Narrative:

Aircraft was at the indianapolis maintenance base for a c-chk. #2 engine had a non-routine write up about a washer penetrating out on the aft mount. Our company engineers told us that we did not need to lower the engine to replace this washer like the maintenance manual told us to do, all we needed to do was to lower the aft end enough to get the new washer in. They told us that they were updating the manual and that they would facsimile us a copy the first thing in the morning. I installed the engine removal equipment (bootstrap) and removed a single bolt, by that time the next shift came in and completed the work. I don't know which procedures they followed. There was one inspector who thought the way the engineers told us to accomplish this job was not the proper way, but the job was signed off by another inspector. Earlier that week we had another airplane with the same problem but it was on #1 engine. On that aircraft myself and another mechanic started to install the new washer but did not have time to finish the installation. I stated in back of the write-up that a washer and a shim needed to be installed. On this aircraft there was no question asked on the procedure that was accomplished by inspection. Now there is this big confusion if these repairs were done correctly or not, since the engineers never sent us the facsimile. If the engineers know about a better way to fix this problem how come they don't act faster on updating this information? No incidents have occurred due to this repair.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MECH DEVIATES FROM MAINT MANUAL PROCS.

Narrative: ACFT WAS AT THE INDIANAPOLIS MAINT BASE FOR A C-CHK. #2 ENG HAD A NON-ROUTINE WRITE UP ABOUT A WASHER PENETRATING OUT ON THE AFT MOUNT. OUR COMPANY ENGINEERS TOLD US THAT WE DID NOT NEED TO LOWER THE ENG TO REPLACE THIS WASHER LIKE THE MAINT MANUAL TOLD US TO DO, ALL WE NEEDED TO DO WAS TO LOWER THE AFT END ENOUGH TO GET THE NEW WASHER IN. THEY TOLD US THAT THEY WERE UPDATING THE MANUAL AND THAT THEY WOULD FAX US A COPY THE FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. I INSTALLED THE ENG REMOVAL EQUIP (BOOTSTRAP) AND REMOVED A SINGLE BOLT, BY THAT TIME THE NEXT SHIFT CAME IN AND COMPLETED THE WORK. I DON'T KNOW WHICH PROCS THEY FOLLOWED. THERE WAS ONE INSPECTOR WHO THOUGHT THE WAY THE ENGINEERS TOLD US TO ACCOMPLISH THIS JOB WAS NOT THE PROPER WAY, BUT THE JOB WAS SIGNED OFF BY ANOTHER INSPECTOR. EARLIER THAT WEEK WE HAD ANOTHER AIRPLANE WITH THE SAME PROB BUT IT WAS ON #1 ENG. ON THAT ACFT MYSELF AND ANOTHER MECH STARTED TO INSTALL THE NEW WASHER BUT DID NOT HAVE TIME TO FINISH THE INSTALLATION. I STATED IN BACK OF THE WRITE-UP THAT A WASHER AND A SHIM NEEDED TO BE INSTALLED. ON THIS ACFT THERE WAS NO QUESTION ASKED ON THE PROC THAT WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY INSPECTION. NOW THERE IS THIS BIG CONFUSION IF THESE REPAIRS WERE DONE CORRECTLY OR NOT, SINCE THE ENGINEERS NEVER SENT US THE FAX. IF THE ENGINEERS KNOW ABOUT A BETTER WAY TO FIX THIS PROB HOW COME THEY DON'T ACT FASTER ON UPDATING THIS INFO? NO INCIDENTS HAVE OCCURRED DUE TO THIS REPAIR.

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.