Narrative:

Upon my pre-shift review of the maintenance control read book; I noticed a memo referencing a subject which was discussed a few weeks earlier. Memo XXX (which is anonymous) states the passenger door strut right&right is not an rii item. A hand written note states 'defined as cables; pulleys; gas struts -- 'stuff in the closet' not handrail struts.' once again this memo is not signed by the individual who generated it. The aircraft was ferried for the strut replacement. I questioned my manager as to the rii issue. Approximately 3 weeks prior to the memo being issued a door strut was replaced at one of our outstations (ZZZ). I requested the mechanics involved treat the strut removal and replacement as an rii item since it is in the rigging/adjustment section of the -8 amm. Any sensitive items which are not clearly defined should be issued as engineering alerts pending a revision of the affected manual. How official can an unsigned handwritten note be; when I am being questioned by the FAA as to why I acted in the manner I did? In this situation the biggest concern would be the strut would not be rigged properly and would break again; this could result in the door being fouled causing a jam. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated he was the maintenance controller and the aircraft was a dehavilland dhc-8-100 that had a passenger door handrail strut replacement accomplished with an rii inspection per his request. His manager later told him he did not agree with the item being considered an rii. Shortly afterwards; an unsigned and anonymous memo appeared in their maintenance control procedures manual; telling the controllers that passenger door struts are not an rii item. Reporter stated a hand written note; unsigned; doesn't qualify as a valid procedure to not perform an rii inspection; especially when the door rig itself; which is an rii; includes the strut adjustments. Reporter also stated his carrier has developed engineering maintenance procedures that rarely become part of the aircraft manufacturer's amm; but are approved practices and inserted into the appropriate amm chapters; but stand alone. Reporter stated their electronic maintenance manual has a front section with a glossary that lists their engineering procedures that are separate from the amm.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DEHAVILLAND DHC-8-100 MAINTENANCE CONTROLLER QUESTIONS HIS MANAGER ABOUT AN UNSIGNED; ANONYMOUS MEMO INSERTED INTO THEIR MAINTENANCE CONTROL PROCEDURES MANUAL; STATING THE PASSENGER DOOR HANDRAIL STRUTS WERE NOT AN RII ITEM.

Narrative: UPON MY PRE-SHIFT REVIEW OF THE MAINT CTL READ BOOK; I NOTICED A MEMO REFING A SUBJECT WHICH WAS DISCUSSED A FEW WKS EARLIER. MEMO XXX (WHICH IS ANONYMOUS) STATES THE PAX DOOR STRUT R&R IS NOT AN RII ITEM. A HAND WRITTEN NOTE STATES 'DEFINED AS CABLES; PULLEYS; GAS STRUTS -- 'STUFF IN THE CLOSET' NOT HANDRAIL STRUTS.' ONCE AGAIN THIS MEMO IS NOT SIGNED BY THE INDIVIDUAL WHO GENERATED IT. THE ACFT WAS FERRIED FOR THE STRUT REPLACEMENT. I QUESTIONED MY MGR AS TO THE RII ISSUE. APPROX 3 WKS PRIOR TO THE MEMO BEING ISSUED A DOOR STRUT WAS REPLACED AT ONE OF OUR OUTSTATIONS (ZZZ). I REQUESTED THE MECHS INVOLVED TREAT THE STRUT REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT AS AN RII ITEM SINCE IT IS IN THE RIGGING/ADJUSTMENT SECTION OF THE -8 AMM. ANY SENSITIVE ITEMS WHICH ARE NOT CLRLY DEFINED SHOULD BE ISSUED AS ENGINEERING ALERTS PENDING A REVISION OF THE AFFECTED MANUAL. HOW OFFICIAL CAN AN UNSIGNED HANDWRITTEN NOTE BE; WHEN I AM BEING QUESTIONED BY THE FAA AS TO WHY I ACTED IN THE MANNER I DID? IN THIS SITUATION THE BIGGEST CONCERN WOULD BE THE STRUT WOULD NOT BE RIGGED PROPERLY AND WOULD BREAK AGAIN; THIS COULD RESULT IN THE DOOR BEING FOULED CAUSING A JAM. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE WAS THE MAINTENANCE CONTROLLER AND THE ACFT WAS A DEHAVILLAND DHC-8-100 THAT HAD A PASSENGER DOOR HANDRAIL STRUT REPLACEMENT ACCOMPLISHED WITH AN RII INSPECTION PER HIS REQUEST. HIS MANAGER LATER TOLD HIM HE DID NOT AGREE WITH THE ITEM BEING CONSIDERED AN RII. SHORTLY AFTERWARDS; AN UNSIGNED AND ANONYMOUS MEMO APPEARED IN THEIR MAINTENANCE CONTROL PROCEDURES MANUAL; TELLING THE CONTROLLERS THAT PASSENGER DOOR STRUTS ARE NOT AN RII ITEM. REPORTER STATED A HAND WRITTEN NOTE; UNSIGNED; DOESN'T QUALIFY AS A VALID PROCEDURE TO NOT PERFORM AN RII INSPECTION; ESPECIALLY WHEN THE DOOR RIG ITSELF; WHICH IS AN RII; INCLUDES THE STRUT ADJUSTMENTS. REPORTER ALSO STATED HIS CARRIER HAS DEVELOPED ENGINEERING MAINTENANCE PROCEDURES THAT RARELY BECOME PART OF THE AIRCRAFT MANUFACTURER'S AMM; BUT ARE APPROVED PRACTICES AND INSERTED INTO THE APPROPRIATE AMM CHAPTERS; BUT STAND ALONE. REPORTER STATED THEIR ELECTRONIC MAINTENANCE MANUAL HAS A FRONT SECTION WITH A GLOSSARY THAT LISTS THEIR ENGINEERING PROCEDURES THAT ARE SEPARATE FROM THE AMM.

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.