Narrative:

On 2 separate flts, I overflew the inspection that was due on the slide guide portion of the transmission/rotor system. The pilots were informed that our employer had relieved an extension for the required inspection. I am filing this NASA report to describe how I was misled by my employer into believing I was flying an airworthy aircraft. The helicopter I flew was an XXX helicopter. The may/xx/94 maintenance forecast printout from the main office indicated to the flight and maintenance departments here at our base, that (among others) the following inspections were coming due that month: 600 hour inspection (transmission) slide guide replacement. Later that month, our base maintenance office was informed by phone, by the main office, that these items had been extended by the FAA. Our logbooks were then updated to reflect this change, by our base mechanics. On may/xx/94, we flew past the original replacement time for the slide guide, and were informed on jun/xx/94 by the main office, by phone, that an extension for this component never had been granted. The part was immediately replaced, but today the chief pilot reminded me that on jun/xx/94, I made flts in that aircraft in violation of maintenance inspection requirements totaling .7 hours of flight. I am not sure how this error came about at the main office, but the FAA is looking into it now. The maintenance department here released, and the flight department here at our base flew the helicopter in good faith, thinking that this was an airworthy aircraft. Supplemental information from acn 273908: I believe this was due to poor communications between the FAA and our maintenance department. This extension was confirmed by onsite mechanics with our director of maintenance on 2 separate occasions and the aircraft logbook reflected the extension of the separate items. I believed what I was seeing in the logbook was true and legal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ATX HELI FLEW WITH OVERDUE MAINT REQUIRED.

Narrative: ON 2 SEPARATE FLTS, I OVERFLEW THE INSPECTION THAT WAS DUE ON THE SLIDE GUIDE PORTION OF THE XMISSION/ROTOR SYS. THE PLTS WERE INFORMED THAT OUR EMPLOYER HAD RELIEVED AN EXTENSION FOR THE REQUIRED INSPECTION. I AM FILING THIS NASA RPT TO DESCRIBE HOW I WAS MISLED BY MY EMPLOYER INTO BELIEVING I WAS FLYING AN AIRWORTHY ACFT. THE HELI I FLEW WAS AN XXX HELI. THE MAY/XX/94 MAINT FORECAST PRINTOUT FROM THE MAIN OFFICE INDICATED TO THE FLT AND MAINT DEPTS HERE AT OUR BASE, THAT (AMONG OTHERS) THE FOLLOWING INSPECTIONS WERE COMING DUE THAT MONTH: 600 HR INSPECTION (XMISSION) SLIDE GUIDE REPLACEMENT. LATER THAT MONTH, OUR BASE MAINT OFFICE WAS INFORMED BY PHONE, BY THE MAIN OFFICE, THAT THESE ITEMS HAD BEEN EXTENDED BY THE FAA. OUR LOGBOOKS WERE THEN UPDATED TO REFLECT THIS CHANGE, BY OUR BASE MECHS. ON MAY/XX/94, WE FLEW PAST THE ORIGINAL REPLACEMENT TIME FOR THE SLIDE GUIDE, AND WERE INFORMED ON JUN/XX/94 BY THE MAIN OFFICE, BY PHONE, THAT AN EXTENSION FOR THIS COMPONENT NEVER HAD BEEN GRANTED. THE PART WAS IMMEDIATELY REPLACED, BUT TODAY THE CHIEF PLT REMINDED ME THAT ON JUN/XX/94, I MADE FLTS IN THAT ACFT IN VIOLATION OF MAINT INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS TOTALING .7 HRS OF FLT. I AM NOT SURE HOW THIS ERROR CAME ABOUT AT THE MAIN OFFICE, BUT THE FAA IS LOOKING INTO IT NOW. THE MAINT DEPT HERE RELEASED, AND THE FLT DEPT HERE AT OUR BASE FLEW THE HELI IN GOOD FAITH, THINKING THAT THIS WAS AN AIRWORTHY ACFT. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 273908: I BELIEVE THIS WAS DUE TO POOR COMS BTWN THE FAA AND OUR MAINT DEPT. THIS EXTENSION WAS CONFIRMED BY ONSITE MECHS WITH OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT ON 2 SEPARATE OCCASIONS AND THE ACFT LOGBOOK REFLECTED THE EXTENSION OF THE SEPARATE ITEMS. I BELIEVED WHAT I WAS SEEING IN THE LOGBOOK WAS TRUE AND LEGAL.

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.