 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
It was determined by a maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1337192 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201502 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Sail Plane |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Instructor FBO Personnel |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Commercial Flight Crew Flight Instructor |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 75 Flight Crew Total 3000 Flight Crew Type 200 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
An aircraft purchased by the FBO where I instruct was signed off as airworthy by the airframe and powerplant (a&P) mechanic/repair station from which it was purchased. This was after an extensive repair and rebuild of the aircraft following a landing accident. The aircraft was represented as airworthy in the aircraft airframe logbook after the repair/rebuild. After the first flight in the aircraft (by another pilot) it was found that the trim control was operating backwards from what is normally expected in this aircraft. There were also several discrepancies found regarding the elevator hinges and horizontal stabilizer that were identified. These discrepancies were remedied by the original a&P mechanic after being notified of them.after those repairs I subsequently flew this aircraft on over 30 separate occasions over a span of 8 months while believing that it was in airworthy condition based on the airframe logbook entries; the repairs made to the original squawks on the trim; elevator hinges; and horizontal stabilizer; and my own preflight inspections. The aircraft was later sent to a different maintenance facility for compliance with a recently issued airworthiness directive (ad) as well as having a 100 hour/annual inspection performed. During the course of this annual inspection there were numerous discrepancies found with the aircraft and the previous airframe logbook entries. It was subsequently determined by the maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy. In addition; there were several ads that were found not having been complied with.I unknowingly had flown; instructed; and allowed students to fly solo in this aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. The un-airworthy repair was not visible or discernible during normal preflight inspections and could only be determined by disassembly of the aircraft by a knowledgeable mechanic. I believed at the time that the aircraft had been repaired properly and the airframe logbook entries represented the airworthy state of the aircraft and compliance with ads.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: It was determined by a maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy.
Narrative: An aircraft purchased by the FBO where I instruct was signed off as airworthy by the Airframe and Powerplant (A&P) mechanic/repair station from which it was purchased. This was after an extensive repair and rebuild of the aircraft following a landing accident. The aircraft was represented as airworthy in the aircraft airframe logbook after the repair/rebuild. After the first flight in the aircraft (by another pilot) it was found that the trim control was operating backwards from what is normally expected in this aircraft. There were also several discrepancies found regarding the elevator hinges and horizontal stabilizer that were identified. These discrepancies were remedied by the original A&P mechanic after being notified of them.After those repairs I subsequently flew this aircraft on over 30 separate occasions over a span of 8 months while believing that it was in airworthy condition based on the airframe logbook entries; the repairs made to the original squawks on the trim; elevator hinges; and horizontal stabilizer; and my own preflight inspections. The aircraft was later sent to a different maintenance facility for compliance with a recently issued Airworthiness Directive (AD) as well as having a 100 hour/annual inspection performed. During the course of this annual inspection there were numerous discrepancies found with the aircraft and the previous airframe logbook entries. It was subsequently determined by the maintenance facility that at least part of the aircraft repair/rebuild had not been accomplished properly; had not been documented properly; and was not airworthy. In addition; there were several ADs that were found not having been complied with.I unknowingly had flown; instructed; and allowed students to fly solo in this aircraft when it was not in an airworthy condition. The un-airworthy repair was not visible or discernible during normal preflight inspections and could only be determined by disassembly of the aircraft by a knowledgeable mechanic. I believed at the time that the aircraft had been repaired properly and the airframe logbook entries represented the airworthy state of the aircraft and compliance with ADs.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.