Date: 201602
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: BAe 125 Series 800
Operator: Air Taxi
Operating under: Part 135
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Aircraft Documentation
Component problem: Improperly Operated
Reporter organization: Air Taxi
Reporter function: Captain
Reporter qualification: Flight Crew Air Transport Pilot (ATP)
Human factors: Communication Breakdown; Confusion; Distraction; Troubleshooting
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Flight Crew
When detected: Pre-flight
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Company Policy; Procedure
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: I am writing this issue as I feel the ASAP needs to get this issue resolved. It has to do to a damaged Airworthiness Certificate and what constitutes it being 'legible'.I already filed a report over this in the past over the discrepancy of what the Flight Operations Manual (FOM) states and how maintenance addresses this issue but would like to repost this. The FOM states.[That this company] is authorized to operate an aircraft with damaged or missing airworthiness. Maintenance records a deferral; stating the aircraft is operated with missing certificate under exemption.If one of these certificates is damaged or missing; notify the company.As you can see; the FOM completely differs from how maintenance interprets this as the FOM states 'damage'. What is bothersome is that even in my last closure letter; the ASAP seemed to state what completely contradicts the FOM. So even though I am hesitate to apply standards contrary to what the FOM states; I will but then would like further explanation on what the maintenance mean by 'legible' as what was stated in my last closure letter. In the case of that Airworthiness Certificate; I believe it was ripped leading me to my concerns. However; in the case of this one; the damage was so bad that letters were missing from the wording of the Airworthiness Certificate.For me; I can't see how having letters missing making me interpret the intent can fall under this and still be valid? The other concern I have is going out of the country and having foreign officials and our own Customs review this Airworthiness Certificate. The issue that started this was when I was questioned about the condition of an Airworthiness Certificate by US Customs but it was only a verbal mention of it and nothing more. However; it was enough of a concern to me to start following the guidance of the FOM and deferring the Airworthiness Certificate. Initially this wasn't a problem and now I am getting pushback from maintenance and the Chief Pilot over this.In the example; I first wrote it up in and deferred it under the deferred process. Two day later; I returned to the aircraft to see the mechanics signed it off as legible and intact. To me this was a stretch to use 'legible'; but with the center missing a small section in the middle and corners missing; it definitely wasn't intact. Therefore; I sent a picture of the Airworthiness Certificate to the ACP as well as mentioning the guidance in the FOM on how to proceed with a damaged Airworthiness Certificate. The ACP and I never heard back from him but did mention to him I was deferring it again. Later I got a call from the Chief Pilot of my fleet asking me about the problem. I explained to him my concerns and he said he was fine with me deferring it which I did and it was processed and we flew our 2 legs.When we ended up we had a Aircraft on Ground (AOG) issue and wrote it up and went off to the hotel. It was while in rest I got an email from the Chief Pilot which stated; 'the aircraft is fine brother. Need you to send in a entered in error or call me'. Shortly after that I got an email from the Steward to call him when I got a chance. As I was in rest; I didn't call Chief Pilot back and then later in rest I got a new brief taking me off the airplane and was airlining out. Seeing how I had the union rep reach out to me; I called and talked to him about this. I did send him a picture of the Airworthiness Certificate; the first maintenance loge with it deferred and signed off as 'legible and intact'; a copy of what the FOM states; and my argument of why I felt it wasn 't legible. He wanted to give me a heads up that in the morning I would be dealing with this issue and be aware of this and use the escalation policy as necessary. This was nice to know and I appreciated him giving me the heads upHowever; as I mentioned; shortly after this while in rest my brief was changed to airline the next day. When looking at the mobile manager; I noticed in the notes that it stated that Chief Pilot had advised that the Airworthiness Certificate was good and for the mechanics to clear the deferral. Therefore; I am assuming the mechanics eventually signed it off. If they did; I hope they don't include the use of the word intact as it truly wasn't. I was surprised that Chief Pilot could do this but so be it.The next day; still concerned over this issue; I emailed Aircraft Documents; about this issue with a picture of the Airworthiness Certificate. She agreed it was damaged and that it should be deferred and could still be flow under the exemption the company has. However; this is when I learned something I wasn't aware of. She mentioned that the proper deferral allows for up to 10 days even though maintenance only uses 3 days. She mentioned that she has advised mainenace of this. I then mentioned to her that it would be nice to get this Airworthiness Certificate replaced but if Maintenance does indeed instruct the mechanics to sign it off; she will not be made aware of this. I never heard back from her but hopefully something will be done to address this.I mention this because as the regulations stipulate; the Airworthiness Certificate must be displayed for the all to see. For me; having this 'ratty' looking document exposed for all to see is subpar to say the least. One could say it is indicative of the condition of some of our airplanes; but either way; I feel it should be fixed. I sometimes think what would the company say if I let my uniform decay to the point of what we allow the Airworthiness Certificate on the airplane for all to see. However; that is just my personal opinion.The last item is to again mention how the deferred wording states when dealing with the Airworthiness Certificate which is 'missing/mutilated Airworthiness Certificate which is verbiage different from the FOM and different from my last closure letter. I just find it frustrating when we have a spelled out procedure in the FOM and we are being told to ignore it and use a different criteria in deciding to defer the Airworthiness Certificate. I think anytime we deviate from what the FOM states if it is indeed because of the nomenclature; it starts us down a very bad path.If the FOM procedure of dealing with a damaged Airworthiness Certificate is incorrect; then PLEASE change the wording to match the intent. If the Airworthiness Certificate CAN BE damaged but if the wording is legible or if letters are missing but you can infer what the word was; then say so and I will leave it be; as unprofessional as it looks but state this in the FOM. Please institute a program where [this company] can check these documents and make sure they are in the proper condition. I mentioned in my last [report] about having them laminated and I think that would fix the issue. The company should proactively do this and get them done so crews don't have to go through the pressure of correcting this themselves.




Synopsis: A Captain reported a disagreement with his company about the condition of the aircraft's airworthiness certificate and the length of time the aircraft was considered flyable following a report about the certificate's illegible condition.