Narrative:

2 co-workers and I were assigned to install the #2 leading edge slat on aircraft X. In doing so, I believe we installed a part against policy which could allow for an unairworthy part to be installed. We received our work assignment and were advised the part was here (on the dock at ZZZ maintenance facility). The slat is a loaner part from boeing and came with FAA form 8130-3. We were concerned by the lack of an I and right tag (see attached) which is the mechanic's proof of a receiving inspection and overall airworthiness of the received part. In checking the iipc, the part number was not effective for the ship. We advised our lead of the problem and he produced boeing's redars compatibility matrix. The matrix showed the part and dash number to be compatible with our plane with no modification required. The question of a need for receiving inspection still remained. We found the procedure for a loner part in the imcop (see attached) which clearly states the loner part will have an I and right tag attached after receiving inspection and prior to delivery to the dock. We questioned our team coordinator and were advised that the policy was being changed. He stated the aop overrides the imcop and that it was ok to continue. We requested that he show us the procedure in the aop as we were unable to find it. He denied our request and ordered us to install the part. Believing that the part did not get a receiving inspection, we performed a visual inspection of the part and noted no defects. Feeling the part was otherwise acceptable (referencing FAA form 8130-3 and redars matrix), at the order of our team coordinator, we installed the slat referencing the maintenance manual and job card.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 REQUIRED A LEASED LEADING EDGE SLAT THAT WAS RECEIVED AND INSTALLED WITHOUT THE REQUIRED COMPANY RECEIVING INSPECTION.

Narrative: 2 CO-WORKERS AND I WERE ASSIGNED TO INSTALL THE #2 LEADING EDGE SLAT ON ACFT X. IN DOING SO, I BELIEVE WE INSTALLED A PART AGAINST POLICY WHICH COULD ALLOW FOR AN UNAIRWORTHY PART TO BE INSTALLED. WE RECEIVED OUR WORK ASSIGNMENT AND WERE ADVISED THE PART WAS HERE (ON THE DOCK AT ZZZ MAINT FACILITY). THE SLAT IS A LOANER PART FROM BOEING AND CAME WITH FAA FORM 8130-3. WE WERE CONCERNED BY THE LACK OF AN I AND R TAG (SEE ATTACHED) WHICH IS THE MECH'S PROOF OF A RECEIVING INSPECTION AND OVERALL AIRWORTHINESS OF THE RECEIVED PART. IN CHKING THE IIPC, THE PART NUMBER WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THE SHIP. WE ADVISED OUR LEAD OF THE PROB AND HE PRODUCED BOEING'S REDARS COMPATIBILITY MATRIX. THE MATRIX SHOWED THE PART AND DASH NUMBER TO BE COMPATIBLE WITH OUR PLANE WITH NO MODIFICATION REQUIRED. THE QUESTION OF A NEED FOR RECEIVING INSPECTION STILL REMAINED. WE FOUND THE PROC FOR A LONER PART IN THE IMCOP (SEE ATTACHED) WHICH CLRLY STATES THE LONER PART WILL HAVE AN I AND R TAG ATTACHED AFTER RECEIVING INSPECTION AND PRIOR TO DELIVERY TO THE DOCK. WE QUESTIONED OUR TEAM COORDINATOR AND WERE ADVISED THAT THE POLICY WAS BEING CHANGED. HE STATED THE AOP OVERRIDES THE IMCOP AND THAT IT WAS OK TO CONTINUE. WE REQUESTED THAT HE SHOW US THE PROC IN THE AOP AS WE WERE UNABLE TO FIND IT. HE DENIED OUR REQUEST AND ORDERED US TO INSTALL THE PART. BELIEVING THAT THE PART DID NOT GET A RECEIVING INSPECTION, WE PERFORMED A VISUAL INSPECTION OF THE PART AND NOTED NO DEFECTS. FEELING THE PART WAS OTHERWISE ACCEPTABLE (REFING FAA FORM 8130-3 AND REDARS MATRIX), AT THE ORDER OF OUR TEAM COORDINATOR, WE INSTALLED THE SLAT REFING THE MAINT MANUAL AND JOB CARD.

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.