Narrative:

On apr/xa/01 I was told by my immediate supervisor mr X to check on the bird strike repairs on aircraft. Upon doing so, I was told by mechanic ms Y that she was instructed to pound out a dent on the fuselage skin above the flight deck window. She was to cut out the cockpit drip shield to do so. I then noted that she should stop because per B767 srm 51-70-01-0 dent rework procedures that dent could not be reworked. I was then told by technical crew chief mr Z that there was a change in the repair documentation that allowed this. When I could not find this, I questioned mr Z and he asked me to come to his office where he showed me an engineering change order dated mar/xa/01. Mr Z assured me this would cover it. When I questioned this with my supervisor mr X because of a section of the engineering change order he said I should then check with the engineer mr a. When I did so, he informed me that it indeed did not cover the damage in question. When I informed mr Z of this, he became upset and asked me to go with him back to see mr a. He again told us it did not apply. At this time mr Z became very upset and left. On apr/xa/01 I was told there would be something done for this damage. I then inspected and evaluated the area of bird strike after entering this information on form. Mr Z later asked ms Y to change one of my measurements. Upon further investigation, I discovered that a repair approval request was sent to boeing with a different description of damage than I had evaluated. The repair approval request was to leave out of limits dent as is with no further action/inspection required. This deviates from our repair procedures per B767 srm 51-70-01/53-00-01-1 figure 101 sheet 2 note 1, for the damage in question is adjacent to primary structure which was not inspected. I feel there has been an attempt to deceive both the mechanic and inspector on this repair. And that boeing was not given enough information about this damage in the repair approval request, ie, damage adjacent to frame and with crease. Also, that no inspection of internal structure is planned. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the FAA requires a clear delineation between the production part of maintenance and quality control (inspection) of maintenance. The reporter said this did not happen in this incident as management submitted a proposed repair to the manufacturer with smaller damage dimensions. The reporter stated the proposed repair did not require adjacent structure inspection. The reporter said this information has been submitted to the company and no answer has been received.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ACFT WITH FUSELAGE BIRD STRIKE DAMAGE OUT OF STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL LIMITS HAS MGMNT SUBMIT ALTERED DAMAGE DIMENSIONS TO THE MANUFACTURER FOR REPAIR APPROVAL.

Narrative: ON APR/XA/01 I WAS TOLD BY MY IMMEDIATE SUPVR MR X TO CHK ON THE BIRD STRIKE REPAIRS ON ACFT. UPON DOING SO, I WAS TOLD BY MECH MS Y THAT SHE WAS INSTRUCTED TO POUND OUT A DENT ON THE FUSELAGE SKIN ABOVE THE FLT DECK WINDOW. SHE WAS TO CUT OUT THE COCKPIT DRIP SHIELD TO DO SO. I THEN NOTED THAT SHE SHOULD STOP BECAUSE PER B767 SRM 51-70-01-0 DENT REWORK PROCS THAT DENT COULD NOT BE REWORKED. I WAS THEN TOLD BY TECHNICAL CREW CHIEF MR Z THAT THERE WAS A CHANGE IN THE REPAIR DOCUMENTATION THAT ALLOWED THIS. WHEN I COULD NOT FIND THIS, I QUESTIONED MR Z AND HE ASKED ME TO COME TO HIS OFFICE WHERE HE SHOWED ME AN ENGINEERING CHANGE ORDER DATED MAR/XA/01. MR Z ASSURED ME THIS WOULD COVER IT. WHEN I QUESTIONED THIS WITH MY SUPVR MR X BECAUSE OF A SECTION OF THE ENGINEERING CHANGE ORDER HE SAID I SHOULD THEN CHK WITH THE ENGINEER MR A. WHEN I DID SO, HE INFORMED ME THAT IT INDEED DID NOT COVER THE DAMAGE IN QUESTION. WHEN I INFORMED MR Z OF THIS, HE BECAME UPSET AND ASKED ME TO GO WITH HIM BACK TO SEE MR A. HE AGAIN TOLD US IT DID NOT APPLY. AT THIS TIME MR Z BECAME VERY UPSET AND LEFT. ON APR/XA/01 I WAS TOLD THERE WOULD BE SOMETHING DONE FOR THIS DAMAGE. I THEN INSPECTED AND EVALUATED THE AREA OF BIRD STRIKE AFTER ENTERING THIS INFO ON FORM. MR Z LATER ASKED MS Y TO CHANGE ONE OF MY MEASUREMENTS. UPON FURTHER INVESTIGATION, I DISCOVERED THAT A REPAIR APPROVAL REQUEST WAS SENT TO BOEING WITH A DIFFERENT DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE THAN I HAD EVALUATED. THE REPAIR APPROVAL REQUEST WAS TO LEAVE OUT OF LIMITS DENT AS IS WITH NO FURTHER ACTION/INSPECTION REQUIRED. THIS DEVIATES FROM OUR REPAIR PROCS PER B767 SRM 51-70-01/53-00-01-1 FIGURE 101 SHEET 2 NOTE 1, FOR THE DAMAGE IN QUESTION IS ADJACENT TO PRIMARY STRUCTURE WHICH WAS NOT INSPECTED. I FEEL THERE HAS BEEN AN ATTEMPT TO DECEIVE BOTH THE MECH AND INSPECTOR ON THIS REPAIR. AND THAT BOEING WAS NOT GIVEN ENOUGH INFO ABOUT THIS DAMAGE IN THE REPAIR APPROVAL REQUEST, IE, DAMAGE ADJACENT TO FRAME AND WITH CREASE. ALSO, THAT NO INSPECTION OF INTERNAL STRUCTURE IS PLANNED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE FAA REQUIRES A CLR DELINEATION BTWN THE PRODUCTION PART OF MAINT AND QUALITY CTL (INSPECTION) OF MAINT. THE RPTR SAID THIS DID NOT HAPPEN IN THIS INCIDENT AS MGMNT SUBMITTED A PROPOSED REPAIR TO THE MANUFACTURER WITH SMALLER DAMAGE DIMENSIONS. THE RPTR STATED THE PROPOSED REPAIR DID NOT REQUIRE ADJACENT STRUCTURE INSPECTION. THE RPTR SAID THIS INFO HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE COMPANY AND NO ANSWER HAS BEEN RECEIVED.

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.