Narrative:

Line received a phone call for a failed engine driven pump from maintenance control. Senior technician spoke with maintenance control; and was told to replace the edp. Senior technician confirmed with the shift supervisor that the edp was to be replaced. Technician a and myself went out to the aircraft; performed a gvi (general visual inspection) and found no leakage around the pump or associated fittings; no obvious external damages; and that the electrical connection was secure. We confirmed with senior technician that the edp was indeed to be replaced; he did confirm. Following maintenance procedures for removal and replacement of the edp; edp was removed and replaced. Shift supervisor performed gvi of work done; senior technician performed ops check of edp; confirming proper operations and no notifications on cas (crew alert system). Aircraft departed gate. I believe the primary cause of this incident was a miscommunication of work required. We were under the assumption of the edp just needing to be replaced. It wasn't until now; that it is understood there is an additional inspection and replacement of the filter elements for an edp failure. Under the supervision and guidance of our senior technician and supervisor; the inspection procedures were not mentioned as well. I believe that due to the aircraft returning to the gate; after taxing for departure; and the requirement that the aircraft was to depart after maintenance was performed and ops checked; put an extra amount of superficial stress to perform the maintenance in a safe and expedited fashion. Suggestions that may be implemented to help prevent this from occurring again: it may be beneficial for maintenance control to inform line shops of additional inspections and/or actions that may need to be performed; to make the shops aware. It may also be beneficial for the filter elements to be inspected and replaced any time the edp is replaced; so as to have a higher degree of certainty that system contamination does not occur.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maintenance Technician reported a missed inspection following an engine-driven pump replacement.

Narrative: Line received a phone call for a failed Engine Driven Pump from Maintenance Control. Senior Technician spoke with Maintenance control; and was told to replace the EDP. Senior Technician confirmed with the shift Supervisor that the EDP was to be replaced. Technician A and myself went out to the aircraft; performed a GVI (General Visual Inspection) and found no leakage around the pump or associated fittings; no obvious external damages; and that the electrical connection was secure. We confirmed with Senior Technician that the EDP was indeed to be replaced; he did confirm. Following maintenance procedures for removal and replacement of the EDP; EDP was removed and replaced. Shift Supervisor performed GVI of work done; Senior Technician performed Ops check of EDP; confirming proper operations and no notifications on CAS (Crew Alert System). Aircraft departed gate. I believe the primary cause of this incident was a miscommunication of work required. We were under the assumption of the EDP just needing to be replaced. It wasn't until now; that it is understood there is an additional inspection and replacement of the filter elements for an EDP failure. Under the supervision and guidance of our Senior Technician and Supervisor; the inspection procedures were not mentioned as well. I believe that due to the aircraft returning to the gate; after taxing for departure; and the requirement that the aircraft was to depart after maintenance was performed and ops checked; put an extra amount of superficial stress to perform the maintenance in a safe and expedited fashion. Suggestions that may be implemented to help prevent this from occurring again: it may be beneficial for Maintenance Control to inform line shops of additional inspections and/or actions that may need to be performed; to make the shops aware. It may also be beneficial for the filter elements to be inspected and replaced any time the EDP is replaced; so as to have a higher degree of certainty that system contamination does not occur.

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.