Narrative:

On mar/tue/03, I planned to travel to san diego, ca, montgomery airport from la verne, ca, brackett airport. The estimated time of departure was XA00 for a flight expected to last 35 mins in duration. As a private pilot rated only in single engine aircraft, I solicited the help of a licensed multi-engine instructor to comply with FAA regulation. Mr X was referred to me the day before. We spoke briefly about the flight, the time I expected to leave and return. He asked if I was a pilot and I answered yes. He never asked if I was a multi-engine pilot. I was told by the person who referred him that he was a pilot with a local part 135 charter company and flew 400 series cessna aircraft for the company. I was also told he was a flight instructor. I assumed that meant he was a multi-engine flight instructor. So he assumed I was rated and I assumed he was rated. This was our fist time ever flying together. The flight went perfectly without any safety incidents and we landed on time at the destination airport. I was PIC. I have been flying for 16 yrs and a pilot for over 15 yrs without a single problem or event. I take full responsibility for any problems that may have arisen out of this incident. My planned corrective action will be to obtain my multi-engine license and verify that any person flying with me, until then, is a multi-engine rated instructor. The second issue relates to the maintenance of the aircraft. It was brought to my attention by an FAA representative that the following maintenance discrepancies required my attention. Due to the recent painting of the aircraft exterior, the control surfaces need to be balanced due to a change in weight from the paint. The data card on the back of the aircraft also needed to be replaced since it had been painted over. After review of the logbooks, it has further come to my attention that the aircraft was out of annual. As a private pilot, I relied upon FBO X to inform me of all maintenance issues. After all, they were an FAA certified repair station and they had made numerous logbook entries and I looked to them for direction. Over the course of the last yr, I spent almost $19000 at their direction. I have included a report of the billing I have paid at their direction for numerous and extensive items. After each repair, the aircraft was returned to service. Although, as the company president, I should have inspected the logbooks to verify the work had been done, I trusted FBO X, a certified repair station, to advise me properly. My planned corrective action will be to personally verify that the mechanic has completed all the required maintenance essential to keeping the aircraft airworthy.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: C421 PLT OPERATES THE ACFT WITH A SINGLE PLT RATING AND MAINT DISCREPANCIES.

Narrative: ON MAR/TUE/03, I PLANNED TO TRAVEL TO SAN DIEGO, CA, MONTGOMERY ARPT FROM LA VERNE, CA, BRACKETT ARPT. THE ESTIMATED TIME OF DEP WAS XA00 FOR A FLT EXPECTED TO LAST 35 MINS IN DURATION. AS A PVT PLT RATED ONLY IN SINGLE ENG ACFT, I SOLICITED THE HELP OF A LICENSED MULTI-ENG INSTRUCTOR TO COMPLY WITH FAA REG. MR X WAS REFERRED TO ME THE DAY BEFORE. WE SPOKE BRIEFLY ABOUT THE FLT, THE TIME I EXPECTED TO LEAVE AND RETURN. HE ASKED IF I WAS A PLT AND I ANSWERED YES. HE NEVER ASKED IF I WAS A MULTI-ENG PLT. I WAS TOLD BY THE PERSON WHO REFERRED HIM THAT HE WAS A PLT WITH A LCL PART 135 CHARTER COMPANY AND FLEW 400 SERIES CESSNA ACFT FOR THE COMPANY. I WAS ALSO TOLD HE WAS A FLT INSTRUCTOR. I ASSUMED THAT MEANT HE WAS A MULTI-ENG FLT INSTRUCTOR. SO HE ASSUMED I WAS RATED AND I ASSUMED HE WAS RATED. THIS WAS OUR FIST TIME EVER FLYING TOGETHER. THE FLT WENT PERFECTLY WITHOUT ANY SAFETY INCIDENTS AND WE LANDED ON TIME AT THE DEST ARPT. I WAS PIC. I HAVE BEEN FLYING FOR 16 YRS AND A PLT FOR OVER 15 YRS WITHOUT A SINGLE PROB OR EVENT. I TAKE FULL RESPONSIBILITY FOR ANY PROBS THAT MAY HAVE ARISEN OUT OF THIS INCIDENT. MY PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE TO OBTAIN MY MULTI-ENG LICENSE AND VERIFY THAT ANY PERSON FLYING WITH ME, UNTIL THEN, IS A MULTI-ENG RATED INSTRUCTOR. THE SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO THE MAINT OF THE ACFT. IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTN BY AN FAA REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE FOLLOWING MAINT DISCREPANCIES REQUIRED MY ATTN. DUE TO THE RECENT PAINTING OF THE ACFT EXTERIOR, THE CTL SURFACES NEED TO BE BALANCED DUE TO A CHANGE IN WT FROM THE PAINT. THE DATA CARD ON THE BACK OF THE ACFT ALSO NEEDED TO BE REPLACED SINCE IT HAD BEEN PAINTED OVER. AFTER REVIEW OF THE LOGBOOKS, IT HAS FURTHER COME TO MY ATTN THAT THE ACFT WAS OUT OF ANNUAL. AS A PVT PLT, I RELIED UPON FBO X TO INFORM ME OF ALL MAINT ISSUES. AFTER ALL, THEY WERE AN FAA CERTIFIED REPAIR STATION AND THEY HAD MADE NUMEROUS LOGBOOK ENTRIES AND I LOOKED TO THEM FOR DIRECTION. OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST YR, I SPENT ALMOST $19000 AT THEIR DIRECTION. I HAVE INCLUDED A RPT OF THE BILLING I HAVE PAID AT THEIR DIRECTION FOR NUMEROUS AND EXTENSIVE ITEMS. AFTER EACH REPAIR, THE ACFT WAS RETURNED TO SVC. ALTHOUGH, AS THE COMPANY PRESIDENT, I SHOULD HAVE INSPECTED THE LOGBOOKS TO VERIFY THE WORK HAD BEEN DONE, I TRUSTED FBO X, A CERTIFIED REPAIR STATION, TO ADVISE ME PROPERLY. MY PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION WILL BE TO PERSONALLY VERIFY THAT THE MECH HAS COMPLETED ALL THE REQUIRED MAINT ESSENTIAL TO KEEPING THE ACFT AIRWORTHY.

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.