Narrative:

On may/tue/94 I was assigned aircraft, a ys-11-600, by my employer air carrier X for a revenue flight under far part 121. This is an aircraft that is covered by far 121.343(C), and on that date should have already been in compliance with all fdr parameters. Examination of the logbook did not reflect any of the required equipment to record the new parameters having been installed. I called my director of operations and chief pilot (one and the same people) and voiced my concerns about the lack of equipment (as reflected by the aircraft log) installed to comply with 121.343(C). I was then telephone conferenced with the director of maintenance and the director of quality control. They verbally assured me that the required equipment had been installed except for the 121.343(C)(11) parameters, which was missing but had been installed and then removed. I then told all parties on the line that I would not fly the aircraft until the logbook showed that the required equipment had been installed, and if need be, deferred. The station mechanic then signed off the installation of the equipment (which he did not personally install) and deferred the 121.343(C)(11) parameter. He entered this not as a deferral but as a 'carry over,' presumably to circumvent the time constraints of an MEL deferral. I subsequently learned that an exemption to not comply with 121.343(C)(11) was not issued by the FAA until jun/xx/94. This leads me to believe that the signoff entered by the mechanic on may/xx/94 was done via fraudulent information provided to him by the company management. Notwithstanding the above, there has not been an airport facilities manual revision to inform the flcs of any new equipment having been installed nor has there been any weight and balance revision for the aircraft. By way of recommendation to prevent a recurrence of this type of situation I can only suggest harsh penalties for those who exercise coercive control over their supervised employees. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had discussed this matter with the FAA person that issued the exemption for this aircraft to operate without the item #11 of the flight digital data recorder requirement. However, he did not ask if the FAA had given verbal approval prior to the date that the exemption was issued, with the intent to date the actual exemption the same date and not when the document is processed. He further stated that the company has a habit of trying to circumnav the rules whenever it is convenient for them. Many employees have been fired for refusing to take flts that are not 'legal.' he expects to be one of them one day! He also stated that he has the impression that the FAA has done nothing in regard to employee complaints, other than get them fired by the company. He believes that there is no FAA oversight surveillance to find the many illegal problems. He says that his company has very unprofessional management officers!

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING PREFLT, CAPT OF AN ACR MDT FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO ACFT RECORD INDICATING THAT THE REQUIRED FLT DIGITAL DATA RECORDER WAS INSTALLED PER FAR SECTION 121 PT 343(C).

Narrative: ON MAY/TUE/94 I WAS ASSIGNED ACFT, A YS-11-600, BY MY EMPLOYER ACR X FOR A REVENUE FLT UNDER FAR PART 121. THIS IS AN ACFT THAT IS COVERED BY FAR 121.343(C), AND ON THAT DATE SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN IN COMPLIANCE WITH ALL FDR PARAMETERS. EXAMINATION OF THE LOGBOOK DID NOT REFLECT ANY OF THE REQUIRED EQUIP TO RECORD THE NEW PARAMETERS HAVING BEEN INSTALLED. I CALLED MY DIRECTOR OF OPS AND CHIEF PLT (ONE AND THE SAME PEOPLE) AND VOICED MY CONCERNS ABOUT THE LACK OF EQUIP (AS REFLECTED BY THE ACFT LOG) INSTALLED TO COMPLY WITH 121.343(C). I WAS THEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCED WITH THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND THE DIRECTOR OF QUALITY CTL. THEY VERBALLY ASSURED ME THAT THE REQUIRED EQUIP HAD BEEN INSTALLED EXCEPT FOR THE 121.343(C)(11) PARAMETERS, WHICH WAS MISSING BUT HAD BEEN INSTALLED AND THEN REMOVED. I THEN TOLD ALL PARTIES ON THE LINE THAT I WOULD NOT FLY THE ACFT UNTIL THE LOGBOOK SHOWED THAT THE REQUIRED EQUIP HAD BEEN INSTALLED, AND IF NEED BE, DEFERRED. THE STATION MECH THEN SIGNED OFF THE INSTALLATION OF THE EQUIP (WHICH HE DID NOT PERSONALLY INSTALL) AND DEFERRED THE 121.343(C)(11) PARAMETER. HE ENTERED THIS NOT AS A DEFERRAL BUT AS A 'CARRY OVER,' PRESUMABLY TO CIRCUMVENT THE TIME CONSTRAINTS OF AN MEL DEFERRAL. I SUBSEQUENTLY LEARNED THAT AN EXEMPTION TO NOT COMPLY WITH 121.343(C)(11) WAS NOT ISSUED BY THE FAA UNTIL JUN/XX/94. THIS LEADS ME TO BELIEVE THAT THE SIGNOFF ENTERED BY THE MECH ON MAY/XX/94 WAS DONE VIA FRAUDULENT INFO PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE COMPANY MGMNT. NOTWITHSTANDING THE ABOVE, THERE HAS NOT BEEN AN ARPT FACILITIES MANUAL REVISION TO INFORM THE FLCS OF ANY NEW EQUIP HAVING BEEN INSTALLED NOR HAS THERE BEEN ANY WT AND BAL REVISION FOR THE ACFT. BY WAY OF RECOMMENDATION TO PREVENT A RECURRENCE OF THIS TYPE OF SIT I CAN ONLY SUGGEST HARSH PENALTIES FOR THOSE WHO EXERCISE COERCIVE CTL OVER THEIR SUPERVISED EMPLOYEES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD DISCUSSED THIS MATTER WITH THE FAA PERSON THAT ISSUED THE EXEMPTION FOR THIS ACFT TO OPERATE WITHOUT THE ITEM #11 OF THE FLT DIGITAL DATA RECORDER REQUIREMENT. HOWEVER, HE DID NOT ASK IF THE FAA HAD GIVEN VERBAL APPROVAL PRIOR TO THE DATE THAT THE EXEMPTION WAS ISSUED, WITH THE INTENT TO DATE THE ACTUAL EXEMPTION THE SAME DATE AND NOT WHEN THE DOCUMENT IS PROCESSED. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE COMPANY HAS A HABIT OF TRYING TO CIRCUMNAV THE RULES WHENEVER IT IS CONVENIENT FOR THEM. MANY EMPLOYEES HAVE BEEN FIRED FOR REFUSING TO TAKE FLTS THAT ARE NOT 'LEGAL.' HE EXPECTS TO BE ONE OF THEM ONE DAY! HE ALSO STATED THAT HE HAS THE IMPRESSION THAT THE FAA HAS DONE NOTHING IN REGARD TO EMPLOYEE COMPLAINTS, OTHER THAN GET THEM FIRED BY THE COMPANY. HE BELIEVES THAT THERE IS NO FAA OVERSIGHT SURVEILLANCE TO FIND THE MANY ILLEGAL PROBS. HE SAYS THAT HIS COMPANY HAS VERY UNPROFESSIONAL MGMNT OFFICERS!

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.