Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Maintenance Technician 27
Workload; Communication Breakdown; Distraction; Situational Awareness
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter FOD
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors
Aircraft Owner/ Operator reported damage to the propeller. The aircraft was received in for maintenance. The decision was made to replace the propeller. Airworthiness Directive (A.D.) 2004-10-14 was inadvertently missed. The error was discovered over the weekend (following the date of propeller installation). The aircraft owner was advised and the aircraft has been grounded. I am familiar with A.D. 2004-10-14. I see it almost daily. Unfortunately; at the time; the [Repair] Shop was under a heavy workload and I wasn't thinking of everything encompassed within the A.D. I ran the aircraft up. I signed-off the propeller installation. I have reread A.D. 2004-10-14.
March 2014; following a flight in my Agency's aircraft; I discovered a large gouge on the leading edge of one of the propeller blades. The damage likely occurred earlier that day when debris was thrown while another aircraft was maneuvering in the run-up area. I reported the damage to my Agency's Director of Maintenance (DOM). The next day; our local Mechanic inspected the propeller and immediately determined that it could not be repaired; based on the depth of the gouge. During several conversations; both our local Mechanic and Agency personnel referred to Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-10-14 regarding propeller damage and repair. Later that day; the DOM advised me that the propeller would be replaced. Three days later; the propeller was installed and the aircraft was returned to service. A new propeller maintenance record was entered into the aircraft Logbook with an entry for replacement of an overhauled propeller assembly. That afternoon; I conducted a post maintenance flight and notified the other pilot-in-command that the aircraft was returned to service.Two days later; following a morning flight; my Copilot (Pilot Not Flying) found a note taped to the Hangar door. The note was posted that morning and requested that we contact the Mechanic before flying our airplane. When I spoke to the Mechanic; he stated that it did not occur to him until yesterday that the 'AD included pulling the engine due to the significant propeller damage.' When I contacted the DOM; he initially questioned interpretation of the AD; but later agreed with the Mechanic that the extent of damage to the propeller would require an engine breakdown for inspection.As Pilot-in-Command (PIC); I am responsible for determining if an aircraft is in an airworthy condition prior to flight. On two different days; I inadvertently flew our aircraft when it was out of compliance with Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-10-14 and not considered airworthy. This could have been prevented if I had familiarized myself with the AD when the propeller damage occurred. Even with a basic understanding; I would have been able to ask pertinent questions. As the Aviation Coordinator; I advised another pilot that the aircraft had been returned to service. This ultimately led him to deviate from regulations and put flight crew members at risk. To help prevent this from happening again; in addition to working with qualified Maintenance professionals; I'll make it a priority to develop my own understanding of the regulations and requirements before making a determination that an aircraft is airworthy.
A pilot and an Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) report a Cessna 182T aircraft was inadvertently returned to service prior to accomplishment of Airworthiness Directive (AD) 2004-10-14. The AD required an engine teardown and inspection due to significant damage to the propeller that was replaced.