Narrative:

During a scheduled 'B' check inspection, a technician discovered that a tapered retention pin in the left main gear pivot shaft assembly was sheared. When discovered, I advised the director of maintenance that the pivot shaft would have to be removed and inspected for cracks if any of the 5 tapered retention pins was broken or loose. Director of maintenance objected and advised of his intent to 'replace the broken pin, and walk away from it.' this was witnessed by myself and my assistant chief inspector. A meeting was held between myself, the director of maintenance and the general manager. In this meeting, I advised both the director of maintenance and the general manager that removing the landing gear pivot shaft was at the very least required, to assess the damage. There are 4 additional taper pins in the assembly, and the only way to assess damage to them is by removal, inspection and/or magnaflux of the pivot shaft. Director of maintenance objected to the inspection, and again expressed his intent to replace the broken taper pin and continue to fly the aircraft into its 'C' check approximately 70 hours away. I again stressed the importance to at the very least inspect the pivot shaft for damage. I was then asked if a mechanic could remove the broken pin and replace it without rii authority/authorized, thus removing the inspection department from the equation. I advised again of the inherent danger of doing so and that I would not be a party of any activities to do so! The general manager and the director of maintenance then continued their discussion relative to the retaining pin. Considering that the director of maintenance has ordered only 1 of 5 taper pins of which all 5 would have to be removed to properly inspect the pivot shaft, I am left to assume that he intends to follow through with his above quote. I have, with the knowledge of the general manager, been removed from the decision making process. If the chief inspector is countermanded in this issue, it is apparent that this would also be going on without my knowledge or involvement. It has become obvious that I, as the chief inspector, am being circumvented at the 'whim' of our director of maintenance and general manager! If the pivot shaft fails, the landing gear will surely fail to function.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A CONVAIR 600 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A L MAIN LNDG GEAR PIVOT SHAFT ASSEMBLY REPAIRED NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH CONVAIR ALERT BULLETIN.

Narrative: DURING A SCHEDULED 'B' CHK INSPECTION, A TECHNICIAN DISCOVERED THAT A TAPERED RETENTION PIN IN THE L MAIN GEAR PIVOT SHAFT ASSEMBLY WAS SHEARED. WHEN DISCOVERED, I ADVISED THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT THAT THE PIVOT SHAFT WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED AND INSPECTED FOR CRACKS IF ANY OF THE 5 TAPERED RETENTION PINS WAS BROKEN OR LOOSE. DIRECTOR OF MAINT OBJECTED AND ADVISED OF HIS INTENT TO 'REPLACE THE BROKEN PIN, AND WALK AWAY FROM IT.' THIS WAS WITNESSED BY MYSELF AND MY ASSISTANT CHIEF INSPECTOR. A MEETING WAS HELD BTWN MYSELF, THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND THE GENERAL MGR. IN THIS MEETING, I ADVISED BOTH THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND THE GENERAL MGR THAT REMOVING THE LNDG GEAR PIVOT SHAFT WAS AT THE VERY LEAST REQUIRED, TO ASSESS THE DAMAGE. THERE ARE 4 ADDITIONAL TAPER PINS IN THE ASSEMBLY, AND THE ONLY WAY TO ASSESS DAMAGE TO THEM IS BY REMOVAL, INSPECTION AND/OR MAGNAFLUX OF THE PIVOT SHAFT. DIRECTOR OF MAINT OBJECTED TO THE INSPECTION, AND AGAIN EXPRESSED HIS INTENT TO REPLACE THE BROKEN TAPER PIN AND CONTINUE TO FLY THE ACFT INTO ITS 'C' CHK APPROX 70 HRS AWAY. I AGAIN STRESSED THE IMPORTANCE TO AT THE VERY LEAST INSPECT THE PIVOT SHAFT FOR DAMAGE. I WAS THEN ASKED IF A MECH COULD REMOVE THE BROKEN PIN AND REPLACE IT WITHOUT RII AUTH, THUS REMOVING THE INSPECTION DEPT FROM THE EQUATION. I ADVISED AGAIN OF THE INHERENT DANGER OF DOING SO AND THAT I WOULD NOT BE A PARTY OF ANY ACTIVITIES TO DO SO! THE GENERAL MGR AND THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT THEN CONTINUED THEIR DISCUSSION RELATIVE TO THE RETAINING PIN. CONSIDERING THAT THE DIRECTOR OF MAINT HAS ORDERED ONLY 1 OF 5 TAPER PINS OF WHICH ALL 5 WOULD HAVE TO BE REMOVED TO PROPERLY INSPECT THE PIVOT SHAFT, I AM LEFT TO ASSUME THAT HE INTENDS TO FOLLOW THROUGH WITH HIS ABOVE QUOTE. I HAVE, WITH THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE GENERAL MGR, BEEN REMOVED FROM THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS. IF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR IS COUNTERMANDED IN THIS ISSUE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THIS WOULD ALSO BE GOING ON WITHOUT MY KNOWLEDGE OR INVOLVEMENT. IT HAS BECOME OBVIOUS THAT I, AS THE CHIEF INSPECTOR, AM BEING CIRCUMVENTED AT THE 'WHIM' OF OUR DIRECTOR OF MAINT AND GENERAL MGR! IF THE PIVOT SHAFT FAILS, THE LNDG GEAR WILL SURELY FAIL TO FUNCTION.

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.