Narrative:

Another pilot working for my employer noticed a large chip in the propeller of our aircraft. The pilot reported this discrepancy to our maintenance department and to our local mechanics. They concluded that the propeller could not be repaired and needed to be replaced. A replacement propeller was installed and the airplane was released by the cessna service center for flight. This pilot; my aviation coordinator; took the aircraft on a post maintenance flight and found no additional mechanical issues; and advised me that the plane was returned to active flight status. Later that evening I took the airplane on an operational flight after conducting a thorough pre-flight. The plane flew fine with no additional issues. Two days later; the other pilot/aviation coordinator in further discussions with the cessna certified mechanics; and then our maintenance and flight management personnel came to the conclusion; based upon their further review of the regulations; that the damage caused by ingested FOD (the chip was believed to be caused by a rock picked up during a taxi out on another flight) warranted an engine breakdown and inspection; and not just the simple replacement of the propeller. In hindsight; it was determined that I flew the airplane when I had not personally determined that the aircraft was airworthy based on the ad requiring an engine breakdown and inspection; and not just a propeller replacement; before my flight. I have learned that I; as a pilot-in-command; need to stay more abreast of the letter of the law in regards airworthiness directives; and maintenance matters; so that I do not depart in an airplane that was technically un-airworthy. I; as the PIC; am ultimately responsible for the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C182 pilot reports flying the aircraft after the propeller has been replaced due to a large chip in the original propeller. Days later it is determined that the engine should have been torn down to check for internal damage in compliance with an AD.

Narrative: Another pilot working for my employer noticed a large chip in the propeller of our aircraft. The pilot reported this discrepancy to our Maintenance department and to our local mechanics. They concluded that the propeller could not be repaired and needed to be replaced. A replacement propeller was installed and the airplane was released by the Cessna Service Center for flight. This pilot; my aviation coordinator; took the aircraft on a post maintenance flight and found no additional mechanical issues; and advised me that the plane was returned to active flight status. Later that evening I took the airplane on an operational flight after conducting a thorough pre-flight. The plane flew fine with no additional issues. Two days later; the other pilot/aviation coordinator in further discussions with the Cessna Certified mechanics; and then our Maintenance and Flight Management personnel came to the conclusion; based upon their further review of the regulations; that the damage caused by ingested FOD (The chip was believed to be caused by a rock picked up during a taxi out on another flight) warranted an engine breakdown and inspection; and not just the simple replacement of the propeller. In hindsight; it was determined that I flew the airplane when I had not personally determined that the aircraft was airworthy based on the AD requiring an engine breakdown and inspection; and not just a propeller replacement; before my flight. I have learned that I; as a pilot-in-command; need to stay more abreast of the letter of the law in regards airworthiness directives; and maintenance matters; so that I do not depart in an airplane that was technically un-airworthy. I; as the PIC; am ultimately responsible for the aircraft.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.