Narrative:

On and between 7/fri/89 and 8/tue/89, I flew an aircraft that was determined on 8/tue/89 to be out of calendar date on the rotor yoke. There was maintenance performed and I was led to believe that the rotor hear, main rotor transmission and tail rotor transmission, mast and #1 and #2 turbine wheels were replaced or overhauled. I test flew the aircraft with the mechanic and upon discovering that the helicopter would not balance to satisfaction it was taken to another facility for inspection. On 8/tue/89 they found and verified the rotor yoke had not been replaced. At this time I am having the maintenance facility that inspected the aircraft and found it unairworthy completely re-inspect, overhaul or replace all parts in question. I also had read in the log books that the aircraft was sighted off and approved for return to service. I regret this incident and am doing everything in my power to bring the aircraft current and see that this doesn't happen again. Supplemental information from acn 118888: during the period 7/fri/89 to 8/mon/89, I flew an aircraft that had been declared airworthy by a maintenance person when in fact the aircraft was discovered later not to be airworthy, or the airworthiness was in question. In fact, the maintenance person flew on the aircraft during tracking and balancing the rotor system, along with me. When the maintenance person could not achieve a smooth rotor that was balanced to the pilot's (my) satisfaction, I (being the pilot) demanded to have another mechanic who was more familiar with this machine look at the helicopter. The company owner agreed and the helicopter was flown to another maintenance facility where it was discovered that old parts had been replaced on the aircraft either by mistake or supposedly under the mistaken belief that the time life on the component had been extended. I determined, at first, that the aircraft was airworthy by reviewing the aircraft maintenance log that contained an appropriate annual and a 100 hour inspection signed by the mechanic. My concern is that I flew an aircraft which may not have been airworthy in the text of far's, but believing the machine to be and to have been properly maintained. I even remember the return to service having been entered and signed by the mechanic. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: the reporter, who we shall call mr. 'Right,' was very concerned about this situation. He flew for helicopter corp we shall call 'a.' the situation wa as put forth in his test and that of another pilot with corp a. The part in question, a rotor yoke, had supposedly been replaced, but it was determined that the old one had been put back in and painted over, along with the gear box, to look like new. Upon trying to find out what was going on, the paint was scraped off and serial #'south compared. That is how the old part was idented. The new part, worth $9000, had been ordered, was there and had not been utilized. The corp was being billed for the whole job for about $30000. The FBO operator or owner of the maintenance facility has operated like this before, according to the reporter, mr. Right. He has operated in fl, hi, and one other area. Mr. Right is concerned that there are other helicopters out there that are not safe to fly. The problem is that the person in question, mr. B, has covered himself pretty well, and even though the fbi and the FAA have been given information related to this case, they feel that they can't do much as proof of guilt is very difficult to prove. Mr. B is wanted by the fbi in fl, according to mr. A. Mr. A has a friend in the fbi and this analyst cannot understand the lack of cross information going on here. The license of this operator should be pulled and mr. A is not sure it is going to happen. How can procedures be instituted to check on the other areas where the work was 'done' on the other helicopters? Reporter is hesitant about going after mr. B, as he feels that he could be sued for slander and that a court case is a very chancy thing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: 2 PLTS CHECKING HELICOPTER ACFT FOUND OVERHAUL WORK AND REPLACEMENT OF PARTS FALSIFIED BY FBO.

