Narrative:

Aug/xa/99 aircraft xyz #2 engine change. Forward mount yoke had corrosion and needed changing. Couldn't find repair and replace in aircraft maintenance manual, structural repair manual, or overhaul manual. Called maintenance control. They got with engineering and they got with douglas. After discussion amongst themselves, they told me 71-20-3 in the aircraft maintenance manual was intended to be my authority/authorized to change this yoke. I explained to them that reference is for replacing the yoke mounting batteries only, with a note that says do only 1 at a time, so that bolt hole alignment is not disturbed. They told me that this reference is what we have been using for this job for yrs. I asked them for documentation to support that statement, but they refused. All the parts needed to complete this job were in and after fighting with these people for 15 hours, I told my supervisor that I would sign this off if he would follow up and solve this problem so we wouldn't run into this again. Aug/xa/99 aircraft zyx #2 engine change yoke gouged and needs replaced. I am the lead technician that gets the job again. Started the same process again with the same result. This time I told them that I would perform the work but would not sign it off until the proper paperwork was in hand. As it turned out, by the time I went home there was no paperwork. So, I put down on our non routine paper that I installed the bolts per aircraft maintenance manual 71-20-3. That way, the bolt torque was verified by inspection and documented. Next shift came on and the supervisor in charge signed off the discrepancy and referenced my signoff. He convinced inspection to sign off on the discrepancy, as their agreement with the situation was required. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the MD80 was the last airplane with the engine mount yoke replaced using the bolt replacement procedure. The reporter said he will positively not sign off another yoke changed with the bolt replacement maintenance manual procedure. The reporter stated the foreman and inspector foreman are concerned about the shop work that may arise if a procedure is written and adapted.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN MD80 DURING ENG CHANGE REQUIRES FORWARD ENG MOUNT YOKE REPLACEMENT BUT HAS NO MAINT MANUAL PROC. MOUNT REPLACED USING MOUNT BOLT REPLACEMENT PROC.

Narrative: AUG/XA/99 ACFT XYZ #2 ENG CHANGE. FORWARD MOUNT YOKE HAD CORROSION AND NEEDED CHANGING. COULDN'T FIND REPAIR AND REPLACE IN ACFT MAINT MANUAL, STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL, OR OVERHAUL MANUAL. CALLED MAINT CTL. THEY GOT WITH ENGINEERING AND THEY GOT WITH DOUGLAS. AFTER DISCUSSION AMONGST THEMSELVES, THEY TOLD ME 71-20-3 IN THE ACFT MAINT MANUAL WAS INTENDED TO BE MY AUTH TO CHANGE THIS YOKE. I EXPLAINED TO THEM THAT REF IS FOR REPLACING THE YOKE MOUNTING BATTERIES ONLY, WITH A NOTE THAT SAYS DO ONLY 1 AT A TIME, SO THAT BOLT HOLE ALIGNMENT IS NOT DISTURBED. THEY TOLD ME THAT THIS REF IS WHAT WE HAVE BEEN USING FOR THIS JOB FOR YRS. I ASKED THEM FOR DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT STATEMENT, BUT THEY REFUSED. ALL THE PARTS NEEDED TO COMPLETE THIS JOB WERE IN AND AFTER FIGHTING WITH THESE PEOPLE FOR 15 HRS, I TOLD MY SUPVR THAT I WOULD SIGN THIS OFF IF HE WOULD FOLLOW UP AND SOLVE THIS PROB SO WE WOULDN'T RUN INTO THIS AGAIN. AUG/XA/99 ACFT ZYX #2 ENG CHANGE YOKE GOUGED AND NEEDS REPLACED. I AM THE LEAD TECHNICIAN THAT GETS THE JOB AGAIN. STARTED THE SAME PROCESS AGAIN WITH THE SAME RESULT. THIS TIME I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD PERFORM THE WORK BUT WOULD NOT SIGN IT OFF UNTIL THE PROPER PAPERWORK WAS IN HAND. AS IT TURNED OUT, BY THE TIME I WENT HOME THERE WAS NO PAPERWORK. SO, I PUT DOWN ON OUR NON ROUTINE PAPER THAT I INSTALLED THE BOLTS PER ACFT MAINT MANUAL 71-20-3. THAT WAY, THE BOLT TORQUE WAS VERIFIED BY INSPECTION AND DOCUMENTED. NEXT SHIFT CAME ON AND THE SUPVR IN CHARGE SIGNED OFF THE DISCREPANCY AND REFED MY SIGNOFF. HE CONVINCED INSPECTION TO SIGN OFF ON THE DISCREPANCY, AS THEIR AGREEMENT WITH THE SIT WAS REQUIRED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE MD80 WAS THE LAST AIRPLANE WITH THE ENG MOUNT YOKE REPLACED USING THE BOLT REPLACEMENT PROC. THE RPTR SAID HE WILL POSITIVELY NOT SIGN OFF ANOTHER YOKE CHANGED WITH THE BOLT REPLACEMENT MAINT MANUAL PROC. THE RPTR STATED THE FOREMAN AND INSPECTOR FOREMAN ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE SHOP WORK THAT MAY ARISE IF A PROC IS WRITTEN AND ADAPTED.

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.