Narrative:

I got this email asking me to assign an amt (aircraft maintenance technician) or stock clerk to put this sticker on a 8130 part in our stock room. The engineering order instructs you to test the unit. Beyond what can be done at a line station or by a [maintenance personnel]. I replied that I would not assign this task but that I would help to get the unit shipped to a shop. The first reply I got was a picture of a unit that other stations had completed. I then got a second email about 6 hours later asking that the unit be [repaired] out of ZZZ.the problem to me is that someone in the company thinks its ok to alter parts without the correct testing or training. Yes; this time it might have just been a sticker or some minor thing; but once this trend starts how does the average amt not fall into this trap.I can hear it being said 'you did it last time; come on help the company out.' I questioned the task but others have not; maybe I am wrong but those that don't ask will not know until it's too late. Seems that when I asked the question the issue quickly went away; at least for ZZZ.everyone involved in aircraft maintenance should follow the rules and stop trying to evade and skirt them. This is a thought process that should change; but saves money so I doubt it will. Its really about the company culture of trying to get by; on the cheap; instead of doing it the correct way.make the people who send this type of work out be held to the same standard that you hold the amt to. Have the [report] team interview and find out why they would think its ok to change 8130 parts without all the required tests. And meter out the same thing that an amt would have to deal with. Re-training or whatever is deemed equal.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Technician reported being asked to perform improper maintenance.

Narrative: I got this email asking me to assign an AMT (Aircraft Maintenance Technician) or stock clerk to put this sticker on a 8130 part in our stock room. The Engineering Order instructs you to test the unit. Beyond what can be done at a line station or by a [Maintenance Personnel]. I replied that I would not assign this task but that I would help to get the unit shipped to a shop. The first reply I got was a picture of a unit that OTHER stations had completed. I then got a second email about 6 hours later asking that the unit be [repaired] out of ZZZ.The problem to me is that someone in the company thinks its ok to alter parts without the correct testing or training. Yes; this time it might have just been a sticker or some minor thing; but once this trend starts how does the average AMT not fall into this trap.I can hear it being said 'You did it last time; come on help the company out.' I questioned the task but others have not; maybe I am wrong but those that don't ask will not know until it's too late. Seems that when I asked the question the issue quickly went away; at least for ZZZ.Everyone involved in Aircraft maintenance should follow the rules and stop trying to evade and skirt them. This is a thought process that should change; but saves money so I doubt it will. Its really about the company culture of trying to get by; on the cheap; instead of doing it the correct way.Make the people who send this type of work out be held to the same standard that you hold the AMT to. Have the [report] team interview and find out why they would think its ok to change 8130 parts without all the required tests. And meter out the same thing that an AMT would have to deal with. Re-training or whatever is deemed equal.

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.