A PLT FOR THE STATE FOUND THAT HE HAD BEEN FLYING AN ACFT WITH AN OUTDATED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE AND AN ENG OVERDUE FOR AN OVERHAUL. NON COMPLIANCE WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE.

Narrative

THE ACFT INVOLVED IS AN SMA BELONGING TO THE STATE DEPT OF X. AS PLT; I AM/WAS EMPLOYED BY SAID DEPT. NO AIRBORNE INCIDENT OCCURRED. THE PROB IS; THE ENG REACHED 2000 HRS AT 4002 HRS ON THE HOBBS. THE DECISION WAS MADE TO OVERFLY THE RECOMMENDED 2000 HR TBO. THIS DECISION WAS MADE BY THE DEPT OF AVIATION AND RELAYED TO MYSELF AND AN FBO IN GREAT FALLS; MT; WHO PROVIDES MAINT ON THE ACFT. THE ACFT HAS BEEN OPERATED BY CHOICE ON A 100 HR/ANNUAL INSPECTION BASIS. THE NEXT 100 HR DUE WAS AT HR 4017; SOME 15 HRS AFTER RECOMMENDED TBO ON THE ENG. I FLEW SAID HRS; IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE APPLIED TO THE ENG AT 2000 HRS. AT 4017 HRS; A 100 HR/ANNUAL INSPECTION WAS PERFORMED AND AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE SEARCH REVEALED AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE #Y REQUIRED AN OIL PUMP INSPECTION AND REPLACEMENT. THE COST DICTATED AN ENG REPLACEMENT RATHER THAN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. CORRECTIVE ACTION IS OBVIOUS: THE PLT MUST INSIST THAT A COMPLETE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE RECORD FOR ACFT AND ENG BE PROVIDED FOR REVIEW.