Light transport flown without airworthiness directive compliance.

Attributes
ACN	230717
Time
Date	199301
Day	Thu
Local Time Of Day	0601 To 1200
Place
Locale Reference	airport : den
State Reference	CO
Altitude	agl bound lower : 0 agl bound upper : 0
Environment
Flight Conditions	Mixed
Light	Daylight
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air taxi
Make Model Name	Light Transport, Low Wing, 2 Turbojet Eng
Flight Phase	climbout : takeoff cruise other landing other
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	Other
Function	flight crew : captain oversight : pic
Qualification	pilot : atp
Experience	flight time last 90 days : 100 flight time total : 6200 flight time type : 2300
ASRS Report	230717
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air taxi
Function	flight crew : first officer
Qualification	pilot : atp
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe non adherence : far
Independent Detector	other other : unspecified
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	Other
Supplementary
Air Traffic Incident	other

Narrative:

On jan/xx/93, I was informed by the mechanic performing a 200 hour inspection on an light transport, that an airworthiness directive was overdue as of dec/a/92. I had performed flts on dec/B, dec/C, and dec/D under part 135. It was my understanding from a mechanic that released the aircraft on dec/east with a 6 month inspection that I had until dec/F/92 to complete the airworthiness directive. He was incorrect. It was discovered that the aircraft had been flown illegally by an FAA inspector during a routine visit to the shop where the 200 hour inspection was taking place. The airworthiness directive had been complied with prior to the FAA's visit. Had I known the airworthiness directive was overdue, I would not have flown the trips in dec. The owner never received the airworthiness directive notice. The certificate holders director of maintenance failed to warn me that the airworthiness directive was overdue. The certificate holder dispatched the aircraft on each trip. The dispatcher was unaware an airworthiness directive was overdue. This was not an intentional disregard of regulations but a failure to get the correct information from 2 different mechanics, the FAA's failure to mail notice to the owner, and the pilot's failure to insure all inspections were up to date. All other inspections had been completed on a timely basis.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: LTT FLOWN WITHOUT AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE COMPLIANCE.

Narrative: ON JAN/XX/93, I WAS INFORMED BY THE MECH PERFORMING A 200 HR INSPECTION ON AN LTT, THAT AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE AS OF DEC/A/92. I HAD PERFORMED FLTS ON DEC/B, DEC/C, AND DEC/D UNDER PART 135. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM A MECH THAT RELEASED THE ACFT ON DEC/E WITH A 6 MONTH INSPECTION THAT I HAD UNTIL DEC/F/92 TO COMPLETE THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. HE WAS INCORRECT. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN ILLEGALLY BY AN FAA INSPECTOR DURING A ROUTINE VISIT TO THE SHOP WHERE THE 200 HR INSPECTION WAS TAKING PLACE. THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE FAA'S VISIT. HAD I KNOWN THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE, I WOULD NOT HAVE FLOWN THE TRIPS IN DEC. THE OWNER NEVER RECEIVED THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOTICE. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS DIRECTOR OF MAINT FAILED TO WARN ME THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER DISPATCHED THE ACFT ON EACH TRIP. THE DISPATCHER WAS UNAWARE AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE. THIS WAS NOT AN INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF REGS BUT A FAILURE TO GET THE CORRECT INFO FROM 2 DIFFERENT MECHS, THE FAA'S FAILURE TO MAIL NOTICE TO THE OWNER, AND THE PLT'S FAILURE TO INSURE ALL INSPECTIONS WERE UP TO DATE. ALL OTHER INSPECTIONS HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON A TIMELY BASIS.

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.