Narrative:

I was the PIC of said aircraft. While conducting skydiving operations; an instructor broke a cabin side window with his elbow. I called the FAA FSDO to obtain a ferry permit. Since there is no one available after hours or on wkends; I was not able to obtain one. I evaluated the damage and determined that the aircraft could be ferried to my shop for a repair. Not having the heart to shut down the business for the wkend for such a minor incident; I made a logbook entry stating the aircraft could be ferried; secured the damaged window and ferried the aircraft to my shop. I did not have a replacement window in stock; so I devised a repair by cutting out the 2 vertical inside retainers and removed the broken window. I then fabricated a window plug out of 2024 T3 aluminum and riveted it into place. This repair was stronger than any of the plastic windows and did not present any safety hazards to the public. I completed the flying scheduled for that wkend with the plug in place. The following monday I ordered a new window and replaced it. It was my decision to install this plug in the window and operate the airplane rather than to shut the business down for the wkend. The factors in my decision making were that I knew I could repair the window (temporarily) without putting myself or anyone else at risk. This repair was stronger than any side window installed in the aircraft. Call it a bad judgement on my part. I did not endanger anyone by my actions and I repaired the airplane the following week. I did not have the heart to shut the business down over a broken window. Supplemental information from acn 809487: I was faced with the decision of shutting down the business for the wkend and waiting to obtain a ferry permit or secure the window and ferry it to the shop for a repair. I chose to ferry the aircraft to the shop for a repair. My call was returned by the FSDO. The inspector told me that he 'appreciated' my attempt to obtain a ferry permit; but I should have closed the business down for the wkend in order to obtain a ferry permit in a few days. I attempted to utilize the FAA in this case and when I needed them; they were not there. There needs to be a 'duty inspector' available after hours and on wkends so operators do not have to shut down businesses. Callback conversation with reporter acn 809486 revealed the following information: reporter stated the 2024-T3 aluminum was 032 thousandths thick and structurally stronger than the window that was broken on the beech-99 airliner. His flight visibility was not affected.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PILOT OF A BEECHCRAFT 99 AIRLINER USED FOR SKYDIVING OPERATIONS; INSTALLS AN ALUMINUM PLUG REPAIR TO REPLACE A BROKEN CABIN SIDE WINDOW USING HIS MAINTENANCE CERTIFICATES FOR THE SIGNOFF.

Narrative: I WAS THE PIC OF SAID ACFT. WHILE CONDUCTING SKYDIVING OPS; AN INSTRUCTOR BROKE A CABIN SIDE WINDOW WITH HIS ELBOW. I CALLED THE FAA FSDO TO OBTAIN A FERRY PERMIT. SINCE THERE IS NO ONE AVAILABLE AFTER HRS OR ON WKENDS; I WAS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN ONE. I EVALUATED THE DAMAGE AND DETERMINED THAT THE ACFT COULD BE FERRIED TO MY SHOP FOR A REPAIR. NOT HAVING THE HEART TO SHUT DOWN THE BUSINESS FOR THE WKEND FOR SUCH A MINOR INCIDENT; I MADE A LOGBOOK ENTRY STATING THE ACFT COULD BE FERRIED; SECURED THE DAMAGED WINDOW AND FERRIED THE ACFT TO MY SHOP. I DID NOT HAVE A REPLACEMENT WINDOW IN STOCK; SO I DEVISED A REPAIR BY CUTTING OUT THE 2 VERTICAL INSIDE RETAINERS AND REMOVED THE BROKEN WINDOW. I THEN FABRICATED A WINDOW PLUG OUT OF 2024 T3 ALUMINUM AND RIVETED IT INTO PLACE. THIS REPAIR WAS STRONGER THAN ANY OF THE PLASTIC WINDOWS AND DID NOT PRESENT ANY SAFETY HAZARDS TO THE PUBLIC. I COMPLETED THE FLYING SCHEDULED FOR THAT WKEND WITH THE PLUG IN PLACE. THE FOLLOWING MONDAY I ORDERED A NEW WINDOW AND REPLACED IT. IT WAS MY DECISION TO INSTALL THIS PLUG IN THE WINDOW AND OPERATE THE AIRPLANE RATHER THAN TO SHUT THE BUSINESS DOWN FOR THE WKEND. THE FACTORS IN MY DECISION MAKING WERE THAT I KNEW I COULD REPAIR THE WINDOW (TEMPORARILY) WITHOUT PUTTING MYSELF OR ANYONE ELSE AT RISK. THIS REPAIR WAS STRONGER THAN ANY SIDE WINDOW INSTALLED IN THE ACFT. CALL IT A BAD JUDGEMENT ON MY PART. I DID NOT ENDANGER ANYONE BY MY ACTIONS AND I REPAIRED THE AIRPLANE THE FOLLOWING WK. I DID NOT HAVE THE HEART TO SHUT THE BUSINESS DOWN OVER A BROKEN WINDOW. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 809487: I WAS FACED WITH THE DECISION OF SHUTTING DOWN THE BUSINESS FOR THE WKEND AND WAITING TO OBTAIN A FERRY PERMIT OR SECURE THE WINDOW AND FERRY IT TO THE SHOP FOR A REPAIR. I CHOSE TO FERRY THE ACFT TO THE SHOP FOR A REPAIR. MY CALL WAS RETURNED BY THE FSDO. THE INSPECTOR TOLD ME THAT HE 'APPRECIATED' MY ATTEMPT TO OBTAIN A FERRY PERMIT; BUT I SHOULD HAVE CLOSED THE BUSINESS DOWN FOR THE WKEND IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A FERRY PERMIT IN A FEW DAYS. I ATTEMPTED TO UTILIZE THE FAA IN THIS CASE AND WHEN I NEEDED THEM; THEY WERE NOT THERE. THERE NEEDS TO BE A 'DUTY INSPECTOR' AVAILABLE AFTER HRS AND ON WKENDS SO OPERATORS DO NOT HAVE TO SHUT DOWN BUSINESSES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR ACN 809486 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE 2024-T3 ALUMINUM WAS 032 THOUSANDTHS THICK AND STRUCTURALLY STRONGER THAN THE WINDOW THAT WAS BROKEN ON THE BEECH-99 AIRLINER. HIS FLIGHT VISIBILITY WAS NOT AFFECTED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.