Narrative:

I made an improper logbook signoff due to not rereading what I wrote. I performed a borescope inspection on aircraft X left engine. I found damage to the LPT1 nozzle guide vanes. The damage was beyond normal maintenance manual limits and it referred me to the over serviceable limits extension table. The damage was within those limits. I signed it off as 'aircraft ok for service per limit extensions. Inspection interval reduced to 100 cycles.' I should not have used the word 'interval' since this is only a one time extension limit per the limit extension task. I also stated in the manual description of work required 're-inspect LPT1 vanes for further damage per every 100 flight cycles' that statement was also misstated. It should have read 're-evaluate or repair damage within 100 flight cycles.' when the aircraft flew past the 100 cycle inspection qa was notified that the signoff was wrong. ZZZ performed a rechk and found no further damage noted and an ea was issued extending the re-evaluate for 25 cycles. Reexamine proper wording when making logbook signoffs. Contact engineering when going outside normal maintenance manual limits. It should state in the manual that engineering or planning should be notified. There should also be some type of flag notifying planning or engineering when an aircraft is put on reduced interval or over limits extensions.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN A319 L ENG WAS BORESCOPED PER THE MAINT MANUAL. DAMAGE WAS FOUND TO LOW PRESSURE TURBINE NOZZLE GUIDE VANES. INSPECTOR USED IMPROPER WORDING TO DEFER ITEM.

Narrative: I MADE AN IMPROPER LOGBOOK SIGNOFF DUE TO NOT REREADING WHAT I WROTE. I PERFORMED A BORESCOPE INSPECTION ON ACFT X L ENG. I FOUND DAMAGE TO THE LPT1 NOZZLE GUIDE VANES. THE DAMAGE WAS BEYOND NORMAL MAINT MANUAL LIMITS AND IT REFERRED ME TO THE OVER SERVICEABLE LIMITS EXTENSION TABLE. THE DAMAGE WAS WITHIN THOSE LIMITS. I SIGNED IT OFF AS 'ACFT OK FOR SVC PER LIMIT EXTENSIONS. INSPECTION INTERVAL REDUCED TO 100 CYCLES.' I SHOULD NOT HAVE USED THE WORD 'INTERVAL' SINCE THIS IS ONLY A ONE TIME EXTENSION LIMIT PER THE LIMIT EXTENSION TASK. I ALSO STATED IN THE MANUAL DESCRIPTION OF WORK REQUIRED 'RE-INSPECT LPT1 VANES FOR FURTHER DAMAGE PER EVERY 100 FLT CYCLES' THAT STATEMENT WAS ALSO MISSTATED. IT SHOULD HAVE READ 'RE-EVALUATE OR REPAIR DAMAGE WITHIN 100 FLT CYCLES.' WHEN THE ACFT FLEW PAST THE 100 CYCLE INSPECTION QA WAS NOTIFIED THAT THE SIGNOFF WAS WRONG. ZZZ PERFORMED A RECHK AND FOUND NO FURTHER DAMAGE NOTED AND AN EA WAS ISSUED EXTENDING THE RE-EVAL FOR 25 CYCLES. REEXAMINE PROPER WORDING WHEN MAKING LOGBOOK SIGNOFFS. CONTACT ENGINEERING WHEN GOING OUTSIDE NORMAL MAINT MANUAL LIMITS. IT SHOULD STATE IN THE MANUAL THAT ENGINEERING OR PLANNING SHOULD BE NOTIFIED. THERE SHOULD ALSO BE SOME TYPE OF FLAG NOTIFYING PLANNING OR ENGINEERING WHEN AN ACFT IS PUT ON REDUCED INTERVAL OR OVER LIMITS EXTENSIONS.

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.