Narrative:

We were instructed today 5/X/01 to put together a rear engine mount assembly for B-757 aircraft using the bracket in question. We feel this is a safety sensitive issue, because of the function this mount performs. It holds the engine onto the wing. If it breaks you lose engine. First off, the XXX from rolls-royce plc order # xxxxx does not have a serial # in the serial # box, someone wrote the serial # down in the remarks section. Secondly the bracket was received with dozens of machining flaws. We brought this to engineering's attention and they required an xx to get disposition on part. The XXX has been bought off on the XXX and the shop order (XXX) per e-mail from rolls-royce XXXX. The last time we checked e-mail is not an acceptable authority to buy off a part. If we were to evaluate this bracket per the engine manual 71-21-02 ck-00, yes there is no specific section in manual for the damage, but it would be rejected for obvious excessive damage. In past practice when something like this occurs we would receive a tech variance or a concession # from rolls royce. Note e-mail. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated several things were not right with these engine mounts as the engine mount serial # in the parts tag was not in the correct tag box. The reporter said the visual check of the mount was made and the assembly had dozens of machining flaws. The reporter said the mount had sharp edges, no curved radius in corners, and numerous other flaws. The reporter stated the powerplant engineer and the engine manufacturer representative were advised and visually inspected the mounts and recommended not using the parts. The reporter said a short time later the engineers approved the use of the mounts as these were the only spares available. The reporter said no documentation or engineering written approval was given to the technicians, only an 'email' from the manufacturer. The reporter stated this is not the procedure established by the carrier and manufacturer and approved by the FAA. Callback conversation with reporter from acn 512047 revealed the following information: the reporter stated the paperwork to support the use of these mounts is nonexistent. The reporter said six mounts, three forward and three aft were involved and all have been installed on aircraft. The reporter stated the engine manufacturer sub contracted the machining of these parts to a machine shop in singapore. The reporter said the shop had a machinist training problem and the parts were released with numerous flaws and sub standard work.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: TWO AND POSSIBLY THREE B-757-200 ACFT ARE RPTED TO HAVE SUB STANDARD AND POORLY MACHINED FORE AND AFT ENG MOUNT ASSEMBLIES.

Narrative: WE WERE INSTRUCTED TODAY 5/X/01 TO PUT TOGETHER A REAR ENG MOUNT ASSEMBLY FOR B-757 ACFT USING THE BRACKET IN QUESTION. WE FEEL THIS IS A SAFETY SENSITIVE ISSUE, BECAUSE OF THE FUNCTION THIS MOUNT PERFORMS. IT HOLDS THE ENG ONTO THE WING. IF IT BREAKS YOU LOSE ENG. FIRST OFF, THE XXX FROM ROLLS-ROYCE PLC ORDER # XXXXX DOES NOT HAVE A SERIAL # IN THE SERIAL # BOX, SOMEONE WROTE THE SERIAL # DOWN IN THE REMARKS SECTION. SECONDLY THE BRACKET WAS RECEIVED WITH DOZENS OF MACHINING FLAWS. WE BROUGHT THIS TO ENGINEERING'S ATTENTION AND THEY REQUIRED AN XX TO GET DISPOSITION ON PART. THE XXX HAS BEEN BOUGHT OFF ON THE XXX AND THE SHOP ORDER (XXX) PER E-MAIL FROM ROLLS-ROYCE XXXX. THE LAST TIME WE CHECKED E-MAIL IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE AUTHORITY TO BUY OFF A PART. IF WE WERE TO EVALUATE THIS BRACKET PER THE ENG MANUAL 71-21-02 CK-00, YES THERE IS NO SPECIFIC SECTION IN MANUAL FOR THE DAMAGE, BUT IT WOULD BE REJECTED FOR OBVIOUS EXCESSIVE DAMAGE. IN PAST PRACTICE WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS OCCURS WE WOULD RECEIVE A TECH VARIANCE OR A CONCESSION # FROM ROLLS ROYCE. NOTE E-MAIL. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED SEVERAL THINGS WERE NOT RIGHT WITH THESE ENG MOUNTS AS THE ENG MOUNT SERIAL # IN THE PARTS TAG WAS NOT IN THE CORRECT TAG BOX. THE RPTR SAID THE VISUAL CHK OF THE MOUNT WAS MADE AND THE ASSEMBLY HAD DOZENS OF MACHINING FLAWS. THE RPTR SAID THE MOUNT HAD SHARP EDGES, NO CURVED RADIUS IN CORNERS, AND NUMEROUS OTHER FLAWS. THE RPTR STATED THE POWERPLANT ENGINEER AND THE ENG MANUFACTURER REPRESENTATIVE WERE ADVISED AND VISUALLY INSPECTED THE MOUNTS AND RECOMMENDED NOT USING THE PARTS. THE RPTR SAID A SHORT TIME LATER THE ENGINEERS APPROVED THE USE OF THE MOUNTS AS THESE WERE THE ONLY SPARES AVAILABLE. THE RPTR SAID NO DOCUMENTATION OR ENGINEERING WRITTEN APPROVAL WAS GIVEN TO THE TECHNICIANS, ONLY AN 'EMAIL' FROM THE MANUFACTURER. THE RPTR STATED THIS IS NOT THE PROC ESTABLISHED BY THE CARRIER AND MANUFACTURER AND APPROVED BY THE FAA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR FROM ACN 512047 REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE PAPERWORK TO SUPPORT THE USE OF THESE MOUNTS IS NONEXISTENT. THE RPTR SAID SIX MOUNTS, THREE FORWARD AND THREE AFT WERE INVOLVED AND ALL HAVE BEEN INSTALLED ON ACFT. THE RPTR STATED THE ENG MANUFACTURER SUB CONTRACTED THE MACHINING OF THESE PARTS TO A MACHINE SHOP IN SINGAPORE. THE RPTR SAID THE SHOP HAD A MACHINIST TRAINING PROB AND THE PARTS WERE RELEASED WITH NUMEROUS FLAWS AND SUB STANDARD WORK.

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.