Narrative:

I was sent to ZZZ to test fly an airplane and reposition it back to ZZZ1 if it passed. A mechanic was sent with the first officer and me. When I looked at the logbook, I questioned the mechanic about the corrective action on the yaw damper. The corrective action said they performed an operational check and it failed. The mechanic said they had, 'short signed' it, so if the yaw damper passed the test flight, we were ok. I took his word for it since he signed the airworthiness release on that log page. The yaw damper appeared to pass the test flight, so I signed it off as satisfactory. We then left for ZZZ1 and I realized the yaw damper was not working properly, so I wrote it up when we arrived. I gave the logbook to maintenance control and they told me that the 'short-sign' did not count as corrective action, therefore, I had just flown with an open write-up. I told them I had asked the mechanic about that. They said he didn't know what he was talking about and I should have called them, that I needed a ferry permit due to the 'short-sign.' I am still not sure as to what a 'short sign' is. I also don't think it is my job to audit maintenance to make sure they do their job properly. As far as I'm concerned, there was a corrective action and the airworthiness release was signed, so I am relieved of the responsibility, in this matter. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated on examining the aircraft logbook it was noted the airworthiness release was signed, but the yaw damper report was cleared with the following statement 'yaw damper failed operational test.' the reporter said an additional 'short signed' note was added so if the yaw damper tested ok in-flight it would be ok. The reporter stated the airplane was flown and the yaw damper was found failed. The reporter said maintenance control advised the reporter the aircraft was flown with an open logbook write-up. The reporter stated immediate contact was made with the flight manager and the maintenance manager and explained entries as found. The reporter said the mgrs agreed that it is not the pilot's duty to audit the maintenance paperwork.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN SF340A THE FLT CREW SENT TO TEST AND REPOSITION AIRPLANE AFTER TECHNICIAN'S REPAIR. LOGBOOK AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE SIGNED, BUT YAW DAMPER 'SHORT SIGNED' OPERATIONAL CHK FAILED. YAW DAMPER FAILED INFLT.

Narrative: I WAS SENT TO ZZZ TO TEST FLY AN AIRPLANE AND REPOSITION IT BACK TO ZZZ1 IF IT PASSED. A MECH WAS SENT WITH THE FO AND ME. WHEN I LOOKED AT THE LOGBOOK, I QUESTIONED THE MECH ABOUT THE CORRECTIVE ACTION ON THE YAW DAMPER. THE CORRECTIVE ACTION SAID THEY PERFORMED AN OPERATIONAL CHK AND IT FAILED. THE MECH SAID THEY HAD, 'SHORT SIGNED' IT, SO IF THE YAW DAMPER PASSED THE TEST FLT, WE WERE OK. I TOOK HIS WORD FOR IT SINCE HE SIGNED THE AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE ON THAT LOG PAGE. THE YAW DAMPER APPEARED TO PASS THE TEST FLT, SO I SIGNED IT OFF AS SATISFACTORY. WE THEN LEFT FOR ZZZ1 AND I REALIZED THE YAW DAMPER WAS NOT WORKING PROPERLY, SO I WROTE IT UP WHEN WE ARRIVED. I GAVE THE LOGBOOK TO MAINT CTL AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THE 'SHORT-SIGN' DID NOT COUNT AS CORRECTIVE ACTION, THEREFORE, I HAD JUST FLOWN WITH AN OPEN WRITE-UP. I TOLD THEM I HAD ASKED THE MECH ABOUT THAT. THEY SAID HE DIDN'T KNOW WHAT HE WAS TALKING ABOUT AND I SHOULD HAVE CALLED THEM, THAT I NEEDED A FERRY PERMIT DUE TO THE 'SHORT-SIGN.' I AM STILL NOT SURE AS TO WHAT A 'SHORT SIGN' IS. I ALSO DON'T THINK IT IS MY JOB TO AUDIT MAINT TO MAKE SURE THEY DO THEIR JOB PROPERLY. AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THERE WAS A CORRECTIVE ACTION AND THE AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE WAS SIGNED, SO I AM RELIEVED OF THE RESPONSIBILITY, IN THIS MATTER. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED ON EXAMINING THE ACFT LOGBOOK IT WAS NOTED THE AIRWORTHINESS RELEASE WAS SIGNED, BUT THE YAW DAMPER RPT WAS CLRED WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT 'YAW DAMPER FAILED OPERATIONAL TEST.' THE RPTR SAID AN ADDITIONAL 'SHORT SIGNED' NOTE WAS ADDED SO IF THE YAW DAMPER TESTED OK INFLT IT WOULD BE OK. THE RPTR STATED THE AIRPLANE WAS FLOWN AND THE YAW DAMPER WAS FOUND FAILED. THE RPTR SAID MAINT CTL ADVISED THE RPTR THE ACFT WAS FLOWN WITH AN OPEN LOGBOOK WRITE-UP. THE RPTR STATED IMMEDIATE CONTACT WAS MADE WITH THE FLT MGR AND THE MAINT MGR AND EXPLAINED ENTRIES AS FOUND. THE RPTR SAID THE MGRS AGREED THAT IT IS NOT THE PLT'S DUTY TO AUDIT THE MAINT PAPERWORK.

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.