Narrative:

I was acting as first officer and instructor pilot for new captain in training. My goal was to observe and critique later since this trainee was in the latter stages of his training. It was to be a 3-LEG flight pairing. On the first leg the captain's gyroscope gave erroneous pitch information and illuminated the appropriate light. The trainee selected 'auxiliary' which worked normally. He offered no further discussion. I was interested to see if he would try the captain's on 'normal' later, or make the appropriate maintenance log entry at our first stop. He chose neither option. Before the next takeoff, on the ground, he selected 'normal' and then departed. The WX was VFR. I expected the unit to fail on climb out, but it did not - it worked normally the rest of the flight. Also on climb out we experienced what we believed was pressurization noise/vibration. This happened on all legs of the flight. I felt it was significant enough to be written up. When the last leg was completed, and the captain had not made a maintenance log entry in reference to the noise/vibration, I did. As it turned out, it was a minor problem. I marked the captain trainee's performance as marginal and chastised him in a debrief for not writing up the noise/vibration. Later, I realized I also should have written up both problems myself, when they occurred, not at the end of the day. Even though the problems were somewhat minor (gyroscope fixed itself) I should have not left it be carried for the purpose of my training evaluation. Training requires letting the pilot make errors and corrections, but should not allow for deviations from the FARS, company policy and good operating practices.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: INSTRUCTOR PLT, ACTING AS THE FO, WAS MAKING AN IOE (INITIAL OPERATING EXPERIENCE) CHK OF A NEW CAPT DURING A PAX FLT AND ALLOWED THE NEW CAPT TO DEPART ON THE NEXT FLT LEG WITHOUT RECORDING ACFT DISCREPANCIES NOTED DURING THE PREVIOUS FLT.

Narrative: I WAS ACTING AS FO AND INSTRUCTOR PLT FOR NEW CAPT IN TRAINING. MY GOAL WAS TO OBSERVE AND CRITIQUE LATER SINCE THIS TRAINEE WAS IN THE LATTER STAGES OF HIS TRAINING. IT WAS TO BE A 3-LEG FLT PAIRING. ON THE FIRST LEG THE CAPT'S GYROSCOPE GAVE ERRONEOUS PITCH INFO AND ILLUMINATED THE APPROPRIATE LIGHT. THE TRAINEE SELECTED 'AUX' WHICH WORKED NORMALLY. HE OFFERED NO FURTHER DISCUSSION. I WAS INTERESTED TO SEE IF HE WOULD TRY THE CAPT'S ON 'NORMAL' LATER, OR MAKE THE APPROPRIATE MAINT LOG ENTRY AT OUR FIRST STOP. HE CHOSE NEITHER OPTION. BEFORE THE NEXT TKOF, ON THE GND, HE SELECTED 'NORMAL' AND THEN DEPARTED. THE WX WAS VFR. I EXPECTED THE UNIT TO FAIL ON CLBOUT, BUT IT DID NOT - IT WORKED NORMALLY THE REST OF THE FLT. ALSO ON CLBOUT WE EXPERIENCED WHAT WE BELIEVED WAS PRESSURIZATION NOISE/VIBRATION. THIS HAPPENED ON ALL LEGS OF THE FLT. I FELT IT WAS SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH TO BE WRITTEN UP. WHEN THE LAST LEG WAS COMPLETED, AND THE CAPT HAD NOT MADE A MAINT LOG ENTRY IN REF TO THE NOISE/VIBRATION, I DID. AS IT TURNED OUT, IT WAS A MINOR PROB. I MARKED THE CAPT TRAINEE'S PERFORMANCE AS MARGINAL AND CHASTISED HIM IN A DEBRIEF FOR NOT WRITING UP THE NOISE/VIBRATION. LATER, I REALIZED I ALSO SHOULD HAVE WRITTEN UP BOTH PROBS MYSELF, WHEN THEY OCCURRED, NOT AT THE END OF THE DAY. EVEN THOUGH THE PROBS WERE SOMEWHAT MINOR (GYROSCOPE FIXED ITSELF) I SHOULD HAVE NOT LEFT IT BE CARRIED FOR THE PURPOSE OF MY TRAINING EVALUATION. TRAINING REQUIRES LETTING THE PLT MAKE ERRORS AND CORRECTIONS, BUT SHOULD NOT ALLOW FOR DEVS FROM THE FARS, COMPANY POLICY AND GOOD OPERATING PRACTICES.

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.