Narrative:

I'm a cfii-mei and while training a student in a PA34- 200, we noticed a steady stream of smoke trailing the left engine. After checking the left engine gauges and noting they were in the green, I asked my student if he had secured the oil dipstick. He assured me he had. Being only 5 mi from poc and knowing the plane could fly single engine to brackett based on previous flts with 1 engine inoperative, I decided to feather and secure the left engine. I then contacted bracket tower and declared an emergency. This decision was based on the amount of traffic in the pattern and didn't want to deal with the increased risk of having to execute a single engine go around. Nothing became of the occasion until the los angeles FSDO got involved. They asked for a statement of what happened over the phone, which I cooperated. X from the los angeles FSDO contacted me some time later a second time, to inquire WX I had flown the plane in the previous days before the engine failure, and if I had, did I notice anything strange about it? Again I cooperated and told him I had but that the plane was the strongest seneca in our fleet. He then requested a letter confirming what I told him, which I once again obliged. On oct/xx/94, I was speaking with a designated examiner and he informed me that we had been flying the plane for 16 days over the 100 hour inspection. Now I'm worried that the FAA will take action against me for flying a non- airworthy airplane and unknowingly admitting to the fact. I no longer act in good faith by believing my employer has maintained his aircraft and their logbooks. I now request the logs to each plane before I fly them which has put me in jeopardy of losing my job because the owner does not appreciate me doing this in front of customers. I have refused to fly 2 planes since learning of my employer's negligence in maintaining his aircraft within the 100 hour inspection. Other instructors that are hungrier for time will overlook this aspect for fear of not being allotted any flight time. I have no idea how to correct this problem -- I believe it will continue until something major happens in one of his non-airworthy airplanes. Apparently only then will the FAA be able to take action. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he has not heard further from the FAA regarding this matter. However, the aircraft maintenance and logbook availability has improved due to the fact that the company has contracted with others for maintenance since the FAA shut down the maintenance organization they were using. He now knows the importance of assuring, and teaching the students, how to determine if the aircraft meets all airworthy requirements.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING MULTI-ENG TRAINING, 1 ENG WAS FEATHERED DUE TO SMOKE COMING FROM THE ENG. IN ADDITION, THE ACFT HAD OPERATED OVER THE 100 HR INSPECTION BY 16 HRS.

Narrative: I'M A CFII-MEI AND WHILE TRAINING A STUDENT IN A PA34- 200, WE NOTICED A STEADY STREAM OF SMOKE TRAILING THE L ENG. AFTER CHKING THE L ENG GAUGES AND NOTING THEY WERE IN THE GREEN, I ASKED MY STUDENT IF HE HAD SECURED THE OIL DIPSTICK. HE ASSURED ME HE HAD. BEING ONLY 5 MI FROM POC AND KNOWING THE PLANE COULD FLY SINGLE ENG TO BRACKETT BASED ON PREVIOUS FLTS WITH 1 ENG INOP, I DECIDED TO FEATHER AND SECURE THE L ENG. I THEN CONTACTED BRACKET TWR AND DECLARED AN EMER. THIS DECISION WAS BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF TFC IN THE PATTERN AND DIDN'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE INCREASED RISK OF HAVING TO EXECUTE A SINGLE ENG GAR. NOTHING BECAME OF THE OCCASION UNTIL THE LOS ANGELES FSDO GOT INVOLVED. THEY ASKED FOR A STATEMENT OF WHAT HAPPENED OVER THE PHONE, WHICH I COOPERATED. X FROM THE LOS ANGELES FSDO CONTACTED ME SOME TIME LATER A SECOND TIME, TO INQUIRE WX I HAD FLOWN THE PLANE IN THE PREVIOUS DAYS BEFORE THE ENG FAILURE, AND IF I HAD, DID I NOTICE ANYTHING STRANGE ABOUT IT? AGAIN I COOPERATED AND TOLD HIM I HAD BUT THAT THE PLANE WAS THE STRONGEST SENECA IN OUR FLEET. HE THEN REQUESTED A LETTER CONFIRMING WHAT I TOLD HIM, WHICH I ONCE AGAIN OBLIGED. ON OCT/XX/94, I WAS SPEAKING WITH A DESIGNATED EXAMINER AND HE INFORMED ME THAT WE HAD BEEN FLYING THE PLANE FOR 16 DAYS OVER THE 100 HR INSPECTION. NOW I'M WORRIED THAT THE FAA WILL TAKE ACTION AGAINST ME FOR FLYING A NON- AIRWORTHY AIRPLANE AND UNKNOWINGLY ADMITTING TO THE FACT. I NO LONGER ACT IN GOOD FAITH BY BELIEVING MY EMPLOYER HAS MAINTAINED HIS ACFT AND THEIR LOGBOOKS. I NOW REQUEST THE LOGS TO EACH PLANE BEFORE I FLY THEM WHICH HAS PUT ME IN JEOPARDY OF LOSING MY JOB BECAUSE THE OWNER DOES NOT APPRECIATE ME DOING THIS IN FRONT OF CUSTOMERS. I HAVE REFUSED TO FLY 2 PLANES SINCE LEARNING OF MY EMPLOYER'S NEGLIGENCE IN MAINTAINING HIS ACFT WITHIN THE 100 HR INSPECTION. OTHER INSTRUCTORS THAT ARE HUNGRIER FOR TIME WILL OVERLOOK THIS ASPECT FOR FEAR OF NOT BEING ALLOTTED ANY FLT TIME. I HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO CORRECT THIS PROB -- I BELIEVE IT WILL CONTINUE UNTIL SOMETHING MAJOR HAPPENS IN ONE OF HIS NON-AIRWORTHY AIRPLANES. APPARENTLY ONLY THEN WILL THE FAA BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE HAS NOT HEARD FURTHER FROM THE FAA REGARDING THIS MATTER. HOWEVER, THE ACFT MAINT AND LOGBOOK AVAILABILITY HAS IMPROVED DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY HAS CONTRACTED WITH OTHERS FOR MAINT SINCE THE FAA SHUT DOWN THE MAINT ORGANIZATION THEY WERE USING. HE NOW KNOWS THE IMPORTANCE OF ASSURING, AND TEACHING THE STUDENTS, HOW TO DETERMINE IF THE ACFT MEETS ALL AIRWORTHY REQUIREMENTS.

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.