phase knowing that we would be rushed and did not want something missed such as improper tie downs on cargo. Suggestions: The company needs to put a superior focus on sequence and timing of events. Multiple people on the operation knew the cargo wasn't ready for loading or even at the warehouse when the flight crew was called to the aircraft. By calling the flight crew in; it places unnecessary pressure because the countdown clock starts before we have to be wheels up.
More incidents for this aircraft family →
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.