 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Technician reported that a supervisor signed off a log book entry and allowed an unairworthy aircraft to return to service.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 1724341 |
| Time | |
| Date | 202001 |
| Environment | |
| Light | Night |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Make Model Name | B737-900 |
| Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
| Flight Phase | Parked |
| Flight Plan | IFR |
| Component | |
| Aircraft Component | Trailing Edge Flap |
| Person 1 | |
| Function | Technician |
| Qualification | Maintenance Airframe Maintenance Powerplant |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe Deviation - Procedural Maintenance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
On aircraft X arrival walk around found signs of delamination to right wing outboard trailing edge aft flap lower skin at inboard corner. A line technician and a lead line technician performed a tap test and agreed that flap shows signs of delamination. This was confirmed by a line sheet metal technician with a tap test and found out of limits per [manual] and updated the log page with details. But after all this; a maintenance supervisor signs off this log just by saying flap appears to be previously repaired; and provided no evidence and/or documentation of previous repair. Not only that but the maintenance supervisor also failed to mention in the sign off which trailing edge flap was inspected; left wing or right wing; inboard or outboard?this [report] is filed to report an FAA violation. The review of the log shows a trailing edge flap and also a bearing placed on aog (aircraft on ground) since they were not in stock. A review of maintenance log history was also performed and showed no record of repair done to this right wing outboard trailing edge aft flap. So let's get this straight: a line technician; a line lead technician and a line sheet metal technician agreed that this flap is delaminated with [manual] reference; but a maintenance supervisor can just say; appears to be; and sign it off! Really? Is this how we do maintenance? The union steward was informed of this and is investigating.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: Technician reported that a supervisor signed off a log book entry and allowed an unairworthy aircraft to return to service.
Narrative: On Aircraft X arrival walk around found signs of delamination to right wing outboard trailing edge aft flap lower skin at inboard corner. A line technician and a lead line technician performed a tap test and agreed that flap shows signs of delamination. This was confirmed by a line sheet metal technician with a tap test and found out of limits per [manual] and updated the log page with details. But after all this; a Maintenance Supervisor signs off this log just by saying flap appears to be previously repaired; and provided no evidence and/or documentation of previous repair. Not only that but the Maintenance Supervisor also failed to mention in the sign off which trailing edge flap was inspected; left wing or right wing; inboard or outboard?This [report] is filed to report an FAA violation. The review of the log shows a trailing edge flap and also a bearing placed on AOG (Aircraft on Ground) since they were not in stock. A review of Maintenance log history was also performed and showed no record of repair done to this right wing outboard trailing edge aft flap. So let's get this straight: a line technician; a line lead technician and a line sheet metal technician agreed that this flap is delaminated with [manual] reference; but a Maintenance Supervisor can just say; appears to be; and sign it off! Really? Is this how we do maintenance? The union steward was informed of this and is investigating.
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.