Narrative:

On feb/wed/93 I gave instruction in an small aircraft X and on feb/thu/93 in an small aircraft Y. Both students were pre-solo primary students. I did a complete preflight inspection with each student and was thorough in following the pilot operating handbook and accepted practice. The flts occurred without incident. On feb/fri/93, the small aircraft Y, made an emergency landing on a beach. The pilot was not my student. The local FAA FSDO contacted me on feb/thu/93 and informed me that the small aircraft X and small aircraft Y had numerous airworthiness violations. When they told me of these and showed me photos, I replied that the mechanic had recently done an annual on the small aircraft Y. The logs confirmed that the violations were of the kind that would not be seen by a pilot during preflight. They included: not having inspection plates removed to check cables, using automatic belts for alternator, replacing defective alternator with old automatic alternator, and numerous bolts missing on engine. Also, internal wiring defective, etc. To see these required removal of the cowling and only a mechanic would known that to look for. They would not be noticed during a normal preflight inspection. I depended on the verbal ok from the a&P who did the annual (within 9 1/2 hours). The logs indicated that the inspections were done. A pilot has to trust the a&P and ia mechanics for the internal operation and the pilot can only check the parts that are visible. Pilots expect licensed mechanics to do the work that they sign off and to use the correct materials and parts. I had no idea that the aircraft were unsafe and was shocked when told.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LCL FSDO OFFICE REPRESENTATIVE CONTACTS CFI AND INFORMS HIM THAT 2 DIFFERENT ACFT HE HAD USED FOR TRAINING WERE IN VIOLATION OF AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS. ONE HAD ALREADY MADE A FORCED LNDG ON A BEACH.

Narrative: ON FEB/WED/93 I GAVE INSTRUCTION IN AN SMA X AND ON FEB/THU/93 IN AN SMA Y. BOTH STUDENTS WERE PRE-SOLO PRIMARY STUDENTS. I DID A COMPLETE PREFLT INSPECTION WITH EACH STUDENT AND WAS THOROUGH IN FOLLOWING THE PLT OPERATING HANDBOOK AND ACCEPTED PRACTICE. THE FLTS OCCURRED WITHOUT INCIDENT. ON FEB/FRI/93, THE SMA Y, MADE AN EMER LNDG ON A BEACH. THE PLT WAS NOT MY STUDENT. THE LCL FAA FSDO CONTACTED ME ON FEB/THU/93 AND INFORMED ME THAT THE SMA X AND SMA Y HAD NUMEROUS AIRWORTHINESS VIOLATIONS. WHEN THEY TOLD ME OF THESE AND SHOWED ME PHOTOS, I REPLIED THAT THE MECH HAD RECENTLY DONE AN ANNUAL ON THE SMA Y. THE LOGS CONFIRMED THAT THE VIOLATIONS WERE OF THE KIND THAT WOULD NOT BE SEEN BY A PLT DURING PREFLT. THEY INCLUDED: NOT HAVING INSPECTION PLATES REMOVED TO CHK CABLES, USING AUTO BELTS FOR ALTERNATOR, REPLACING DEFECTIVE ALTERNATOR WITH OLD AUTO ALTERNATOR, AND NUMEROUS BOLTS MISSING ON ENG. ALSO, INTERNAL WIRING DEFECTIVE, ETC. TO SEE THESE REQUIRED REMOVAL OF THE COWLING AND ONLY A MECH WOULD KNOWN THAT TO LOOK FOR. THEY WOULD NOT BE NOTICED DURING A NORMAL PREFLT INSPECTION. I DEPENDED ON THE VERBAL OK FROM THE A&P WHO DID THE ANNUAL (WITHIN 9 1/2 HRS). THE LOGS INDICATED THAT THE INSPECTIONS WERE DONE. A PLT HAS TO TRUST THE A&P AND IA MECHS FOR THE INTERNAL OP AND THE PLT CAN ONLY CHK THE PARTS THAT ARE VISIBLE. PLTS EXPECT LICENSED MECHS TO DO THE WORK THAT THEY SIGN OFF AND TO USE THE CORRECT MATERIALS AND PARTS. I HAD NO IDEA THAT THE ACFT WERE UNSAFE AND WAS SHOCKED WHEN TOLD.

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.