Narrative:

I was made aware of a problem with the installation of the #1 bearing I installed on a JT8D-9 hushkit engine. The improper part number bearing was installed in the shop when engine was retrofitted with a hush kit. The proper part number bearing was not kitted with the other parts. A serviceable bearing was on the engine parts cart, however, it was a non-hush kit bearing. Bearings look alike so I believe problem can be alleviated by utilizing more clearly stated paperwork and additional training in this area. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: 7 people were involved in this incident. Each got a 'day off' for their mistake. There were 5 engines that had the wrong bearing installed. The problem arose because the new bearing in question was not in stock when the kits were made up and there was no paperwork to this effect. As the new bearing and the old bearing are identical to the naked eye, except for the part number, the crews thought that they were supposed to use the old bearing when actually they were to get a new one from the stock room. The reporter believes that each mechanic will get a letter in his jacket for 2 yrs, but he has not yet seen it. The engines are used on dc-9 aircraft. The reporter believes that the problem has been solved as his air carrier has published 'notices' about this and provided more training. The kits now include the new bearing. The anomaly was found when the paperwork trail was followed by other air carrier personnel. Supplemental information from acn 289309: the engine teardown paperwork did not direct the #1 bearing to be removed and rted to the shop, but allowed it to remain on the time continued, return to service, parts cart. It is routine to rebuild an engine using the inspected, serviceable, components on the parts cart in addition to the 'kitted' parts provided for a job. The paperwork issued to retrofit the engine called for a different part number bearing than the bearing on the parts cart. However, the new part number information is in an area several steps prior to the area requiring the mechanic to record the part/serial number installed. Placement of the part number information in the same area where the part number is recorded would call attention to differences. This incident has resulted in immediate changes to the paperwork used for teardown. The old #1 bearing is now tagged 'unserviceable' and routed. The new #1 bearing will be added to the retrofit kit.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: THE WRONG BEARING WAS INSTALLED IN 5 ENG 'HUSH KIT' MODIFICATIONS.

Narrative: I WAS MADE AWARE OF A PROB WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE #1 BEARING I INSTALLED ON A JT8D-9 HUSHKIT ENG. THE IMPROPER PART NUMBER BEARING WAS INSTALLED IN THE SHOP WHEN ENG WAS RETROFITTED WITH A HUSH KIT. THE PROPER PART NUMBER BEARING WAS NOT KITTED WITH THE OTHER PARTS. A SERVICEABLE BEARING WAS ON THE ENG PARTS CART, HOWEVER, IT WAS A NON-HUSH KIT BEARING. BEARINGS LOOK ALIKE SO I BELIEVE PROB CAN BE ALLEVIATED BY UTILIZING MORE CLRLY STATED PAPERWORK AND ADDITIONAL TRAINING IN THIS AREA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: 7 PEOPLE WERE INVOLVED IN THIS INCIDENT. EACH GOT A 'DAY OFF' FOR THEIR MISTAKE. THERE WERE 5 ENGS THAT HAD THE WRONG BEARING INSTALLED. THE PROB AROSE BECAUSE THE NEW BEARING IN QUESTION WAS NOT IN STOCK WHEN THE KITS WERE MADE UP AND THERE WAS NO PAPERWORK TO THIS EFFECT. AS THE NEW BEARING AND THE OLD BEARING ARE IDENTICAL TO THE NAKED EYE, EXCEPT FOR THE PART NUMBER, THE CREWS THOUGHT THAT THEY WERE SUPPOSED TO USE THE OLD BEARING WHEN ACTUALLY THEY WERE TO GET A NEW ONE FROM THE STOCK ROOM. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT EACH MECHANIC WILL GET A LETTER IN HIS JACKET FOR 2 YRS, BUT HE HAS NOT YET SEEN IT. THE ENGS ARE USED ON DC-9 ACFT. THE RPTR BELIEVES THAT THE PROB HAS BEEN SOLVED AS HIS ACR HAS PUBLISHED 'NOTICES' ABOUT THIS AND PROVIDED MORE TRAINING. THE KITS NOW INCLUDE THE NEW BEARING. THE ANOMALY WAS FOUND WHEN THE PAPERWORK TRAIL WAS FOLLOWED BY OTHER ACR PERSONNEL. SUPPLEMENTAL INFO FROM ACN 289309: THE ENG TEARDOWN PAPERWORK DID NOT DIRECT THE #1 BEARING TO BE REMOVED AND RTED TO THE SHOP, BUT ALLOWED IT TO REMAIN ON THE TIME CONTINUED, RETURN TO SVC, PARTS CART. IT IS ROUTINE TO REBUILD AN ENG USING THE INSPECTED, SERVICEABLE, COMPONENTS ON THE PARTS CART IN ADDITION TO THE 'KITTED' PARTS PROVIDED FOR A JOB. THE PAPERWORK ISSUED TO RETROFIT THE ENG CALLED FOR A DIFFERENT PART NUMBER BEARING THAN THE BEARING ON THE PARTS CART. HOWEVER, THE NEW PART NUMBER INFO IS IN AN AREA SEVERAL STEPS PRIOR TO THE AREA REQUIRING THE MECH TO RECORD THE PART/SERIAL NUMBER INSTALLED. PLACEMENT OF THE PART NUMBER INFO IN THE SAME AREA WHERE THE PART NUMBER IS RECORDED WOULD CALL ATTN TO DIFFERENCES. THIS INCIDENT HAS RESULTED IN IMMEDIATE CHANGES TO THE PAPERWORK USED FOR TEARDOWN. THE OLD #1 BEARING IS NOW TAGGED 'UNSERVICEABLE' AND ROUTED. THE NEW #1 BEARING WILL BE ADDED TO THE RETROFIT KIT.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.