Narrative:

Aircraft received hail damage to radome, navigation lights, leading edges and engine inlets on descent into shv on jan/xa/99. Company maintenance personnel was flown in to fix the plane. I arrived later that day and was then assigned to that aircraft. On jan/xc/99, I was assigned a trip out of shv. The aircraft log was signed off as airworthy, all squawks were cleared by our company maintenance personnel. While preflting the plane, I noticed dimpling on the wing leading edges and on engine inlets and bullets. I checked the fans and front turbine blades and saw no obvious damage. I proceeded to fly the trip assigned to me and ended at our company maintenance base in ZZZ. The next day I'm told that the plane had 'substantial damage' and should not have been flown. Most of our planes have dimples on the leading edges but I am told that those are 'within tolerances.' how am I supposed to know that the dimples in the one I flew were not 'within tolerances' and constitute 'substantial damage?' I was counting on our professional maintenance personnel to certify that the plane was airworthy and they did. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the preflight check revealed small dents in the wing and stabilizer leading edges but nothing the rest of the fleet did not display. The reporter said the maintenance release was signed in the logbook and the airplane was legal to fly. The reporter later was advised the wing leading edge dents were out of limits and the aircraft was deemed unairworthy. The reporter said the FAA was contacted by the reporter and absolved from any culpability of operating the aircraft in non compliance.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DA20 FALCON WAS DISPATCHED IN A QUESTIONABLE AIRWORTHINESS CONDITION AFTER HAIL DAMAGE REPAIR ACCOMPLISHED.

Narrative: ACFT RECEIVED HAIL DAMAGE TO RADOME, NAV LIGHTS, LEADING EDGES AND ENG INLETS ON DSCNT INTO SHV ON JAN/XA/99. COMPANY MAINT PERSONNEL WAS FLOWN IN TO FIX THE PLANE. I ARRIVED LATER THAT DAY AND WAS THEN ASSIGNED TO THAT ACFT. ON JAN/XC/99, I WAS ASSIGNED A TRIP OUT OF SHV. THE ACFT LOG WAS SIGNED OFF AS AIRWORTHY, ALL SQUAWKS WERE CLRED BY OUR COMPANY MAINT PERSONNEL. WHILE PREFLTING THE PLANE, I NOTICED DIMPLING ON THE WING LEADING EDGES AND ON ENG INLETS AND BULLETS. I CHKED THE FANS AND FRONT TURBINE BLADES AND SAW NO OBVIOUS DAMAGE. I PROCEEDED TO FLY THE TRIP ASSIGNED TO ME AND ENDED AT OUR COMPANY MAINT BASE IN ZZZ. THE NEXT DAY I'M TOLD THAT THE PLANE HAD 'SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE' AND SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FLOWN. MOST OF OUR PLANES HAVE DIMPLES ON THE LEADING EDGES BUT I AM TOLD THAT THOSE ARE 'WITHIN TOLERANCES.' HOW AM I SUPPOSED TO KNOW THAT THE DIMPLES IN THE ONE I FLEW WERE NOT 'WITHIN TOLERANCES' AND CONSTITUTE 'SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE?' I WAS COUNTING ON OUR PROFESSIONAL MAINT PERSONNEL TO CERTIFY THAT THE PLANE WAS AIRWORTHY AND THEY DID. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE PREFLT CHK REVEALED SMALL DENTS IN THE WING AND STABILIZER LEADING EDGES BUT NOTHING THE REST OF THE FLEET DID NOT DISPLAY. THE RPTR SAID THE MAINT RELEASE WAS SIGNED IN THE LOGBOOK AND THE AIRPLANE WAS LEGAL TO FLY. THE RPTR LATER WAS ADVISED THE WING LEADING EDGE DENTS WERE OUT OF LIMITS AND THE ACFT WAS DEEMED UNAIRWORTHY. THE RPTR SAID THE FAA WAS CONTACTED BY THE RPTR AND ABSOLVED FROM ANY CULPABILITY OF OPERATING THE ACFT IN NON COMPLIANCE.

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.