Narrative:

Aircraft was scheduled to be used for a recurrency check ride with the FAA. The seemingly reluctant pilot departed IRS to meet his examiner. He very shortly returned and reported that the compared error between vors #1 and #2 exceeded 5 degrees; was out of limits and; therefore; he was canceling his check ride. He so informed the FAA examiner by phone. It so happens that the company has recently acquired the services of an experienced avionics line technician with a&P. Also; we had on station a rented; state-of-the-art navigation/communication test box which we had been using for functional testing and troubleshooting of other various system and aircraft. The avionics technician applied the test box to the VOR system in question and determined that the compared error was less than 4 degrees and; therefore; within limits. An entry was made to this effect on the approved discrepancy sheet in the aircraft flight log. The following day; a saturday; the aircraft was dispatched on a part 135 passenger flight and returned IRS early afternoon. The pilot was approached upon arrival by our FAA principal maintenance inspector who wanted to see how an aircraft that was unfit for check ride the previous day was now flying part 135. He apparently read and transcribed the information on the discrepancy sheet; made a comment about someone not wanting to do a check ride; and departed. To preclude the possibility that VOR error in-flight might be more than tested on the ground; and also; to eliminate comparative error if possible; the aircraft was scheduled in to a certified avionics repair station the following week. A fault was discovered and corrected in the #2 VOR indicator and subsequent in-flight checks revealed virtually no comparative error. The reason that this form is being prepared is due to information received in a subsequent phone conversation with our FAA avionics inspector in which he indicated that it might be construed that the testing and return to service is beyond the scope of privileges granted to a&P or ia certificate holders. He specified far 65.81 which prohibits repairs or alternations to instruments. No such actions were performed in this instance.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A C310P WITH A RPT OF VOR SYS #1 AND #2 EXCEEDED ERROR LIMITS WAS TESTED BY AN AVIONICS TECHNICIAN AND FOUND WITHIN LIMITS. FAA AVIONICS INSPECTOR BELIEVES FAR 65.81 MAY HAVE BEEN VIOLATED.

Narrative: ACFT WAS SCHEDULED TO BE USED FOR A RECURRENCY CHK RIDE WITH THE FAA. THE SEEMINGLY RELUCTANT PLT DEPARTED IRS TO MEET HIS EXAMINER. HE VERY SHORTLY RETURNED AND RPTED THAT THE COMPARED ERROR BTWN VORS #1 AND #2 EXCEEDED 5 DEGS; WAS OUT OF LIMITS AND; THEREFORE; HE WAS CANCELING HIS CHK RIDE. HE SO INFORMED THE FAA EXAMINER BY PHONE. IT SO HAPPENS THAT THE COMPANY HAS RECENTLY ACQUIRED THE SVCS OF AN EXPERIENCED AVIONICS LINE TECHNICIAN WITH A&P. ALSO; WE HAD ON STATION A RENTED; STATE-OF-THE-ART NAV/COM TEST BOX WHICH WE HAD BEEN USING FOR FUNCTIONAL TESTING AND TROUBLESHOOTING OF OTHER VARIOUS SYS AND ACFT. THE AVIONICS TECHNICIAN APPLIED THE TEST BOX TO THE VOR SYS IN QUESTION AND DETERMINED THAT THE COMPARED ERROR WAS LESS THAN 4 DEGS AND; THEREFORE; WITHIN LIMITS. AN ENTRY WAS MADE TO THIS EFFECT ON THE APPROVED DISCREPANCY SHEET IN THE ACFT FLT LOG. THE FOLLOWING DAY; A SATURDAY; THE ACFT WAS DISPATCHED ON A PART 135 PAX FLT AND RETURNED IRS EARLY AFTERNOON. THE PLT WAS APCHED UPON ARR BY OUR FAA PRINCIPAL MAINT INSPECTOR WHO WANTED TO SEE HOW AN ACFT THAT WAS UNFIT FOR CHK RIDE THE PREVIOUS DAY WAS NOW FLYING PART 135. HE APPARENTLY READ AND TRANSCRIBED THE INFO ON THE DISCREPANCY SHEET; MADE A COMMENT ABOUT SOMEONE NOT WANTING TO DO A CHK RIDE; AND DEPARTED. TO PRECLUDE THE POSSIBILITY THAT VOR ERROR INFLT MIGHT BE MORE THAN TESTED ON THE GND; AND ALSO; TO ELIMINATE COMPARATIVE ERROR IF POSSIBLE; THE ACFT WAS SCHEDULED IN TO A CERTIFIED AVIONICS REPAIR STATION THE FOLLOWING WK. A FAULT WAS DISCOVERED AND CORRECTED IN THE #2 VOR INDICATOR AND SUBSEQUENT INFLT CHKS REVEALED VIRTUALLY NO COMPARATIVE ERROR. THE REASON THAT THIS FORM IS BEING PREPARED IS DUE TO INFO RECEIVED IN A SUBSEQUENT PHONE CONVERSATION WITH OUR FAA AVIONICS INSPECTOR IN WHICH HE INDICATED THAT IT MIGHT BE CONSTRUED THAT THE TESTING AND RETURN TO SVC IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF PRIVILEGES GRANTED TO A&P OR IA CERTIFICATE HOLDERS. HE SPECIFIED FAR 65.81 WHICH PROHIBITS REPAIRS OR ALTERNATIONS TO INSTS. NO SUCH ACTIONS WERE PERFORMED IN THIS INSTANCE.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.