Narrative:

On jan/fri/04, I blended #7 blade on #2 engine on aircraft X. The blend was face damage (see maintenance manual 72 31 02 page 807 item 7 'convex'). After evaluating the blade I felt like this damage repair I was about to do was a cumulative repair concern considering repair work that was done on this same blade dec/wed/03. There would be less than 1 inch clearance separating the 2 repairs when completed. Page 803 item 1C addresses cumulative repairs when it comes to leading edge and trailing edge repairs. These repairs must be separated by a minimum of a cord wise measurement, see page 804 item 7. The maintenance manual does not address cumulative repair separation between face damage (convex or concave) and leading or trailing damage which is what I was dealing with at this time. Air carrier X engine controller was contacted with this concern on my part. Digital pictures were sent along with measurements. Although he gave no place in the maintenance manual that addresses this separation, he assured me that it would be a legal repair when completed. No concern for the leading edge damage less than 1 inch away. My position is and was at the time that our manuals are lacking in addressing this combination of repairs and that I should have not worked that blade. I was ordered to work the blade or 'be sent home' by the supervisor on duty. The damage that I had written up showed clear signs that someone tried to work/repair the present existing damage out but stopped. This previous attempt was not in our aircraft history, meaning undocumented. Another reason for the blade to be removed, sent to the shop and possibly further investigation. Also, this previous attempt at removing this damage made it difficult to determine that blade's original thickness when trying not to exceed the allowance given on page 807 item 7 (.030 inch maximum). The repair I performed in the end, was by itself a legal repair. So this reporting process is to say that I performed a repair without being given clear documentation on this cumulative repair allowance. This is something I performed after being ordered to 'work on the blade or be sent home.' this is work that I would not have done if left to interpretation and apply the company manuals on my own. Or in this case, lack of manual coverage for this combination of cumulative repair condition.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B757-200 R ENG FAN BLADE DAMAGE WAS REPAIRED WITHOUT CLR MAINT MANUAL DOCUMENTATION. DAMAGED AREA WAS ADJACENT TO PREVIOUS REPAIR.

Narrative: ON JAN/FRI/04, I BLENDED #7 BLADE ON #2 ENG ON ACFT X. THE BLEND WAS FACE DAMAGE (SEE MAINT MANUAL 72 31 02 PAGE 807 ITEM 7 'CONVEX'). AFTER EVALUATING THE BLADE I FELT LIKE THIS DAMAGE REPAIR I WAS ABOUT TO DO WAS A CUMULATIVE REPAIR CONCERN CONSIDERING REPAIR WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THIS SAME BLADE DEC/WED/03. THERE WOULD BE LESS THAN 1 INCH CLRNC SEPARATING THE 2 REPAIRS WHEN COMPLETED. PAGE 803 ITEM 1C ADDRESSES CUMULATIVE REPAIRS WHEN IT COMES TO LEADING EDGE AND TRAILING EDGE REPAIRS. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM OF A CORD WISE MEASUREMENT, SEE PAGE 804 ITEM 7. THE MAINT MANUAL DOES NOT ADDRESS CUMULATIVE REPAIR SEPARATION BTWN FACE DAMAGE (CONVEX OR CONCAVE) AND LEADING OR TRAILING DAMAGE WHICH IS WHAT I WAS DEALING WITH AT THIS TIME. ACR X ENG CTLR WAS CONTACTED WITH THIS CONCERN ON MY PART. DIGITAL PICTURES WERE SENT ALONG WITH MEASUREMENTS. ALTHOUGH HE GAVE NO PLACE IN THE MAINT MANUAL THAT ADDRESSES THIS SEPARATION, HE ASSURED ME THAT IT WOULD BE A LEGAL REPAIR WHEN COMPLETED. NO CONCERN FOR THE LEADING EDGE DAMAGE LESS THAN 1 INCH AWAY. MY POS IS AND WAS AT THE TIME THAT OUR MANUALS ARE LACKING IN ADDRESSING THIS COMBINATION OF REPAIRS AND THAT I SHOULD HAVE NOT WORKED THAT BLADE. I WAS ORDERED TO WORK THE BLADE OR 'BE SENT HOME' BY THE SUPVR ON DUTY. THE DAMAGE THAT I HAD WRITTEN UP SHOWED CLR SIGNS THAT SOMEONE TRIED TO WORK/REPAIR THE PRESENT EXISTING DAMAGE OUT BUT STOPPED. THIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPT WAS NOT IN OUR ACFT HISTORY, MEANING UNDOCUMENTED. ANOTHER REASON FOR THE BLADE TO BE REMOVED, SENT TO THE SHOP AND POSSIBLY FURTHER INVESTIGATION. ALSO, THIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPT AT REMOVING THIS DAMAGE MADE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THAT BLADE'S ORIGINAL THICKNESS WHEN TRYING NOT TO EXCEED THE ALLOWANCE GIVEN ON PAGE 807 ITEM 7 (.030 INCH MAX). THE REPAIR I PERFORMED IN THE END, WAS BY ITSELF A LEGAL REPAIR. SO THIS RPTING PROCESS IS TO SAY THAT I PERFORMED A REPAIR WITHOUT BEING GIVEN CLR DOCUMENTATION ON THIS CUMULATIVE REPAIR ALLOWANCE. THIS IS SOMETHING I PERFORMED AFTER BEING ORDERED TO 'WORK ON THE BLADE OR BE SENT HOME.' THIS IS WORK THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IF LEFT TO INTERP AND APPLY THE COMPANY MANUALS ON MY OWN. OR IN THIS CASE, LACK OF MANUAL COVERAGE FOR THIS COMBINATION OF CUMULATIVE REPAIR CONDITION.

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.