Narrative:

I reported to duty to find the aircraft had not had the necessary work performed. I talked with the mechanic on duty as to what work had been completed. Based on our conversation I inspected the aircraft to determine if said work was completed. By visual inspection it appeared the work had been performed. I completed necessary additional work and returned the aircraft to service with my a and P rating. Later the same day I operated the aircraft as PIC with my ATP and the system operated normally in all phases of operation. Two days later I learned from a third party that the mechanic denied telling me the work had been performed at which time the aircraft was brought back in to the hangar and reinspected to assure all work had been performed properly. I now fear that even though the system operated ok that because the mechanic now denies telling me that certain work was performed and I signed off the aircraft for return to service and later flew same aircraft that I may come under investigation. While I did nothing wrong intentionally I feel that since I was told that certain work was performed and signed it off only to find out later that the mechanic was saying he did not remember. I feel to prevent this from happening that the company needs to come up with a better tie-in between mechanics directing mechanics to write down all work they have done whether they completed it or not. So that when another mechanic takes over he has a clear picture of exactly what was done. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information. Reporter states FAA did come after him. Someone in company turned him in. Certificates initially revoked but reporter fought with an attorney and now suspended for 8 months. Reporter did get company to develop some forms for writing up work started and when completed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MECH WHO IS ALSO PLT WAS TOLD CERTAIN WORK COMPLETED. INSPECTED, SIGNED OFF, FLEW ACFT. MECH LATER DENIED SAYING WORK COMPLETED.

Narrative: I RPTED TO DUTY TO FIND THE ACFT HAD NOT HAD THE NECESSARY WORK PERFORMED. I TALKED WITH THE MECH ON DUTY AS TO WHAT WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED. BASED ON OUR CONVERSATION I INSPECTED THE ACFT TO DETERMINE IF SAID WORK WAS COMPLETED. BY VISUAL INSPECTION IT APPEARED THE WORK HAD BEEN PERFORMED. I COMPLETED NECESSARY ADDITIONAL WORK AND RETURNED THE ACFT TO SVC WITH MY A AND P RATING. LATER THE SAME DAY I OPERATED THE ACFT AS PIC WITH MY ATP AND THE SYS OPERATED NORMALLY IN ALL PHASES OF OP. TWO DAYS LATER I LEARNED FROM A THIRD PARTY THAT THE MECH DENIED TELLING ME THE WORK HAD BEEN PERFORMED AT WHICH TIME THE ACFT WAS BROUGHT BACK IN TO THE HANGAR AND REINSPECTED TO ASSURE ALL WORK HAD BEEN PERFORMED PROPERLY. I NOW FEAR THAT EVEN THOUGH THE SYS OPERATED OK THAT BECAUSE THE MECH NOW DENIES TELLING ME THAT CERTAIN WORK WAS PERFORMED AND I SIGNED OFF THE ACFT FOR RETURN TO SVC AND LATER FLEW SAME ACFT THAT I MAY COME UNDER INVESTIGATION. WHILE I DID NOTHING WRONG INTENTIONALLY I FEEL THAT SINCE I WAS TOLD THAT CERTAIN WORK WAS PERFORMED AND SIGNED IT OFF ONLY TO FIND OUT LATER THAT THE MECH WAS SAYING HE DID NOT REMEMBER. I FEEL TO PREVENT THIS FROM HAPPENING THAT THE COMPANY NEEDS TO COME UP WITH A BETTER TIE-IN BTWN MECHS DIRECTING MECHS TO WRITE DOWN ALL WORK THEY HAVE DONE WHETHER THEY COMPLETED IT OR NOT. SO THAT WHEN ANOTHER MECH TAKES OVER HE HAS A CLR PICTURE OF EXACTLY WHAT WAS DONE. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO. RPTR STATES FAA DID COME AFTER HIM. SOMEONE IN COMPANY TURNED HIM IN. CERTIFICATES INITIALLY REVOKED BUT RPTR FOUGHT WITH AN ATTORNEY AND NOW SUSPENDED FOR 8 MONTHS. RPTR DID GET COMPANY TO DEVELOP SOME FORMS FOR WRITING UP WORK STARTED AND WHEN COMPLETED.

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.