Narrative:

A notch check of the T-4 blades on a JT8-9 was performed on the right engine during a scheduled maintenance inspection. This occurred in ZZZ1 by a qualified inspector with 30 yrs seniority with the company; and 11 yrs as an inspector. This inspection requires inspecting the blades for spreading/looseness; to start with a 10 inch per pound force down to a 2 inch per pound force if failure at the higher readings; taken at a minimum 6 different locations. So this inspection had failed at more than one location according to this inspector. This requires the engine to be removed within a 20 hour fly-back limit. To the point of fly-back this was done properly. But when it returned to ZZZ; the company required the inspection to be re-done; and I was assigned to do this inspection. I was also required to have a powerplant engineer present to verify the results. Now I have been doing this inspection for 16 yrs; and tell you I could teach anyone to do this within a few mins; and do it properly -- a simple inspection. The engineer had never done this inspection (self-admitted); and had never even seen it done??. The engine still failed the inspection as I suspected it would. This is not an isolated case; in reference to this inspection. I fail to see the reason for this scenario; and I also asked the engineer why; if we don't trust the inspection department in ZZZ1 or any other station to do this; why bother having it scheduled so? Also; if we don't trust these same inspectors to do a proper job; why aren't we also re-inspecting the engines they sign off as good? No answer was forthcoming; though I suspect I know the answer. What has become of oversight? I wonder; how much is being overlooked that we; as inspectors or mechanics; are not involved with?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC9-30 ENG TURBINE DISC WAS INSPECTED FOR BLADE SPREADING. ENG FAILED AND REQUIRED REMOVAL IN 20 HRS. COMPANY REQUIRED INSPECTION AGAIN. ENG FAILED.

Narrative: A NOTCH CHK OF THE T-4 BLADES ON A JT8-9 WAS PERFORMED ON THE R ENG DURING A SCHEDULED MAINT INSPECTION. THIS OCCURRED IN ZZZ1 BY A QUALIFIED INSPECTOR WITH 30 YRS SENIORITY WITH THE COMPANY; AND 11 YRS AS AN INSPECTOR. THIS INSPECTION REQUIRES INSPECTING THE BLADES FOR SPREADING/LOOSENESS; TO START WITH A 10 INCH PER LB FORCE DOWN TO A 2 INCH PER LB FORCE IF FAILURE AT THE HIGHER READINGS; TAKEN AT A MINIMUM 6 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. SO THIS INSPECTION HAD FAILED AT MORE THAN ONE LOCATION ACCORDING TO THIS INSPECTOR. THIS REQUIRES THE ENG TO BE REMOVED WITHIN A 20 HR FLY-BACK LIMIT. TO THE POINT OF FLY-BACK THIS WAS DONE PROPERLY. BUT WHEN IT RETURNED TO ZZZ; THE COMPANY REQUIRED THE INSPECTION TO BE RE-DONE; AND I WAS ASSIGNED TO DO THIS INSPECTION. I WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE A POWERPLANT ENGINEER PRESENT TO VERIFY THE RESULTS. NOW I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS INSPECTION FOR 16 YRS; AND TELL YOU I COULD TEACH ANYONE TO DO THIS WITHIN A FEW MINS; AND DO IT PROPERLY -- A SIMPLE INSPECTION. THE ENGINEER HAD NEVER DONE THIS INSPECTION (SELF-ADMITTED); AND HAD NEVER EVEN SEEN IT DONE??. THE ENG STILL FAILED THE INSPECTION AS I SUSPECTED IT WOULD. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED CASE; IN REF TO THIS INSPECTION. I FAIL TO SEE THE REASON FOR THIS SCENARIO; AND I ALSO ASKED THE ENGINEER WHY; IF WE DON'T TRUST THE INSPECTION DEPT IN ZZZ1 OR ANY OTHER STATION TO DO THIS; WHY BOTHER HAVING IT SCHEDULED SO? ALSO; IF WE DON'T TRUST THESE SAME INSPECTORS TO DO A PROPER JOB; WHY AREN'T WE ALSO RE-INSPECTING THE ENGS THEY SIGN OFF AS GOOD? NO ANSWER WAS FORTHCOMING; THOUGH I SUSPECT I KNOW THE ANSWER. WHAT HAS BECOME OF OVERSIGHT? I WONDER; HOW MUCH IS BEING OVERLOOKED THAT WE; AS INSPECTORS OR MECHS; ARE NOT INVOLVED WITH?

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.