Narrative:

Having owned and operated a bell 47G-4A for 5 yrs and about 1000 hours; this aircraft required compliance with airworthiness directive 2001-17-17 several times. I turned the 'M/right' blade grips in to the local non destructive inspection repair station for a 'grip inspection' at least 3 times over the yrs. The grips were returned to me every time 'no cracks found.' I entered in the logs that the airworthiness directive was complied with and went on with my business. The aircraft was recently sold and the new owner discovered that the repair station just magnafluxed and zyglo'ed the grips since they are made out of aluminum. This would be a normal ndi procedure for this type of part. The airworthiness directive; however; requires a very specific eddy current inspection. As an a&P with an inspection authority/authorized; I failed to ask the repair station specifically to comply with airworthiness directive 2001-17-17. I just asked for a 'grip inspection' in good faith; assuming that the ndi shop would be familiar with this high profile airworthiness directive. One of the grips did not pass the eddy current inspection last week with 1020 hours in service. It did not fail in service nor did it cause any damage. It was due for retirement in 180 hours. This has upset the new owner and he has accused me of entering a false logbook entry in regards to the airworthiness directive. I thought at the time that I had complied with it properly. That is clearly not the case. I feel terrible about assuming that the repair station would automatically comply with the airworthiness directive without me specifically telling them to do so. I am not blaming the repair station; there was a lack of specific instructions from me. It was not done with malice or intent to defraud from me. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter admitted fault for not advising the repair station that the tests must be made in accordance with the airworthiness directive. But the reporter was sure the repair station was aware of the airworthiness directive note and the required testing procedure.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BELL47G-4A HELI BLADE GRIPS WERE TESTED AT A REPAIR STATION TO COMPLY WITH AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. LATER DETERMINED REPAIR STATION DID NOT USE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE TEST PROC.

Narrative: HAVING OWNED AND OPERATED A BELL 47G-4A FOR 5 YRS AND ABOUT 1000 HRS; THIS ACFT REQUIRED COMPLIANCE WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2001-17-17 SEVERAL TIMES. I TURNED THE 'M/R' BLADE GRIPS IN TO THE LCL NON DESTRUCTIVE INSPECTION REPAIR STATION FOR A 'GRIP INSPECTION' AT LEAST 3 TIMES OVER THE YRS. THE GRIPS WERE RETURNED TO ME EVERY TIME 'NO CRACKS FOUND.' I ENTERED IN THE LOGS THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS COMPLIED WITH AND WENT ON WITH MY BUSINESS. THE ACFT WAS RECENTLY SOLD AND THE NEW OWNER DISCOVERED THAT THE REPAIR STATION JUST MAGNAFLUXED AND ZYGLO'ED THE GRIPS SINCE THEY ARE MADE OUT OF ALUMINUM. THIS WOULD BE A NORMAL NDI PROC FOR THIS TYPE OF PART. THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE; HOWEVER; REQUIRES A VERY SPECIFIC EDDY CURRENT INSPECTION. AS AN A&P WITH AN INSPECTION AUTH; I FAILED TO ASK THE REPAIR STATION SPECIFICALLY TO COMPLY WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 2001-17-17. I JUST ASKED FOR A 'GRIP INSPECTION' IN GOOD FAITH; ASSUMING THAT THE NDI SHOP WOULD BE FAMILIAR WITH THIS HIGH PROFILE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. ONE OF THE GRIPS DID NOT PASS THE EDDY CURRENT INSPECTION LAST WK WITH 1020 HRS IN SVC. IT DID NOT FAIL IN SVC NOR DID IT CAUSE ANY DAMAGE. IT WAS DUE FOR RETIREMENT IN 180 HRS. THIS HAS UPSET THE NEW OWNER AND HE HAS ACCUSED ME OF ENTERING A FALSE LOGBOOK ENTRY IN REGARDS TO THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. I THOUGHT AT THE TIME THAT I HAD COMPLIED WITH IT PROPERLY. THAT IS CLRLY NOT THE CASE. I FEEL TERRIBLE ABOUT ASSUMING THAT THE REPAIR STATION WOULD AUTOMATICALLY COMPLY WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WITHOUT ME SPECIFICALLY TELLING THEM TO DO SO. I AM NOT BLAMING THE REPAIR STATION; THERE WAS A LACK OF SPECIFIC INSTRUCTIONS FROM ME. IT WAS NOT DONE WITH MALICE OR INTENT TO DEFRAUD FROM ME. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR ADMITTED FAULT FOR NOT ADVISING THE REPAIR STATION THAT THE TESTS MUST BE MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. BUT THE RPTR WAS SURE THE REPAIR STATION WAS AWARE OF THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOTE AND THE REQUIRED TESTING PROC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.