Narrative:

This aircraft was tagged by FAA inspector mr. X on may/xi/92 as unairworthy per FBO a log entry of may/xd/92 and FBO B log entry apr/92. Mr. X took this action after he observed this aircraft in flight and subsequently inspected the maintenance logs. The log entry by FBO B indicated that ad xyz was due, and the log entry by FBO a who performed the inspection, indicated that a wing spar fitting repair was needed. The reason this incident occurred is due to both misrepresentations and misunderstandings. Neither I nor anyone from our company were ever informed that this aircraft should not fly or that we needed a ferry permit to fly the aircraft from FBO a. To understand how this was allowed to happen requires some backgnd information. Our aircraft has been maintained by FBO B on an approved aircraft type progressive maintenance schedule. We have relied on FBO B and this program to ensure all required maintenance was accomplished in a timely manner. This agreement has resulted in an impeccable maintenance record and a minimal amount of down time. We have always put an emphasis on preventative maintenance and safety. This is supported by our records. Although we have had a good relationship with FBO B we are in the process of starting our own maintenance program, due to our growth. We thought we were making a smooth transition from FBO B, which now appears not to be the case. With regards to FBO a, they consider us a competing FBO at yolo county airport and have made attempts to limit our growth, at the county level, specifically concerning our fuel services and skydiving operations. FBO a is also an aircraft type dealer and repair station. They performed the ad xyz inspection and released the aircraft to us without informing us that we needed a ferry permit. I suspect they then informed the FAA that we flew this aircraft. Subsequent to the FAA grounding this aircraft, no one from my company was aware that we were operating this aircraft in a possible unairworthy condition. When I questioned mr Y of FBO B why this inspection was not accomplished in a timely manner, he responded that the ad had been changed from 2000 hour to 1000 hour requirement. He had not informed me, prior to the FAA inspector's visit, that he had made a log entry saying that the aircraft was unairworthy or that FBO a had provided him with a similar log entry that he put in the log book. I have also since discovered that this ad inspection change from 2000 to 1000 hours has been effective since jan 90. Therefore, he should have been aware of this upcoming inspection at least since the last 150 hour inspection. This aircraft is now having all required maintenance, including replacement of the idented fitting, completed by another FAA licensed a&P mechanic with inspection authorization. To prevent a recurrence of this type of event, we will no longer allow another mechanic or company to maintain and or keep possession of our aircraft logs. We will also verify all log entries to avoid any possible misunderstandings or misrepresentations. Supplemental information from acn 210793: through several misunderstandings, some lack of communication and perhaps even some deliberate premeditation to set-up FBO C, I wound up flying small transport in a technically unairworthy condition, completely without prior knowledge. At not time when I picked up the airplane from FBO a did any of their personnel mention that it had been deemed unairworthy. My bosses, were both also under the impression that the work had been completed and was ready to fly. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter had nothing to add, he called because he was concerned about not yet receiving his identify slip.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SMT WITH AN OUTSTANDING AD NOTE, AND THEREFORE, UNAIRWORTHY, WAS FERRIED WITHOUT A FERRY PERMIT.

