Narrative:

On apr/xa/98, FAA inspector ramp checked my assigned aircraft, a C208, at FBO ramp in dsm, ia. Inspector found a cracked exhaust bracket on the aircraft. On further inspection, during preflight, I found another cracked support bracket. Inspector told me to write up the discrepancy. I wrote up the cracked exhaust support brackets and called my chief pilot. The president called me and told me to fly the aircraft and that the chief mechanic said the cracked support brackets were not safety in flight items. The aircraft was airworthy, according to the mechanic, and could be flown until returned to anderson, in. I flew the aircraft from dsm to waterloo to ind and back to dsm. I was then instructed to fly from dsm to anderson, in, to have the aircraft repaired. The aircraft was then repaired in anderson, in. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he did receive a letter from the FAA stating that investigation did not disclose a violation of the FARS by him, even though the discrepancy was not written up properly or signed off as deferred by a mechanic as is customary in this situation.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF A C208 OPERATED THE ACFT ON A SCHEDULED CARGO FLT WHEN THE EXHAUST PIPE SYS HAD CRACKS IN THE SUPPORTING BRACKETS. ONE CRACK WAS BROUGHT TO THE RPTR'S ATTN BY AN FAA INSPECTOR DURING A RAMP INSPECTION AND ANOTHER BY THE RPTR DURING A SUBSEQUENT PREFLT INSPECTION. THE COMPANY SUPVR ADVISED THAT THE CRACKS WERE NOT SAFETY OF FLT ITEMS AND TO CONTINUE FLYING THE ACFT.

Narrative: ON APR/XA/98, FAA INSPECTOR RAMP CHKED MY ASSIGNED ACFT, A C208, AT FBO RAMP IN DSM, IA. INSPECTOR FOUND A CRACKED EXHAUST BRACKET ON THE ACFT. ON FURTHER INSPECTION, DURING PREFLT, I FOUND ANOTHER CRACKED SUPPORT BRACKET. INSPECTOR TOLD ME TO WRITE UP THE DISCREPANCY. I WROTE UP THE CRACKED EXHAUST SUPPORT BRACKETS AND CALLED MY CHIEF PLT. THE PRESIDENT CALLED ME AND TOLD ME TO FLY THE ACFT AND THAT THE CHIEF MECH SAID THE CRACKED SUPPORT BRACKETS WERE NOT SAFETY IN FLT ITEMS. THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY, ACCORDING TO THE MECH, AND COULD BE FLOWN UNTIL RETURNED TO ANDERSON, IN. I FLEW THE ACFT FROM DSM TO WATERLOO TO IND AND BACK TO DSM. I WAS THEN INSTRUCTED TO FLY FROM DSM TO ANDERSON, IN, TO HAVE THE ACFT REPAIRED. THE ACFT WAS THEN REPAIRED IN ANDERSON, IN. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE DID RECEIVE A LETTER FROM THE FAA STATING THAT INVESTIGATION DID NOT DISCLOSE A VIOLATION OF THE FARS BY HIM, EVEN THOUGH THE DISCREPANCY WAS NOT WRITTEN UP PROPERLY OR SIGNED OFF AS DEFERRED BY A MECH AS IS CUSTOMARY IN THIS SIT.

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.