Narrative:

As a member, pilot of an organization that maintains world war ii aircraft, I was asked to act as copilot of which I am qualified, a boeing B17 from dallas love field to ellington field in houston, tx. I checked with the PIC, helped him with the preflight inspection and he informed me that the aircraft was ready to fly. We flew the aircraft uneventfully to ellington field and landed. The next day I found out that an FAA inspector had previously noted some maintenance discrepancies a few days before our flight. I was told these discrepancies had been corrected at the time of this flight. However, the FAA inspector had his doubts that either the work or the paperwork was done correctly. Suggest that inspectors either ground the aircraft until they determine it is airworthy or ok it for flight. Otherwise it can put crew members in jeopardy of a violation or worse if they accept the aircraft as being ready to fly based on their knowledge of the situation at the time. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he had only heard through hearsay that an FAA inspector had found discrepancies when looking at the B17 2 days prior to his preflight of the aircraft. There were no aircraft logbook entries reflecting this fact, or any other paperwork that would indicate required correction of any aircraft problems. He was advised that the FAA usually uses an aircraft condition notice to convey any discrepancies found and the action necessary according to the seriousness of the discrepancy. If a special flight permit is required to operate the aircraft the office to obtain one will be shown.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CREW MEMBER OF A WW II B17 ACFT WAS CONCERNED THAT HE HAD OPERATED AN UNAIRWORTHY ACFT SINCE HE HAD HEARD AFTER HIS FLT THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR FOUND DISCREPANCIES WITH THE ACFT AND THAT THE PAPERWORK OR CORRECTIVE ACTION MAY NOT HAVE BEEN TAKEN.

Narrative: AS A MEMBER, PLT OF AN ORGANIZATION THAT MAINTAINS WORLD WAR II ACFT, I WAS ASKED TO ACT AS COPLT OF WHICH I AM QUALIFIED, A BOEING B17 FROM DALLAS LOVE FIELD TO ELLINGTON FIELD IN HOUSTON, TX. I CHKED WITH THE PIC, HELPED HIM WITH THE PREFLT INSPECTION AND HE INFORMED ME THAT THE ACFT WAS READY TO FLY. WE FLEW THE ACFT UNEVENTFULLY TO ELLINGTON FIELD AND LANDED. THE NEXT DAY I FOUND OUT THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR HAD PREVIOUSLY NOTED SOME MAINT DISCREPANCIES A FEW DAYS BEFORE OUR FLT. I WAS TOLD THESE DISCREPANCIES HAD BEEN CORRECTED AT THE TIME OF THIS FLT. HOWEVER, THE FAA INSPECTOR HAD HIS DOUBTS THAT EITHER THE WORK OR THE PAPERWORK WAS DONE CORRECTLY. SUGGEST THAT INSPECTORS EITHER GND THE ACFT UNTIL THEY DETERMINE IT IS AIRWORTHY OR OK IT FOR FLT. OTHERWISE IT CAN PUT CREW MEMBERS IN JEOPARDY OF A VIOLATION OR WORSE IF THEY ACCEPT THE ACFT AS BEING READY TO FLY BASED ON THEIR KNOWLEDGE OF THE SIT AT THE TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD ONLY HEARD THROUGH HEARSAY THAT AN FAA INSPECTOR HAD FOUND DISCREPANCIES WHEN LOOKING AT THE B17 2 DAYS PRIOR TO HIS PREFLT OF THE ACFT. THERE WERE NO ACFT LOGBOOK ENTRIES REFLECTING THIS FACT, OR ANY OTHER PAPERWORK THAT WOULD INDICATE REQUIRED CORRECTION OF ANY ACFT PROBS. HE WAS ADVISED THAT THE FAA USUALLY USES AN ACFT CONDITION NOTICE TO CONVEY ANY DISCREPANCIES FOUND AND THE ACTION NECESSARY ACCORDING TO THE SERIOUSNESS OF THE DISCREPANCY. IF A SPECIAL FLT PERMIT IS REQUIRED TO OPERATE THE ACFT THE OFFICE TO OBTAIN ONE WILL BE SHOWN.

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.