Narrative:

We were asked to perform a 1200-hour inspection on a bell 47G-3B. Due to time constraints imposed by the owner, we were unable to perform a complete 1200-hour inspection. I personally perform a 1200-hour inspection on the main rotor transmission and tail rotor hub assembly. I supervised the 1200-hour inspection on the swash plate assembly and main rotor hub assembly. 8 months earlier another mechanic worked on the airframe and tail rotor gear box. About 6 months after the work on the transmission, the owner took the aircraft to a repair station to have a 100-hour inspection performed. The mechanic from the repair station found some discrepancies in the logbook entries and we met to sort them out. It turned out that I forgot to have the mechanic who performed the non destructive test sign his work. I had the mechanic who performed the non destructive test sign the logbooks. The mechanic from the repair station also believed the other mechanic was not qualified to perform the non destructive test and, therefore, the 1200-hour inspections were not complete. About 3 months later, I received a letter of investigation from our local FSDO claiming there was a complaint and upon inspection some items may not have met the bell 1200-hour inspection requirements. There was no specific parts mentioned in this letter. I responded to the letter explaining that to the best of my knowledge the parts that I worked on met the requirements in the bell 1200-hour inspection criteria. I also requested that the specific parts be idented so I may be able to provide more information. As of this time, I have not been told as to which items are in question. After some outside investigation, I found out that the mechanic who performed the non destructive test received a letter also requesting his qualifications for performing non destructive test. I am assuming the non destructive test is what is being questioned. The components that I worked on were done in accordance with the bell 47G-3 maintenance and overhaul manual. When I gave the parts to the mechanic for non destructive test, I had and still do have the understanding that an a&P mechanic can perform non destructive test, provided he has the experience or training, uses calibrated equipment, and uses acceptable criteria. I know the mechanic who performed the non destructive test was trained, as I was, at the bell component overhaul course, he used calibrated equipment at the airline where he is a mechanic, and he used the inspection criteria of the bell overhaul manual. The manual also does not specify that the non destructive test be performed by a certified technician. I did not read the inspection criteria of the non destructive test because I have known the mechanic to be trustworthy and have had no reason to doubt the work he performed. I feel if I had read the non destructive test criteria personally, I might have caught any discrepancies that might have been. More importantly, I feel that if an a&P mechanic cannot perform non destructive testing, the regulations should be more clear as to who can perform non destructive testing. An example is the regulation for transponder test specifically says a certified technician must perform that test. As a side note, I have talked to many a&P mechanics, with various backgnds, and I have found that there is much confusion on this matter of non destructive testing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A BELL 47G-3B AFTER COMPLETION OF A 1200 HR INSPECTION THE FAA QUESTIONS THE QUALIFICATION OF A TECHNICIAN WHO PERFORMED A NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST.

Narrative: WE WERE ASKED TO PERFORM A 1200-HR INSPECTION ON A BELL 47G-3B. DUE TO TIME CONSTRAINTS IMPOSED BY THE OWNER, WE WERE UNABLE TO PERFORM A COMPLETE 1200-HR INSPECTION. I PERSONALLY PERFORM A 1200-HR INSPECTION ON THE MAIN ROTOR XMISSION AND TAIL ROTOR HUB ASSEMBLY. I SUPERVISED THE 1200-HR INSPECTION ON THE SWASH PLATE ASSEMBLY AND MAIN ROTOR HUB ASSEMBLY. 8 MONTHS EARLIER ANOTHER MECH WORKED ON THE AIRFRAME AND TAIL ROTOR GEAR BOX. ABOUT 6 MONTHS AFTER THE WORK ON THE XMISSION, THE OWNER TOOK THE ACFT TO A REPAIR STATION TO HAVE A 100-HR INSPECTION PERFORMED. THE MECH FROM THE REPAIR STATION FOUND SOME DISCREPANCIES IN THE LOGBOOK ENTRIES AND WE MET TO SORT THEM OUT. IT TURNED OUT THAT I FORGOT TO HAVE THE MECH WHO PERFORMED THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST SIGN HIS WORK. I HAD THE MECH WHO PERFORMED THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST SIGN THE LOGBOOKS. THE MECH FROM THE REPAIR STATION ALSO BELIEVED THE OTHER MECH WAS NOT QUALIFIED TO PERFORM THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST AND, THEREFORE, THE 1200-HR INSPECTIONS WERE NOT COMPLETE. ABOUT 3 MONTHS LATER, I RECEIVED A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION FROM OUR LCL FSDO CLAIMING THERE WAS A COMPLAINT AND UPON INSPECTION SOME ITEMS MAY NOT HAVE MET THE BELL 1200-HR INSPECTION REQUIREMENTS. THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC PARTS MENTIONED IN THIS LETTER. I RESPONDED TO THE LETTER EXPLAINING THAT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE PARTS THAT I WORKED ON MET THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE BELL 1200-HR INSPECTION CRITERIA. I ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE SPECIFIC PARTS BE IDENTED SO I MAY BE ABLE TO PROVIDE MORE INFO. AS OF THIS TIME, I HAVE NOT BEEN TOLD AS TO WHICH ITEMS ARE IN QUESTION. AFTER SOME OUTSIDE INVESTIGATION, I FOUND OUT THAT THE MECH WHO PERFORMED THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST RECEIVED A LETTER ALSO REQUESTING HIS QUALIFICATIONS FOR PERFORMING NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST. I AM ASSUMING THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST IS WHAT IS BEING QUESTIONED. THE COMPONENTS THAT I WORKED ON WERE DONE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE BELL 47G-3 MAINT AND OVERHAUL MANUAL. WHEN I GAVE THE PARTS TO THE MECH FOR NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST, I HAD AND STILL DO HAVE THE UNDERSTANDING THAT AN A&P MECH CAN PERFORM NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST, PROVIDED HE HAS THE EXPERIENCE OR TRAINING, USES CALIBRATED EQUIP, AND USES ACCEPTABLE CRITERIA. I KNOW THE MECH WHO PERFORMED THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST WAS TRAINED, AS I WAS, AT THE BELL COMPONENT OVERHAUL COURSE, HE USED CALIBRATED EQUIP AT THE AIRLINE WHERE HE IS A MECH, AND HE USED THE INSPECTION CRITERIA OF THE BELL OVERHAUL MANUAL. THE MANUAL ALSO DOES NOT SPECIFY THAT THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST BE PERFORMED BY A CERTIFIED TECHNICIAN. I DID NOT READ THE INSPECTION CRITERIA OF THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST BECAUSE I HAVE KNOWN THE MECH TO BE TRUSTWORTHY AND HAVE HAD NO REASON TO DOUBT THE WORK HE PERFORMED. I FEEL IF I HAD READ THE NON DESTRUCTIVE TEST CRITERIA PERSONALLY, I MIGHT HAVE CAUGHT ANY DISCREPANCIES THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN. MORE IMPORTANTLY, I FEEL THAT IF AN A&P MECH CANNOT PERFORM NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING, THE REGS SHOULD BE MORE CLR AS TO WHO CAN PERFORM NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING. AN EXAMPLE IS THE REG FOR XPONDER TEST SPECIFICALLY SAYS A CERTIFIED TECHNICIAN MUST PERFORM THAT TEST. AS A SIDE NOTE, I HAVE TALKED TO MANY A&P MECHS, WITH VARIOUS BACKGNDS, AND I HAVE FOUND THAT THERE IS MUCH CONFUSION ON THIS MATTER OF NON DESTRUCTIVE TESTING.

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.