Narrative:

Nine hours into shift; volunteered to go on a 'road-trip' to another airport to remove and replace a faulty component. I hurried to grab my tools; references etc. I was given a part; and got on the road. Drove 3.5 hours; removed and replaced part; no fault messages. Aircraft is fixed and I completed a successful road trip. Or so I thought... What I did not realize is the part I was given was not 'effective' for the aircraft. I did not request the part myself; it was requested by our maintenance controller. This individual is not at fault however; because he requested the correct part. The parts system we use to request parts recognized the part I was given as 'interchangeable with' the correct part. Unfortunately it may be interchangeable; but it is not 'effective' for the aircraft I was working on. But once again the blame rests solely on me. Had I double checked the illustrated parts catalog (ipc) to verify the difference between the two parts I would've been able to extinguish this whole situation. So as you can see; many factors came into effect: never dealing with these two different parts; I was given a part instead of requesting it myself; rushing out the door; long drive; and high hours on the job. But I consider none of these factors in any way as an excuse. I enjoy going on road trips; I have always considered them a great learning experience. And I don't consider this any differently. I have learned from the mistake I made and intend to be much more careful about part effectivity in the future. [Contributing factor was] not double checking/verifying the 'effectivity' of the part given to me. [Recommend] not trusting the system we use to request parts. Aircraft overnighting at ZZZ1 gate. Complacency.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Line Mechanic reports replacing a faulty component on an EMB-135 aircraft with a part identified by their Parts Computer System as being 'Interchangeable with' the part he removed. The new part was interchangeable; but not 'Effective' for the aircraft. Mechanic noted the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) had the correct information; but was not used to verify.

Narrative: Nine hours into shift; volunteered to go on a 'road-trip' to another airport to remove and replace a faulty component. I hurried to grab my tools; references etc. I was given a part; and got on the road. Drove 3.5 hours; removed and replaced part; no fault messages. Aircraft is fixed and I completed a successful road trip. Or so I thought... What I did not realize is the part I was given was not 'effective' for the aircraft. I did not request the part myself; it was requested by our Maintenance Controller. This individual is not at fault however; because he requested the correct part. The Parts System we use to request parts recognized the part I was given as 'Interchangeable With' the correct part. Unfortunately it may be interchangeable; but it is not 'effective' for the aircraft I was working on. But once again the blame rests solely on me. Had I double checked the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) to verify the difference between the two parts I would've been able to extinguish this whole situation. So as you can see; many factors came into effect: never dealing with these two different parts; I was given a part instead of requesting it myself; rushing out the door; long drive; and high hours on the job. But I consider none of these factors in any way as an excuse. I enjoy going on road trips; I have always considered them a great learning experience. And I don't consider this any differently. I have learned from the mistake I made and intend to be much more careful about part effectivity in the future. [Contributing factor was] not double checking/verifying the 'Effectivity' of the part given to me. [Recommend] not trusting the system we use to request parts. Aircraft overnighting at ZZZ1 gate. Complacency.

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.