Narrative:

As the month of jul/92 began, there was a question of my legal status flying an aircraft that was being phased out of the company. The confusion was over recurrent ground school and whether I had enough training in the past yr. I talked with the training department and was assured positively that I had the required training and was legal and current to fly. I then flew the aircraft in question on 3 consecutive days, the ath, bth, and cth of jul/92. After flying on the cth, I talked with a management pilot about the situation and was told that I might not be current and that he would check it out. This was due to the company's method of splitting up recurrent ground school and only training half of the requirements every 6 months. As of this date, I am still not sure whether I am legal to fly this aircraft, but I no know that you can't trust the company on questions like this. My perceptions in this matter were, that the company being vulnerable to FAA enforcement actions would not instruct an employee to fly illegally. Especially when the company had spent time to research the problem. From now on I will consult the FAA directly on matters such as this.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CAPT OF ACR LTT ACFT WAS ASSIGNED TO DUTY AND ACCEPTED DUTY WITHOUT MEETING RECURRENT TRAINING REQUIREMENTS.

Narrative: AS THE MONTH OF JUL/92 BEGAN, THERE WAS A QUESTION OF MY LEGAL STATUS FLYING AN ACFT THAT WAS BEING PHASED OUT OF THE COMPANY. THE CONFUSION WAS OVER RECURRENT GND SCHOOL AND WHETHER I HAD ENOUGH TRAINING IN THE PAST YR. I TALKED WITH THE TRAINING DEPT AND WAS ASSURED POSITIVELY THAT I HAD THE REQUIRED TRAINING AND WAS LEGAL AND CURRENT TO FLY. I THEN FLEW THE ACFT IN QUESTION ON 3 CONSECUTIVE DAYS, THE ATH, BTH, AND CTH OF JUL/92. AFTER FLYING ON THE CTH, I TALKED WITH A MGMNT PLT ABOUT THE SITUATION AND WAS TOLD THAT I MIGHT NOT BE CURRENT AND THAT HE WOULD CHK IT OUT. THIS WAS DUE TO THE COMPANY'S METHOD OF SPLITTING UP RECURRENT GND SCHOOL AND ONLY TRAINING HALF OF THE REQUIREMENTS EVERY 6 MONTHS. AS OF THIS DATE, I AM STILL NOT SURE WHETHER I AM LEGAL TO FLY THIS ACFT, BUT I NO KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T TRUST THE COMPANY ON QUESTIONS LIKE THIS. MY PERCEPTIONS IN THIS MATTER WERE, THAT THE COMPANY BEING VULNERABLE TO FAA ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS WOULD NOT INSTRUCT AN EMPLOYEE TO FLY ILLEGALLY. ESPECIALLY WHEN THE COMPANY HAD SPENT TIME TO RESEARCH THE PROBLEM. FROM NOW ON I WILL CONSULT THE FAA DIRECTLY ON MATTERS SUCH AS THIS.

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.