Narrative:

I was flying an aircraft that was equipped with a mode C type 4096 transponder. Throughout the morning I received reports from ATC that my transponder was intermittent; however everything in the cockpit seemed to be operating normally. I was receiving a reply light and the unit seemed to work normally. The legs of my flts were very short that morning; usually only about 10-15 mins. I found it difficult to diagnose the problem in that short amount of time. After determining that the problem was with my transponder; not ATC's equipment as is common in this area I wrote up the plane. I watched our director of maintenance install a new transponder right after I grounded the plane. Later that day; I flew the same plane and ATC said the transponder was working normally. My write-up had been 'balanced' by our director of maintenance. This is when something odd happened. The director of maintenance pulled me aside and said that he needed to change the balancing 'corrective action' he had performed because he 'looked it up; and he is not authority/authorized to install new xponders.' I later looked at the 'corrective action' and where he had previously written installed now had the prefix 're' in front of installed; making the verbiage 'reinstalled.' this is impossible because I had been flying the plane and watched him install a new transponder. At no point did he have the opportunity to reinstall the original transponder. The director of maintenance also happens to be the owner of the company. This is obviously a conflict of interest.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C402 PLT WITH AN INTERMITTENT XPONDER; WITNESSES THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT-OWNER OF THE OP; INSTALL A NEW XPONDER WHICH HE IS NOT APPROVED TO DO.

Narrative: I WAS FLYING AN ACFT THAT WAS EQUIPPED WITH A MODE C TYPE 4096 XPONDER. THROUGHOUT THE MORNING I RECEIVED RPTS FROM ATC THAT MY XPONDER WAS INTERMITTENT; HOWEVER EVERYTHING IN THE COCKPIT SEEMED TO BE OPERATING NORMALLY. I WAS RECEIVING A REPLY LIGHT AND THE UNIT SEEMED TO WORK NORMALLY. THE LEGS OF MY FLTS WERE VERY SHORT THAT MORNING; USUALLY ONLY ABOUT 10-15 MINS. I FOUND IT DIFFICULT TO DIAGNOSE THE PROB IN THAT SHORT AMOUNT OF TIME. AFTER DETERMINING THAT THE PROB WAS WITH MY XPONDER; NOT ATC'S EQUIP AS IS COMMON IN THIS AREA I WROTE UP THE PLANE. I WATCHED OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT INSTALL A NEW XPONDER RIGHT AFTER I GNDED THE PLANE. LATER THAT DAY; I FLEW THE SAME PLANE AND ATC SAID THE XPONDER WAS WORKING NORMALLY. MY WRITE-UP HAD BEEN 'BALANCED' BY OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT. THIS IS WHEN SOMETHING ODD HAPPENED. THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT PULLED ME ASIDE AND SAID THAT HE NEEDED TO CHANGE THE BALANCING 'CORRECTIVE ACTION' HE HAD PERFORMED BECAUSE HE 'LOOKED IT UP; AND HE IS NOT AUTH TO INSTALL NEW XPONDERS.' I LATER LOOKED AT THE 'CORRECTIVE ACTION' AND WHERE HE HAD PREVIOUSLY WRITTEN INSTALLED NOW HAD THE PREFIX 'RE' IN FRONT OF INSTALLED; MAKING THE VERBIAGE 'REINSTALLED.' THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE I HAD BEEN FLYING THE PLANE AND WATCHED HIM INSTALL A NEW XPONDER. AT NO POINT DID HE HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REINSTALL THE ORIGINAL XPONDER. THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT ALSO HAPPENS TO BE THE OWNER OF THE COMPANY. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

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.