Narrative: THIS ACFT WAS TAGGED BY FAA INSPECTOR MR. X ON MAY/XI/92 AS UNAIRWORTHY PER FBO A LOG ENTRY OF MAY/XD/92 AND FBO B LOG ENTRY APR/92. MR. X TOOK THIS ACTION AFTER HE OBSERVED THIS ACFT IN FLT AND SUBSEQUENTLY INSPECTED THE MAINT LOGS. THE LOG ENTRY BY FBO B INDICATED THAT AD XYZ WAS DUE, AND THE LOG ENTRY BY FBO A WHO PERFORMED THE INSPECTION, INDICATED THAT A WING SPAR FITTING REPAIR WAS NEEDED. THE REASON THIS INCIDENT OCCURRED IS DUE TO BOTH MISREPRESENTATIONS AND MISUNDERSTANDINGS. NEITHER I NOR ANYONE FROM OUR COMPANY WERE EVER INFORMED THAT THIS ACFT SHOULD NOT FLY OR THAT WE NEEDED A FERRY PERMIT TO FLY THE ACFT FROM FBO A. TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WAS ALLOWED TO HAPPEN REQUIRES SOME BACKGND INFO. OUR ACFT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY FBO B ON AN APPROVED ACFT TYPE PROGRESSIVE MAINT SCHEDULE. WE HAVE RELIED ON FBO B AND THIS PROGRAM TO ENSURE ALL REQUIRED MAINT WAS ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY MANNER. THIS AGREEMENT HAS RESULTED IN AN IMPECCABLE MAINT RECORD AND A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF DOWN TIME. WE HAVE ALWAYS PUT AN EMPHASIS ON PREVENTATIVE MAINT AND SAFETY. THIS IS SUPPORTED BY OUR RECORDS. ALTHOUGH WE HAVE HAD A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH FBO B WE ARE IN THE PROCESS OF STARTING OUR OWN MAINT PROGRAM, DUE TO OUR GROWTH. WE THOUGHT WE WERE MAKING A SMOOTH TRANSITION FROM FBO B, WHICH NOW APPEARS NOT TO BE THE CASE. WITH REGARDS TO FBO A, THEY CONSIDER US A COMPETING FBO AT YOLO COUNTY ARPT AND HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO LIMIT OUR GROWTH, AT THE COUNTY LEVEL, SPECIFICALLY CONCERNING OUR FUEL SVCS AND SKYDIVING OPS. FBO A IS ALSO AN ACFT TYPE DEALER AND REPAIR STATION. THEY PERFORMED THE AD XYZ INSPECTION AND RELEASED THE ACFT TO US WITHOUT INFORMING US THAT WE NEEDED A FERRY PERMIT. I SUSPECT THEY THEN INFORMED THE FAA THAT WE FLEW THIS ACFT. SUBSEQUENT TO THE FAA GNDING THIS ACFT, NO ONE FROM MY COMPANY WAS AWARE THAT WE WERE OPERATING THIS ACFT IN A POSSIBLE UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION. WHEN I QUESTIONED MR Y OF FBO B WHY THIS INSPECTION WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED IN A TIMELY MANNER, HE RESPONDED THAT THE AD HAD BEEN CHANGED FROM 2000 HR TO 1000 HR REQUIREMENT. HE HAD NOT INFORMED ME, PRIOR TO THE FAA INSPECTOR'S VISIT, THAT HE HAD MADE A LOG ENTRY SAYING THAT THE ACFT WAS UNAIRWORTHY OR THAT FBO A HAD PROVIDED HIM WITH A SIMILAR LOG ENTRY THAT HE PUT IN THE LOG BOOK. I HAVE ALSO SINCE DISCOVERED THAT THIS AD INSPECTION CHANGE FROM 2000 TO 1000 HRS HAS BEEN EFFECTIVE SINCE JAN 90. THEREFORE, HE SHOULD HAVE BEEN AWARE OF THIS UPCOMING INSPECTION AT LEAST SINCE THE LAST 150 HR INSPECTION. THIS ACFT IS NOW HAVING ALL REQUIRED MAINT, INCLUDING REPLACEMENT OF THE IDENTED FITTING, COMPLETED BY ANOTHER FAA LICENSED A&P MECH WITH INSPECTION AUTHORIZATION. TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THIS TYPE OF EVENT, WE WILL NO LONGER ALLOW ANOTHER MECH OR COMPANY TO MAINTAIN AND OR KEEP POSSESSION OF OUR ACFT LOGS. WE WILL ALSO VERIFY ALL LOG ENTRIES TO AVOID ANY POSSIBLE MISUNDERSTANDINGS OR MISREPRESENTATIONS. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 210793: THROUGH SEVERAL MISUNDERSTANDINGS, SOME LACK OF COM AND PERHAPS EVEN SOME DELIBERATE PREMEDITATION TO SET-UP FBO C, I WOUND UP FLYING SMT IN A TECHNICALLY UNAIRWORTHY CONDITION, COMPLETELY WITHOUT PRIOR KNOWLEDGE. AT NOT TIME WHEN I PICKED UP THE AIRPLANE FROM FBO A DID ANY OF THEIR PERSONNEL MENTION THAT IT HAD BEEN DEEMED UNAIRWORTHY. MY BOSSES, WERE BOTH ALSO UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT THE WORK HAD BEEN COMPLETED AND WAS READY TO FLY. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR HAD NOTHING TO ADD, HE CALLED BECAUSE HE WAS CONCERNED ABOUT NOT YET RECEIVING HIS IDENT SLIP.

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.