Narrative:

During an airworthiness directive research for an upcoming annual inspection on one of the company aircraft I discovered an airworthiness directive had not been complied with. This made the propellers of 1 aircraft out of compliance with the airworthiness directive by 392.7 hours and the other aircraft's propellers out of compliance by 517.7 hours. I immediately notified the chief pilot of the situation. I also contacted the nearest ndt inspection repair station to have the propellers eddy current inspected in accordance with the airworthiness directive. The inspections were carried out on site the same day. Since this is a safety of flight issue I feel it warrants a NASA report. Factors I believe contributing to this oversight are: 1) long work hours spent dealing with non-routine maintenance issues. Also having both flying duties as well as mechanic duties. I was asked to fly more as business increased when I should have been paying closer attention to maintenance duties. 2) pressure of keeping both airplanes on line with a new company that became busy faster than anticipated. 3) breakdown in company communications as I did not have direct access to the latest technical airworthiness directive research software at all times. 4) not given enough time to perform a thorough 100 hour inspection that includes all technical research (airworthiness directive research) for each event. 5) lack of adequate manpower. All of the above concerns have been presented by me to management and are being addressed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT/MECHANIC FOR A SMALL 135 OPERATOR REPORTS FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH PROPELLER AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE ON THE COMPANY'S TWO ACFT. CITES OVERTAXED MAINT FORCE AND ECONOMIC PRESSURE TO KEEP THE ACFT IN OPERATION.

Narrative: DURING AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE RESEARCH FOR AN UPCOMING ANNUAL INSPECTION ON ONE OF THE COMPANY ACFT I DISCOVERED AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE HAD NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THIS MADE THE PROPS OF 1 ACFT OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE BY 392.7 HRS AND THE OTHER ACFT'S PROPS OUT OF COMPLIANCE BY 517.7 HRS. I IMMEDIATELY NOTIFIED THE CHIEF PLT OF THE SITUATION. I ALSO CONTACTED THE NEAREST NDT INSPECTION REPAIR STATION TO HAVE THE PROPS EDDY CURRENT INSPECTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. THE INSPECTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT ON SITE THE SAME DAY. SINCE THIS IS A SAFETY OF FLT ISSUE I FEEL IT WARRANTS A NASA RPT. FACTORS I BELIEVE CONTRIBUTING TO THIS OVERSIGHT ARE: 1) LONG WORK HRS SPENT DEALING WITH NON-ROUTINE MAINT ISSUES. ALSO HAVING BOTH FLYING DUTIES AS WELL AS MECH DUTIES. I WAS ASKED TO FLY MORE AS BUSINESS INCREASED WHEN I SHOULD HAVE BEEN PAYING CLOSER ATTN TO MAINT DUTIES. 2) PRESSURE OF KEEPING BOTH AIRPLANES ON LINE WITH A NEW COMPANY THAT BECAME BUSY FASTER THAN ANTICIPATED. 3) BREAKDOWN IN COMPANY COMS AS I DID NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE LATEST TECHNICAL AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE RESEARCH SOFTWARE AT ALL TIMES. 4) NOT GIVEN ENOUGH TIME TO PERFORM A THOROUGH 100 HR INSPECTION THAT INCLUDES ALL TECHNICAL RESEARCH (AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE RESEARCH) FOR EACH EVENT. 5) LACK OF ADEQUATE MANPOWER. ALL OF THE ABOVE CONCERNS HAVE BEEN PRESENTED BY ME TO MGMNT AND ARE BEING ADDRESSED.

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.