Narrative:

On jun/xx/97, I and my first officer, a line captain acting as sic, were assigned a flight series originating from fsd, sd. After arriving, our BE02 was delayed by the previous crew for a mechanical problem associated with the autoplt. When we received the aircraft the flight director and autoplt were MEL'ed. Departing for hon, sd, we noted that the rudder boost, yaw damper and pitch trim were additionally inoperative. The sic stated that he had faced this problem before, that the MEL was incomplete and that he knew how to handle the problem. After arriving at hon, sd, I instructed him to call our maintenance personnel in to get approval for the proposed action. When he returned he stated he received their approval. We took the following action: we entered into the flight log the 3 additional problems as well as the previous PIC's identify number as if it had been done at fsd. After arriving at fsd we had the same contract maintenance person sign off the additional entries. Needless to say this was irregular. I trusted that the sic had received approval from maintenance, he had only informed them of the plan, that because of his previous experience with the problem, his conclusion, ie, solution, was a good one.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BE1900 WAS DISPATCHED WITH MINIMUM EQUIP REQUIRED SYS INOP BUT NOT ENTERED IN THE LOGBOOK.

Narrative: ON JUN/XX/97, I AND MY FO, A LINE CAPT ACTING AS SIC, WERE ASSIGNED A FLT SERIES ORIGINATING FROM FSD, SD. AFTER ARRIVING, OUR BE02 WAS DELAYED BY THE PREVIOUS CREW FOR A MECHANICAL PROB ASSOCIATED WITH THE AUTOPLT. WHEN WE RECEIVED THE ACFT THE FLT DIRECTOR AND AUTOPLT WERE MEL'ED. DEPARTING FOR HON, SD, WE NOTED THAT THE RUDDER BOOST, YAW DAMPER AND PITCH TRIM WERE ADDITIONALLY INOP. THE SIC STATED THAT HE HAD FACED THIS PROB BEFORE, THAT THE MEL WAS INCOMPLETE AND THAT HE KNEW HOW TO HANDLE THE PROB. AFTER ARRIVING AT HON, SD, I INSTRUCTED HIM TO CALL OUR MAINT PERSONNEL IN TO GET APPROVAL FOR THE PROPOSED ACTION. WHEN HE RETURNED HE STATED HE RECEIVED THEIR APPROVAL. WE TOOK THE FOLLOWING ACTION: WE ENTERED INTO THE FLT LOG THE 3 ADDITIONAL PROBS AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS PIC'S IDENT NUMBER AS IF IT HAD BEEN DONE AT FSD. AFTER ARRIVING AT FSD WE HAD THE SAME CONTRACT MAINT PERSON SIGN OFF THE ADDITIONAL ENTRIES. NEEDLESS TO SAY THIS WAS IRREGULAR. I TRUSTED THAT THE SIC HAD RECEIVED APPROVAL FROM MAINT, HE HAD ONLY INFORMED THEM OF THE PLAN, THAT BECAUSE OF HIS PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH THE PROB, HIS CONCLUSION, IE, SOLUTION, WAS A GOOD ONE.

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.