Narrative:

I was conducting IOE with a new-hire first officer. It was a busy, evening shift with many quick turns at uncontrolled fields, flying from rdg-pit-art-ogs-mss-art-pit-rdg. The WX at all of the airports was cold with gusty winds. All airports had at least some snow and ice on the runways, although braking action was described as 'good' at most of the fields. The first officer candidate did 4 lndgs that evening: 2 at pit, 1 at mss, and 1 at rdg. All of these airports were reporting 'good' braking action. Because of the winds and general experience level, he was having trouble maintaining runway alignment throughout the approach and landing, and required my assistance on several lndgs. After landing at pit the second time, the first officer noted that the aircraft seemed to pull to the right on rollout. The pulling, however, appeared to be consistent with the gusty crosswind and the landing gear squat switch bringing the propellers in and out of the ground idle position. After this flight, as with every other, the first officer did a postflt walkaround looking for damage, and didn't find any. We landed later that evening at rdg and had the aircraft pushed into the hangar. Once again, the first officer did a postflt inspection and found no damage. The following morning, the crew accepting the aircraft discovered the right main gear, inner tire was flat and damaged. Since the crew had to call in contract maintenance, 3 flts ended up canceling before the tire was replaced. Obviously, the first officer made some mistakes on the postflt inspection by not being thorough. However, as PIC, I am ultimately responsible for the aircraft and have to be certain that my first officer is doing his job. Since he needed assistance in other areas as well, I should not have assumed the postflt inspections that he was doing were complete. Knowing that his level of experience was very low, I should have gone over every detail of the inspection with him, even if it meant delaying our flts. Additionally, because he had difficulty with his approachs and landing, and the gusty wind conditions, the pulling on touchdown did not seem unusual. Had a more experienced pilot been flying, the pulling would have gotten my attention. I should have paid more respect to his observations, regardless of his level of experience.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: BE1900 FLT CANCELED AFTER DAMAGED TIRE FOUND ON PREFLT THE DAY AFTER AN IOE FO POSTFLT INSPECTION MISSED THE PROB AT RDG, PA.

Narrative: I WAS CONDUCTING IOE WITH A NEW-HIRE FO. IT WAS A BUSY, EVENING SHIFT WITH MANY QUICK TURNS AT UNCTLED FIELDS, FLYING FROM RDG-PIT-ART-OGS-MSS-ART-PIT-RDG. THE WX AT ALL OF THE ARPTS WAS COLD WITH GUSTY WINDS. ALL ARPTS HAD AT LEAST SOME SNOW AND ICE ON THE RWYS, ALTHOUGH BRAKING ACTION WAS DESCRIBED AS 'GOOD' AT MOST OF THE FIELDS. THE FO CANDIDATE DID 4 LNDGS THAT EVENING: 2 AT PIT, 1 AT MSS, AND 1 AT RDG. ALL OF THESE ARPTS WERE RPTING 'GOOD' BRAKING ACTION. BECAUSE OF THE WINDS AND GENERAL EXPERIENCE LEVEL, HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE MAINTAINING RWY ALIGNMENT THROUGHOUT THE APCH AND LNDG, AND REQUIRED MY ASSISTANCE ON SEVERAL LNDGS. AFTER LNDG AT PIT THE SECOND TIME, THE FO NOTED THAT THE ACFT SEEMED TO PULL TO THE R ON ROLLOUT. THE PULLING, HOWEVER, APPEARED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE GUSTY XWIND AND THE LNDG GEAR SQUAT SWITCH BRINGING THE PROPS IN AND OUT OF THE GND IDLE POS. AFTER THIS FLT, AS WITH EVERY OTHER, THE FO DID A POSTFLT WALKAROUND LOOKING FOR DAMAGE, AND DIDN'T FIND ANY. WE LANDED LATER THAT EVENING AT RDG AND HAD THE ACFT PUSHED INTO THE HANGAR. ONCE AGAIN, THE FO DID A POSTFLT INSPECTION AND FOUND NO DAMAGE. THE FOLLOWING MORNING, THE CREW ACCEPTING THE ACFT DISCOVERED THE R MAIN GEAR, INNER TIRE WAS FLAT AND DAMAGED. SINCE THE CREW HAD TO CALL IN CONTRACT MAINT, 3 FLTS ENDED UP CANCELING BEFORE THE TIRE WAS REPLACED. OBVIOUSLY, THE FO MADE SOME MISTAKES ON THE POSTFLT INSPECTION BY NOT BEING THOROUGH. HOWEVER, AS PIC, I AM ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE ACFT AND HAVE TO BE CERTAIN THAT MY FO IS DOING HIS JOB. SINCE HE NEEDED ASSISTANCE IN OTHER AREAS AS WELL, I SHOULD NOT HAVE ASSUMED THE POSTFLT INSPECTIONS THAT HE WAS DOING WERE COMPLETE. KNOWING THAT HIS LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE WAS VERY LOW, I SHOULD HAVE GONE OVER EVERY DETAIL OF THE INSPECTION WITH HIM, EVEN IF IT MEANT DELAYING OUR FLTS. ADDITIONALLY, BECAUSE HE HAD DIFFICULTY WITH HIS APCHS AND LNDG, AND THE GUSTY WIND CONDITIONS, THE PULLING ON TOUCHDOWN DID NOT SEEM UNUSUAL. HAD A MORE EXPERIENCED PLT BEEN FLYING, THE PULLING WOULD HAVE GOTTEN MY ATTN. I SHOULD HAVE PAID MORE RESPECT TO HIS OBSERVATIONS, REGARDLESS OF HIS LEVEL OF EXPERIENCE.

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.