Narrative:

On about mar/sun/92 observed writeup discrepancy of stall warning system in logbook of aircraft. Maintenance fixed discrepancy and noted same in logbook. Did all checklists, flew flight, had same aircraft. Next morning originated flight at oaj, did all checklists and tested everything normal, flew to clt. Duty period over. Notified of this incident may/sun/92. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following: on callback reporter stated that he had arrived at aircraft for departure that night and the cockpit had about 5 mechanics inside. They wouldn't say what was wrong with the aircraft. Captain then called supervisor who came to aircraft and conferred with the mechanics. Logbook was signed off by supervisor and after captain was in his seat a mechanic came in to obtain the 'number off the motor we just changed.' flight was operated normally and back the next day. The later date in may, PIC was notified he had operated the flight with equipment that was not svcable. Claims were made by FAA, who had been tipped off by hotline from one of the mechanics who had been in cockpit. He said the module and motor had not been changed. This was in reference to the stall warning which had been written up as inoperative and then signed off by the supervisor. Since then the FAA has taken reporter to testimony along with mechanics and supervisor. Under questioning the supervisor intimated that the captain knew that the motor hadn't been changed. The whole thing is 'convoluted' according to captain. The mechanics have now recanted their statements yet the FAA is after the captain for unsafe operation of aircraft and wants his license. He is still on flying status but the situation is still unresolved. Plea bargaining is now suggested by FAA for a lesser minor infraction. The whole thing stems from the fact that the 5 mechanics were former xyz defunct airlines employees and they have it in for the supervisor and were trying to set him up. They were heard to say that 'they didn't mean to get the captain involved.' yet the FAA has turned a deaf ear to PIC and still threatens him with criminal charges. Captain stated that the whole aircraft status was being tied to the accident suffered previously at another airport, even though that is not the case so far as cause of crash.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LOGBOOK WRITE AND SIGN OFF IS AN ISSUE WITH THE PIC OF FLT BEING TURNED IN TO THE FAA VIA HOT LINE BY A MECH WHO ALLEGED THAT HE TOOK, KNOWINGLY, AN ACFT THAT DID NOT HAVE THE SUPPOSED WORK PERFORMED ON IT.

Narrative: ON ABOUT MAR/SUN/92 OBSERVED WRITEUP DISCREPANCY OF STALL WARNING SYS IN LOGBOOK OF ACFT. MAINT FIXED DISCREPANCY AND NOTED SAME IN LOGBOOK. DID ALL CHKLISTS, FLEW FLT, HAD SAME ACFT. NEXT MORNING ORIGINATED FLT AT OAJ, DID ALL CHKLISTS AND TESTED EVERYTHING NORMAL, FLEW TO CLT. DUTY PERIOD OVER. NOTIFIED OF THIS INCIDENT MAY/SUN/92. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING: ON CALLBACK RPTR STATED THAT HE HAD ARRIVED AT ACFT FOR DEP THAT NIGHT AND THE COCKPIT HAD ABOUT 5 MECHS INSIDE. THEY WOULDN'T SAY WHAT WAS WRONG WITH THE ACFT. CAPT THEN CALLED SUPVR WHO CAME TO ACFT AND CONFERRED WITH THE MECHS. LOGBOOK WAS SIGNED OFF BY SUPVR AND AFTER CAPT WAS IN HIS SEAT A MECH CAME IN TO OBTAIN THE 'NUMBER OFF THE MOTOR WE JUST CHANGED.' FLT WAS OPERATED NORMALLY AND BACK THE NEXT DAY. THE LATER DATE IN MAY, PIC WAS NOTIFIED HE HAD OPERATED THE FLT WITH EQUIP THAT WAS NOT SVCABLE. CLAIMS WERE MADE BY FAA, WHO HAD BEEN TIPPED OFF BY HOTLINE FROM ONE OF THE MECHS WHO HAD BEEN IN COCKPIT. HE SAID THE MODULE AND MOTOR HAD NOT BEEN CHANGED. THIS WAS IN REF TO THE STALL WARNING WHICH HAD BEEN WRITTEN UP AS INOP AND THEN SIGNED OFF BY THE SUPVR. SINCE THEN THE FAA HAS TAKEN RPTR TO TESTIMONY ALONG WITH MECHS AND SUPVR. UNDER QUESTIONING THE SUPVR INTIMATED THAT THE CAPT KNEW THAT THE MOTOR HADN'T BEEN CHANGED. THE WHOLE THING IS 'CONVOLUTED' ACCORDING TO CAPT. THE MECHS HAVE NOW RECANTED THEIR STATEMENTS YET THE FAA IS AFTER THE CAPT FOR UNSAFE OP OF ACFT AND WANTS HIS LICENSE. HE IS STILL ON FLYING STATUS BUT THE SITUATION IS STILL UNRESOLVED. PLEA BARGAINING IS NOW SUGGESTED BY FAA FOR A LESSER MINOR INFRACTION. THE WHOLE THING STEMS FROM THE FACT THAT THE 5 MECHS WERE FORMER XYZ DEFUNCT AIRLINES EMPLOYEES AND THEY HAVE IT IN FOR THE SUPVR AND WERE TRYING TO SET HIM UP. THEY WERE HEARD TO SAY THAT 'THEY DIDN'T MEAN TO GET THE CAPT INVOLVED.' YET THE FAA HAS TURNED A DEAF EAR TO PIC AND STILL THREATENS HIM WITH CRIMINAL CHARGES. CAPT STATED THAT THE WHOLE ACFT STATUS WAS BEING TIED TO THE ACCIDENT SUFFERED PREVIOUSLY AT ANOTHER ARPT, EVEN THOUGH THAT IS NOT THE CASE SO FAR AS CAUSE OF CRASH.

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.