Narrative:

I arrived on an ambulance flight to ZZZ in the morning, in PA34-220T piper seneca. Shortly after offloading the patient, 2 FAA inspectors showed up and began an aggressive ramp check on the airplane. I cooperated as best I could, offering my license, medical, airworthiness, operations manual, etc. (When I offered the operations manual FAA aci inspector stated that he'd already been in the airplane and looked through it, while I was making a phone call.) aci questioned the way in which a portable oxygen bottle, and various medical items were secured in-flight. I demonstrated securing them using seat belts, to which he stated he was satisfied. Aci idented 6 items which needed attention on the airplane (mostly minor items, such as a cracked lens on the ice detector light), and told me that the airplane was not airworthy due to a worn and loose condition on the left main gear door. I lay on the ground and inspected it, agreeing that the door needed attention. Aci told me that the door was particularly unsafe in that condition, as if it were to separate, it might strike the horizontal stabilizer surfaces and create a hazard. Aci commented that the doors were really only fairings and not necessary for flight, but that should they separate they could create a real hazard. Aci also strongly indicated that a nick on the propeller of the right engine was not good. I asked if this could be attended to in location Y at the upcoming inspection, he said yes, the airplane could be flown to location Y and attended to. Aci said the airplane could not fly in its present condition, relating to the condition of the left main landing gear door. I asked what could be done to satisfy him. Aci replied that 'it's either got to be removed, or fixed, or something. It just can't be flown like that.' I notified my superior, who also spoke with aci on the telephone. I left the airport for lunch. When I checked again with my superior, he told me that FBO had assured him the airplane would be taken care of, and that by his watch, the work should have already been done. I called FBO prior to going down there, and spoke to mechanic. He told me that he had looked at the gear, that it looked acceptable and airworthy, and that nothing more had been done. I told him I couldn't take it in that condition, as the FAA had specifically idented it as being unairworthy. I told him I had been told it 'must be removed, repaired, or whatever needs to be done to make it acceptable.' mechanic told me then that he could easily remove the doors, that it would take only 5 mins. I called my superior. He said he had just spoken to supervisor and that mechanic told him he could replace the hinge pins and thus effect a repair. On arrival at the airport, I went into the FBO building, and was directed to the rear shop where I located mechanic. I asked him if the airplane was 'good to go,' to which he replied yes, that the doors had been removed, and that the doors had been stowed in the baggage compartment. Several other FBO mechanics were present, one commented that the doors were unnecessary, and merely fairings. Aci had made a similar comment in relation to the gear doors. At that point I made small talk for several mins with supervisor and the other mechanics, and then asked if there was any paperwork for me to sign, take back with me, or payments to be made. I was told 'no, we'll send it all to mr. XXX, we'll bill him.' frequently, when maintenance is done at locations other than location Y, endorsements are placed on stickers and mailed directly to the company office, not given to me. I saw nothing unusual in this. The airplane had not been written up on the discrepancy log as it had been located by the FAA while stationary on the airport. Calls were made to supervisor and consequently to FBO. I was advised by FBO mechanic that the airplane was 'good to go,' and thus understood that it was approved for return to service. Everything had been handled verbally, and to the best of my knowledge, per the requests of aci, I believed that all requirements had been satisfied. Had I believed otherwise, I would not haveundertaken the flight. I understood that nothing further was required in order to conduct the flight. I have been informed by aci of the FAA that this was not a legal flight operation. I needed a signoff in order to conduct the flight, stating that the airplane had been approved for return to service. I believe now that the best course of action would have been to obtain a statement from the mechanics at FBO, stating their belief that the airplane was indeed airworthy and returned to service. I was entirely unaware that this was necessary. I went outside, performed my preflight (having previously obtained WX), and departed. I experienced no adverse flight conditions in relation to the handling of the airplane, operation of the gear, or conduct of the flight. Aci called the following morning, nov wed 1996, to ask why the airplane had been flown out, and to ask how it had been approved for return to service.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA TWIN AMB FLT FAILED TO OBTAIN THE OFFICIAL ACFT SIGNOFF RELEASE FOR SVC REQUIRED AFTER AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR PRESENTED AN UNSAFE ACFT CONDITION NOTICE REQUIRING MAINT SIGNOFF PRIOR TO FLT. SINCE THE RPTR CHKED WITH HIS SUPVR AND THE MECH THAT RESPONDED TO THE DISCREPANCIES, WHO VERBALLY ADVISED THAT THE ACFT WAS OK TO FLY, THE RPTR MISTAKENLY THOUGHT THAT IT WAS.

