Narrative:

Received aircraft from hangar for scheduled revenue flight sux- msp. Review of aircraft flight discrepancy log (afdl) showed no open write-ups, indicating to me that the aircraft was mechanically airworthy and legal. (Note: a new page is started in the afdl with every new day, crew change, or maintenance action). Previous write-ups included left engine replaced the night before (not flown since). After landing in msp, interrogation of the left engine chip detector showed oil contamination, so I entered the appropriate write-up in the afdl. Maintenance corrected the situation, then another crew flew the same aircraft on another scheduled revenue flight from msp-sux. The next day, I showed for work to repos the same aircraft from sux-msp. Nothing had been done to the aircraft overnight, however, there was 1 new open write-up on the newest page of the afdl: 'test flight required for l- hand engine change.' this indicates that a test flight was, indeed, required after the engine change to make the aircraft legal for revenue flight. Therefore: I unknowingly flew a legally unairworthy aircraft on a revenue flight. Another crew did the same, and maintenance is responsible for allowing this to occur, as they were negligent in entering the test flight requirement immediately after the engine was changed. Had maintenance followed proper procedures, the 2 flts would have been operated legally, and the 'oil contamination' light would have come on during the test flight, not on a revenue passenger flight. I did not intentionally break the FARS -- the afdl had no open write-ups, so I was reasonably sure that maintenance had delivered us a legal aircraft.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACR LTT HAD ENG CHANGED WHICH REQUIRED TEST FLT. NOT DONE UNTIL AFTER 2 REVENUE FLTS FLOWN AS LOGBOOK IMPROPERLY HANDLED WITH REGARDS TO WRITE-UPS.

Narrative: RECEIVED ACFT FROM HANGAR FOR SCHEDULED REVENUE FLT SUX- MSP. REVIEW OF ACFT FLT DISCREPANCY LOG (AFDL) SHOWED NO OPEN WRITE-UPS, INDICATING TO ME THAT THE ACFT WAS MECHANICALLY AIRWORTHY AND LEGAL. (NOTE: A NEW PAGE IS STARTED IN THE AFDL WITH EVERY NEW DAY, CREW CHANGE, OR MAINT ACTION). PREVIOUS WRITE-UPS INCLUDED L ENG REPLACED THE NIGHT BEFORE (NOT FLOWN SINCE). AFTER LNDG IN MSP, INTERROGATION OF THE L ENG CHIP DETECTOR SHOWED OIL CONTAMINATION, SO I ENTERED THE APPROPRIATE WRITE-UP IN THE AFDL. MAINT CORRECTED THE SITUATION, THEN ANOTHER CREW FLEW THE SAME ACFT ON ANOTHER SCHEDULED REVENUE FLT FROM MSP-SUX. THE NEXT DAY, I SHOWED FOR WORK TO REPOS THE SAME ACFT FROM SUX-MSP. NOTHING HAD BEEN DONE TO THE ACFT OVERNIGHT, HOWEVER, THERE WAS 1 NEW OPEN WRITE-UP ON THE NEWEST PAGE OF THE AFDL: 'TEST FLT REQUIRED FOR L- HAND ENG CHANGE.' THIS INDICATES THAT A TEST FLT WAS, INDEED, REQUIRED AFTER THE ENG CHANGE TO MAKE THE ACFT LEGAL FOR REVENUE FLT. THEREFORE: I UNKNOWINGLY FLEW A LEGALLY UNAIRWORTHY ACFT ON A REVENUE FLT. ANOTHER CREW DID THE SAME, AND MAINT IS RESPONSIBLE FOR ALLOWING THIS TO OCCUR, AS THEY WERE NEGLIGENT IN ENTERING THE TEST FLT REQUIREMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE ENG WAS CHANGED. HAD MAINT FOLLOWED PROPER PROCS, THE 2 FLTS WOULD HAVE BEEN OPERATED LEGALLY, AND THE 'OIL CONTAMINATION' LIGHT WOULD HAVE COME ON DURING THE TEST FLT, NOT ON A REVENUE PAX FLT. I DID NOT INTENTIONALLY BREAK THE FARS -- THE AFDL HAD NO OPEN WRITE-UPS, SO I WAS REASONABLY SURE THAT MAINT HAD DELIVERED US A LEGAL ACFT.

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.