Narrative:

I was assigned a part 91 flight to dca for the cpr owner of the aircraft. On day of return, I completed a preflight inspection of the aircraft per manufacturer's flight manual. The preflight was signed off on company maintenance form per far part 91. Upon return to home base, I was informed that the aircraft airworthiness section had to be signed off also either by the pilot or a mechanic as the aircraft was also certified to do part 135 flight, and the part 91 signoff was not sufficient. Unaware of this situation either by crew or maintenance personnel. Prior to departure on the part 91 flight, a mechanic employed by the company was questioned about the daily inspection. The pilot was informed by the mechanic that under part 91 the pilot could sign off the daily inspection and an airworthiness inspection was not needed. The general manager was informed by the director of maintenance he had no problem with the captain signing off the airworthiness section of the company maintenance log because of the pilot's backgnd. The general manager informed me of this and I signed off the airworthiness section of the maintenance log. Now several days later, the director of maintenance says he doesn't want to accept the signature of the signing pilot because he didn't actually tell the pilot to do it. Because of this incident, training will be performed by the director of maintenance for all flcs as to his needs and certificates placed in pilots' record folders of the completion of their training, therefore precluding any further misunderstandings from the maintenance department.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACFT CERTIFIED TO OPERATE UNDER PART 135 REGS HAS A PREFLT CHK ACCOMPLISHED UNDER PART 91 REGS.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED A PART 91 FLT TO DCA FOR THE CPR OWNER OF THE ACFT. ON DAY OF RETURN, I COMPLETED A PREFLT INSPECTION OF THE ACFT PER MANUFACTURER'S FLT MANUAL. THE PREFLT WAS SIGNED OFF ON COMPANY MAINT FORM PER FAR PART 91. UPON RETURN TO HOME BASE, I WAS INFORMED THAT THE ACFT AIRWORTHINESS SECTION HAD TO BE SIGNED OFF ALSO EITHER BY THE PLT OR A MECH AS THE ACFT WAS ALSO CERTIFIED TO DO PART 135 FLT, AND THE PART 91 SIGNOFF WAS NOT SUFFICIENT. UNAWARE OF THIS SIT EITHER BY CREW OR MAINT PERSONNEL. PRIOR TO DEP ON THE PART 91 FLT, A MECH EMPLOYED BY THE COMPANY WAS QUESTIONED ABOUT THE DAILY INSPECTION. THE PLT WAS INFORMED BY THE MECH THAT UNDER PART 91 THE PLT COULD SIGN OFF THE DAILY INSPECTION AND AN AIRWORTHINESS INSPECTION WAS NOT NEEDED. THE GENERAL MGR WAS INFORMED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT HE HAD NO PROB WITH THE CAPT SIGNING OFF THE AIRWORTHINESS SECTION OF THE COMPANY MAINT LOG BECAUSE OF THE PLT'S BACKGND. THE GENERAL MGR INFORMED ME OF THIS AND I SIGNED OFF THE AIRWORTHINESS SECTION OF THE MAINT LOG. NOW SEVERAL DAYS LATER, THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT SAYS HE DOESN'T WANT TO ACCEPT THE SIGNATURE OF THE SIGNING PLT BECAUSE HE DIDN'T ACTUALLY TELL THE PLT TO DO IT. BECAUSE OF THIS INCIDENT, TRAINING WILL BE PERFORMED BY THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT FOR ALL FLCS AS TO HIS NEEDS AND CERTIFICATES PLACED IN PLTS' RECORD FOLDERS OF THE COMPLETION OF THEIR TRAINING, THEREFORE PRECLUDING ANY FURTHER MISUNDERSTANDINGS FROM THE MAINT DEPT.

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.