Date: 201605
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: BIKF.Airport, FO
Flight conditions: IMC
Weather elements / visibility: 20
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: Medium Transport; Low Wing; 2 Turbojet Eng
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 91
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: First Officer; Pilot Flying
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Instrument; Flight Crew Flight Instructor; Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP); Flight Crew Multiengine
Anomaly: Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Other Person
When detected: Other Ramp check
Contributing factors: Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: We departed for an oceanic flight to BIKF. BIKF was a tech stop before completing the rest of our flight to [destination]. We used our company's Part 91 flight planning procedures: Received flight plans; weather; and weight and balance from [a contracted] planning service; reviewed all information; got updated weather before departure via [on-line] direct and datalink; reviewed oceanic route charts; plotted route on   electronic plotting chart; reviewed Equal Time Points; reviewed location of track system to our route. During planning/preflight phase; we elected to take on more fuel than originally planned (approx. 2000 pounds more than planned) to allow for extra reserve at BIKF; although more reserve was not needed. Having only iPads to work with at the aircraft before departure; we have no way to print any new information. To ensure that we had an accurate weight & balance for the new fuel load; I ran a weight and balance on the [on-line] website and verified that we were within limits with the extra fuel. Successful programming of the FMS also indicated that the extra fuel was within performance limitations of the aircraft and airspace requirements. There is no way to save or print this information at the aircraft from an iPad; so we simply both reviewed the weight and balance on the iPad at that time. Both pilots verified the flight plan in the FMS and on paper; and reverified it against the clearance given by ATC when the oceanic clearance was received. The entire flight to BIKF was uneventful (normal) and lasted approximately 3 hours. During that time the crew was in radar contact and VHF radio communication the entire time with ATC. Given that the crew was in radar contact and VHF coverage the entire time; and given that we had much more fuel than required for the flight; we did not physically write down our fuel burn; fuel remaining; and times at each waypoint. We did monitor our flight very carefully; assuring times to each waypoint; and verifying proper course; at all times throughout the flight. When requested by ATC we gave estimates for future waypoints and verified them in the 'position reports' page on the FMS. We did not physically write down any altimeter information either; but noted during cruise that altimeter operation was sufficient for flight in RVSM airspace. Any deviations between altimeter systems would set off comparator warnings to alert the crew; which did not happen during our flight and this further verified our proper altimetry.When we landed at BIKF we received a Safety Assessment of Foreign Aircraft (SAFA) check. The inspector was not satisfied with our monitoring procedures during the previous leg. He seemed to want us to physically write down each and every piece of information during the flight; and was not satisfied with the fact that we continuously monitored our flight path; route; altitude; and fuel without writing down the information. We did not have any issues or deviations during the flight that would imply that we had not properly flown the flight as cleared or planned. I showed him the previous leg's flight plan (which was a complete oceanic route) where we had completely monitored the flight and physically wrote down all of the fuel; time; altitude; and tracking information. We did so on that previous leg because it was an oceanic crossing without VHF coverage or radar.The inspector was not satisfied with the fact that when we added extra fuel before departure; we did not print; or have in our possession; a physical copy of our new weight and balance. I explained that this was impossible - we had no printer and were using an iPad; and we cannot print or save the data. I told him that we used [an approved] website to verify our new weight and balance; and went so far as to log on to the website and show him exactly how it was recalculated; and showed him the electronic verification we had for our new weight and balance. He was still not satisfied. All other criteria of the SAFA inspection were satisfactory.In retrospect; I believe that myself and the Captain were as vigilant and technical as we normally are during any flight. I do not feel that we improperly monitored our flight; and I certainly do not feel that we ignored a change to our weight and balance. The inspector wrote in his report that we failed to do these thing - we failed to monitor our flight; and we failed to calculate a weight and balance. This is simply incorrect. Just because it is not written or printed on a physical piece of paper does not mean that we did not do something; especially in this day of modern; paperless cockpits. If you give pilots the technology to do everything on iPads; or online; and to operate in a paperless world; you can't ding them when they do so. We had no course deviation; altitude deviation; overweight landing; or problem with aircraft performance that would imply that we blatantly disregarded or neglected any of our planning or flight monitoring.




Synopsis: Corporate aircraft First Officer reported a ramp check in BIKF where the inspector wrote the crew up for not having a printed weight and balance and not properly monitoring the flight. Crew reported planning was done on their iPads which did not allow the crew to print the weight and balance information.