Narrative:

Mechanic at grants pass was starting a 100 hour routine inspection. He advised that he would probably have to major the engine before checking the compression or other checks. We advised him to stop the work and we would pay him for his time. We picked up the aircraft, a cessna 150, which he advised us was ok to fly. We ferried it to another mechanic to do the inspection and the second mechanic discovered that the first had put a note in the back of the logbook on a separate sheet of paper that the aircraft was not airworthy. Had we known he had done this, we would have obtained a ferry permit. No problems whatsoever were noted on the flight to the new mechanic, who advised that the engine was not even close to needing an overhaul. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter states that the note in back of logbook indicated not airworthy due to not completing the 100 hour inspection. Aircraft was still within its annual time frame and thus legal to fly. Reporter feels the mechanic who was very upset, was protecting himself with the note. Reporter concerned that mechanic might contact the FAA, thus his report.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: SMA FERRIED TO ANOTHER ARPT FOR MAINT. FIRST MECH HAD SAID 'OK TO FLY' BUT PLACED SHEET IN BACK OF LOG INDICATING NOT AIRWORTHY.

Narrative: MECH AT GRANTS PASS WAS STARTING A 100 HR ROUTINE INSPECTION. HE ADVISED THAT HE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE TO MAJOR THE ENG BEFORE CHKING THE COMPRESSION OR OTHER CHKS. WE ADVISED HIM TO STOP THE WORK AND WE WOULD PAY HIM FOR HIS TIME. WE PICKED UP THE ACFT, A CESSNA 150, WHICH HE ADVISED US WAS OK TO FLY. WE FERRIED IT TO ANOTHER MECH TO DO THE INSPECTION AND THE SECOND MECH DISCOVERED THAT THE FIRST HAD PUT A NOTE IN THE BACK OF THE LOGBOOK ON A SEPARATE SHEET OF PAPER THAT THE ACFT WAS NOT AIRWORTHY. HAD WE KNOWN HE HAD DONE THIS, WE WOULD HAVE OBTAINED A FERRY PERMIT. NO PROBS WHATSOEVER WERE NOTED ON THE FLT TO THE NEW MECH, WHO ADVISED THAT THE ENG WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE TO NEEDING AN OVERHAUL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATES THAT THE NOTE IN BACK OF LOGBOOK INDICATED NOT AIRWORTHY DUE TO NOT COMPLETING THE 100 HR INSPECTION. ACFT WAS STILL WITHIN ITS ANNUAL TIME FRAME AND THUS LEGAL TO FLY. RPTR FEELS THE MECH WHO WAS VERY UPSET, WAS PROTECTING HIMSELF WITH THE NOTE. RPTR CONCERNED THAT MECH MIGHT CONTACT THE FAA, THUS HIS RPT.

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.