Narrative: I ARRIVED ON AN AMBULANCE FLT TO ZZZ IN THE MORNING, IN PA34-220T PIPER SENECA. SHORTLY AFTER OFFLOADING THE PATIENT, 2 FAA INSPECTORS SHOWED UP AND BEGAN AN AGGRESSIVE RAMP CHK ON THE AIRPLANE. I COOPERATED AS BEST I COULD, OFFERING MY LICENSE, MEDICAL, AIRWORTHINESS, OPS MANUAL, ETC. (WHEN I OFFERED THE OPS MANUAL FAA ACI INSPECTOR STATED THAT HE'D ALREADY BEEN IN THE AIRPLANE AND LOOKED THROUGH IT, WHILE I WAS MAKING A PHONE CALL.) ACI QUESTIONED THE WAY IN WHICH A PORTABLE OXYGEN BOTTLE, AND VARIOUS MEDICAL ITEMS WERE SECURED INFLT. I DEMONSTRATED SECURING THEM USING SEAT BELTS, TO WHICH HE STATED HE WAS SATISFIED. ACI IDENTED 6 ITEMS WHICH NEEDED ATTN ON THE AIRPLANE (MOSTLY MINOR ITEMS, SUCH AS A CRACKED LENS ON THE ICE DETECTOR LIGHT), AND TOLD ME THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS NOT AIRWORTHY DUE TO A WORN AND LOOSE CONDITION ON THE L MAIN GEAR DOOR. I LAY ON THE GND AND INSPECTED IT, AGREEING THAT THE DOOR NEEDED ATTN. ACI TOLD ME THAT THE DOOR WAS PARTICULARLY UNSAFE IN THAT CONDITION, AS IF IT WERE TO SEPARATE, IT MIGHT STRIKE THE HORIZ STABILIZER SURFACES AND CREATE A HAZARD. ACI COMMENTED THAT THE DOORS WERE REALLY ONLY FAIRINGS AND NOT NECESSARY FOR FLT, BUT THAT SHOULD THEY SEPARATE THEY COULD CREATE A REAL HAZARD. ACI ALSO STRONGLY INDICATED THAT A NICK ON THE PROP OF THE R ENG WAS NOT GOOD. I ASKED IF THIS COULD BE ATTENDED TO IN LOCATION Y AT THE UPCOMING INSPECTION, HE SAID YES, THE AIRPLANE COULD BE FLOWN TO LOCATION Y AND ATTENDED TO. ACI SAID THE AIRPLANE COULD NOT FLY IN ITS PRESENT CONDITION, RELATING TO THE CONDITION OF THE L MAIN LNDG GEAR DOOR. I ASKED WHAT COULD BE DONE TO SATISFY HIM. ACI REPLIED THAT 'IT'S EITHER GOT TO BE REMOVED, OR FIXED, OR SOMETHING. IT JUST CAN'T BE FLOWN LIKE THAT.' I NOTIFIED MY SUPERIOR, WHO ALSO SPOKE WITH ACI ON THE TELEPHONE. I LEFT THE ARPT FOR LUNCH. WHEN I CHKED AGAIN WITH MY SUPERIOR, HE TOLD ME THAT FBO HAD ASSURED HIM THE AIRPLANE WOULD BE TAKEN CARE OF, AND THAT BY HIS WATCH, THE WORK SHOULD HAVE ALREADY BEEN DONE. I CALLED FBO PRIOR TO GOING DOWN THERE, AND SPOKE TO MECH. HE TOLD ME THAT HE HAD LOOKED AT THE GEAR, THAT IT LOOKED ACCEPTABLE AND AIRWORTHY, AND THAT NOTHING MORE HAD BEEN DONE. I TOLD HIM I COULDN'T TAKE IT IN THAT CONDITION, AS THE FAA HAD SPECIFICALLY IDENTED IT AS BEING UNAIRWORTHY. I TOLD HIM I HAD BEEN TOLD IT 'MUST BE REMOVED, REPAIRED, OR WHATEVER NEEDS TO BE DONE TO MAKE IT ACCEPTABLE.' MECH TOLD ME THEN THAT HE COULD EASILY REMOVE THE DOORS, THAT IT WOULD TAKE ONLY 5 MINS. I CALLED MY