Poor maintenace documentation nearly kills 3

Wreckage_AAB1301.jpg



wow. sad to know that was avoidable. glad the pilots were able to escape.
 
Did you read the report? You can skip to the probable cause at the end if you like:

The NTSB determines that the probable cause of this accident was the failure of a midspar fitting, which was susceptible to fatigue cracking and should have been replaced with a newer, more fatigue-resistant version of the fitting as required by an airworthiness directive. Also causal was an erroneous maintenance entry made by a previous aircraft owner, which incorrectly reflected that the newer fitting had been installed.​
 
I know that some/many people when they buy a plane from certain areas, particularly Alaska, they confirm that every AD has been complied with and not just taking a signoff on it's merits. As in, looking to see that doublers are installed, right Part numbers/serial numbers are installed, etc.

Somebody in heap big trouble for this one.
 
Jaybird180 said:
Can the previous owner be held liable?
Click to expand...

Only with a good lawyer. My dad went through this with a pencil whipped engine overhaul. Pretty much no real recourse because planes are sold AS IS with no warranty. And there's nothing to say that since acquiring the aircraft, the fitting wasn't removed by the current owners.

Although, documentation doesn't kill or nearly kill. The act of not installing the fitting, and not checking to make sure it is installed is the issue.
 
Great job by the PF getting it back on the ground. Aborting after V1 is a tough call, but after effectively losing both 1 and 2, sounds like the right choice.
 
The log entry (according to NTSB) for the AD in question had a (C) after it indicating that the fitting had been replaced and that the repetitive inspections were no longer required.

Having spent a very short period of time in the maintenance department of an airline (5 year short-timer) I never recall seeing that the shorthand for an AD that had a "fix" that didn't require any more inspections was a (C). Is this something new (my last part 121 wrench was in 1967) or did I just not learn my lesson properly the first time around?

Jim
.
.
 
weirdjim said:
The log entry (according to NTSB) for the AD in question had a (C) after it indicating that the fitting had been replaced and that the repetitive inspections were no longer required.

Having spent a very short period of time in the maintenance department of an airline (5 year short-timer) I never recall seeing that the shorthand for an AD that had a "fix" that didn't require any more inspections was a (C). Is this something new (my last part 121 wrench was in 1967) or did I just not learn my lesson properly the first time around?

Jim
.
.
Click to expand...

Probably has something to do with a maintenance tracking system like CAMPS, CESSCOM or other.
 
I don't see how they wouldn't go after whoever made the log entry for falsifying records. When I was in AK, we bought a helicopter from someone that ended up having some shady records and other problems. The FAA didn't fault us, but said, "Don't fly the helicopter anymore with parts X, Y, & Z on the aircraft, and if they ever leave your possession, we want to know about it." I don't know 121 records, but I'd be surprised if the FAA doesn't do something if it really is a case of falsification. It's kinda hard to miss whether you've replaced a wing spar or not. And if you said that you replaced it and didn't, please tell me how that is NOT falsifying records.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top