Narrative: ON AND BTWN 7/FRI/89 AND 8/TUE/89, I FLEW AN ACFT THAT WAS DETERMINED ON 8/TUE/89 TO BE OUT OF CALENDAR DATE ON THE ROTOR YOKE. THERE WAS MAINT PERFORMED AND I WAS LED TO BELIEVE THAT THE ROTOR HEAR, MAIN ROTOR XMISSION AND TAIL ROTOR XMISSION, MAST AND #1 AND #2 TURBINE WHEELS WERE REPLACED OR OVERHAULED. I TEST FLEW THE ACFT WITH THE MECH AND UPON DISCOVERING THAT THE HELI WOULD NOT BALANCE TO SATISFACTION IT WAS TAKEN TO ANOTHER FAC FOR INSPECTION. ON 8/TUE/89 THEY FOUND AND VERIFIED THE ROTOR YOKE HAD NOT BEEN REPLACED. AT THIS TIME I AM HAVING THE MAINT FAC THAT INSPECTED THE ACFT AND FOUND IT UNAIRWORTHY COMPLETELY RE-INSPECT, OVERHAUL OR REPLACE ALL PARTS IN QUESTION. I ALSO HAD READ IN THE LOG BOOKS THAT THE ACFT WAS SIGHTED OFF AND APPROVED FOR RETURN TO SVC. I REGRET THIS INCIDENT AND AM DOING EVERYTHING IN MY PWR TO BRING THE ACFT CURRENT AND SEE THAT THIS DOESN'T HAPPEN AGAIN. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 118888: DURING THE PERIOD 7/FRI/89 TO 8/MON/89, I FLEW AN ACFT THAT HAD BEEN DECLARED AIRWORTHY BY A MAINT PERSON WHEN IN FACT THE ACFT WAS DISCOVERED LATER NOT TO BE AIRWORTHY, OR THE AIRWORTHINESS WAS IN QUESTION. IN FACT, THE MAINT PERSON FLEW ON THE ACFT DURING TRACKING AND BALANCING THE ROTOR SYS, ALONG WITH ME. WHEN THE MAINT PERSON COULD NOT ACHIEVE A SMOOTH ROTOR THAT WAS BALANCED TO THE PLT'S (MY) SATISFACTION, I (BEING THE PLT) DEMANDED TO HAVE ANOTHER MECH WHO WAS MORE FAMILIAR WITH THIS MACHINE LOOK AT THE HELI. THE COMPANY OWNER AGREED AND THE HELI WAS FLOWN TO ANOTHER MAINT FAC WHERE IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT OLD PARTS HAD BEEN REPLACED ON THE ACFT EITHER BY MISTAKE OR SUPPOSEDLY UNDER THE MISTAKEN BELIEF THAT THE TIME LIFE ON THE COMPONENT HAD BEEN EXTENDED. I DETERMINED, AT FIRST, THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY BY REVIEWING THE ACFT MAINT LOG THAT CONTAINED AN APPROPRIATE ANNUAL AND A 100 HR INSPECTION SIGNED BY THE MECH. MY CONCERN IS THAT I FLEW AN ACFT WHICH MAY NOT HAVE BEEN AIRWORTHY IN THE TEXT OF FAR'S, BUT BELIEVING THE MACHINE TO BE AND TO HAVE BEEN PROPERLY MAINTAINED. I EVEN REMEMBER THE RETURN TO SVC HAVING BEEN ENTERED AND SIGNED BY THE MECH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: THE RPTR, WHO WE SHALL CALL MR. 'R,' WAS VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THIS SITUATION. HE FLEW FOR HELI CORP WE SHALL CALL 'A.' THE SITUATION WA AS PUT FORTH IN HIS TEST AND THAT OF ANOTHER PLT WITH CORP A. THE PART IN QUESTION, A ROTOR YOKE, HAD SUPPOSEDLY BEEN REPLACED, BUT IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE OLD ONE HAD BEEN PUT BACK IN AND PAINTED OVER, ALONG WITH THE GEAR BOX, TO LOOK LIKE NEW. UPON TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WAS GOING ON, THE PAINT WAS SCRAPED OFF AND SERIAL #'S COMPARED. THAT IS HOW THE OLD PART WAS IDENTED. THE NEW PART, WORTH $9000, HAD BEEN ORDERED, WAS THERE AND HAD NOT BEEN UTILIZED. THE CORP WAS BEING BILLED FOR THE WHOLE JOB FOR ABOUT $30000. THE FBO OPERATOR OR OWNER OF THE MAINT FAC HAS OPERATED LIKE THIS BEFORE, ACCORDING TO THE RPTR, MR. R. HE HAS OPERATED IN FL, HI, AND ONE OTHER AREA. MR. R IS CONCERNED THAT THERE ARE OTHER HELIS OUT THERE THAT ARE NOT SAFE TO FLY. THE PROB IS THAT THE PERSON IN QUESTION, MR. B, HAS COVERED HIMSELF PRETTY WELL, AND EVEN THOUGH THE FBI AND THE FAA HAVE BEEN GIVEN INFO RELATED TO THIS CASE, THEY FEEL THAT THEY CAN'T DO MUCH AS PROOF OF GUILT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO PROVE. MR. B IS WANTED BY THE FBI IN FL, ACCORDING TO MR. A. MR. A HAS A FRIEND IN THE FBI AND THIS ANALYST CANNOT UNDERSTAND THE LACK OF CROSS INFO GOING ON HERE. THE LICENSE OF THIS OPERATOR SHOULD BE PULLED AND MR. A IS NOT SURE IT IS GOING TO HAPPEN. HOW CAN PROCS BE INSTITUTED TO CHK ON THE OTHER AREAS WHERE THE WORK WAS 'DONE' ON THE OTHER HELIS? RPTR IS HESITANT ABOUT GOING AFTER MR. B, AS HE FEELS THAT HE COULD BE SUED FOR SLANDER AND THAT A COURT CASE IS A VERY CHANCY THING.

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.