Narrative:

I was given an assignment to combine the two different computer base systems (cbs) into one cbs of an ILS panel so that a process to in-source the repair of two company component can commence. One company's unit was found to have no cbs and was done per the component maintenance manual (cmm). On the other hand; there existed a cbs for the other company that included two test methods; one being manual and the other semi-automated test that was acquired from a third party vendor. The shop mainly uses this semi-automated test method to certify units. I checked the program and compared with the latest revision of the cmm and concluded that there is a new test that is not captured in the program. It is a test feature that appeared to have been added in the revision after the test software was acquired. I implemented that additional requirement in the cbs; to be done prior to the automated test as part of; the unit return to service test; per the cmm requirement using a fabricated breaker box and a power supply unattached to the test program. The cbs went through the approval process and went for publication. I went to the test stand; the same day to see the test program again and noticed that the program was edited in such a way to incorporate the steps that I included in the cbs to be done using a hardware. I tried to locate if there was a different document in work to change the program and couldn't find one. I informed my manager immediately using an email about the incident.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maintenance Technician was given an assignment to incorporate two different test methods into one Computer Base System for an ILS panel.

Narrative: I was given an assignment to combine the two different Computer Base Systems (CBS) into one CBS of an ILS panel so that a process to in-source the repair of two company component can commence. One company's unit was found to have no CBS and was done per the Component Maintenance Manual (CMM). On the other hand; there existed a CBS for the other company that included two test methods; one being manual and the other semi-automated test that was acquired from a third party vendor. The shop mainly uses this semi-automated test method to certify units. I checked the program and compared with the latest revision of the CMM and concluded that there is a new test that is not captured in the program. It is a test feature that appeared to have been added in the revision after the test software was acquired. I implemented that additional requirement in the CBS; to be done prior to the automated test as part of; the unit return to service test; per the CMM requirement using a fabricated breaker box and a power supply unattached to the test program. The CBS went through the approval process and went for publication. I went to the test stand; the same day to see the test program again and noticed that the program was edited in such a way to incorporate the steps that I included in the CBS to be done using a hardware. I tried to locate if there was a different document in work to change the program and couldn't find one. I informed my manager immediately using an email about the incident.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.