LTT FLOWN WITHOUT AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE COMPLIANCE.

Narrative

ON JAN/XX/93; I WAS INFORMED BY THE MECH PERFORMING A 200 HR INSPECTION ON AN LTT; THAT AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE AS OF DEC/A/92. I HAD PERFORMED FLTS ON DEC/B; DEC/C; AND DEC/D UNDER PART 135. IT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM A MECH THAT RELEASED THE ACFT ON DEC/E WITH A 6 MONTH INSPECTION THAT I HAD UNTIL DEC/F/92 TO COMPLETE THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. HE WAS INCORRECT. IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN FLOWN ILLEGALLY BY AN FAA INSPECTOR DURING A ROUTINE VISIT TO THE SHOP WHERE THE 200 HR INSPECTION WAS TAKING PLACE. THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE HAD BEEN COMPLIED WITH PRIOR TO THE FAA'S VISIT. HAD I KNOWN THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE; I WOULD NOT HAVE FLOWN THE TRIPS IN DEC. THE OWNER NEVER RECEIVED THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE NOTICE. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDERS DIRECTOR OF MAINT FAILED TO WARN ME THAT THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE. THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER DISPATCHED THE ACFT ON EACH TRIP. THE DISPATCHER WAS UNAWARE AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE WAS OVERDUE. THIS WAS NOT AN INTENTIONAL DISREGARD OF REGS BUT A FAILURE TO GET THE CORRECT INFO FROM 2 DIFFERENT MECHS; THE FAA'S FAILURE TO MAIL NOTICE TO THE OWNER; AND THE PLT'S FAILURE TO INSURE ALL INSPECTIONS WERE UP TO DATE. ALL OTHER INSPECTIONS HAD BEEN COMPLETED ON A TIMELY BASIS.