Narrative:

[Pw-2000 engine] module number XXXX-8 was sent to [engine tear-down] core shop for disassembly of engine modules per engineering. There was no [variance] letter attached to deviate from standard practice of using the engine inspection procedures for inspection of modules or parts. The engine inspection procedures for the high pressure compressor assembly; diffuser module; intermediate module; rotor module and stator module all have; in the engine inspection procedures; a statement under general inspection that states; that parts removed from module (physically separated) during the course of repair; must be inspected to the serviceability inspection limits specified in the piece part of the engine inspection procedures. Since this is an engine [that has another repair contractor involved] and we have a contract to route piece [individual] parts to them; we; per repair contractor contract; to the best of my knowledge; are not allowed to route parts through our inspection cleaning and repair cycles. Therefore; any parts that are separated need to be inspected per piece part inspection; which this module number XXXX-8 engine core was not. The standard practice is for piece parts that are separated are repair contractor parts and are routed to them. Any past deviation to this practice was per attached variance letter to inspect parts visually only. This core; with its modules; does not have this variance letter and therefore; piece parts that were separated cannot be inspected to visual module level as it was inspected per inspector Y.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Engine Shop Inspector reports about his efforts to get his company PW-2000 Engineering Department to issue a 'variance' letter. The variance was necessary to properly document that a deviation from their Engine Inspection procedures was approved by Engineering after PW-2000 engine modules were separated.

Narrative: [PW-2000 Engine] Module Number XXXX-8 was sent to [Engine Tear-down] Core Shop for disassembly of engine modules per Engineering. There was no [variance] letter attached to deviate from standard practice of using the Engine Inspection procedures for inspection of modules or parts. The engine inspection procedures for the high pressure compressor assembly; diffuser module; intermediate module; rotor module and stator module all have; in the engine inspection procedures; a statement under General Inspection that states; that parts removed from module (physically separated) during the course of repair; must be inspected to the Serviceability Inspection Limits specified in the piece part of the engine inspection procedures. Since this is an engine [that has another Repair Contractor involved] and we have a contract to route piece [individual] parts to them; we; per Repair Contractor contract; to the best of my knowledge; are not allowed to route parts through our Inspection cleaning and repair cycles. Therefore; any parts that are separated need to be inspected per Piece Part Inspection; which this Module Number XXXX-8 engine core was not. The standard practice is for piece parts that are separated are Repair Contractor parts and are routed to them. Any past deviation to this practice was per attached variance letter to inspect parts visually only. This core; with its modules; does not have this variance letter and therefore; piece parts that were separated cannot be inspected to visual module level as it was inspected per Inspector Y.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.