Narrative:

At approximately XA30; I was assigned to work on aircraft. Seeing that the aircraft had a previous discrepancy for the #1 windshield heat; I informed my crew chief that I would need some time to troubleshoot this problem. My crew chief then notified maintenance operations controller of the problem and the need to put the plane in the OTS list. I then performed an operations check. During the operations check; I received no failure. I then proceeded to check the system further by checking temperature sensors in the windshield. I found no faults there. I checked the security of the other wiring to and from the temperature controller; the windshield; and the contactor -- again I found no faults. Re-assembly followed by another operations check still revealed no faults. I even tested the system with the aircraft pressurized; which I've been told can reveal sensor defects in the windshield. The fault isolation manual calls for an operations check; if the system passes the operations check it calls for no further troubleshooting. After several more operations checks with no faults displayed on the maintenance computer; the controller; or the EICAS display and a total of approximately 4 hours research and troubleshooting; I released the aircraft to service at XE30. The apr/thu/05 letter to me says that it appeared that the action I took 'operations check good' had already been accomplished and suggests that my actions were in conflict with gpm chapter 12-00 for handling of repeat discrepancies. I submit that my actions were entirely proper and were not in conflict with gpm 12-00. Gpm 12-00 part C) on repeat discrepancies states that if a discrepancy is idented as a repeat; the technician is to 'a) ensure all available technical data has been utilized and a proper course of corrective and troubleshooting actions have been taken' and 'B) if unable to verify correction of the discrepancy; notify a person directly in charge' as defined by gpm 4-00. I believe that my description of my actions shows that I ensured that all available technical data had been utilized and a proper course of corrective and troubleshooting actions had been taken; so I complied with part a). With respect to part B) if unable to verify correction of the discrepancy; 'notify a person directly in charge' as defined by gpm 4-00. I believe that my description of my actions shows that I ensured that all available technical data had been utilized. I submit that my actions with respect to this aircraft were entirely proper. However; if the FAA believes that I should have used different procedures; I will; of course; do everything I can to comply with those procedures in the future.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: EMB145 RPTS RECEIVING AN FAA LETTER OF INVESTIGATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE GPM WHEN CLRING A WINDSHIELD HEAT RPT WITH CHKS OK.

Narrative: AT APPROX XA30; I WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK ON ACFT. SEEING THAT THE ACFT HAD A PREVIOUS DISCREPANCY FOR THE #1 WINDSHIELD HEAT; I INFORMED MY CREW CHIEF THAT I WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO TROUBLESHOOT THIS PROB. MY CREW CHIEF THEN NOTIFIED MAINT OPS CTLR OF THE PROB AND THE NEED TO PUT THE PLANE IN THE OTS LIST. I THEN PERFORMED AN OPS CHK. DURING THE OPS CHK; I RECEIVED NO FAILURE. I THEN PROCEEDED TO CHK THE SYS FURTHER BY CHKING TEMP SENSORS IN THE WINDSHIELD. I FOUND NO FAULTS THERE. I CHKED THE SECURITY OF THE OTHER WIRING TO AND FROM THE TEMP CONTROLLER; THE WINDSHIELD; AND THE CONTACTOR -- AGAIN I FOUND NO FAULTS. RE-ASSEMBLY FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER OPS CHK STILL REVEALED NO FAULTS. I EVEN TESTED THE SYS WITH THE ACFT PRESSURIZED; WHICH I'VE BEEN TOLD CAN REVEAL SENSOR DEFECTS IN THE WINDSHIELD. THE FAULT ISOLATION MANUAL CALLS FOR AN OPS CHK; IF THE SYS PASSES THE OPS CHK IT CALLS FOR NO FURTHER TROUBLESHOOTING. AFTER SEVERAL MORE OPS CHKS WITH NO FAULTS DISPLAYED ON THE MAINT COMPUTER; THE CONTROLLER; OR THE EICAS DISPLAY AND A TOTAL OF APPROX 4 HRS RESEARCH AND TROUBLESHOOTING; I RELEASED THE ACFT TO SVC AT XE30. THE APR/THU/05 LETTER TO ME SAYS THAT IT APPEARED THAT THE ACTION I TOOK 'OPS CHK GOOD' HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND SUGGESTS THAT MY ACTIONS WERE IN CONFLICT WITH GPM CHAPTER 12-00 FOR HANDLING OF REPEAT DISCREPANCIES. I SUBMIT THAT MY ACTIONS WERE ENTIRELY PROPER AND WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH GPM 12-00. GPM 12-00 PART C) ON REPEAT DISCREPANCIES STATES THAT IF A DISCREPANCY IS IDENTED AS A REPEAT; THE TECHNICIAN IS TO 'A) ENSURE ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAS BEEN UTILIZED AND A PROPER COURSE OF CORRECTIVE AND TROUBLESHOOTING ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN' AND 'B) IF UNABLE TO VERIFY CORRECTION OF THE DISCREPANCY; NOTIFY A PERSON DIRECTLY IN CHARGE' AS DEFINED BY GPM 4-00. I BELIEVE THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF MY ACTIONS SHOWS THAT I ENSURED THAT ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAD BEEN UTILIZED AND A PROPER COURSE OF CORRECTIVE AND TROUBLESHOOTING ACTIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN; SO I COMPLIED WITH PART A). WITH RESPECT TO PART B) IF UNABLE TO VERIFY CORRECTION OF THE DISCREPANCY; 'NOTIFY A PERSON DIRECTLY IN CHARGE' AS DEFINED BY GPM 4-00. I BELIEVE THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF MY ACTIONS SHOWS THAT I ENSURED THAT ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAD BEEN UTILIZED. I SUBMIT THAT MY ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ACFT WERE ENTIRELY PROPER. HOWEVER; IF THE FAA BELIEVES THAT I SHOULD HAVE USED DIFFERENT PROCS; I WILL; OF COURSE; DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO COMPLY WITH THOSE PROCS IN THE FUTURE.

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.