Narrative:

On jun/thu/06 at approximately XA00 I was called out to investigate a discrepancy called in by the crew on aircraft X. The reported discrepancy was a 'pusher system fail' caution message. Before leaving the office I obtained a copy of aircraft maintenance form. The service letter was marked as air carrier engineering approved data on the service letter index page. As I left the office my lead mechanic said that he believed that the aircraft had not been 'modded' as referenced in the service letter but I was to wait while he investigated further. Since this aircraft was new to the fleet the required information was not readily available. When I arrived at the aircraft it was fully boarded ready for departure. I reset power to the stall protection system as referenced in the service letter and after the unit completed its self-test all flight deck indications returned to normal. Since the system showed no indications of failure after the self-test and given that the aircraft had been boarded for some time I decided to release the aircraft back into service. I signed off the logbook and left. After a prolonged period my lead mechanic finally got an answer from technical services that they had determined the aircraft to be post-modification and that the aircraft was therefore not covered under the service letter. By that time the aircraft had already departed. I immediately informed maintenance control that the aircraft had been returned to service using the service letter and suggested that when the aircraft reached its destination ZZZ the appropriate return-to-service amm task should be accomplished. ZZZ maintenance accomplished the check and all checked good.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DHC8-400 HAD A DISCREPANCY RPT REGARDING A 'PUSHER SYS FAIL' CAUTION MESSAGE. TESTED PER SVC LETTER AND CHKS OK. ACFT DISPATCHED.

Narrative: ON JUN/THU/06 AT APPROX XA00 I WAS CALLED OUT TO INVESTIGATE A DISCREPANCY CALLED IN BY THE CREW ON ACFT X. THE RPTED DISCREPANCY WAS A 'PUSHER SYS FAIL' CAUTION MESSAGE. BEFORE LEAVING THE OFFICE I OBTAINED A COPY OF ACFT MAINT FORM. THE SVC LETTER WAS MARKED AS ACR ENGINEERING APPROVED DATA ON THE SVC LETTER INDEX PAGE. AS I LEFT THE OFFICE MY LEAD MECH SAID THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE ACFT HAD NOT BEEN 'MODDED' AS REFED IN THE SVC LETTER BUT I WAS TO WAIT WHILE HE INVESTIGATED FURTHER. SINCE THIS ACFT WAS NEW TO THE FLEET THE REQUIRED INFO WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE ACFT IT WAS FULLY BOARDED READY FOR DEP. I RESET PWR TO THE STALL PROTECTION SYS AS REFED IN THE SVC LETTER AND AFTER THE UNIT COMPLETED ITS SELF-TEST ALL FLT DECK INDICATIONS RETURNED TO NORMAL. SINCE THE SYS SHOWED NO INDICATIONS OF FAILURE AFTER THE SELF-TEST AND GIVEN THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN BOARDED FOR SOME TIME I DECIDED TO RELEASE THE ACFT BACK INTO SVC. I SIGNED OFF THE LOGBOOK AND LEFT. AFTER A PROLONGED PERIOD MY LEAD MECH FINALLY GOT AN ANSWER FROM TECHNICAL SVCS THAT THEY HAD DETERMINED THE ACFT TO BE POST-MODIFICATION AND THAT THE ACFT WAS THEREFORE NOT COVERED UNDER THE SVC LETTER. BY THAT TIME THE ACFT HAD ALREADY DEPARTED. I IMMEDIATELY INFORMED MAINT CTL THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN RETURNED TO SVC USING THE SVC LETTER AND SUGGESTED THAT WHEN THE ACFT REACHED ITS DEST ZZZ THE APPROPRIATE RETURN-TO-SVC AMM TASK SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. ZZZ MAINT ACCOMPLISHED THE CHK AND ALL CHKED GOOD.

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.