Narrative:

On aug/fri/00, I flew as first officer to minneapolis, mn. Upon landing the left brake was inoperative. #2 system was selected and normal braking returned. The next day maintenance at wxxx replaced the left inboard brake assembly and the right outboard assembly due to being at the serviceable limit. Later that day the aircraft was positioned to home base, ZZZ, us. Upon landing, the same problem occurred. Again normal braking was achieved by using #2 system. At that time the captain made an entry in the flight log essentially grounding the airplane. On aug/sat/00, the owner/operator (axz BBBB of YYY aviation) asked me to check the airplane since the company mechanic did not have jacks nor a hydraulic mule to test the system per the maintenance manual. I taxied the airplane around and no brake problems existed. All system performed normally. Since I am also an aircraft mechanic with inspection authority/authorized, I elected to return the aircraft to service after this maintenance run-up. I made an entry in the flight log effectively saying that a functional check was performed and no abnormality was found. At the time, I believed I had the right to make that entry. The company mechanic refused to return the airplane to service. I deeply regret any direct or potential threat to safety by releasing this airplane to service. Part of this problem that led to this situation is that the aircraft is on an far 135 certificate that is based at another airport (XXX, us). The operator of the aircraft, axz BBBB, owner of YYY aviation, runs this aircraft out of his kitchen in axbx with his wife. In short, his operation is somewhat absentee. If this operator had the appropriate support equipment, ie, jacks to jack the aircraft and a hydraulic mule at his home base to properly check the hydraulic system, the proper checks and tests would have been accomplished and the problem solved at home base. The FAA called the certificate holder, mxzy aviation. They had no knowledge of this whole occurrence. The company mechanic was not keeping mxzy informed, as he should have per the operations manual. In addition, the mechanic called the FAA on aug/sat/00 pm, seeking a ferry permit. They refused to give him one. I am not sure why at this time. When the FAA looked around for the plane aug/mon/00 am, and it was not there, you can imagine their inquiry.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A FALCON 50 HAD THE L BRAKE FAIL ON 2 CONSECUTIVE FLTS. THE FO ON BOTH FLTS, A LICENSED A&P TECHNICIAN WITH INSPECTOR AUTH TAXI TESTED THE ACFT AND CLRED THE LOG RPT.

Narrative: ON AUG/FRI/00, I FLEW AS FO TO MINNEAPOLIS, MN. UPON LNDG THE L BRAKE WAS INOP. #2 SYS WAS SELECTED AND NORMAL BRAKING RETURNED. THE NEXT DAY MAINT AT WXXX REPLACED THE L INBOARD BRAKE ASSEMBLY AND THE R OUTBOARD ASSEMBLY DUE TO BEING AT THE SERVICEABLE LIMIT. LATER THAT DAY THE ACFT WAS POSITIONED TO HOME BASE, ZZZ, US. UPON LNDG, THE SAME PROB OCCURRED. AGAIN NORMAL BRAKING WAS ACHIEVED BY USING #2 SYS. AT THAT TIME THE CAPT MADE AN ENTRY IN THE FLT LOG ESSENTIALLY GROUNDING THE AIRPLANE. ON AUG/SAT/00, THE OWNER/OPERATOR (AXZ BBBB OF YYY AVIATION) ASKED ME TO CHK THE AIRPLANE SINCE THE COMPANY MECH DID NOT HAVE JACKS NOR A HYD MULE TO TEST THE SYS PER THE MAINT MANUAL. I TAXIED THE AIRPLANE AROUND AND NO BRAKE PROBS EXISTED. ALL SYS PERFORMED NORMALLY. SINCE I AM ALSO AN ACFT MECH WITH INSPECTION AUTH, I ELECTED TO RETURN THE ACFT TO SVC AFTER THIS MAINT RUN-UP. I MADE AN ENTRY IN THE FLT LOG EFFECTIVELY SAYING THAT A FUNCTIONAL CHK WAS PERFORMED AND NO ABNORMALITY WAS FOUND. AT THE TIME, I BELIEVED I HAD THE RIGHT TO MAKE THAT ENTRY. THE COMPANY MECH REFUSED TO RETURN THE AIRPLANE TO SVC. I DEEPLY REGRET ANY DIRECT OR POTENTIAL THREAT TO SAFETY BY RELEASING THIS AIRPLANE TO SVC. PART OF THIS PROB THAT LED TO THIS SIT IS THAT THE ACFT IS ON AN FAR 135 CERTIFICATE THAT IS BASED AT ANOTHER ARPT (XXX, US). THE OPERATOR OF THE ACFT, AXZ BBBB, OWNER OF YYY AVIATION, RUNS THIS ACFT OUT OF HIS KITCHEN IN AXBX WITH HIS WIFE. IN SHORT, HIS OP IS SOMEWHAT ABSENTEE. IF THIS OPERATOR HAD THE APPROPRIATE SUPPORT EQUIP, IE, JACKS TO JACK THE ACFT AND A HYD MULE AT HIS HOME BASE TO PROPERLY CHK THE HYD SYS, THE PROPER CHKS AND TESTS WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND THE PROB SOLVED AT HOME BASE. THE FAA CALLED THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER, MXZY AVIATION. THEY HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS WHOLE OCCURRENCE. THE COMPANY MECH WAS NOT KEEPING MXZY INFORMED, AS HE SHOULD HAVE PER THE OPS MANUAL. IN ADDITION, THE MECH CALLED THE FAA ON AUG/SAT/00 PM, SEEKING A FERRY PERMIT. THEY REFUSED TO GIVE HIM ONE. I AM NOT SURE WHY AT THIS TIME. WHEN THE FAA LOOKED AROUND FOR THE PLANE AUG/MON/00 AM, AND IT WAS NOT THERE, YOU CAN IMAGINE THEIR INQUIRY.

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.