Narrative:

Maintenance personnel at the company I am employed by determined that the left inboard deicing boot on an small transport was unsafe and in need of replacement. They removed the boot and installed the associated stall strip directly to the leading edge of the wing. Due to an inability to locate the replacement boot, the acting chief of maintenance and the owner/director of operations determined that the lack of deicing boot under the conditions prescribed in the FAA approved MEL for inoperative deicing boots would not adversely effect the flight characteristics of the aircraft. The maintenance was then deferred until the boot could be acquired. The aircraft was put back on line. Pilots were all informed that because the maintenance was done and deferred by an approved repair station, that it was an FAA approved procedure. I was assigned to fly the aircraft from ptk to cgf. The flight was conducted under daytime VFR with unrestricted visibility and an OAT never less than 70 degrees F. Upon my arrival at yip, I called my dispatcher who, in turn cleared me for a dinner break. Upon my return to the airport I was advised that an FAA maintenance inspector had been waiting for me to return to the aircraft for over an hour. He claimed both to FBO aviation personnel and to my dispatcher that the repair and/or removal of the deicing boot was illegal and unsafe, even in the middle of the summer unless it was deferred. He also apparently alleged that I would be in violation if the system was not deferred. Knowing that the system was deferred I returned to home base. No condition notice was issued! The question to be answered is, 'to what extent can a pilot be held responsible for the correctness of maintenance done by FAA certified mechanics at an FAA approved repair station?' it is unclear, because the FAA has not spoken to me, what they intend to make of the situation. What is clear is that many part 135 MEL's deal only with the type and circumstances under which pilots may defer maintenance. However, practically speaking, a pilot has no way of really knowing the correctness of a repair decision, nor is he/she responsible or qualified to make such determinations in most cases.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ACI ALLEGES A CHARTER GA SMT WAS OPERATED IN VIOLATION OF FEDERAL AVIATION REG BECAUSE A DEICE BOOT HAD BEEN REMOVED AND DEFERRED.

Narrative: MAINT PERSONNEL AT THE COMPANY I AM EMPLOYED BY DETERMINED THAT THE LEFT INBOARD DEICING BOOT ON AN SMT WAS UNSAFE AND IN NEED OF REPLACEMENT. THEY REMOVED THE BOOT AND INSTALLED THE ASSOCIATED STALL STRIP DIRECTLY TO THE LEADING EDGE OF THE WING. DUE TO AN INABILITY TO LOCATE THE REPLACEMENT BOOT, THE ACTING CHIEF OF MAINT AND THE OWNER/DIRECTOR OF OPS DETERMINED THAT THE LACK OF DEICING BOOT UNDER THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE FAA APPROVED MEL FOR INOP DEICING BOOTS WOULD NOT ADVERSELY EFFECT THE FLT CHARACTERISTICS OF THE ACFT. THE MAINT WAS THEN DEFERRED UNTIL THE BOOT COULD BE ACQUIRED. THE ACFT WAS PUT BACK ON LINE. PLTS WERE ALL INFORMED THAT BECAUSE THE MAINT WAS DONE AND DEFERRED BY AN APPROVED REPAIR STATION, THAT IT WAS AN FAA APPROVED PROC. I WAS ASSIGNED TO FLY THE ACFT FROM PTK TO CGF. THE FLT WAS CONDUCTED UNDER DAYTIME VFR WITH UNRESTRICTED VIS AND AN OAT NEVER LESS THAN 70 DEGS F. UPON MY ARR AT YIP, I CALLED MY DISPATCHER WHO, IN TURN CLRED ME FOR A DINNER BREAK. UPON MY RETURN TO THE ARPT I WAS ADVISED THAT AN FAA MAINT INSPECTOR HAD BEEN WAITING FOR ME TO RETURN TO THE ACFT FOR OVER AN HR. HE CLAIMED BOTH TO FBO AVIATION PERSONNEL AND TO MY DISPATCHER THAT THE REPAIR AND/OR REMOVAL OF THE DEICING BOOT WAS ILLEGAL AND UNSAFE, EVEN IN THE MIDDLE OF THE SUMMER UNLESS IT WAS DEFERRED. HE ALSO APPARENTLY ALLEGED THAT I WOULD BE IN VIOLATION IF THE SYS WAS NOT DEFERRED. KNOWING THAT THE SYS WAS DEFERRED I RETURNED TO HOME BASE. NO CONDITION NOTICE WAS ISSUED! THE QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED IS, 'TO WHAT EXTENT CAN A PLT BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CORRECTNESS OF MAINT DONE BY FAA CERTIFIED MECHS AT AN FAA APPROVED REPAIR STATION?' IT IS UNCLEAR, BECAUSE THE FAA HAS NOT SPOKEN TO ME, WHAT THEY INTEND TO MAKE OF THE SITUATION. WHAT IS CLEAR IS THAT MANY PART 135 MEL'S DEAL ONLY WITH THE TYPE AND CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH PLTS MAY DEFER MAINT. HOWEVER, PRACTICALLY SPEAKING, A PLT HAS NO WAY OF REALLY KNOWING THE CORRECTNESS OF A REPAIR DECISION, NOR IS HE/SHE RESPONSIBLE OR QUALIFIED TO MAKE SUCH DETERMINATIONS IN MOST CASES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of August 2007 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.