FAA INSPECTOR CANCELED A CAPT'S INITIAL ENRTE CHK FLT IN A B737-200 DUE TO THE LACK OF THE FORWARD LABORATORY DOOR DID NOT HAVE AN ASHTRAY OR THAT THE LABORATORY WAS NOT PLACARDED AS 'INOP.'

Date: 2001-01 · Aircraft: B737-200 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

FAA INSPECTOR CANCELED A CAPT'S INITIAL ENRTE CHK FLT IN A B737-200 DUE TO THE LACK OF THE FORWARD LABORATORY DOOR DID NOT HAVE AN ASHTRAY OR THAT THE LABORATORY WAS NOT PLACARDED AS 'INOP.'

Narrative

I WAS ACTING AS A LINE CHK AIRMAN; GIVING A CAPT CHKOUT ON THE B737-200 TO CAPT. WE WERE SCHEDULED FOR AN ORD-DAY-ORD TURNAROUND WITH AN FAA INSPECTOR GIVING CAPT HIS INITIAL CAPT'S ENRTE CHK. THE INSPECTOR GOT ON THE ACFT AT THE GATE AND PROCEEDED TO GIVE THE ACFT (AND CREW) A THOROUGH CABIN AND COCKPIT INSPECTION. HE NOTIFIED ME THAT THE FORWARD LAVATORY DOOR DID NOT HAVE AN ASHTRAY INSTALLED ON IT AND THAT EITHER ONE MUST BE INSTALLED OR THE FORWARD LAVATORY HAD TO BE 'INOP'ED.' I RESPONDED THAT THIS WAS A NO-SMOKING ACFT AND HE SAID THAT DID NOT MATTER. I NOTIFIED MAINT; WHO; A SHORT TIME LATER; SHOWED UP WITH A COPY OF THE MAINT MEL WHICH SHOWED NO ASHTRAYS WERE REQUIRED ON THE LAVATORY DOORS. THE FAA INSPECTOR SAID THAT IT WAS REQUIRED AND NEEDED TO BE FIXED/INSTALLED. WHEN THE MAINT PERSON SAID THE MEL DIDN'T REQUIRE IT AGAIN; THE INSPECTOR TURNED INTO THE COCKPIT AND SAID HE COULD NOT FLY ON THE ACFT AND GIVE THE CHK WITH AN OPEN DISCREPANCY ON THE PLANE. AT THIS POINT; WHEN HE LEFT THE ACFT; A NEW MAINT RELEASE CAME OVER OUR ACARS PRINTER. IT DID NOT SHOW AN OPEN WRITE-UP (OR ANY WRITE-UP) ABOUT THE LAVATORY OR ASHTRAY; AND THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE MAINT LOGBOOK ABOUT IT. I ASKED MAINT ON THE ACFT INTERCOM IF THE ACFT WAS READY TO GO AND THEY SAID YES; THAT THE ASHTRAY WAS NOT REQUIRED. WHEN WE RETURNED FROM DAYTON; ANOTHER FAA INSPECTOR MET THE ACFT AND WOULDN'T LET IT LEAVE UNTIL ANOTHER DOOR WAS INSTALLED WITH AN ASHTRAY ON IT. BEFORE THE INSPECTOR GOT OFF THE PLANE; HE TOLD ME HE WAS GOING BACK TO HIS OFFICE TO CHK ON THE SITUATION; AND WOULD POSSIBLY MEET US AFTER OUR RETURN FROM DAYTON AND GIVE THE CHK ON OUR NEXT LEG TO PHL. THAT DID NOT HAPPEN. IT SEEMS THE AIRLINE MEL DID NOT AGREE WITH THE MEL THAT THE FAA HAD; AND THAT THE FAA SAID THEIRS IS CORRECT. THUS; THE QUESTION: DID I DEPART WITH AN OPEN DISCREPANCY AND AN ACFT WITH AN INCOMPLETE EQUIP LIST? I DON'T THINK SO; AS THE ONLY WRITTEN MATERIALS I HAD AVAILABLE TO ME WERE OUR AIRLINE MEL; MAINT RELEASE AND LOGBOOK; ALL OF WHICH SHOWED 'NO OPENS' AND 'NOT REQUIRED.'

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.