Narrative:

En route from grand rapids, mi, to detroit, mi, we saw a flash of light in a circuit breaker panel. We advised ATC we would like to land in lansing, mi. We did not declare an emergency. We landed and parked with no further problem. We operate part 135 out of grand rapids on a certificate based in battle creek, mi. This is a temporary operation, until we receive our own certificate. I was under the understanding that XXX in grr was able to conduct all of our maintenance requirements. I called XXX grr to discuss the situation and if GA FBO could look at the aircraft. The plane was properly signed off as airworthy by an inspector and I flew it back to grr. Several days later, I was advised by our chief pilot that I had not followed the correct procedure and notified the director of operations, and the director of maintenance in battle creek. I feel that there was a breakdown in communications between battle creek operations and our operations in grr, in the proper procedures for dealing with a maintenance problem. As long as I have flown with the company (7 months) we have used the same procedure. My solution is that a written LOA should be established between all parties (btl operations, grr operations, FAA) so there is set of guidelines on how to deal with a similar situation in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: ATX PIC RPT ON FACILITY MAINT PROCS AND LOA FOR SCHEDULED ACFT MAINT PROCS. AIRLINE MGMNT MAINT POLICY PROC.

Narrative: ENRTE FROM GRAND RAPIDS, MI, TO DETROIT, MI, WE SAW A FLASH OF LIGHT IN A CIRCUIT BREAKER PANEL. WE ADVISED ATC WE WOULD LIKE TO LAND IN LANSING, MI. WE DID NOT DECLARE AN EMER. WE LANDED AND PARKED WITH NO FURTHER PROB. WE OPERATE PART 135 OUT OF GRAND RAPIDS ON A CERTIFICATE BASED IN BATTLE CREEK, MI. THIS IS A TEMPORARY OP, UNTIL WE RECEIVE OUR OWN CERTIFICATE. I WAS UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THAT XXX IN GRR WAS ABLE TO CONDUCT ALL OF OUR MAINT REQUIREMENTS. I CALLED XXX GRR TO DISCUSS THE SIT AND IF GA FBO COULD LOOK AT THE ACFT. THE PLANE WAS PROPERLY SIGNED OFF AS AIRWORTHY BY AN INSPECTOR AND I FLEW IT BACK TO GRR. SEVERAL DAYS LATER, I WAS ADVISED BY OUR CHIEF PLT THAT I HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE CORRECT PROC AND NOTIFIED THE DIRECTOR OF OPS, AND THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT IN BATTLE CREEK. I FEEL THAT THERE WAS A BREAKDOWN IN COMS BTWN BATTLE CREEK OPS AND OUR OPS IN GRR, IN THE PROPER PROCS FOR DEALING WITH A MAINT PROB. AS LONG AS I HAVE FLOWN WITH THE COMPANY (7 MONTHS) WE HAVE USED THE SAME PROC. MY SOLUTION IS THAT A WRITTEN LOA SHOULD BE ESTABLISHED BTWN ALL PARTIES (BTL OPS, GRR OPS, FAA) SO THERE IS SET OF GUIDELINES ON HOW TO DEAL WITH A SIMILAR SIT IN THE FUTURE.

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.