Narrative:

I was the copilot on a G-4 sent to ZZZ for maintenance work. I had asked the captain before the flight if all write-ups were coordinated with our maintenance folks at our home office and was assured they were. We had 4 equipment write-ups and 9 'cosmetic' items, if memory serves me right. The 4 major ones were intermittent in nature. For example, our main door pressure seal had not deflated properly, but it worked fine for several operations of the door on the ground before departing for ZZZ and upon arrival in ZZZ (I expected the maintenance response to be 'could not duplicate'). The apt was thorough in discussing all the write-ups with me and their safety implications. However, having been assured they were done in concert with our maintenance office, I did not actually review his paperwork. Upon arrival at ZZZ there was some commotion concerning the write-ups. At the time, I thought it was over the content or wording. I did not learn until many days later that most of the write-ups had actually not been accomplished prior to the flight and that in addition there were some questions over wording and MEL compliance. I also learned that the captain had indeed coordination with our maintenance and apparently had been given bad advice. As a copilot, I am ready to advise the captain and to make my thoughts known if I suspect something violates regulations, company procedures or safety of flight. However, in this case, I operated on the assurance that maintenance had been consulted (which was true). I think most other coplts would have done the same. The flight in question was without incident. No passenger were on board.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: G-4 CREW FLEW THE ACFT WITHOUT HAVING MAINT DISCREPANCIES PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK OR PROPERLY DEFERRED.

Narrative: I WAS THE COPLT ON A G-4 SENT TO ZZZ FOR MAINT WORK. I HAD ASKED THE CAPT BEFORE THE FLT IF ALL WRITE-UPS WERE COORDINATED WITH OUR MAINT FOLKS AT OUR HOME OFFICE AND WAS ASSURED THEY WERE. WE HAD 4 EQUIP WRITE-UPS AND 9 'COSMETIC' ITEMS, IF MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT. THE 4 MAJOR ONES WERE INTERMITTENT IN NATURE. FOR EXAMPLE, OUR MAIN DOOR PRESSURE SEAL HAD NOT DEFLATED PROPERLY, BUT IT WORKED FINE FOR SEVERAL OPS OF THE DOOR ON THE GND BEFORE DEPARTING FOR ZZZ AND UPON ARR IN ZZZ (I EXPECTED THE MAINT RESPONSE TO BE 'COULD NOT DUPLICATE'). THE APT WAS THOROUGH IN DISCUSSING ALL THE WRITE-UPS WITH ME AND THEIR SAFETY IMPLICATIONS. HOWEVER, HAVING BEEN ASSURED THEY WERE DONE IN CONCERT WITH OUR MAINT OFFICE, I DID NOT ACTUALLY REVIEW HIS PAPERWORK. UPON ARR AT ZZZ THERE WAS SOME COMMOTION CONCERNING THE WRITE-UPS. AT THE TIME, I THOUGHT IT WAS OVER THE CONTENT OR WORDING. I DID NOT LEARN UNTIL MANY DAYS LATER THAT MOST OF THE WRITE-UPS HAD ACTUALLY NOT BEEN ACCOMPLISHED PRIOR TO THE FLT AND THAT IN ADDITION THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS OVER WORDING AND MEL COMPLIANCE. I ALSO LEARNED THAT THE CAPT HAD INDEED COORD WITH OUR MAINT AND APPARENTLY HAD BEEN GIVEN BAD ADVICE. AS A COPLT, I AM READY TO ADVISE THE CAPT AND TO MAKE MY THOUGHTS KNOWN IF I SUSPECT SOMETHING VIOLATES REGS, COMPANY PROCS OR SAFETY OF FLT. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, I OPERATED ON THE ASSURANCE THAT MAINT HAD BEEN CONSULTED (WHICH WAS TRUE). I THINK MOST OTHER COPLTS WOULD HAVE DONE THE SAME. THE FLT IN QUESTION WAS WITHOUT INCIDENT. NO PAX WERE ON BOARD.

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.