Narrative:

I was working maintenance control. During the turn-over from previous shift, I was informed of an aircraft arriving in XXX with a deferred item that would required a rechk and that a mechanic had been called. A short time later I received a call from the station questioning what they should do. I told them they needed an a&P mechanic to sign-off the rechk. They seemed upset, it being a holiday weekend, but said they would get a mechanic. Being very busy, I returned to the other airplanes I was working. At approximately XA30 local I received a call from the station asking how they should complete the paperwork, advising me the mechanic had accomplished the rechk but the captain had told him no log entry was required. Speaking with the mechanic, he told me the airplane had already departed and assured me the rechk had been accomplished. We documented the work, albeit after departure. I informed my manager and sent the required message to our quality assurance department. Approximately 30 mins later I got a call from the mechanic who said he had checked the wrong engine. I called the next down-line station who then again did a rechk. In talking with our quality assurance department the next day I was informed that this particular item did not require a mechanic to accomplish a rechk, a qualified local station employee could, and did, accomplish this check and document accordingly. Confusion in procedures played a major role, our quality assurance department is in the process of clarifying this procedure. Another factor was the mechanic and station personnel not following proper procedures in handling maintenance activity at a non maintenance station. Our quality assurance department will again review, with the local station management, proper procedures. Looking back, I now understand our procedures and will be able to avoid another error of this type. Knowing the departure was safe and legal but seeing where confusion in proper procedures might lead to a similar situation with a more sensitive item will, and has, prompted me to follow up with quality assurance to assure the procedures are clarified and proper training in this area is given to all concerned. In closing, I see where proper procedures suffered at the expense of expediency and that training and understanding cannot be understated.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: MAINT CTL MECH HAS PROBS WITH PROCS FOR SIGN OFF ON DEFERRED ITEM. MECH WORKED ON WRONG ENG.

Narrative: I WAS WORKING MAINT CTL. DURING THE TURN-OVER FROM PREVIOUS SHIFT, I WAS INFORMED OF AN ACFT ARRIVING IN XXX WITH A DEFERRED ITEM THAT WOULD REQUIRED A RECHK AND THAT A MECH HAD BEEN CALLED. A SHORT TIME LATER I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE STATION QUESTIONING WHAT THEY SHOULD DO. I TOLD THEM THEY NEEDED AN A&P MECH TO SIGN-OFF THE RECHK. THEY SEEMED UPSET, IT BEING A HOLIDAY WEEKEND, BUT SAID THEY WOULD GET A MECH. BEING VERY BUSY, I RETURNED TO THE OTHER AIRPLANES I WAS WORKING. AT APPROX XA30 LCL I RECEIVED A CALL FROM THE STATION ASKING HOW THEY SHOULD COMPLETE THE PAPERWORK, ADVISING ME THE MECH HAD ACCOMPLISHED THE RECHK BUT THE CAPT HAD TOLD HIM NO LOG ENTRY WAS REQUIRED. SPEAKING WITH THE MECH, HE TOLD ME THE AIRPLANE HAD ALREADY DEPARTED AND ASSURED ME THE RECHK HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. WE DOCUMENTED THE WORK, ALBEIT AFTER DEP. I INFORMED MY MGR AND SENT THE REQUIRED MESSAGE TO OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT. APPROX 30 MINS LATER I GOT A CALL FROM THE MECH WHO SAID HE HAD CHKED THE WRONG ENG. I CALLED THE NEXT DOWN-LINE STATION WHO THEN AGAIN DID A RECHK. IN TALKING WITH OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT THE NEXT DAY I WAS INFORMED THAT THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DID NOT REQUIRE A MECH TO ACCOMPLISH A RECHK, A QUALIFIED LCL STATION EMPLOYEE COULD, AND DID, ACCOMPLISH THIS CHK AND DOCUMENT ACCORDINGLY. CONFUSION IN PROCS PLAYED A MAJOR ROLE, OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT IS IN THE PROCESS OF CLARIFYING THIS PROC. ANOTHER FACTOR WAS THE MECH AND STATION PERSONNEL NOT FOLLOWING PROPER PROCS IN HANDLING MAINT ACTIVITY AT A NON MAINT STATION. OUR QUALITY ASSURANCE DEPT WILL AGAIN REVIEW, WITH THE LCL STATION MGMNT, PROPER PROCS. LOOKING BACK, I NOW UNDERSTAND OUR PROCS AND WILL BE ABLE TO AVOID ANOTHER ERROR OF THIS TYPE. KNOWING THE DEP WAS SAFE AND LEGAL BUT SEEING WHERE CONFUSION IN PROPER PROCS MIGHT LEAD TO A SIMILAR SIT WITH A MORE SENSITIVE ITEM WILL, AND HAS, PROMPTED ME TO FOLLOW UP WITH QUALITY ASSURANCE TO ASSURE THE PROCS ARE CLARIFIED AND PROPER TRAINING IN THIS AREA IS GIVEN TO ALL CONCERNED. IN CLOSING, I SEE WHERE PROPER PROCS SUFFERED AT THE EXPENSE OF EXPEDIENCY AND THAT TRAINING AND UNDERSTANDING CANNOT BE UNDERSTATED.

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.