Narrative:

In the process of performing routine maintenance on military C17 core thrust reversers it was discovered that the paper package being used was intended only to be used as a guideline to develop the paper package for ZZZ. It was originally developed for ZZZ. The shop practices here don't work well on the paperwork. The work performed was good, the paper package is not. In the shop it works fine, here shop procedures don't work well with the paperwork. The problems can be solved by developing a new paper package for shop in ZZZ. Some work and serviceability was signed for in the shop that was performed later at the test cell, before being released to service. The work signed for in error was a functional and leak check that was performed later in the test cell. This work was done on approximately 2-3 units. Also, some (3-4) units were released from the shop as serviceable, not as repaired (serviceability uncertified), as has been done since. Serviceability was determined at assembly on next higher assembly. In my opinion the work performed was good, just the wrong things signed for at the wrong time. A proper paper package would fix these problems. The work signed for was performed again later by other technician.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A SHOP TECHNICIAN RPTS PAPERWORK ON REPAIR OF C17 THRUST REVERSERS IS IN THE DEVELOPMENTAL PHASE AND JOB SEQUENCE AND SIGNOFF NOT CORRECT.

Narrative: IN THE PROCESS OF PERFORMING ROUTINE MAINT ON MIL C17 CORE THRUST REVERSERS IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PAPER PACKAGE BEING USED WAS INTENDED ONLY TO BE USED AS A GUIDELINE TO DEVELOP THE PAPER PACKAGE FOR ZZZ. IT WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED FOR ZZZ. THE SHOP PRACTICES HERE DON'T WORK WELL ON THE PAPERWORK. THE WORK PERFORMED WAS GOOD, THE PAPER PACKAGE IS NOT. IN THE SHOP IT WORKS FINE, HERE SHOP PROCS DON'T WORK WELL WITH THE PAPERWORK. THE PROBS CAN BE SOLVED BY DEVELOPING A NEW PAPER PACKAGE FOR SHOP IN ZZZ. SOME WORK AND SERVICEABILITY WAS SIGNED FOR IN THE SHOP THAT WAS PERFORMED LATER AT THE TEST CELL, BEFORE BEING RELEASED TO SVC. THE WORK SIGNED FOR IN ERROR WAS A FUNCTIONAL AND LEAK CHK THAT WAS PERFORMED LATER IN THE TEST CELL. THIS WORK WAS DONE ON APPROX 2-3 UNITS. ALSO, SOME (3-4) UNITS WERE RELEASED FROM THE SHOP AS SERVICEABLE, NOT AS REPAIRED (SERVICEABILITY UNCERTIFIED), AS HAS BEEN DONE SINCE. SERVICEABILITY WAS DETERMINED AT ASSEMBLY ON NEXT HIGHER ASSEMBLY. IN MY OPINION THE WORK PERFORMED WAS GOOD, JUST THE WRONG THINGS SIGNED FOR AT THE WRONG TIME. A PROPER PAPER PACKAGE WOULD FIX THESE PROBS. THE WORK SIGNED FOR WAS PERFORMED AGAIN LATER BY OTHER TECHNICIAN.

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.