Narrative:

Noted on log page, l-hand wheel well tee fitting leaking for main cargo door leaking. Tee fitting was placed into aircraft Y and aircraft Y's tee fitting placed into aircraft X and ordered since aircraft X was broke for a slat actuator change. No open lines were left. Write-up was made for a leaking tee fitting (non rotating part). Just wanted to file this report because I was contacted about robbed parts procedures. We have found through company that our procedures for 'borrowing' parts from a downed aircraft are inadequate. This is what this report is in regards to. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the 'tee' fitting like a nut or bolt is classified as a miscellaneous part and has no time or overhaul limits so when swapping from one airplane to another the only paperwork required is the log item to clear the report. The reporter said another write-up was made on the airplane, the svcable 'tee' fitting was removed from, and only for, replacement of the fitting. The reporter stated the supervisor, when reporting the fitting swap, entered the word 'robbed' which caused trouble. The reporter said a 'robbed' part is a monitored part with its own serial number and identify number installed on a particular airplane and if removed must have paperwork to cover the removal and installation on another airplane.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A MECH WORKING ON A B737-200 OTS FOR A SLAT ACTUATOR CHANGE, HAD A HYD 'TEE' FITTING REMOVED AND INSTALLED ON A ROUTED B737-200. 'TEE' FITTING ORDERED FOR OTS AIRPLANE.

Narrative: NOTED ON LOG PAGE, L-HAND WHEEL WELL TEE FITTING LEAKING FOR MAIN CARGO DOOR LEAKING. TEE FITTING WAS PLACED INTO ACFT Y AND ACFT Y'S TEE FITTING PLACED INTO ACFT X AND ORDERED SINCE ACFT X WAS BROKE FOR A SLAT ACTUATOR CHANGE. NO OPEN LINES WERE LEFT. WRITE-UP WAS MADE FOR A LEAKING TEE FITTING (NON ROTATING PART). JUST WANTED TO FILE THIS RPT BECAUSE I WAS CONTACTED ABOUT ROBBED PARTS PROCS. WE HAVE FOUND THROUGH COMPANY THAT OUR PROCS FOR 'BORROWING' PARTS FROM A DOWNED ACFT ARE INADEQUATE. THIS IS WHAT THIS RPT IS IN REGARDS TO. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE 'TEE' FITTING LIKE A NUT OR BOLT IS CLASSIFIED AS A MISCELLANEOUS PART AND HAS NO TIME OR OVERHAUL LIMITS SO WHEN SWAPPING FROM ONE AIRPLANE TO ANOTHER THE ONLY PAPERWORK REQUIRED IS THE LOG ITEM TO CLR THE RPT. THE RPTR SAID ANOTHER WRITE-UP WAS MADE ON THE AIRPLANE, THE SVCABLE 'TEE' FITTING WAS REMOVED FROM, AND ONLY FOR, REPLACEMENT OF THE FITTING. THE RPTR STATED THE SUPVR, WHEN RPTING THE FITTING SWAP, ENTERED THE WORD 'ROBBED' WHICH CAUSED TROUBLE. THE RPTR SAID A 'ROBBED' PART IS A MONITORED PART WITH ITS OWN SERIAL NUMBER AND IDENT NUMBER INSTALLED ON A PARTICULAR AIRPLANE AND IF REMOVED MUST HAVE PAPERWORK TO COVER THE REMOVAL AND INSTALLATION ON ANOTHER AIRPLANE.

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.