Narrative:

On oct/sat/95 I acted as sic aboard a CE500 during maintenance test flight, to test the pressurization system. We departed from cae and were filed IFR to fly to sav and back to cae, round robin. The owner of the aircraft and the mechanic authorizing the flight were on board. During the flight, we diverted to 49J at the request of the owner and approval of the mechanic due to a family emergency the owner said he had. Once we arrived at 49J, I was told to go home by the owner and not to return to the aircraft. I was not allowed to act as sic to get the aircraft back to the maintenance facility at cae where it could be properly released by the maintenance facility to the owner. I believe the aircraft should have been returned to cae. First, I am aware that at the time of the flight, certain items were missing from the aircraft's cabin interior, such as the toilet and some side panels and some carpet. I brought this matter to the PIC's attention, but he felt the missing items did not affect the airworthiness of the aircraft. However, I think all the items on an aircraft's equipment list and any new equipment added by form 337, must be present in the aircraft and working at the time of the flight by far. I relied on the PIC and mechanic's judgement in this matter. Second, I am unaware of this aircraft's exact maintenance status at the time of the flight. I do know that the mechanic working on the aircraft authority/authorized this flight. The mechanic was also present during the flight. I am unsure if I have violated the FARS by being a required crew member (sic) on a maintenance test flight that carried members on board other than required crew members (ie, the owner). I brought this matter to the PIC's attention prior to the flight, and he felt the owner was allowed aboard the aircraft during this flight. I relied on the PIC and mechanic's judgement in this matter. Third, I noted prior to the flight to the PIC, that the aircraft did not have the current owner's registration on board. It did have the previous owner's registration on board, however. I was told that the owner had applied for the proper registration form and had received it and that it was in hilton head (49J). I told the PIC that the current registration should be on board. I was told you have a certain amount of time to replace the old with the new. I am unsure if this is true and recognize my responsibility as a required crew member to know this information and will find out. I relied on the PIC's judgement in this matter. I do recognize my responsibility to know all available information about a flight in which I am to act as a required crew member. I regret being part of a flight crew (sic) if I have violated any FARS.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMT CPR JET WAS OPERATED WITH A PAX DURING AN AFTER MAINT TEST FLT. IN ADDITION, THE ACFT DID NOT INCLUDE SOME INTERIOR FURNISHINGS AND A CURRENT REGISTRATION OR WT AND BAL DATA.

Narrative: ON OCT/SAT/95 I ACTED AS SIC ABOARD A CE500 DURING MAINT TEST FLT, TO TEST THE PRESSURIZATION SYS. WE DEPARTED FROM CAE AND WERE FILED IFR TO FLY TO SAV AND BACK TO CAE, ROUND ROBIN. THE OWNER OF THE ACFT AND THE MECH AUTHORIZING THE FLT WERE ON BOARD. DURING THE FLT, WE DIVERTED TO 49J AT THE REQUEST OF THE OWNER AND APPROVAL OF THE MECH DUE TO A FAMILY EMER THE OWNER SAID HE HAD. ONCE WE ARRIVED AT 49J, I WAS TOLD TO GO HOME BY THE OWNER AND NOT TO RETURN TO THE ACFT. I WAS NOT ALLOWED TO ACT AS SIC TO GET THE ACFT BACK TO THE MAINT FACILITY AT CAE WHERE IT COULD BE PROPERLY RELEASED BY THE MAINT FACILITY TO THE OWNER. I BELIEVE THE ACFT SHOULD HAVE BEEN RETURNED TO CAE. FIRST, I AM AWARE THAT AT THE TIME OF THE FLT, CERTAIN ITEMS WERE MISSING FROM THE ACFT'S CABIN INTERIOR, SUCH AS THE TOILET AND SOME SIDE PANELS AND SOME CARPET. I BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO THE PIC'S ATTN, BUT HE FELT THE MISSING ITEMS DID NOT AFFECT THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT. HOWEVER, I THINK ALL THE ITEMS ON AN ACFT'S EQUIP LIST AND ANY NEW EQUIP ADDED BY FORM 337, MUST BE PRESENT IN THE ACFT AND WORKING AT THE TIME OF THE FLT BY FAR. I RELIED ON THE PIC AND MECH'S JUDGEMENT IN THIS MATTER. SECOND, I AM UNAWARE OF THIS ACFT'S EXACT MAINT STATUS AT THE TIME OF THE FLT. I DO KNOW THAT THE MECH WORKING ON THE ACFT AUTH THIS FLT. THE MECH WAS ALSO PRESENT DURING THE FLT. I AM UNSURE IF I HAVE VIOLATED THE FARS BY BEING A REQUIRED CREW MEMBER (SIC) ON A MAINT TEST FLT THAT CARRIED MEMBERS ON BOARD OTHER THAN REQUIRED CREW MEMBERS (IE, THE OWNER). I BROUGHT THIS MATTER TO THE PIC'S ATTN PRIOR TO THE FLT, AND HE FELT THE OWNER WAS ALLOWED ABOARD THE ACFT DURING THIS FLT. I RELIED ON THE PIC AND MECH'S JUDGEMENT IN THIS MATTER. THIRD, I NOTED PRIOR TO THE FLT TO THE PIC, THAT THE ACFT DID NOT HAVE THE CURRENT OWNER'S REGISTRATION ON BOARD. IT DID HAVE THE PREVIOUS OWNER'S REGISTRATION ON BOARD, HOWEVER. I WAS TOLD THAT THE OWNER HAD APPLIED FOR THE PROPER REGISTRATION FORM AND HAD RECEIVED IT AND THAT IT WAS IN HILTON HEAD (49J). I TOLD THE PIC THAT THE CURRENT REGISTRATION SHOULD BE ON BOARD. I WAS TOLD YOU HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF TIME TO REPLACE THE OLD WITH THE NEW. I AM UNSURE IF THIS IS TRUE AND RECOGNIZE MY RESPONSIBILITY AS A REQUIRED CREW MEMBER TO KNOW THIS INFO AND WILL FIND OUT. I RELIED ON THE PIC'S JUDGEMENT IN THIS MATTER. I DO RECOGNIZE MY RESPONSIBILITY TO KNOW ALL AVAILABLE INFO ABOUT A FLT IN WHICH I AM TO ACT AS A REQUIRED CREW MEMBER. I REGRET BEING PART OF A FLC (SIC) IF I HAVE VIOLATED ANY FARS.

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.