Narrative:

I was the captain on a commuter airline during flts in nov/95. I flew the aircraft, with a first officer, for 4 flts on one day and 5 flts the following day. The flts were out and back from nashville, tn. The last flight terminated in nashville. After the flight, I post-flted the aircraft, including spinning the propellers, and left the plane to go home. This was the end of a 4 day sequence. 2 hours later, another crew came to take the aircraft out for the last flight of the day, an overnight to an out station. On their preflight, damage to several of the propellers on 1 engine was noted. When I got home, there was a message for me to call my base manager. When I called him on the following morning, he accused me of making a hard landing and damaging the propellers. When I told him there were no hard lndgs during our flts and I did not notice any damage, he accused me of running off a runway or taxiway. During our 9 flts, every phase of flight was normal and no vibrations or anything else was noted. The WX was VFR and there were no strong winds on takeoffs or lndgs. We had no hard lndgs and did not run off any runways or txwys. I did not notice any propeller damage when I spun the propellers after the flight and I am unaware of how the damage occurred. There were about 2 hours that the aircraft sat on the runway in nashville and maintenance does do checks on the aircraft during these periods of time. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the FAA investigation did not find the reporter guilty of an far violation, but did place a letter in the reporter's file. The reporter states that the letter will be expunged from the FAA's files in 2 yrs. The company investigated and also placed a letter in the captain's file. In the final analysis, the company accused the reporter of taxiing the BA32 into a brick wall near the parking area. Reporter states that this is not possible because he taxied on the inside of the yellow taxi line. The reporter told the company to pull the tapes, but the company stated that the tapes were unavailable. The reporter has contacted the union and the case is in the process of appeal with the company. In the meantime, the company has closed the base and the captain has resigned.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PROP DAMAGE WAS DISCOVERED ON A BA32 AFTER A 2-DAY TRIP SEQUENCE WAS FLOWN. THE CAPT (RPTR) WHO WAS HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE DAMAGE CLAIMS THAT IT DID NOT OCCUR WHILE HE WAS ACTING AS PIC IN THE ACFT, BUT THAT IT COULD HAVE OCCURRED WHILE THE ACFT WAS PARKED.

Narrative: I WAS THE CAPT ON A COMMUTER AIRLINE DURING FLTS IN NOV/95. I FLEW THE ACFT, WITH A FO, FOR 4 FLTS ON ONE DAY AND 5 FLTS THE FOLLOWING DAY. THE FLTS WERE OUT AND BACK FROM NASHVILLE, TN. THE LAST FLT TERMINATED IN NASHVILLE. AFTER THE FLT, I POST-FLTED THE ACFT, INCLUDING SPINNING THE PROPS, AND LEFT THE PLANE TO GO HOME. THIS WAS THE END OF A 4 DAY SEQUENCE. 2 HRS LATER, ANOTHER CREW CAME TO TAKE THE ACFT OUT FOR THE LAST FLT OF THE DAY, AN OVERNIGHT TO AN OUT STATION. ON THEIR PREFLT, DAMAGE TO SEVERAL OF THE PROPS ON 1 ENG WAS NOTED. WHEN I GOT HOME, THERE WAS A MESSAGE FOR ME TO CALL MY BASE MGR. WHEN I CALLED HIM ON THE FOLLOWING MORNING, HE ACCUSED ME OF MAKING A HARD LNDG AND DAMAGING THE PROPS. WHEN I TOLD HIM THERE WERE NO HARD LNDGS DURING OUR FLTS AND I DID NOT NOTICE ANY DAMAGE, HE ACCUSED ME OF RUNNING OFF A RWY OR TXWY. DURING OUR 9 FLTS, EVERY PHASE OF FLT WAS NORMAL AND NO VIBRATIONS OR ANYTHING ELSE WAS NOTED. THE WX WAS VFR AND THERE WERE NO STRONG WINDS ON TKOFS OR LNDGS. WE HAD NO HARD LNDGS AND DID NOT RUN OFF ANY RWYS OR TXWYS. I DID NOT NOTICE ANY PROP DAMAGE WHEN I SPUN THE PROPS AFTER THE FLT AND I AM UNAWARE OF HOW THE DAMAGE OCCURRED. THERE WERE ABOUT 2 HRS THAT THE ACFT SAT ON THE RWY IN NASHVILLE AND MAINT DOES DO CHKS ON THE ACFT DURING THESE PERIODS OF TIME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE FAA INVESTIGATION DID NOT FIND THE RPTR GUILTY OF AN FAR VIOLATION, BUT DID PLACE A LETTER IN THE RPTR'S FILE. THE RPTR STATES THAT THE LETTER WILL BE EXPUNGED FROM THE FAA'S FILES IN 2 YRS. THE COMPANY INVESTIGATED AND ALSO PLACED A LETTER IN THE CAPT'S FILE. IN THE FINAL ANALYSIS, THE COMPANY ACCUSED THE RPTR OF TAXIING THE BA32 INTO A BRICK WALL NEAR THE PARKING AREA. RPTR STATES THAT THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE BECAUSE HE TAXIED ON THE INSIDE OF THE YELLOW TAXI LINE. THE RPTR TOLD THE COMPANY TO PULL THE TAPES, BUT THE COMPANY STATED THAT THE TAPES WERE UNAVAILABLE. THE RPTR HAS CONTACTED THE UNION AND THE CASE IS IN THE PROCESS OF APPEAL WITH THE COMPANY. IN THE MEANTIME, THE COMPANY HAS CLOSED THE BASE AND THE CAPT HAS RESIGNED.

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.