 |
37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
An MD80 forward door cutout inspection card is believed by an inspector to be not worded in a clear or precise manner.
| Attributes | |
| ACN | 521280 |
| Time | |
| Date | 200108 |
| Day | Thu |
| Place | |
| Locale Reference | airport : zzz.airport |
| State Reference | US |
| Altitude | agl single value : 0 |
| Aircraft 1 | |
| Operator | common carrier : air carrier |
| Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
| Flight Phase | ground : maintenance |
| Person 1 | |
| Affiliation | company : air carrier |
| Function | maintenance : inspector |
| Qualification | technician : powerplant technician : airframe |
| ASRS Report | 521280 |
| Events | |
| Anomaly | aircraft equipment problem : critical other anomaly other |
| Independent Detector | other other : person 1 |
| Resolutory Action | none taken : detected after the fact |
| Consequence | other |
| Factors | |
| Maintenance | contributing factor : engineering procedure contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : inspection |
| Supplementary | |
| Problem Areas | Flight Crew Human Performance Chart Or Publication Company |
| Primary Problem | Chart Or Publication |
| Situations | |
| Publication | ENGINEERING SERVICE ORDER |
Narrative:
On or about may/00, our inspection department (working quality assurance business units 1-2) started doing MD80 aircraft. During inspection at forward entry door/door cutout (card XXXX), I asked engineering for clarification of inspection requirements of forward upper corner of door cutout. There was no access for inspection of internal torque box area. They wrote an engineering service order abcd dated may/00 to gain access. This inspection requirement was to be made known in business units 3-4, it was not. On jun/tue/01 I wrote a request for service to clarify card XXXX as to open up requirements. It was turned down. (This card is part of an airworthiness directive inspection.) I took the rejected request for service to our manager. He took it to his superiors to no avail. I am concerned that the way the card is presently written that inspectors are unknowingly signing for inspection work not being accomplished and this area not being inspected may endanger aircraft safety.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: AN MD80 FORWARD DOOR CUTOUT INSPECTION CARD IS BELIEVED BY AN INSPECTOR TO BE NOT WORDED IN A CLR OR PRECISE MANNER.
Narrative: ON OR ABOUT MAY/00, OUR INSPECTION DEPT (WORKING QUALITY ASSURANCE BUSINESS UNITS 1-2) STARTED DOING MD80 ACFT. DURING INSPECTION AT FORWARD ENTRY DOOR/DOOR CUTOUT (CARD XXXX), I ASKED ENGINEERING FOR CLARIFICATION OF INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS OF FORWARD UPPER CORNER OF DOOR CUTOUT. THERE WAS NO ACCESS FOR INSPECTION OF INTERNAL TORQUE BOX AREA. THEY WROTE AN ENGINEERING SVC ORDER ABCD DATED MAY/00 TO GAIN ACCESS. THIS INSPECTION REQUIREMENT WAS TO BE MADE KNOWN IN BUSINESS UNITS 3-4, IT WAS NOT. ON JUN/TUE/01 I WROTE A REQUEST FOR SVC TO CLARIFY CARD XXXX AS TO OPEN UP REQUIREMENTS. IT WAS TURNED DOWN. (THIS CARD IS PART OF AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE INSPECTION.) I TOOK THE REJECTED REQUEST FOR SVC TO OUR MGR. HE TOOK IT TO HIS SUPERIORS TO NO AVAIL. I AM CONCERNED THAT THE WAY THE CARD IS PRESENTLY WRITTEN THAT INSPECTORS ARE UNKNOWINGLY SIGNING FOR INSPECTION WORK NOT BEING ACCOMPLISHED AND THIS AREA NOT BEING INSPECTED MAY ENDANGER ACFT SAFETY.
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.