Narrative:

On sep/xa/99 at XC30, received a call from maintenance in ZZZ in regards to a deferred item on a DC10-10. Item was previously deferred back on aug/xc/99 in ZZZ. The item concerned a quilted skin and some minor corrosion and one dished rivet head. I authority/authorized the deferral at the time per our maintenance manual to the next maintenance check with the condition that the area be rechked at the next 'a' check. 90 flight hours later, the aircraft was back in ZZZ and area was rechked and found to be acceptable. Aircraft was in ZZZ on sep/yy/99 for a maintenance check. ZZZ maintenance called me to break or extend the deferral on this item. After reviewing the deferral again, I realized I had erred in my original authority/authorized for deferral. The discrepancy should have been deferred for 100 hours versus letting the condition continue until maintenance check. ZZZ accomplished a repair with engineering assistance and aircraft continued on with a new deferral. In quick haste, I must've authority/authorized the original deferral to maintenance check misinterping the set guidelines in the maintenance manual specifications. The deferral should've been just for 100 hours for engineering to re-evaluate.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC10-10 WAS DISPATCHED AND OPERATED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH LOWER FUSELAGE SKIN CORROSION BEYOND ALLOWABLE TIME LIMITS.

Narrative: ON SEP/XA/99 AT XC30, RECEIVED A CALL FROM MAINT IN ZZZ IN REGARDS TO A DEFERRED ITEM ON A DC10-10. ITEM WAS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED BACK ON AUG/XC/99 IN ZZZ. THE ITEM CONCERNED A QUILTED SKIN AND SOME MINOR CORROSION AND ONE DISHED RIVET HEAD. I AUTH THE DEFERRAL AT THE TIME PER OUR MAINT MANUAL TO THE NEXT MAINT CHK WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE AREA BE RECHKED AT THE NEXT 'A' CHK. 90 FLT HRS LATER, THE ACFT WAS BACK IN ZZZ AND AREA WAS RECHKED AND FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE. ACFT WAS IN ZZZ ON SEP/YY/99 FOR A MAINT CHK. ZZZ MAINT CALLED ME TO BREAK OR EXTEND THE DEFERRAL ON THIS ITEM. AFTER REVIEWING THE DEFERRAL AGAIN, I REALIZED I HAD ERRED IN MY ORIGINAL AUTH FOR DEFERRAL. THE DISCREPANCY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DEFERRED FOR 100 HRS VERSUS LETTING THE CONDITION CONTINUE UNTIL MAINT CHK. ZZZ ACCOMPLISHED A REPAIR WITH ENGINEERING ASSISTANCE AND ACFT CONTINUED ON WITH A NEW DEFERRAL. IN QUICK HASTE, I MUST'VE AUTH THE ORIGINAL DEFERRAL TO MAINT CHK MISINTERPING THE SET GUIDELINES IN THE MAINT MANUAL SPECS. THE DEFERRAL SHOULD'VE BEEN JUST FOR 100 HRS FOR ENGINEERING TO RE-EVALUATE.

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.