Instructor Pilot reported the aircraft had nose wheel steering issues although it had been returned to service after maintenance action for the same issues. Pilot later learned the issues resulted from damage caused by a hard landing.

Narrative

C182T is owned and operated by a flight school that has an internal maintenance department. C182T in question was downed and Returned to Service (RTS) by maintenance and signed off several times previously that day and prior days for issues with ground steering and rudder trim. When the Instructor Pilot (IP) was handed the aircraft board by dispatch. He was advised by dispatch that the aircraft had just again been RTS and brought back up after issues with Nose wheel steering capability. Maintenance had reset the trim as the remedial action. Dispatch advised IP to be cautious about the nose wheel steering. A previous IP who had the aircraft before and downed it for maintenance advised; 'It is having trouble steering and taxing; but use of aerodynamic turning from the rudder at speed is acceptable; and when below aerodynamic steering capability; use of differential brakes is still acceptable.' IP and Student proceeded to preflight the aircraft per the approved checklist; and discussed the prudent course of action was to test the aircraft steering on ramp and make a decision then. A factor in the course of action was that the aircraft was RTS and signed off as airworthy minutes beforehand. Once the aircraft was started; Nosewheel steering was less than usual; but differential braking was certainly adequate to control the aircraft direction on ground. The 'Go' Decision was decided by the IP and Private Pilot Rated Student as controllablity felt acceptable. The Flight proceeded normally; however upon landing and taxing back; IP felt that the nose gear steering was still not where it should be. IP decided to down it for maintenance once again to have it re inspected by maintenance as IP did not feel it felt safe to continue without further inspection. In the write up; the IP wrote that the aircraft was having issues with the nose wheel steering specifically; and it did not appear to be any issue with the trim as it was not affected in flight. Later it was discovered by maintenance the aircraft had suffered greater damage than was previously found in other inspections and the aircraft had suffered a hard landing on the front nose gear on a different previous flight within the last several days that could have been hazardous if the aircraft had landed hard on the front landing gear during the flight with the IP and student on the day specified in the report. For clarity; the aircraft did not land on the nose wheel or land flat during the flight on the day specified in the report; an issue may have arisen if the airplane did land flat or front gear first. In future; the moment something is felt as not 100% the aircraft should be downed for maintenance and checked out. In hindsight; the IP should have aborted the flight on the taxi test instead of accepting the decreased steering performance; as it had an underlying issue beyond what was readily presently feel-able by the pilot.