DC8-63 FLC HAS RAMP CHK AND SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES DISCOVERED. SOME WERE FIXED; SOME DEFERRED. RPTR HAS SECOND THOUGHTS AFTER NEXT LEG THAT MAINT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSULTED.

Narrative

OUR FLT WAS OPERATING FROM TOL TO IND TO LRD. WE DEPARTED TOL 6 MINS BEHIND SCHEDULE. SO WE WERE HOPING FOR A QUICK TURN AT OUR INTERMEDIATE STOP IN IND. WE BLOCKED IN 10 MINS BEHIND SCHEDULE AT IND AND WERE SUPPOSED TO BE ON THE GND FOR 45 MINS. AT IND; 2 FAA REPRESENTATIVES CONDUCTED A RAMP CHK ON THE AIRPLANE AND CREW. THEY DISCOVERED SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES ON THE ACFT; INCLUDING AN UNSECURED ACCESS DOOR ON THE #2 ENG; SEVERAL OTHER LOOSE AND MISSING SCREWS ON THE #2 ENG COWLING AND PYLON; A SMALL CRACK IN A PANEL IN THE L MAIN LNDG GEAR WELL; AND A SMALL NICK IN A SPAR JUST AFT OF THE L MAIN GEAR ACTUATOR; ALSO IN THE L MAIN WHEEL WELL. THE FE RESECURED THE ACCESS DOOR AND TIGHTENED THE LOOSE FASTENERS. WE DISCUSSED THE MISSING SCREWS AND THE OTHER DISCREPANCIES AMONG THE CREW AND WITH THE FAA REPRESENTATIVES. AT THE TIME; THE CREW DID NOT FEEL THE NATURE OF THE DISCREPANCIES WARRANTED ANY FURTHER ACTION AT THAT TIME AND THE FAA REPRESENTATIVES DID NOT OFFER ANY OTHER SUGGESTIONS. WE CONTINUED THE FLT TO LRD AND ENTERED THE DISCREPANCIES IN THE ACFT LOG. ALL DISCREPANCIES WERE CLRED BY MAINT AT LRD. IN RETROSPECT; AFTER BEING INFORMED OF THE DISCREPANCIES BY THE FAA; WE SHOULD HAVE CALLED OUR COMPANY AND CONFERRED WITH OPS AND MAINT CTL SINCE THE DISCREPANCIES WERE REALLY BEYOND OUR AREA OF EXPERTISE. WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAD MAINT (WE DID NOT HAVE COMPANY MAINT AT IND) INSPECT THE ITEMS AND EITHER DEFER THEM OR HAD THEM FIXED IN IND. THE PERCEIVED PRESSURE OF MAINTAINING A SCHEDULE AND CREW FATIGUE (THE FE HAD STARTED DUTY THE EVENING BEFORE IN PHX; AND THE PLTS HAD STARTED THE DAY AT EARLY MORNING) CONTRIBUTED TO THE UNCLR THINKING AND FLAWED JUDGEMENT. OPERATING AS SAFELY AS POSSIBLE SHOULD NOT TAKE SECOND PLACE TO SCHEDULE PERFORMANCE.