Narrative:

Air carrier has had multiple events of incorrect parts installed on aircraft. Many times this has been presented to the amt's at daily meetings; aircraft maintenance alerts; and to individuals upon each case of incorrect parts installed for the effectivity - modification status of the aircraft. At today's briefing we were presented one more example of an incorrect part installed on an aircraft. The example in the briefing was a part listed by parts control; that was the wrong part for the effectivity (serial number) and modification status of the aircraft. The unexpected part of the briefing was that air carrier is aware of the problems with incorrect parts installed; the expected fix to prevent this is not expected for over two years. Air carrier assigns a company part number for interchangeable manufacturer's part numbers. The statement in the technical procedures manual for class part numbers states; 'the class part number provides the ability to show part interchangeability. A part that is restricted interchangeable with another part number is not allowed to belong to the same class part number as the other part number.' there has been more than one incident where the manufacturer's (mfg) part number requested from the stores department crossed over to the company number was incorrect for the effectivity of the aircraft. The amt looked up the part in the illustrated parts catalog (ipc) and verified the correct mfg number for the aircraft being worked; only to receive a mfg number different from the ipc; but combined under the company number showing interchangeability. Air carrier has alerted all amt's to verify the part received is correct for the aircraft through the ipc. Air carrier's own technical procedures shows that many different mfg part numbers that are interchangeable are combined under one company number and if the parts were not interchangeable the parts would be assigned a different company number. The mast controlling document for parts effectivity -- the ipc -- is not kept up to date for the modifications done to each aircraft. There has been many examples of ipc errors that have been documented. The chain of events is plain to see that leads to incorrect parts installed in aircraft. 1) a company part numbering system that leads to interchangeable parts that are not interchangeable. 2) an ipc manual that is not kept up to date as the modification status changes for each aircraft. 3) a system that is left in place with known problems. Air carrier has addressed some of these problems. Air carrier has issued alerts to the maintenance technicians to verify each part installed; has formed a parts desk that can be called to verify parts effectivity. This has not stopped the events of incorrect part installation. Certain parts are known to have a history of incorrect installation. My personal list based on other events are: 1) cabin portable oxygen bottles (wrong effectivity -- wrong location even though bottle holding brackets were installed; wrong part at a location on aircraft; different approved part numbers on same ship at different locations). 2) cabin flight interphone/PA handsets. 3) aircraft ship's batteries and battery chargers. 4) flight controls. There are more examples; but these items I have noted to myself and take extra effort to prove the correct mfg part number and print and keep copies of the ipc used to verify the effectivity. If my manuals I use are not correct; the system used to show interchangeability is not correct; how am I to know; beyond any doubt; that a part is correct for the aircraft serial number and modification status? Using the system at air carrier today; there is always doubt to the correct part; even using the part verification desk.callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated his company's current illustrated parts catalog (ipc) system is supposed to be replaced by a newer stores inventory program. The ipc continues to be the reference source for part number verification; along with aircraft effectivity; especially for the line mechanics who don't have the benefit of an on-site engineering groupsuch as the hangar mechanics have for resolving ipc issues. When mechanics order a part using the ipc number(south); stores must re-enter another series of numbers to access the part. Many times the ipc numbers or the stores numbers do not match up; or; are not updated for a current mod to a part and the plane leaves with the incorrect unit installed. Even though their stores group may send the mechanic a note stating a particular part is ok to use and install on the aircraft; the ipc may not show that acceptability and mechanics feel they are vulnerable for incorrect parts installation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRFRAME AND POWER PLANT MECHANIC REPORTS HIS CONCERNS ABOUT HIS CARRIER'S MULTIPLE EVENTS OF INCORRECT PARTS INSTALLED ON AIRCRAFT.

