Narrative:

The usual procedure in the engine buildup shop was to remove parts from the engine at teardown; clean and inspect those parts; then identify the parts with a tag. Prior to jan/thu/05 revision of the general procedures manual; the tag required an inspection concurrence before the part could be returned to svcable status. After jan/thu/05 revision to the general procedures manual; we in the engine shop no longer sought an inspection stamp on the tag. I was told that the new revision excluded the requirement for inspection. When I read the revised text I did not agree that an inspection requirement was deleted. For the conditions described in general procedures manual paragraph 4A(2) I believed that paragraph 4G was applicable. That paragraph states that when a maintenance action occurs on an expendable item an inspection is required. I brought my concerns to the attention of my supervisor at the time and with several members of the inspection department. I was dismissed; and did not make any further protest. On feb/fri/06; 1 yr and 1 month from the date of the revision; my supervisor announced that a procedural error had been discovered. The discovery was made as a part of a new system which is expected to be implemented in 2 yrs. The discovery relates to the tag and the requirement for inspection when a part is returned to serviceability in the engine buildup shop. This is the very issue that concerned me 13 months earlier. I write to request protection under this program because there are numerous tags on parts on the shelves which have my name on them. Those parts were brought to serviceability in a manner which I now believe is not in compliance with the gpm. As another item which relates to this issue; I wonder; if it is now known that we incorrectly processed all those parts; why do they remain on the shelves available for installation?

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN ENG SHOP TECHNICIAN RPTS ON ENG TEARDOWN; EACH REMOVED PART WHEN MADE SVCABLE HAD A TAG STAMPED AFTER INSPECTION. INSPECTION REQUIREMENT DROPPED IN JANUARY 2005. NOW JANUARY 2006 THE INSPECTION REQUIREMENT REINSTATED. TECHNICIAN CONCERNED ABOUT PARTS NOT INSPECTED WITH HS SIGNOFF DURING THIS 12 MONTH PERIOD.

Narrative: THE USUAL PROC IN THE ENG BUILDUP SHOP WAS TO REMOVE PARTS FROM THE ENG AT TEARDOWN; CLEAN AND INSPECT THOSE PARTS; THEN IDENT THE PARTS WITH A TAG. PRIOR TO JAN/THU/05 REVISION OF THE GENERAL PROCS MANUAL; THE TAG REQUIRED AN INSPECTION CONCURRENCE BEFORE THE PART COULD BE RETURNED TO SVCABLE STATUS. AFTER JAN/THU/05 REVISION TO THE GENERAL PROCS MANUAL; WE IN THE ENG SHOP NO LONGER SOUGHT AN INSPECTION STAMP ON THE TAG. I WAS TOLD THAT THE NEW REVISION EXCLUDED THE REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTION. WHEN I READ THE REVISED TEXT I DID NOT AGREE THAT AN INSPECTION REQUIREMENT WAS DELETED. FOR THE CONDITIONS DESCRIBED IN GENERAL PROCS MANUAL PARAGRAPH 4A(2) I BELIEVED THAT PARAGRAPH 4G WAS APPLICABLE. THAT PARAGRAPH STATES THAT WHEN A MAINT ACTION OCCURS ON AN EXPENDABLE ITEM AN INSPECTION IS REQUIRED. I BROUGHT MY CONCERNS TO THE ATTN OF MY SUPVR AT THE TIME AND WITH SEVERAL MEMBERS OF THE INSPECTION DEPT. I WAS DISMISSED; AND DID NOT MAKE ANY FURTHER PROTEST. ON FEB/FRI/06; 1 YR AND 1 MONTH FROM THE DATE OF THE REVISION; MY SUPVR ANNOUNCED THAT A PROCEDURAL ERROR HAD BEEN DISCOVERED. THE DISCOVERY WAS MADE AS A PART OF A NEW SYS WHICH IS EXPECTED TO BE IMPLEMENTED IN 2 YRS. THE DISCOVERY RELATES TO THE TAG AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR INSPECTION WHEN A PART IS RETURNED TO SERVICEABILITY IN THE ENG BUILDUP SHOP. THIS IS THE VERY ISSUE THAT CONCERNED ME 13 MONTHS EARLIER. I WRITE TO REQUEST PROTECTION UNDER THIS PROGRAM BECAUSE THERE ARE NUMEROUS TAGS ON PARTS ON THE SHELVES WHICH HAVE MY NAME ON THEM. THOSE PARTS WERE BROUGHT TO SERVICEABILITY IN A MANNER WHICH I NOW BELIEVE IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE GPM. AS ANOTHER ITEM WHICH RELATES TO THIS ISSUE; I WONDER; IF IT IS NOW KNOWN THAT WE INCORRECTLY PROCESSED ALL THOSE PARTS; WHY DO THEY REMAIN ON THE SHELVES AVAILABLE FOR INSTALLATION?

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.