Narrative:

Parts issued for aircraft in question didn't comply with engineering drawing requirements. Missing 'ink stamp' was replaced by magic marker, dash number to identify part. Parts lacked cad plating, but were sent back to accomplish cad plating prior to installation on air carrier X when new parts were issued for air carrier Y with no paperwork, lack of 'ink stamp' and no cad plating I questioned whether or not even heat treating had been accomplished or any seat tracks issued including the aircraft placed back into service (air carrier Y). Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the parts and material for the cockpit seat track repair were not ink stamped with part numbers and the parts lacked cadmium plating. There was no indication the heat treatment had been accomplished. The parts needing plating were sent to the shop and returned cadmium plated. The job was completed and the airplane was released for service. The second airplane worked had the materials in the same situation, pats not marked properly and not plated. Sent parts to plating shop and when returned started to install the tee fittings to repair the tracks at this point remembered the heat treating process and how they did not know it was accomplished. Contacted supervisor and engineering. We had 1 airplane out and flying with possible cockpit seat track repairs that were in non compliance. Engineering located the person charged with heat treating the tee fittings and advised everyone concerned the tee fittings could not be machined without heat treating. Management jumped on this problem and resolved it quickly.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING AN MD80 COCKPIT SEAT TRACK REPAIR THE TECHNICIANS NOTED THE PARTS AND MATERIAL DID NOT COMPLY WITH ENGINEERING DRAWING REQUIREMENTS.

Narrative: PARTS ISSUED FOR ACFT IN QUESTION DIDN'T COMPLY WITH ENGINEERING DRAWING REQUIREMENTS. MISSING 'INK STAMP' WAS REPLACED BY MAGIC MARKER, DASH NUMBER TO IDENT PART. PARTS LACKED CAD PLATING, BUT WERE SENT BACK TO ACCOMPLISH CAD PLATING PRIOR TO INSTALLATION ON ACR X WHEN NEW PARTS WERE ISSUED FOR ACR Y WITH NO PAPERWORK, LACK OF 'INK STAMP' AND NO CAD PLATING I QUESTIONED WHETHER OR NOT EVEN HEAT TREATING HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED OR ANY SEAT TRACKS ISSUED INCLUDING THE ACFT PLACED BACK INTO SVC (ACR Y). CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE PARTS AND MATERIAL FOR THE COCKPIT SEAT TRACK REPAIR WERE NOT INK STAMPED WITH PART NUMBERS AND THE PARTS LACKED CADMIUM PLATING. THERE WAS NO INDICATION THE HEAT TREATMENT HAD BEEN ACCOMPLISHED. THE PARTS NEEDING PLATING WERE SENT TO THE SHOP AND RETURNED CADMIUM PLATED. THE JOB WAS COMPLETED AND THE AIRPLANE WAS RELEASED FOR SVC. THE SECOND AIRPLANE WORKED HAD THE MATERIALS IN THE SAME SIT, PATS NOT MARKED PROPERLY AND NOT PLATED. SENT PARTS TO PLATING SHOP AND WHEN RETURNED STARTED TO INSTALL THE TEE FITTINGS TO REPAIR THE TRACKS AT THIS POINT REMEMBERED THE HEAT TREATING PROCESS AND HOW THEY DID NOT KNOW IT WAS ACCOMPLISHED. CONTACTED SUPVR AND ENGINEERING. WE HAD 1 AIRPLANE OUT AND FLYING WITH POSSIBLE COCKPIT SEAT TRACK REPAIRS THAT WERE IN NON COMPLIANCE. ENGINEERING LOCATED THE PERSON CHARGED WITH HEAT TREATING THE TEE FITTINGS AND ADVISED EVERYONE CONCERNED THE TEE FITTINGS COULD NOT BE MACHINED WITHOUT HEAT TREATING. MGMNT JUMPED ON THIS PROB AND RESOLVED IT QUICKLY.

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.