Narrative:

Earlier in week company aircraft #ab had sustained hail damage. Aircraft damage had been repaired and noted as back in service in logbook. Several days later I flew same aircraft and noticed no logbook discrepancies. A call from another pilot indicated that our company manual required a new airworthiness release (in addition to the clearing of the hail damage written) be in the forms. I believed that simply clearance the writeup was sufficient and that the airworthiness release would only have been necessary if the mx folks had found no damage after inspected. Did not intentionally fly west/O a new airworthiness release. Supplemental information from acn 157221. On friday, 9/90M at am:50 local I, as captain, accepted an aircraft for a series of flts. The preflight was normal with no discrepancies. The previous evening prior to reaching the out station for the overnight, the previous captain wrote a discrepancy at a maintenance base to 'inspect radome for possible hail damage.' the corrective action was 'right and right radome, operations checked, ok per MM.' aircraft on a series of flts. According to our flight operations manual, with suspected hail damage an airworthiness release should have been accomplished at the maintenance base. I did not catch the error. Supplemental information from acn 157432. I learned a few days later that this write up requires an airworthiness release according to the operations manual. I should have checked the operations manual upon accepting the aircraft instead of trusting maintenance to correctly sign off the write up. Maintenance did sign off an airworthiness release on sept fri in the afternoon.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SERIES OF FLTS MADE BY DIFFERENT FLT CREWS ON THE SAME ACFT FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE LOGBOOK DID NOT CARRY THE REQUIRED MAINTENANCE RELEASE SIGN OFF AFTER RADOME REPLACEMENT.

Narrative: EARLIER IN WK COMPANY ACFT #AB HAD SUSTAINED HAIL DAMAGE. ACFT DAMAGE HAD BEEN REPAIRED AND NOTED AS BACK IN SVC IN LOGBOOK. SEVERAL DAYS LATER I FLEW SAME ACFT AND NOTICED NO LOGBOOK DISCREPANCIES. A CALL FROM ANOTHER PLT INDICATED THAT OUR COMPANY MANUAL REQUIRED A NEW AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE (IN ADDITION TO THE CLRING OF THE HAIL DAMAGE WRITTEN) BE IN THE FORMS. I BELIEVED THAT SIMPLY CLRNC THE WRITEUP WAS SUFFICIENT AND THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE WOULD ONLY HAVE BEEN NECESSARY IF THE MX FOLKS HAD FOUND NO DAMAGE AFTER INSPECTED. DID NOT INTENTIONALLY FLY W/O A NEW AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 157221. ON FRIDAY, 9/90M AT AM:50 LCL I, AS CAPT, ACCEPTED AN ACFT FOR A SERIES OF FLTS. THE PREFLT WAS NORMAL WITH NO DISCREPANCIES. THE PREVIOUS EVENING PRIOR TO REACHING THE OUT STATION FOR THE OVERNIGHT, THE PREVIOUS CAPT WROTE A DISCREPANCY AT A MAINT BASE TO 'INSPECT RADOME FOR POSSIBLE HAIL DAMAGE.' THE CORRECTIVE ACTION WAS 'R AND R RADOME, OPS CHKED, OK PER MM.' ACFT ON A SERIES OF FLTS. ACCORDING TO OUR FLT OPS MANUAL, WITH SUSPECTED HAIL DAMAGE AN AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AT THE MAINT BASE. I DID NOT CATCH THE ERROR. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 157432. I LEARNED A FEW DAYS LATER THAT THIS WRITE UP REQUIRES AN AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE ACCORDING TO THE OPS MANUAL. I SHOULD HAVE CHKED THE OPS MANUAL UPON ACCEPTING THE ACFT INSTEAD OF TRUSTING MAINT TO CORRECTLY SIGN OFF THE WRITE UP. MAINT DID SIGN OFF AN AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE ON SEPT FRI IN THE AFTERNOON.

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