Narrative:

The aircraft did a last min far part 135 flight (its very first) on mar/fri/02. It was a passenger drop off in ZZZ, and return to ZZZ1 in the early evening. Upon landing in ZZZ the crew discovered that the right hand windshield wiper had partially deployed up onto the window. As this item has a 200 KT airspeed limitation, the crew knew that this would have to be resolved prior to the empty (part 91) flight home since they could not get the wiper to stow properly using normal stowing procedures. This caused us (at FBO) a good deal of concern because we had a very important owner flight scheduled for the next morning. I was to fly this owner trip the next day on mar/sat/02. Normally, we would have simply removed the wiper blade and MEL'ed it for up to 10 days, however, the MEL for this new aircraft had been at the FAA FSDO for some weeks pending approval and had not yet been issued to us. This left us with a serious quandary. We elected to resolve the issue by removing the wiper and flying the aircraft to ZZZ2 for repair on a ferry permit. We secured the ferry permit, only to discover that due to the weekend and the evening hour that the maintenance facility was too busy and short staffed to repair our aircraft before monday. This left us at square one. I decided to call our director of operations and see if the FAA had perhaps signed the MEL and not yet had the chance to issue it to us. Our director assured me that the MEL had indeed been signed that very day although we did not yet have it in our possession. Since the removal of the wiper blade was such a relatively minor item, I elected to go out on a limb and assure the repair station in ZZZ that we did indeed have an MEL and faxed them the applicable pages from our file copy to prove it. The repair station then removed the wiper blade, MEL'ed its removal and returned the aircraft to service. I conducted the owner flight the next day as planned, operating on the MEL, and returned from the trip on mar/sun/02. On mar/mon/02, after discussing the past events with our operations director, I discovered that due to a misunderstanding between him and myself, we had not yet had our MEL signed by the FAA FSDO. (There had been some minor changes that the FSDO had requested, and were already corrected and resubmitted by the time I returned home.) our director was under the impression that we had managed to repair the defective wiper blade prior to the owner flight. I must reiterate that I performed this flight under the complete understanding that we were operating legally with an approved MEL, although I did not have it in my possession at the time.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A GULFSTREAM WAS OPERATED FOR 10 DAYS IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A WINDSHIELD WIPER REMOVED AND DEFERRED WITH AN UNAPPROVED MEL.

Narrative: THE ACFT DID A LAST MIN FAR PART 135 FLT (ITS VERY FIRST) ON MAR/FRI/02. IT WAS A PAX DROP OFF IN ZZZ, AND RETURN TO ZZZ1 IN THE EARLY EVENING. UPON LNDG IN ZZZ THE CREW DISCOVERED THAT THE R HAND WINDSHIELD WIPER HAD PARTIALLY DEPLOYED UP ONTO THE WINDOW. AS THIS ITEM HAS A 200 KT AIRSPD LIMITATION, THE CREW KNEW THAT THIS WOULD HAVE TO BE RESOLVED PRIOR TO THE EMPTY (PART 91) FLT HOME SINCE THEY COULD NOT GET THE WIPER TO STOW PROPERLY USING NORMAL STOWING PROCS. THIS CAUSED US (AT FBO) A GOOD DEAL OF CONCERN BECAUSE WE HAD A VERY IMPORTANT OWNER FLT SCHEDULED FOR THE NEXT MORNING. I WAS TO FLY THIS OWNER TRIP THE NEXT DAY ON MAR/SAT/02. NORMALLY, WE WOULD HAVE SIMPLY REMOVED THE WIPER BLADE AND MEL'ED IT FOR UP TO 10 DAYS, HOWEVER, THE MEL FOR THIS NEW ACFT HAD BEEN AT THE FAA FSDO FOR SOME WKS PENDING APPROVAL AND HAD NOT YET BEEN ISSUED TO US. THIS LEFT US WITH A SERIOUS QUANDARY. WE ELECTED TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE BY REMOVING THE WIPER AND FLYING THE ACFT TO ZZZ2 FOR REPAIR ON A FERRY PERMIT. WE SECURED THE FERRY PERMIT, ONLY TO DISCOVER THAT DUE TO THE WEEKEND AND THE EVENING HR THAT THE MAINT FACILITY WAS TOO BUSY AND SHORT STAFFED TO REPAIR OUR ACFT BEFORE MONDAY. THIS LEFT US AT SQUARE ONE. I DECIDED TO CALL OUR DIRECTOR OF OPS AND SEE IF THE FAA HAD PERHAPS SIGNED THE MEL AND NOT YET HAD THE CHANCE TO ISSUE IT TO US. OUR DIRECTOR ASSURED ME THAT THE MEL HAD INDEED BEEN SIGNED THAT VERY DAY ALTHOUGH WE DID NOT YET HAVE IT IN OUR POSSESSION. SINCE THE REMOVAL OF THE WIPER BLADE WAS SUCH A RELATIVELY MINOR ITEM, I ELECTED TO GO OUT ON A LIMB AND ASSURE THE REPAIR STATION IN ZZZ THAT WE DID INDEED HAVE AN MEL AND FAXED THEM THE APPLICABLE PAGES FROM OUR FILE COPY TO PROVE IT. THE REPAIR STATION THEN REMOVED THE WIPER BLADE, MEL'ED ITS REMOVAL AND RETURNED THE ACFT TO SVC. I CONDUCTED THE OWNER FLT THE NEXT DAY AS PLANNED, OPERATING ON THE MEL, AND RETURNED FROM THE TRIP ON MAR/SUN/02. ON MAR/MON/02, AFTER DISCUSSING THE PAST EVENTS WITH OUR OPS DIRECTOR, I DISCOVERED THAT DUE TO A MISUNDERSTANDING BTWN HIM AND MYSELF, WE HAD NOT YET HAD OUR MEL SIGNED BY THE FAA FSDO. (THERE HAD BEEN SOME MINOR CHANGES THAT THE FSDO HAD REQUESTED, AND WERE ALREADY CORRECTED AND RESUBMITTED BY THE TIME I RETURNED HOME.) OUR DIRECTOR WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT WE HAD MANAGED TO REPAIR THE DEFECTIVE WIPER BLADE PRIOR TO THE OWNER FLT. I MUST REITERATE THAT I PERFORMED THIS FLT UNDER THE COMPLETE UNDERSTANDING THAT WE WERE OPERATING LEGALLY WITH AN APPROVED MEL, ALTHOUGH I DID NOT HAVE IT IN MY POSSESSION AT THE TIME.

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.