Narrative:

I was assigned to perform an inspection to left and right aileron bellcrank bearing fittings on aircraft X using as reference an e-mail letter sent by aircraft manufacturer. This was the data the company received and; therefore; with this data the company instructed us to perform the inspection. Director of quality control ordered us to use the boroscope equipment and video the results. During the inspection; the video recorder boroscope was not available. Since the boroscope was an alternate or supplement to the visual inspection and not mandatory; it was not used since we were not going to be able to video any inspection results as required by director of quality control. The visual inspection was completed using cmm as required by manufacturer. The visual inspection was found satisfactory (no cracks detected). Aircraft was released for service flight. Then a day later; I also was assigned to perform the same inspection but using a boroscope equipment as mandatory on the same aircraft X. At this time the inspection using the boroscope and removing parts and paint revealed a crack on both left and right aileron bellcrank bearing fittings. In my opinion; the company failed in establishing and making proper maintenance procedures in order to inspect these aileron bellcrank bearing fittings without removing the aileron assemblies as required by the maintenance task. The company should have made a proper company document so the proper steps and specific alternate methods were performed without any deviation or misunderstanding of the procedures. Since there were not specific procedures like ndt inspection; paint removing or boroscope as a mandatory method; the first time that the inspection was made the cracks were not found. When I found the crack during the second time inspection; when the boroscope was used and paint removed is when I realized and confirmed that improper procedures and documents were used during the first inspection. The left and right aileron assemblies were removed for bellcrank bearing fittings replacement. Comply with specific company gpm with the accomplishment of correct documents to perform manufacturer-approved alternate maintenance procedures. These documents must always include; step-by-step; all the data required so the work is performed in an accurate and safe manner. E-mail letters should never be used as an approved data or directions to performed any maintenance nor inspections on aircraft. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated the documents necessary to perform the ndt inspections using borescope equipment on the left and right aileron bellcrank bearing fittings on their ATR-72 aircraft have recently been corrected. The borescope procedure works very well and they are finding the cracks in the bellcrank bearing fittings as described by the aircraft manufacturer. The ailerons do not have to be removed; as originally required in the earlier procedures; when they were using the visual only inspection method.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN INSPECTOR ASSIGNED TO PERFORM INSPECTIONS OF THE LEFT AND RIGHT AILERON BELLCRANK FITTINGS ON A ATR-72-200; DESCRIBES HOW IMPROPER PROCEDURES AND DOCUMENTS LED TO CRACKS NOT BEING FOUND DURING THE FIRST INSPECTION.

Narrative: I WAS ASSIGNED TO PERFORM AN INSPECTION TO L AND R AILERON BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS ON ACFT X USING AS REF AN E-MAIL LETTER SENT BY ACFT MANUFACTURER. THIS WAS THE DATA THE COMPANY RECEIVED AND; THEREFORE; WITH THIS DATA THE COMPANY INSTRUCTED US TO PERFORM THE INSPECTION. DIRECTOR OF QUALITY CTL ORDERED US TO USE THE BOROSCOPE EQUIP AND VIDEO THE RESULTS. DURING THE INSPECTION; THE VIDEO RECORDER BOROSCOPE WAS NOT AVAILABLE. SINCE THE BOROSCOPE WAS AN ALTERNATE OR SUPPLEMENT TO THE VISUAL INSPECTION AND NOT MANDATORY; IT WAS NOT USED SINCE WE WERE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO VIDEO ANY INSPECTION RESULTS AS REQUIRED BY DIRECTOR OF QUALITY CTL. THE VISUAL INSPECTION WAS COMPLETED USING CMM AS REQUIRED BY MANUFACTURER. THE VISUAL INSPECTION WAS FOUND SATISFACTORY (NO CRACKS DETECTED). ACFT WAS RELEASED FOR SVC FLT. THEN A DAY LATER; I ALSO WAS ASSIGNED TO PERFORM THE SAME INSPECTION BUT USING A BOROSCOPE EQUIP AS MANDATORY ON THE SAME ACFT X. AT THIS TIME THE INSPECTION USING THE BOROSCOPE AND REMOVING PARTS AND PAINT REVEALED A CRACK ON BOTH L AND R AILERON BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS. IN MY OPINION; THE COMPANY FAILED IN ESTABLISHING AND MAKING PROPER MAINT PROCS IN ORDER TO INSPECT THESE AILERON BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS WITHOUT REMOVING THE AILERON ASSEMBLIES AS REQUIRED BY THE MAINT TASK. THE COMPANY SHOULD HAVE MADE A PROPER COMPANY DOCUMENT SO THE PROPER STEPS AND SPECIFIC ALTERNATE METHODS WERE PERFORMED WITHOUT ANY DEVIATION OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCS. SINCE THERE WERE NOT SPECIFIC PROCS LIKE NDT INSPECTION; PAINT REMOVING OR BOROSCOPE AS A MANDATORY METHOD; THE FIRST TIME THAT THE INSPECTION WAS MADE THE CRACKS WERE NOT FOUND. WHEN I FOUND THE CRACK DURING THE SECOND TIME INSPECTION; WHEN THE BOROSCOPE WAS USED AND PAINT REMOVED IS WHEN I REALIZED AND CONFIRMED THAT IMPROPER PROCS AND DOCUMENTS WERE USED DURING THE FIRST INSPECTION. THE L AND R AILERON ASSEMBLIES WERE REMOVED FOR BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS REPLACEMENT. COMPLY WITH SPECIFIC COMPANY GPM WITH THE ACCOMPLISHMENT OF CORRECT DOCUMENTS TO PERFORM MANUFACTURER-APPROVED ALTERNATE MAINT PROCS. THESE DOCUMENTS MUST ALWAYS INCLUDE; STEP-BY-STEP; ALL THE DATA REQUIRED SO THE WORK IS PERFORMED IN AN ACCURATE AND SAFE MANNER. E-MAIL LETTERS SHOULD NEVER BE USED AS AN APPROVED DATA OR DIRECTIONS TO PERFORMED ANY MAINT NOR INSPECTIONS ON ACFT. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO PERFORM THE NDT INSPECTIONS USING BORESCOPE EQUIPMENT ON THE LEFT AND RIGHT AILERON BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS ON THEIR ATR-72 AIRCRAFT HAVE RECENTLY BEEN CORRECTED. THE BORESCOPE PROCEDURE WORKS VERY WELL AND THEY ARE FINDING THE CRACKS IN THE BELLCRANK BEARING FITTINGS AS DESCRIBED BY THE AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER. THE AILERONS DO NOT HAVE TO BE REMOVED; AS ORIGINALLY REQUIRED IN THE EARLIER PROCEDURES; WHEN THEY WERE USING THE VISUAL ONLY INSPECTION METHOD.

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.