Narrative:

This morning my supervisor informed me that company was in receipt of a letter of investigation concerning vendor maintenance and quality control 'ok-ing items for service' for a different item on a different aircraft. I reflected on items of this nature that I have personally been involved with. These particular items came to mind: copies of the migs were obtained from local records office. I actually remember these items well because I had asked my supervisor if it was acceptable to sign these items in this manner. He actually went out to the cowls with me and concurred that they were ok. I am the concurring company inspector who signed on the bottom in the corrective action section. These non routines are all similar discrepancies on B737 engine cowl latches and fittings. Where the guide pins on 1/2 of the fan cowl has occasionally contacted the opposite's latch fitting missing the bushings causing gouges. Upon arrival to ZZZ; this gpm section was pointed out by local vendor and company personnel as a way of getting relief for items of a non-safety of flight nature when a reference was unavailable. I was initially overwhelmed with this new responsibility but accepted it with a grain of salt. I had become comfortable signing for minor cabin appearance items such as a miniscule scratches on a cabin inner pane and other such items. Not feeling perfectly comfortable with other non appearance item; I would consult my supervisor. Now that the company is under scrutiny for this practice; the company has stated that only the supervisor will sign these 'ok's for service.' the fact that the company is taking these measures along with this new loi; I am led to believe this section of the gpm is written in error; I was not properly trained in these matters; and I may have been involved with violating the regulations. It is clear this section of the gpm needs to be updated. Either omit this option or state specific limitations on what items are applicable. Further if inspectors are ever required to 'ok items for service' again; I would hope that clear instruction and training is provided.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-400 CARRIER INSPECTOR ASSIGNED TO A CONTRACT MAINT FACILITY HAS CONCERN ON THE PROC FOR SIGNING OFF ON ITEMS FOUND 'SATISFACTORY FOR CONTINUED SVC' WITHOUT REPAIR.

Narrative: THIS MORNING MY SUPVR INFORMED ME THAT COMPANY WAS IN RECEIPT OF A LETTER OF INVESTIGATION CONCERNING VENDOR MAINT AND QUALITY CTL 'OK-ING ITEMS FOR SVC' FOR A DIFFERENT ITEM ON A DIFFERENT ACFT. I REFLECTED ON ITEMS OF THIS NATURE THAT I HAVE PERSONALLY BEEN INVOLVED WITH. THESE PARTICULAR ITEMS CAME TO MIND: COPIES OF THE MIGS WERE OBTAINED FROM LCL RECORDS OFFICE. I ACTUALLY REMEMBER THESE ITEMS WELL BECAUSE I HAD ASKED MY SUPVR IF IT WAS ACCEPTABLE TO SIGN THESE ITEMS IN THIS MANNER. HE ACTUALLY WENT OUT TO THE COWLS WITH ME AND CONCURRED THAT THEY WERE OK. I AM THE CONCURRING COMPANY INSPECTOR WHO SIGNED ON THE BOTTOM IN THE CORRECTIVE ACTION SECTION. THESE NON ROUTINES ARE ALL SIMILAR DISCREPANCIES ON B737 ENG COWL LATCHES AND FITTINGS. WHERE THE GUIDE PINS ON 1/2 OF THE FAN COWL HAS OCCASIONALLY CONTACTED THE OPPOSITE'S LATCH FITTING MISSING THE BUSHINGS CAUSING GOUGES. UPON ARR TO ZZZ; THIS GPM SECTION WAS POINTED OUT BY LCL VENDOR AND COMPANY PERSONNEL AS A WAY OF GETTING RELIEF FOR ITEMS OF A NON-SAFETY OF FLT NATURE WHEN A REF WAS UNAVAILABLE. I WAS INITIALLY OVERWHELMED WITH THIS NEW RESPONSIBILITY BUT ACCEPTED IT WITH A GRAIN OF SALT. I HAD BECOME COMFORTABLE SIGNING FOR MINOR CABIN APPEARANCE ITEMS SUCH AS A MINISCULE SCRATCHES ON A CABIN INNER PANE AND OTHER SUCH ITEMS. NOT FEELING PERFECTLY COMFORTABLE WITH OTHER NON APPEARANCE ITEM; I WOULD CONSULT MY SUPVR. NOW THAT THE COMPANY IS UNDER SCRUTINY FOR THIS PRACTICE; THE COMPANY HAS STATED THAT ONLY THE SUPVR WILL SIGN THESE 'OK'S FOR SVC.' THE FACT THAT THE COMPANY IS TAKING THESE MEASURES ALONG WITH THIS NEW LOI; I AM LED TO BELIEVE THIS SECTION OF THE GPM IS WRITTEN IN ERROR; I WAS NOT PROPERLY TRAINED IN THESE MATTERS; AND I MAY HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH VIOLATING THE REGS. IT IS CLR THIS SECTION OF THE GPM NEEDS TO BE UPDATED. EITHER OMIT THIS OPTION OR STATE SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS ON WHAT ITEMS ARE APPLICABLE. FURTHER IF INSPECTORS ARE EVER REQUIRED TO 'OK ITEMS FOR SVC' AGAIN; I WOULD HOPE THAT CLR INSTRUCTION AND TRAINING IS PROVIDED.

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.