Narrative:

This report is being submitted in regards to pitot static work card under maintenance manual (M/M) 34-10-00. I complied with the work card inspection items using tooling/equipment noted on page one. I replaced pitot tubes that were found to be damaged based on the limits given in the work cards. When damage was found; additional tooling was used to verify limit exceedance. Now there is some confusion with a 'scarf' check and the use of a goniometer; which was not listed on page one tooling/equipment. All other inspections on this card are done through 'visual inspection' process and when a defect issue was found additional tooling was used. But the work card changes direction at checking pitot scarf and visual inspection process now becomes a goniometer process; even though this was not listed as a required tool. To further confuse things; there was also a note listing a pitot part number (P/north) [for certain pitots]. I hope this submission can clear confusion or misunderstanding and issues resolved. If I would have found evidence of scarf damage; I would have used a digital protractor (which is a goniometer) to verify damage. I believe this work card was rushed into production creating inspection issues. This was poorly written and an incomplete list of tooling noted and inspection methods not consistent through the entire work card. Work cards should have a trial run to verify it can be accomplished before it is issued for use in production.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Aircraft Inspector reports about a confusing Job Card and lack of any specific reference to Goniometer (Digital Protractor) tool required to complete a visual inspection of pitot-static tubes on their EMB-135 aircraft.

Narrative: This report is being submitted in regards to Pitot Static Work Card under Maintenance Manual (M/M) 34-10-00. I complied with the Work Card Inspection Items using tooling/equipment noted on page one. I replaced pitot tubes that were found to be damaged based on the limits given in the work cards. When damage was found; additional tooling was used to verify limit exceedance. Now there is some confusion with a 'Scarf' Check and the use of a Goniometer; which was not listed on page one tooling/equipment. All other inspections on this card are done through 'Visual Inspection' process and when a defect issue was found additional tooling was used. But the work card changes direction at checking pitot scarf and Visual Inspection process now becomes a Goniometer process; even though this was not listed as a required tool. To further confuse things; there was also a note listing a Pitot Part Number (P/N) [for certain pitots]. I hope this submission can clear confusion or misunderstanding and issues resolved. If I would have found evidence of scarf damage; I would have used a Digital Protractor (which is a Goniometer) to verify damage. I believe this work card was rushed into production creating Inspection issues. This was poorly written and an incomplete list of tooling noted and inspection methods not consistent through the entire work card. Work cards should have a trial run to verify it can be accomplished before it is issued for use in production.

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.