Narrative:

In a recent sale of our aircraft and during pre-buy, it has been noted that some discrepancies exist in the logbooks. These alleged errors would mean that I flew the aircraft overdue some maintenance inspections. To my knowledge, I did not do that. In fact, when I fly, I feel confident all required maintenance has been performed and documented. Our corrective action has been to change maintenance facilities and hire our own mechanic. It appears all the errors are documentation in nature and not safety of flight -- which makes me feel a little better, but I'm sure there is still some legal stigma attached. For example, there was an airworthiness directive that required a chip plug to be inspected every 8 hours flight time. It was (the airworthiness directive number) changed but the procedure and internal were the same. The signoff sheet was reflecting the incorrect airworthiness directive number and the internal was used as hobbs time minus aircraft total time. The signoff was by the pilot as authority/authorized by the FAA in a letter as an alternate means of compliance. The intent was accomplished but not the detail. Some of the signoffs in the logbooks were incorrect in format and some typographical errors existed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ASTAR 350 HELI WAS FOUND ON A LOGBOOK INSPECTION TO HAVE OVERDUE REQUIRED MAINT INSPECTIONS.

Narrative: IN A RECENT SALE OF OUR ACFT AND DURING PRE-BUY, IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT SOME DISCREPANCIES EXIST IN THE LOGBOOKS. THESE ALLEGED ERRORS WOULD MEAN THAT I FLEW THE ACFT OVERDUE SOME MAINT INSPECTIONS. TO MY KNOWLEDGE, I DID NOT DO THAT. IN FACT, WHEN I FLY, I FEEL CONFIDENT ALL REQUIRED MAINT HAS BEEN PERFORMED AND DOCUMENTED. OUR CORRECTIVE ACTION HAS BEEN TO CHANGE MAINT FACILITIES AND HIRE OUR OWN MECH. IT APPEARS ALL THE ERRORS ARE DOCUMENTATION IN NATURE AND NOT SAFETY OF FLT -- WHICH MAKES ME FEEL A LITTLE BETTER, BUT I'M SURE THERE IS STILL SOME LEGAL STIGMA ATTACHED. FOR EXAMPLE, THERE WAS AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE THAT REQUIRED A CHIP PLUG TO BE INSPECTED EVERY 8 HRS FLT TIME. IT WAS (THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NUMBER) CHANGED BUT THE PROC AND INTERNAL WERE THE SAME. THE SIGNOFF SHEET WAS REFLECTING THE INCORRECT AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NUMBER AND THE INTERNAL WAS USED AS HOBBS TIME MINUS ACFT TOTAL TIME. THE SIGNOFF WAS BY THE PLT AS AUTH BY THE FAA IN A LETTER AS AN ALTERNATE MEANS OF COMPLIANCE. THE INTENT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BUT NOT THE DETAIL. SOME OF THE SIGNOFFS IN THE LOGBOOKS WERE INCORRECT IN FORMAT AND SOME TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS EXISTED.

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.