Narrative: ACR HAS HAD MULTIPLE EVENTS OF INCORRECT PARTS INSTALLED ON ACFT. MANY TIMES THIS HAS BEEN PRESENTED TO THE AMT'S AT DAILY MEETINGS; ACFT MAINT ALERTS; AND TO INDIVIDUALS UPON EACH CASE OF INCORRECT PARTS INSTALLED FOR THE EFFECTIVITY - MODIFICATION STATUS OF THE ACFT. AT TODAY'S BRIEFING WE WERE PRESENTED ONE MORE EXAMPLE OF AN INCORRECT PART INSTALLED ON AN ACFT. THE EXAMPLE IN THE BRIEFING WAS A PART LISTED BY PARTS CTL; THAT WAS THE WRONG PART FOR THE EFFECTIVITY (SERIAL NUMBER) AND MODIFICATION STATUS OF THE ACFT. THE UNEXPECTED PART OF THE BRIEFING WAS THAT ACR IS AWARE OF THE PROBS WITH INCORRECT PARTS INSTALLED; THE EXPECTED FIX TO PREVENT THIS IS NOT EXPECTED FOR OVER TWO YEARS. ACR ASSIGNS A COMPANY PART NUMBER FOR INTERCHANGEABLE MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBERS. THE STATEMENT IN THE TECHNICAL PROCS MANUAL FOR CLASS PART NUMBERS STATES; 'THE CLASS PART NUMBER PROVIDES THE ABILITY TO SHOW PART INTERCHANGEABILITY. A PART THAT IS RESTRICTED INTERCHANGEABLE WITH ANOTHER PART NUMBER IS NOT ALLOWED TO BELONG TO THE SAME CLASS PART NUMBER AS THE OTHER PART NUMBER.' THERE HAS BEEN MORE THAN ONE INCIDENT WHERE THE MANUFACTURER'S (MFG) PART NUMBER REQUESTED FROM THE STORES DEPARTMENT CROSSED OVER TO THE COMPANY NUMBER WAS INCORRECT FOR THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE ACFT. THE AMT LOOKED UP THE PART IN THE ILLUSTRATED PARTS CATALOG (IPC) AND VERIFIED THE CORRECT MFG NUMBER FOR THE ACFT BEING WORKED; ONLY TO RECEIVE A MFG NUMBER DIFFERENT FROM THE IPC; BUT COMBINED UNDER THE COMPANY NUMBER SHOWING INTERCHANGEABILITY. ACR HAS ALERTED ALL AMT'S TO VERIFY THE PART RECEIVED IS CORRECT FOR THE ACFT THROUGH THE IPC. ACR'S OWN TECHNICAL PROCS SHOWS THAT MANY DIFFERENT MFG PART NUMBERS THAT ARE INTERCHANGEABLE ARE COMBINED UNDER ONE COMPANY NUMBER AND IF THE PARTS WERE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE THE PARTS WOULD BE ASSIGNED A DIFFERENT COMPANY NUMBER. THE MAST CONTROLLING DOCUMENT FOR PARTS EFFECTIVITY -- THE IPC -- IS NOT KEPT UP TO DATE FOR THE MODIFICATIONS DONE TO EACH ACFT. THERE HAS BEEN MANY EXAMPLES OF IPC ERRORS THAT HAVE BEEN DOCUMENTED. THE CHAIN OF EVENTS IS PLAIN TO SEE THAT LEADS TO INCORRECT PARTS INSTALLED IN ACFT. 1) A COMPANY PART NUMBERING SYSTEM THAT LEADS TO INTERCHANGEABLE PARTS THAT ARE NOT INTERCHANGEABLE. 2) AN IPC MANUAL THAT IS NOT KEPT UP TO DATE AS THE MODIFICATION STATUS CHANGES FOR EACH ACFT. 3) A SYSTEM THAT IS LEFT IN PLACE WITH KNOWN PROBS. ACR HAS ADDRESSED SOME OF THESE PROBS. ACR HAS ISSUED ALERTS TO THE MAINT TECHNICIANS TO VERIFY EACH PART INSTALLED; HAS FORMED A PARTS DESK THAT CAN BE CALLED TO VERIFY PARTS EFFECTIVITY. THIS HAS NOT STOPPED THE EVENTS OF INCORRECT PART INSTALLATION. CERTAIN PARTS ARE KNOWN TO HAVE A HISTORY OF INCORRECT INSTALLATION. MY PERSONAL LIST BASED ON OTHER EVENTS ARE: 1) CABIN PORTABLE OXYGEN BOTTLES (WRONG EFFECTIVITY -- WRONG LOCATION EVEN THOUGH BOTTLE HOLDING BRACKETS WERE INSTALLED; WRONG PART AT A LOCATION ON ACFT; DIFFERENT APPROVED PART NUMBERS ON SAME SHIP AT DIFFERENT LOCATIONS). 2) CABIN FLIGHT INTERPHONE/PA HANDSETS. 3) ACFT SHIP'S BATTERIES AND BATTERY CHARGERS. 4) FLT CONTROLS. THERE ARE MORE EXAMPLES; BUT THESE ITEMS I HAVE NOTED TO MYSELF AND TAKE EXTRA EFFORT TO PROVE THE CORRECT MFG PART NUMBER AND PRINT AND KEEP COPIES OF THE IPC USED TO VERIFY THE EFFECTIVITY. IF MY MANUALS I USE ARE NOT CORRECT; THE SYSTEM USED TO SHOW INTERCHANGEABILITY IS NOT CORRECT; HOW AM I TO KNOW; BEYOND ANY DOUBT; THAT A PART IS CORRECT FOR THE ACFT SERIAL NUMBER AND MODIFICATION STATUS? USING THE SYSTEM AT ACR TODAY; THERE IS ALWAYS DOUBT TO THE CORRECT PART; EVEN USING THE PART VERIFICATION DESK.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HIS COMPANY'S CURRENT ILLUSTRATED PARTS CATALOG (IPC) SYSTEM IS SUPPOSED TO BE REPLACED BY A NEWER STORES INVENTORY PROGRAM. THE IPC CONTINUES TO BE THE REFERENCE SOURCE FOR PART NUMBER VERIFICATION; ALONG WITH AIRCRAFT EFFECTIVITY; ESPECIALLY FOR THE LINE MECHANICS WHO DON'T HAVE THE BENEFIT OF AN ON-SITE ENGINEERING GROUPSUCH AS THE HANGAR MECHANICS HAVE FOR RESOLVING IPC ISSUES. WHEN MECHANICS ORDER A PART USING THE IPC NUMBER(S); STORES MUST RE-ENTER ANOTHER SERIES OF NUMBERS TO ACCESS THE PART. MANY TIMES THE IPC NUMBERS OR THE STORES NUMBERS DO NOT MATCH UP; OR; ARE NOT UPDATED FOR A CURRENT MOD TO A PART AND THE PLANE LEAVES WITH THE INCORRECT UNIT INSTALLED. EVEN THOUGH THEIR STORES GROUP MAY SEND THE MECHANIC A NOTE STATING A PARTICULAR PART IS OK TO USE AND INSTALL ON THE ACFT; THE IPC MAY NOT SHOW THAT ACCEPTABILITY AND MECHANICS FEEL THEY ARE VULNERABLE FOR INCORRECT PARTS 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.