Narrative:

The aircraft that we were flying had just been test flown, and was returned back to service. On climb out and in level flight, we had to use 45 degree of right aileron to keep the wings level. I asked the captain if we should return back to mdt airport. He declined to, and continued on to phl. We then returned to mdt airport on a scheduled flight, without ferrying the aircraft. The control surfaces were never written up in the aircraft logbook, which I felt it should have, and we never should have carried passenger on a scheduled flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: reporter stated that the subject aircraft had been a problem and that the company had already cancelled one round trip. The flight crew took the aircraft up for a 'once around the pattern' test hop. No special flight checks were done and no forms were filled out. When asked why the control discrepancy did not show up on the test flight the first officer replied that all turns were to the right and no problem was evident. The severe out of trim condition existed on the ferry flight on climb out and cruise. The reason for the test flight was not told as the reporter did not know. The first officer stated that he objected to the flight but was overruled. He thought the captain was operating under schedule pressure. The aircraft spent some time in the hangar and the personnel found that the right flap had a fairing problem, causing the need for excessive right aileron.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACFT WITH OBVIOUS CONTROL PROBLEM FLOWN ON A FERRY FLT AND THEN FLOWN ON A PASSENGER FLT, ALL WITH THE SAME FLT CREW.

Narrative: THE ACFT THAT WE WERE FLYING HAD JUST BEEN TEST FLOWN, AND WAS RETURNED BACK TO SERVICE. ON CLIMB OUT AND IN LEVEL FLT, WE HAD TO USE 45 DEG OF RIGHT AILERON TO KEEP THE WINGS LEVEL. I ASKED THE CAPT IF WE SHOULD RETURN BACK TO MDT ARPT. HE DECLINED TO, AND CONTINUED ON TO PHL. WE THEN RETURNED TO MDT ARPT ON A SCHEDULED FLT, WITHOUT FERRYING THE ACFT. THE CONTROL SURFACES WERE NEVER WRITTEN UP IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK, WHICH I FELT IT SHOULD HAVE, AND WE NEVER SHOULD HAVE CARRIED PAX ON A SCHEDULED FLT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH REPORTER REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: REPORTER STATED THAT THE SUBJECT ACFT HAD BEEN A PROBLEM AND THAT THE COMPANY HAD ALREADY CANCELLED ONE ROUND TRIP. THE FLT CREW TOOK THE ACFT UP FOR A 'ONCE AROUND THE PATTERN' TEST HOP. NO SPECIAL FLT CHECKS WERE DONE AND NO FORMS WERE FILLED OUT. WHEN ASKED WHY THE CONTROL DISCREPANCY DID NOT SHOW UP ON THE TEST FLT THE F/O REPLIED THAT ALL TURNS WERE TO THE RIGHT AND NO PROBLEM WAS EVIDENT. THE SEVERE OUT OF TRIM CONDITION EXISTED ON THE FERRY FLT ON CLIMB OUT AND CRUISE. THE REASON FOR THE TEST FLT WAS NOT TOLD AS THE REPORTER DID NOT KNOW. THE F/O STATED THAT HE OBJECTED TO THE FLT BUT WAS OVERRULED. HE THOUGHT THE CAPT WAS OPERATING UNDER SCHEDULE PRESSURE. THE ACFT SPENT SOME TIME IN THE HANGAR AND THE PERSONNEL FOUND THAT THE RIGHT FLAP HAD A FAIRING PROBLEM, CAUSING THE NEED FOR EXCESSIVE RIGHT AILERON.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 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.