Narrative:

A misunderstanding occurred between myself and my primary avionics inspectors, cvg FSDO. In mar/99 I sent a 337 outlining a change on a VFR 337 for a GPS stand-alone CDI replacement (1 CDI out, new one in). I was told by one inspector no field approval was needed, and one inspector told me a field approval was required. Due to other conflicts, we never completed the installation, and I forgot what the outcome was -- field approval required or not. Recently we completed the installation (aug/xa/99). I had recalled that at the last run-around, I should just send in a 337. I apparently had forgotten that one inspector had wanted a field approval. I returned the aircraft to service, signed the appropriate blocks, and we performed a VFR flight evaluation for requirements. The pilot signed the flight portion, and I signed the test portion. In addition, I sent in an 'IFR' 337, stating that we had performed a flight evaluation per advisory circular 20-128 for IFR requirements. I understood that the FAA inspector would review all of the information, and send back the appropriate paperwork with the correct stamps and signatures. The paperwork was all mailed in immediately to the FSDO. The inspector showed up today stating that I had returned the aircraft to service illegally, and that I had flown the aircraft illegally. The mistake (or violation, if there is one) is that I signed off the returns to service on the 337's without having the data blocks approved. I was not aware that I had to have field approvals on these items. Neither was really a safety of flight item, nor was there any risk. Both were simply paperwork issues. I explained my mistake in understanding, and he was still upset. I had not done this type of paperwork in several yrs and just forgot. I should have called him to ask, but we completed the aircraft and the test flight on a wkend, so no one was available.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A MAINT TECHNICIAN INSTALLED A CDI IN A C172, HAD THE ACFT TEST FLOWN AND RETURNED TO SVC WITHOUT A 337 BEING SUBMITTED TO THE CVG FSDO.

Narrative: A MISUNDERSTANDING OCCURRED BTWN MYSELF AND MY PRIMARY AVIONICS INSPECTORS, CVG FSDO. IN MAR/99 I SENT A 337 OUTLINING A CHANGE ON A VFR 337 FOR A GPS STAND-ALONE CDI REPLACEMENT (1 CDI OUT, NEW ONE IN). I WAS TOLD BY ONE INSPECTOR NO FIELD APPROVAL WAS NEEDED, AND ONE INSPECTOR TOLD ME A FIELD APPROVAL WAS REQUIRED. DUE TO OTHER CONFLICTS, WE NEVER COMPLETED THE INSTALLATION, AND I FORGOT WHAT THE OUTCOME WAS -- FIELD APPROVAL REQUIRED OR NOT. RECENTLY WE COMPLETED THE INSTALLATION (AUG/XA/99). I HAD RECALLED THAT AT THE LAST RUN-AROUND, I SHOULD JUST SEND IN A 337. I APPARENTLY HAD FORGOTTEN THAT ONE INSPECTOR HAD WANTED A FIELD APPROVAL. I RETURNED THE ACFT TO SVC, SIGNED THE APPROPRIATE BLOCKS, AND WE PERFORMED A VFR FLT EVALUATION FOR REQUIREMENTS. THE PLT SIGNED THE FLT PORTION, AND I SIGNED THE TEST PORTION. IN ADDITION, I SENT IN AN 'IFR' 337, STATING THAT WE HAD PERFORMED A FLT EVALUATION PER ADVISORY CIRCULAR 20-128 FOR IFR REQUIREMENTS. I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE FAA INSPECTOR WOULD REVIEW ALL OF THE INFO, AND SEND BACK THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK WITH THE CORRECT STAMPS AND SIGNATURES. THE PAPERWORK WAS ALL MAILED IN IMMEDIATELY TO THE FSDO. THE INSPECTOR SHOWED UP TODAY STATING THAT I HAD RETURNED THE ACFT TO SVC ILLEGALLY, AND THAT I HAD FLOWN THE ACFT ILLEGALLY. THE MISTAKE (OR VIOLATION, IF THERE IS ONE) IS THAT I SIGNED OFF THE RETURNS TO SVC ON THE 337'S WITHOUT HAVING THE DATA BLOCKS APPROVED. I WAS NOT AWARE THAT I HAD TO HAVE FIELD APPROVALS ON THESE ITEMS. NEITHER WAS REALLY A SAFETY OF FLT ITEM, NOR WAS THERE ANY RISK. BOTH WERE SIMPLY PAPERWORK ISSUES. I EXPLAINED MY MISTAKE IN UNDERSTANDING, AND HE WAS STILL UPSET. I HAD NOT DONE THIS TYPE OF PAPERWORK IN SEVERAL YRS AND JUST FORGOT. I SHOULD HAVE CALLED HIM TO ASK, BUT WE COMPLETED THE ACFT AND THE TEST FLT ON A WKEND, SO NO ONE WAS AVAILABLE.

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.