Cessna 206 pilots reported they flew a non-airworthy aircraft after they had been informed by maintenance and management the aircraft was airworthy.
Synopsis
Cessna 206 pilots reported they flew a non-airworthy aircraft after they had been informed by maintenance and management the aircraft was airworthy.
Narrative
On Day 1; I flew a Cessna 206 unaware of the legality of theturbocharger being INOP. The pilot flying; Person A; had reported an issue with the turbocharger not working to full capacity the day before to the company operator; and before conducting the next flight;asked if it had been arranged to be fixed or checked on two separate occasions. The flightcrew involved were told it was going to be checked Day 2 and that we wereperfectly fine to fly; over the phone by our manager; Person C. Upon flying; we landed at ZZZ; we noticed oil dripping from the tail and cowl flap. Person A called Person B and reportedit to him; in which he replied that we call Maintenance on the field and have them check.After Maintenance checked it; they found the Turbocharger intake had beendisconnected/dislodged from its operable position; oil cooler cracked; a noticeable crackwas on the oil pan; and thus causing the turbo charger to become INOP; and engine to run inunairworthy condition. The evening before; I checked the flight logbooks to verifyairworthiness and compliance with the oil change that had been performed the day before(Day 0). I also talked with the Mechanic who performed the oil change; Person Cand he had told me the plane was fine and airworthy. Both myself and the pilot flying;Person A; were under the impression after our actions of checking the logbooks andconsulting with Maintenance on Day 0 that the plane was airworthy and in legal; compliant;and operable condition to the best of our knowledge before conducting the flight from ZZZ1to ZZZ.
Second reporter narrative
On Day 1; I Person A; flew a Cessna 206 unaware of the legality of the turbocharger being INOP. I had reported an issue with the turbocharger not working to full capacity the day before to the company operator; and before conducting the next flight; asked if it had been arranged to be fixed or checked on two separate occasions. The flight crew involved were told it was going to be Day 2 and that we were perfectly fine to fly; over the phone by our manager; Person B. Upon flying; we landed at ZZZ; we noticed oil dripping from the tail and cowl flap. I called Person B and reported it to him; in which he replied that we call Maintenance on the field and have them check. After Maintenance checked it; they found the Turbocharger intake had been disconnected/dislodged from its operable position; oil cooler cracked; a noticeable crack was on the oil pan; and thus causing the turbo charger to become INOP; and engine to run in unairworthy condition. The evening before; I checked the flight logbooks to verify airworthiness and compliance with the oil change that had been performed the day before (Day 0). I also talked with the Mechanic who performed the oil change; Person C and he had told me the plane was fine and airworthy. Both myself and the copilot were under the impression after our actions of checking the logbooks and consulting with Maintenance on Day 0 that the plane was airworthy and in legal; compliant; and operable condition to the best of our knowledge before conducting the flight from ZZZ1 to ZZZ.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.