Narrative:

I picked up an aircraft after maintenance for an oil pressure problem. I was told that the repair was extensive but it was fixed. They also stated that they discovered other discrepancies, but when I tried the component or procedure, they worked normally. As it turned out, I failed to follow a strict procedure as to paperwork for 2 of the items. In the oil repair, I assumed that with their release for 'minor work' that the repairs were satisfactory. As it turned out, the completion of the work was not satisfactory. Specifically, the oil pressure indication was normal when running, but when static engine not running, 9-11 psi showed on the gauge. Subsequent trouble-shooting determined that the sender was bad. It was later replaced. They requested my signature for release of the aircraft. At the time, I signed for an unairworthy aircraft and flew it, although I do not believe the aircraft was unsafe, it was by definition unairworthy. When I signed for the aircraft, I did not realize this status. In retrospect, the repair facility should have been very specific and state the aircraft is not airworthy at this time instead of being so subtle.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CPR PIC ACCEPTS LTT JET AFTER A SCHEDULED MAINT ACTIVITY SUPPOSEDLY CORRECTED ACFT EQUIP PROBS. WRITE OFF IN LOGBOOK AFFECTED THE AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS OF ACFT WHICH HAD NOT BEEN REPAIRED PROPERLY. POSTFLT INSPECTION REVEALED ACFT MAINT DISCREPANCY.

Narrative: I PICKED UP AN ACFT AFTER MAINT FOR AN OIL PRESSURE PROB. I WAS TOLD THAT THE REPAIR WAS EXTENSIVE BUT IT WAS FIXED. THEY ALSO STATED THAT THEY DISCOVERED OTHER DISCREPANCIES, BUT WHEN I TRIED THE COMPONENT OR PROC, THEY WORKED NORMALLY. AS IT TURNED OUT, I FAILED TO FOLLOW A STRICT PROC AS TO PAPERWORK FOR 2 OF THE ITEMS. IN THE OIL REPAIR, I ASSUMED THAT WITH THEIR RELEASE FOR 'MINOR WORK' THAT THE REPAIRS WERE SATISFACTORY. AS IT TURNED OUT, THE COMPLETION OF THE WORK WAS NOT SATISFACTORY. SPECIFICALLY, THE OIL PRESSURE INDICATION WAS NORMAL WHEN RUNNING, BUT WHEN STATIC ENG NOT RUNNING, 9-11 PSI SHOWED ON THE GAUGE. SUBSEQUENT TROUBLE-SHOOTING DETERMINED THAT THE SENDER WAS BAD. IT WAS LATER REPLACED. THEY REQUESTED MY SIGNATURE FOR RELEASE OF THE ACFT. AT THE TIME, I SIGNED FOR AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT AND FLEW IT, ALTHOUGH I DO NOT BELIEVE THE ACFT WAS UNSAFE, IT WAS BY DEFINITION UNAIRWORTHY. WHEN I SIGNED FOR THE ACFT, I DID NOT REALIZE THIS STATUS. IN RETROSPECT, THE REPAIR FACILITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN VERY SPECIFIC AND STATE THE ACFT IS NOT AIRWORTHY AT THIS TIME INSTEAD OF BEING SO SUBTLE.

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.