Narrative:

Engineering order was issued to hangar ron which was a modification to the hydraulic hoses in the main wheel well. Mechanic determined that hydraulic hoses had already been modified so he 'previously complied with' the engineering order. I had the inspection blocks to sign: 1) if wire bundle was repaired test emdp. 2) if case drain or pressure hose was replaced do a leak check. Neither was accomplished by the mechanic so I north/a'ed the inspection. The inspection was not accomplished so I could not sign off the inspection blocks. This was in accordance with the procedures manual. The cover sheet should not have been initialed 'previously complied with' by the mechanic. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he followed their procedures manual which allowed for basically signing 'not required' (north/a) on maintenance procedures previously accomplished. After their auditors noticed the cover page for the engineering order (eo) had been initialed pcw; (previously complied with); he was informed; their eo did require an action to be accomplished; so initialing 'pcw' was not an acceptable signoff for that work document. But the only inspection block left open was for an item if the mechanic found chafing damage on the hydraulic hoses of the B737 electric motor driven pump (emdp) in the main gear center wheel well. The requirement of the south/B had already been complied with; so he signed not applicable (north/a). Reporter stated the aircraft was later inspected during an overnight check and found to be in compliance with the original service bulletin for the airworthiness directive (ad). The issue of proper signoff procedures for their paperwork is still being discussed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: DURING AN AUDIT OF PREVIOUS AD'S ACCOMPLISHED ON THEIR B737 ACFT; A MAINT INSPECTOR IS INFORMED OF NOT PROPERLY COMPLYING WITH THE INTENT OF THE EMDP HYD HOSES IN MAIN GEAR CENTER WHEEL WELL AREA; APPROX EIGHT YEARS EARLIER.

Narrative: ENGINEERING ORDER WAS ISSUED TO HANGAR RON WHICH WAS A MODIFICATION TO THE HYD HOSES IN THE MAIN WHEEL WELL. MECH DETERMINED THAT HYD HOSES HAD ALREADY BEEN MODIFIED SO HE 'PREVIOUSLY COMPLIED WITH' THE ENGINEERING ORDER. I HAD THE INSPECTION BLOCKS TO SIGN: 1) IF WIRE BUNDLE WAS REPAIRED TEST EMDP. 2) IF CASE DRAIN OR PRESSURE HOSE WAS REPLACED DO A LEAK CHK. NEITHER WAS ACCOMPLISHED BY THE MECH SO I N/A'ED THE INSPECTION. THE INSPECTION WAS NOT ACCOMPLISHED SO I COULD NOT SIGN OFF THE INSPECTION BLOCKS. THIS WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROCS MANUAL. THE COVER SHEET SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN INITIALED 'PREVIOUSLY COMPLIED WITH' BY THE MECH. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE FOLLOWED THEIR PROCEDURES MANUAL WHICH ALLOWED FOR BASICALLY SIGNING 'NOT REQUIRED' (N/A) ON MAINT PROCEDURES PREVIOUSLY ACCOMPLISHED. AFTER THEIR AUDITORS NOTICED THE COVER PAGE FOR THE ENGINEERING ORDER (EO) HAD BEEN INITIALED PCW; (PREVIOUSLY COMPLIED WITH); HE WAS INFORMED; THEIR EO DID REQUIRE AN ACTION TO BE ACCOMPLISHED; SO INITIALING 'PCW' WAS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE SIGNOFF FOR THAT WORK DOCUMENT. BUT THE ONLY INSPECTION BLOCK LEFT OPEN WAS FOR AN ITEM IF THE MECHANIC FOUND CHAFING DAMAGE ON THE HYD HOSES OF THE B737 ELECTRIC MOTOR DRIVEN PUMP (EMDP) IN THE MAIN GEAR CENTER WHEEL WELL. THE REQUIREMENT OF THE S/B HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLIED WITH; SO HE SIGNED NOT APPLICABLE (N/A). REPORTER STATED THE ACFT WAS LATER INSPECTED DURING AN OVERNIGHT CHECK AND FOUND TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORIGINAL SERVICE BULLETIN FOR THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD). THE ISSUE OF PROPER SIGNOFF PROCEDURES FOR THEIR PAPERWORK IS STILL BEING DISCUSSED.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.