Narrative:

Training flight was done in an airplane that had been involved in an aircraft collision on the ground and was repaired and put back on the line for flight after an annual inspection. After the training flight, a more thorough examination of the aircraft logbooks revealed that the a&P who addressed unairworthy items (found during the annual inspection), signed the logbook of the plane as being 'returned to service,' and not necessarily in airworthy condition. Upon discussing this issue with the a&P who addressed the list of unairworthy items (found by another company that did the annual inspection), the a&P said he did not write that the aircraft was airworthy in the logbooks due to possible liability. The a&P also stated that he did not address all of the items listed by the other company because he believed that 'they did not really affect the airworthiness of the aircraft.' therefore, he decided to sign the logbook as 'returned to service,' and allow the plane to be rented again, with the questionability of its actual airworthiness. The logbook lists the items that were addressed following the annual, but says nothing about the items that have not been complied with before the aircraft was 'returned to service.'

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C172 WAS FLOWN IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH AIRWORTHY ITEMS DISCOVERED IN AN ANNUAL INSPECTION, BUT NOT CORRECTED. LOGBOOK SIGNED OFF 'RETURNED TO SVC.'

Narrative: TRAINING FLT WAS DONE IN AN AIRPLANE THAT HAD BEEN INVOLVED IN AN ACFT COLLISION ON THE GND AND WAS REPAIRED AND PUT BACK ON THE LINE FOR FLT AFTER AN ANNUAL INSPECTION. AFTER THE TRAINING FLT, A MORE THOROUGH EXAM OF THE ACFT LOGBOOKS REVEALED THAT THE A&P WHO ADDRESSED UNAIRWORTHY ITEMS (FOUND DURING THE ANNUAL INSPECTION), SIGNED THE LOGBOOK OF THE PLANE AS BEING 'RETURNED TO SVC,' AND NOT NECESSARILY IN AIRWORTHY CONDITION. UPON DISCUSSING THIS ISSUE WITH THE A&P WHO ADDRESSED THE LIST OF UNAIRWORTHY ITEMS (FOUND BY ANOTHER COMPANY THAT DID THE ANNUAL INSPECTION), THE A&P SAID HE DID NOT WRITE THAT THE ACFT WAS AIRWORTHY IN THE LOGBOOKS DUE TO POSSIBLE LIABILITY. THE A&P ALSO STATED THAT HE DID NOT ADDRESS ALL OF THE ITEMS LISTED BY THE OTHER COMPANY BECAUSE HE BELIEVED THAT 'THEY DID NOT REALLY AFFECT THE AIRWORTHINESS OF THE ACFT.' THEREFORE, HE DECIDED TO SIGN THE LOGBOOK AS 'RETURNED TO SVC,' AND ALLOW THE PLANE TO BE RENTED AGAIN, WITH THE QUESTIONABILITY OF ITS ACTUAL AIRWORTHINESS. THE LOGBOOK LISTS THE ITEMS THAT WERE ADDRESSED FOLLOWING THE ANNUAL, BUT SAYS NOTHING ABOUT THE ITEMS THAT HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH BEFORE THE ACFT WAS 'RETURNED TO SVC.'

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.