 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
The pilot of a C182 was advised by the local FSDO that a maintenance procedure allegedly performed by a local FBO had been improperly documented in the aml.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 904846 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201008 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | Skylane 182/RG Turbo Skylane/RG |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 91 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Pitot-Static System |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Single Pilot |
| Qualification | Flight Crew Flight Instructor |
| Experience | Flight Crew Last 90 Days 100 Flight Crew Total 3800 Flight Crew Type 300 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural Maintenance |
Narrative:
Following a report of an incident/accident we experienced at a distant airfield; the local FSDO inspected our aircraft's log books. I have now been notified that they do not accept the validity of the pitot/static inspection which was entered 10 months ago.when the inspection was due; I flew our aircraft to a local FBO where we have done business and where I do part-time instruction. The FBO had offered to perform the inspection 'as a favor'; though they said they do not routinely offer this service to all customers. I left the aircraft and went off on other business. Later that day; I returned; and flew the aircraft back to our hangar. There was an entry in the log book indicating a pitot-static inspection. The FSDO now says the signature is illegible; and the identification number does not exist. If they find that the inspection was not valid; they may question whether the aircraft was airworthy.this situation could have been avoided if I had taken the aircraft back to the same shop where the previous pitot/static inspections had been performed. In an effort to save some time; and a little money; I may have inadvertently placed the airworthiness of our aircraft in jeopardy. The 'easy way' was not a good choice. It is not easy for the customer of an FBO to determine whether that facility is both qualified and authorized to perform a certain required operation.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: The pilot of a C182 was advised by the local FSDO that a maintenance procedure allegedly performed by a local FBO had been improperly documented in the AML.
Narrative: Following a report of an incident/accident we experienced at a distant airfield; the local FSDO inspected our aircraft's log books. I have now been notified that they do not accept the validity of the pitot/static inspection which was entered 10 months ago.When the inspection was due; I flew our aircraft to a local FBO where we have done business and where I do part-time instruction. The FBO had offered to perform the inspection 'as a favor'; though they said they do not routinely offer this service to all customers. I left the aircraft and went off on other business. Later that day; I returned; and flew the aircraft back to our hangar. There was an entry in the log book indicating a pitot-static inspection. The FSDO now says the signature is illegible; and the ID number does not exist. If they find that the inspection was not valid; they may question whether the aircraft was airworthy.This situation could have been avoided if I had taken the aircraft back to the same shop where the previous pitot/static inspections had been performed. In an effort to save some time; and a little money; I may have inadvertently placed the airworthiness of our aircraft in jeopardy. The 'easy way' was not a good choice. It is not easy for the customer of an FBO to determine whether that facility is both qualified and authorized to perform a certain required operation.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.