Narrative:

A lease-purchase agreement of an airworthy aircraft was made in aug/90 and aircraft was delivered to the lessee in south carolina. I was contacted to maintain this small aircraft single engine land. This was done. Small aircraft manufacturer maintenance manual and far parts 43 and 91. The aircraft is based at a field with an active airframe and pwrplant mechanic school. I know the instructor-examiner and he likes to have 'live' aircraft for his students to work on. The lessee and I knew that an annual was coming due in feb/94, so why not let the school do it. The school does more of a teardown-rebuild approach to the extent of removing surfaces rather than the normal 100/annual inspection. An unairworthy wing repair was made on both wings in an area devoid of inspection panels. The logbooks indicated a right and left wing replacement with svcable airworthy wings with a 337 form, this done in 1964. Also a main rib on both wings as well a spar repair was done at a later date with no 337's or entries in the logs. Both of the rib and spar repairs were not made in accordance with aircraft manufacturer of FAA part 43 requirements. On nov/68 a log entry of spraying the inside of the fuselage and wings with zinc chromate for corrosion protection. Inspection of the repairs in an unairworthy manner must have been made after nov/68. Normal annual inspection did not show outer skin and/or rivet problems. The lessee has been notified that both the mechanic instructor examiner and myself feel that the aircraft is unairworthy.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: CLOSE INSPECTION OF AN SMA SINGLE ENG LAND PVT ACFT BY A MECH SCHOOL STUDENTS DISCLOSED UNAPPROVED REPAIRS DURING AN ANNUAL INSPECTION.

Narrative: A LEASE-PURCHASE AGREEMENT OF AN AIRWORTHY ACFT WAS MADE IN AUG/90 AND ACFT WAS DELIVERED TO THE LESSEE IN SOUTH CAROLINA. I WAS CONTACTED TO MAINTAIN THIS SMA SINGLE ENG LAND. THIS WAS DONE. SMA MANUFACTURER MAINT MANUAL AND FAR PARTS 43 AND 91. THE ACFT IS BASED AT A FIELD WITH AN ACTIVE AIRFRAME AND PWRPLANT MECH SCHOOL. I KNOW THE INSTRUCTOR-EXAMINER AND HE LIKES TO HAVE 'LIVE' ACFT FOR HIS STUDENTS TO WORK ON. THE LESSEE AND I KNEW THAT AN ANNUAL WAS COMING DUE IN FEB/94, SO WHY NOT LET THE SCHOOL DO IT. THE SCHOOL DOES MORE OF A TEARDOWN-REBUILD APCH TO THE EXTENT OF REMOVING SURFACES RATHER THAN THE NORMAL 100/ANNUAL INSPECTION. AN UNAIRWORTHY WING REPAIR WAS MADE ON BOTH WINGS IN AN AREA DEVOID OF INSPECTION PANELS. THE LOGBOOKS INDICATED A R AND L WING REPLACEMENT WITH SVCABLE AIRWORTHY WINGS WITH A 337 FORM, THIS DONE IN 1964. ALSO A MAIN RIB ON BOTH WINGS AS WELL A SPAR REPAIR WAS DONE AT A LATER DATE WITH NO 337'S OR ENTRIES IN THE LOGS. BOTH OF THE RIB AND SPAR REPAIRS WERE NOT MADE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACFT MANUFACTURER OF FAA PART 43 REQUIREMENTS. ON NOV/68 A LOG ENTRY OF SPRAYING THE INSIDE OF THE FUSELAGE AND WINGS WITH ZINC CHROMATE FOR CORROSION PROTECTION. INSPECTION OF THE REPAIRS IN AN UNAIRWORTHY MANNER MUST HAVE BEEN MADE AFTER NOV/68. NORMAL ANNUAL INSPECTION DID NOT SHOW OUTER SKIN AND/OR RIVET PROBS. THE LESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THAT BOTH THE MECH INSTRUCTOR EXAMINER AND MYSELF FEEL THAT THE ACFT IS UNAIRWORTHY.

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.