Narrative:

Callout ec X required replacement of #1 engine fuel pump. As a line inspector; I was accomplishing the required inspection buy back of the pump installation. I noted impact damage to the pump housing and generated an 'inspector flagged' non-routine write-up to repair or replace the pump. I later learned that the mechanic performed an unauthorized repair and that the inspection buy back was cancelled by ZZZ1. The mechanic performing the repair was unwilling to sign for his repair; and so was signed off by a supervisor on duty. The flight was cancelled; although I do not know why; except for the inability of maintenance to obtain the necessary documents. Today I have obtained a copy of the component MM for this pump. Any repair requires a fluorescent penetrant inspection to check for cracks. This was not done. It is my belief that the damage to the pump housing (apparently dropped) could have created stress or small cracks which could cause an uncontained fire in the #1 engine cowling; should this potential damage progress to failure. I am finding this pressure to not find and document defects a heavy burden. I fear I cannot be effective as an inspector with the threat of punishment waiting after every inspection. This action by the company may deter our junior inspectors from performing their duties. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the installing technician attempted to dress out the impact damage but failed to have the damaged area tested for cracks with florescent penetrant as required by the component maintenance manual. The write-up to replace or repair the pump was cleared by the carrier's quality control department. The damage to the pump housing indicated that the pump was dropped on a hard surface and there was some indication of the damage being dressed out. The technician did not write a non-routine card covering the damage and the action taken. The company initiated an investigation of the reporter's part in this incident as the trip cancellation was charged to his action. The FAA became involved; the airplane was stopped; and the pump removed. On inspection it was found .085 inches was required to be removed from the pump housing damaged area for a proper repair. The pump was then sent to the carrier's engine shop for more inspection. With the FAA safety inspector involvement; the investigation by the company was dropped. The reporter stated that he was advised by management that he had better 'adapt to the new era of aviation maintenance.'

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A320 #1 ENG DRIVEN FUEL PUMP WAS REPLACED. INSPECTOR FOUND UNIT HOUSING DAMAGED. ENTERED ITEM TO REPAIR OR REPLACE. ACFT DISPATCHED WITH NO ACTION TAKEN ON PUMP.

Narrative: CALLOUT EC X REQUIRED REPLACEMENT OF #1 ENG FUEL PUMP. AS A LINE INSPECTOR; I WAS ACCOMPLISHING THE REQUIRED INSPECTION BUY BACK OF THE PUMP INSTALLATION. I NOTED IMPACT DAMAGE TO THE PUMP HOUSING AND GENERATED AN 'INSPECTOR FLAGGED' NON-ROUTINE WRITE-UP TO REPAIR OR REPLACE THE PUMP. I LATER LEARNED THAT THE MECHANIC PERFORMED AN UNAUTHORIZED REPAIR AND THAT THE INSPECTION BUY BACK WAS CANCELLED BY ZZZ1. THE MECHANIC PERFORMING THE REPAIR WAS UNWILLING TO SIGN FOR HIS REPAIR; AND SO WAS SIGNED OFF BY A SUPERVISOR ON DUTY. THE FLT WAS CANCELLED; ALTHOUGH I DO NOT KNOW WHY; EXCEPT FOR THE INABILITY OF MAINT TO OBTAIN THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. TODAY I HAVE OBTAINED A COPY OF THE COMPONENT MM FOR THIS PUMP. ANY REPAIR REQUIRES A FLUORESCENT PENETRANT INSPECTION TO CHK FOR CRACKS. THIS WAS NOT DONE. IT IS MY BELIEF THAT THE DAMAGE TO THE PUMP HOUSING (APPARENTLY DROPPED) COULD HAVE CREATED STRESS OR SMALL CRACKS WHICH COULD CAUSE AN UNCONTAINED FIRE IN THE #1 ENG COWLING; SHOULD THIS POTENTIAL DAMAGE PROGRESS TO FAILURE. I AM FINDING THIS PRESSURE TO NOT FIND AND DOCUMENT DEFECTS A HEAVY BURDEN. I FEAR I CANNOT BE EFFECTIVE AS AN INSPECTOR WITH THE THREAT OF PUNISHMENT WAITING AFTER EVERY INSPECTION. THIS ACTION BY THE COMPANY MAY DETER OUR JUNIOR INSPECTORS FROM PERFORMING THEIR DUTIES. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE INSTALLING TECHNICIAN ATTEMPTED TO DRESS OUT THE IMPACT DAMAGE BUT FAILED TO HAVE THE DAMAGED AREA TESTED FOR CRACKS WITH FLORESCENT PENETRANT AS REQUIRED BY THE COMPONENT MAINT MANUAL. THE WRITE-UP TO REPLACE OR REPAIR THE PUMP WAS CLEARED BY THE CARRIER'S QUALITY CONTROL DEPARTMENT. THE DAMAGE TO THE PUMP HOUSING INDICATED THAT THE PUMP WAS DROPPED ON A HARD SURFACE AND THERE WAS SOME INDICATION OF THE DAMAGE BEING DRESSED OUT. THE TECHNICIAN DID NOT WRITE A NON-ROUTINE CARD COVERING THE DAMAGE AND THE ACTION TAKEN. THE COMPANY INITIATED AN INVESTIGATION OF THE RPTR'S PART IN THIS INCIDENT AS THE TRIP CANCELLATION WAS CHARGED TO HIS ACTION. THE FAA BECAME INVOLVED; THE AIRPLANE WAS STOPPED; AND THE PUMP REMOVED. ON INSPECTION IT WAS FOUND .085 INCHES WAS REQUIRED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE PUMP HOUSING DAMAGED AREA FOR A PROPER REPAIR. THE PUMP WAS THEN SENT TO THE CARRIER'S ENG SHOP FOR MORE INSPECTION. WITH THE FAA SAFETY INSPECTOR INVOLVEMENT; THE INVESTIGATION BY THE COMPANY WAS DROPPED. THE RPTR STATED THAT HE WAS ADVISED BY MANAGEMENT THAT HE HAD BETTER 'ADAPT TO THE NEW ERA OF AVIATION MAINT.'

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.