Narrative:

I am the director of operations. Among the fleet of aircraft which we own and operate is an small transport turbo-problem. The airplane was due for a 1500 hour inspection in 12/89. The base of operations including the maintenance department is in sea. The director of maintenance did not perform the required inspection according to log book because it was not logged. However, on the aircraft and status sheet the 1500 hour was signed off, indicating it had been performed and based upon approved flight manual (company) is the official document upon which the pilot relies in determining the status of the airplane for flight. The director of operations was terminated on 1/thu/90 due to inefficiency, untrustworthiness, lack of technical experience, lack of knowledge and experience of type of airplanes (turbine) operated by our company. He was recommended by FAA pmi of company. The day after he was terminated the director of maintenance reported to the FAA that the 1500 hours inspection had not been performed. It was his responsibility to see that it was performed. He was the only one with knowledge. The inspector came to the shop and request of the maintenance personnel to see the log books of said airplane and specifically requested to see the entry of the 1500 hour which he had already been informed that it had not been performed. This results in a potential violation for the company which is more the result of collision. I suggest that consideration should be given to a company who is a victim of circumstances based upon a disgruntled employee who has been terminated because of omissions of paper worth and performance of inspection and uses this as a basis for reporting to FAA. The dom is a friend of FAA maintenance inspector and this inspector should have disqualified himself from this investigation and furthermore the totality circumstances of the disgruntled employee and the fact that he was the cause of the inspection not being performed should serve as a basis for potential certificate action or fine for the dom, not the company.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX OPERATOR IS CAUGHT WITHOUT UP TO DATE LOG BOOKS BECAUSE DIRECTOR OF MAINTENANCE, WHO'S JOB IT IS TO ENSURE LOG BOOK ENTRIES, REPORTED THE COMPANY TO THE FAA INSPECTOR ALLEGEDLY DUE TO HIS DISGRUNTLEMENT OVER THE FIRING OF ANOTHER FBO EMPLOYEE.

Narrative: I AM THE DIRECTOR OF OPS. AMONG THE FLEET OF ACFT WHICH WE OWN AND OPERATE IS AN SMT TURBO-PROB. THE AIRPLANE WAS DUE FOR A 1500 HR INSPECTION IN 12/89. THE BASE OF OPS INCLUDING THE MAINT DEPT IS IN SEA. THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT DID NOT PERFORM THE REQUIRED INSPECTION ACCORDING TO LOG BOOK BECAUSE IT WAS NOT LOGGED. HOWEVER, ON THE ACFT AND STATUS SHEET THE 1500 HR WAS SIGNED OFF, INDICATING IT HAD BEEN PERFORMED AND BASED UPON APPROVED FLT MANUAL (COMPANY) IS THE OFFICIAL DOCUMENT UPON WHICH THE PLT RELIES IN DETERMINING THE STATUS OF THE AIRPLANE FOR FLT. THE DIRECTOR OF OPS WAS TERMINATED ON 1/THU/90 DUE TO INEFFICIENCY, UNTRUSTWORTHINESS, LACK OF TECHNICAL EXPERIENCE, LACK OF KNOWLEDGE AND EXPERIENCE OF TYPE OF AIRPLANES (TURBINE) OPERATED BY OUR COMPANY. HE WAS RECOMMENDED BY FAA PMI OF COMPANY. THE DAY AFTER HE WAS TERMINATED THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT RPTED TO THE FAA THAT THE 1500 HRS INSPECTION HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED. IT WAS HIS RESPONSIBILITY TO SEE THAT IT WAS PERFORMED. HE WAS THE ONLY ONE WITH KNOWLEDGE. THE INSPECTOR CAME TO THE SHOP AND REQUEST OF THE MAINT PERSONNEL TO SEE THE LOG BOOKS OF SAID AIRPLANE AND SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED TO SEE THE ENTRY OF THE 1500 HR WHICH HE HAD ALREADY BEEN INFORMED THAT IT HAD NOT BEEN PERFORMED. THIS RESULTS IN A POTENTIAL VIOLATION FOR THE COMPANY WHICH IS MORE THE RESULT OF COLLISION. I SUGGEST THAT CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO A COMPANY WHO IS A VICTIM OF CIRCUMSTANCES BASED UPON A DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE WHO HAS BEEN TERMINATED BECAUSE OF OMISSIONS OF PAPER WORTH AND PERFORMANCE OF INSPECTION AND USES THIS AS A BASIS FOR RPTING TO FAA. THE DOM IS A FRIEND OF FAA MAINT INSPECTOR AND THIS INSPECTOR SHOULD HAVE DISQUALIFIED HIMSELF FROM THIS INVESTIGATION AND FURTHERMORE THE TOTALITY CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS THE CAUSE OF THE INSPECTION NOT BEING PERFORMED SHOULD SERVE AS A BASIS FOR POTENTIAL CERTIFICATE ACTION OR FINE FOR THE DOM, NOT THE COMPANY.

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