Narrative:

Complied with airworthiness directive 95-19-15RI and found elongated spar bolt hole. Airworthiness directive states to comply with SB185A and further to comply with the repair use AA5 series maintenance manual revision 5 dated mar/1/04; chapter 57; pages 209 and 210. Instead of using this method; I elected to use a grumman america engineering order 5x100-049 which is approved data from the manufacturer (a better; stronger repair which uses a bushing instead of a thicker spar bolt; which in turn allows this wing to be used on other aircraft if needed). The reason for filling out this form is that I don't believe that my primary maintenance inspector and I are on the same page as far as far 39.19 (an alternative method for complying with this airworthiness directive). I don't recall specifically asking him about that. This repair is in no way an airworthy issue since the data used was FAA approved and sound maintenance was performed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the manufacturer's repair is a better and stronger repair than the maintenance manual repair. The FAA approved the engineering order repair which uses a bushing instead of a larger bolt.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AA5 TECHNICIAN IN COMPLYING WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 95-19-15 FOUND WING SPAR WITH ELONGATED BOLT HOLE. REPAIRED USING GRUMMAN ENGINEERING ORDER INSTEAD OF MAINT MANUAL REPAIR.

Narrative: COMPLIED WITH AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE 95-19-15RI AND FOUND ELONGATED SPAR BOLT HOLE. AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE STATES TO COMPLY WITH SB185A AND FURTHER TO COMPLY WITH THE REPAIR USE AA5 SERIES MAINT MANUAL REVISION 5 DATED MAR/1/04; CHAPTER 57; PAGES 209 AND 210. INSTEAD OF USING THIS METHOD; I ELECTED TO USE A GRUMMAN AMERICA ENGINEERING ORDER 5X100-049 WHICH IS APPROVED DATA FROM THE MANUFACTURER (A BETTER; STRONGER REPAIR WHICH USES A BUSHING INSTEAD OF A THICKER SPAR BOLT; WHICH IN TURN ALLOWS THIS WING TO BE USED ON OTHER ACFT IF NEEDED). THE REASON FOR FILLING OUT THIS FORM IS THAT I DON'T BELIEVE THAT MY PRIMARY MAINT INSPECTOR AND I ARE ON THE SAME PAGE AS FAR AS FAR 39.19 (AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD FOR COMPLYING WITH THIS AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE). I DON'T RECALL SPECIFICALLY ASKING HIM ABOUT THAT. THIS REPAIR IS IN NO WAY AN AIRWORTHY ISSUE SINCE THE DATA USED WAS FAA APPROVED AND SOUND MAINT WAS PERFORMED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE MANUFACTURER'S REPAIR IS A BETTER AND STRONGER REPAIR THAN THE MAINT MANUAL REPAIR. THE FAA APPROVED THE ENGINEERING ORDER REPAIR WHICH USES A BUSHING INSTEAD OF A LARGER BOLT.

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.