 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Lead technician reported that an aircraft with a damaged number 1 leading edge slat was allowed to fly in an unairworthy condition.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1710550 |
| Time | |
| Date | 201909 |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Environment | |
| Flight Conditions | VMC |
| Light | Daylight |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B767-300 and 300 ER |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Leading Edge Slat |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Lead Technician |
| Qualification | Maintenance Powerplant Maintenance Airframe |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural FAR Deviation - Procedural MEL Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy Inflight Event / Encounter Bird / Animal |
Narrative:
Refer to report previously filed for aircraft X number 1 slat damage at out station ZZZ. Damage was out of limits once aircraft arrived and reevaluated in ZZZ1 causing number 1 slat to be changed. Damage was not properly documented on the attached engineering order allowing the aircraft to fly out of ZZZ. Turns out when ZZZ filled out the damage report they did state there was a crease present. See attached documents for details.more often than not when we; ZZZ1 sheet metal; contacts ZZZ2 in regards to damage with a crease we almost always get push back from ZZZ2 maintenance with them always trying to claim it is not a crease by definition. The definition is black and white but yet they insist we reevaluate over and over again even when there are pictures with well define lines/ridges defining underlying structure. This is a known issue with ZZZ1 sheet metal and ZZZ2 maintenance.maintenance should have never issued an engineering order with a documented crease over underlying structure. I suggest having maintenance contact boeing to get the definition of a crease revised to their liking and have them stop intimidating technicians when they are contact with damage consisting of a crease.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Lead Technician reported that an aircraft with a damaged Number 1 leading edge slat was allowed to fly in an unairworthy condition.
Narrative: Refer to report previously filed for Aircraft X Number 1 slat damage at out station ZZZ. Damage was out of limits once aircraft arrived and reevaluated in ZZZ1 causing Number 1 slat to be changed. Damage was not properly documented on the attached engineering order allowing the aircraft to fly out of ZZZ. Turns out when ZZZ filled out the damage report they did state there was a crease present. See attached documents for details.More often than not when we; ZZZ1 sheet metal; contacts ZZZ2 in regards to damage with a crease we almost always get push back from ZZZ2 maintenance with them always trying to claim it is not a crease by definition. The definition is black and white but yet they insist we reevaluate over and over again even when there are pictures with well define lines/ridges defining underlying structure. This is a known issue with ZZZ1 sheet metal and ZZZ2 maintenance.Maintenance should have never issued an engineering order with a documented crease over underlying structure. I suggest having maintenance contact Boeing to get the definition of a crease revised to their liking and have them stop intimidating technicians when they are contact with damage consisting of a crease.
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.