SUPERIOR. HE SAID HE HAD JUST SPOKEN TO SUPVR AND THAT MECH TOLD HIM HE COULD REPLACE THE HINGE PINS AND THUS EFFECT A REPAIR. ON ARR AT THE ARPT, I WENT INTO THE FBO BUILDING, AND WAS DIRECTED TO THE REAR SHOP WHERE I LOCATED MECH. I ASKED HIM IF THE AIRPLANE WAS 'GOOD TO GO,' TO WHICH HE REPLIED YES, THAT THE DOORS HAD BEEN REMOVED, AND THAT THE DOORS HAD BEEN STOWED IN THE BAGGAGE COMPARTMENT. SEVERAL OTHER FBO MECHS WERE PRESENT, ONE COMMENTED THAT THE DOORS WERE UNNECESSARY, AND MERELY FAIRINGS. ACI HAD MADE A SIMILAR COMMENT IN RELATION TO THE GEAR DOORS. AT THAT POINT I MADE SMALL TALK FOR SEVERAL MINS WITH SUPVR AND THE OTHER MECHS, AND THEN ASKED IF THERE WAS ANY PAPERWORK FOR ME TO SIGN, TAKE BACK WITH ME, OR PAYMENTS TO BE MADE. I WAS TOLD 'NO, WE'LL SEND IT ALL TO MR. XXX, WE'LL BILL HIM.' FREQUENTLY, WHEN MAINT IS DONE AT LOCATIONS OTHER THAN LOCATION Y, ENDORSEMENTS ARE PLACED ON STICKERS AND MAILED DIRECTLY TO THE COMPANY OFFICE, NOT GIVEN TO ME. I SAW NOTHING UNUSUAL IN THIS. THE AIRPLANE HAD NOT BEEN WRITTEN UP ON THE DISCREPANCY LOG AS IT HAD BEEN LOCATED BY THE FAA WHILE STATIONARY ON THE ARPT. CALLS WERE MADE TO SUPVR AND CONSEQUENTLY TO FBO. I WAS ADVISED BY FBO MECH THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS 'GOOD TO GO,' AND THUS UNDERSTOOD THAT IT WAS APPROVED FOR RETURN TO SVC. EVERYTHING HAD BEEN HANDLED VERBALLY, AND TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE, PER THE REQUESTS OF ACI, I BELIEVED THAT ALL REQUIREMENTS HAD BEEN SATISFIED. HAD I BELIEVED OTHERWISE, I WOULD NOT HAVEUNDERTAKEN THE FLT. I UNDERSTOOD THAT NOTHING FURTHER WAS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE FLT. I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY ACI OF THE FAA THAT THIS WAS NOT A LEGAL FLT OP. I NEEDED A SIGNOFF IN ORDER TO CONDUCT THE FLT, STATING THAT THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR RETURN TO SVC. I BELIEVE NOW THAT THE BEST COURSE OF ACTION WOULD HAVE BEEN TO OBTAIN A STATEMENT FROM THE MECHS AT FBO, STATING THEIR BELIEF THAT THE AIRPLANE WAS INDEED AIRWORTHY AND RETURNED TO SVC. I WAS ENTIRELY UNAWARE THAT THIS WAS NECESSARY. I WENT OUTSIDE, PERFORMED MY PREFLT (HAVING PREVIOUSLY OBTAINED WX), AND DEPARTED. I EXPERIENCED NO ADVERSE FLT CONDITIONS IN RELATION TO THE HANDLING OF THE AIRPLANE, OP OF THE GEAR, OR CONDUCT OF THE FLT. ACI CALLED THE FOLLOWING MORNING, NOV WED 1996, TO ASK WHY THE AIRPLANE HAD BEEN FLOWN OUT, AND TO ASK HOW IT HAD BEEN APPROVED FOR RETURN TO SVC.

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.