After installing a cockpit APU start panel on a B757-200; a mechanic is later informed by his manager; the start panel was not effective for that aircraft.

Home

Browse by month

Random

Latest

About

Contact

Attributes
ACN	816382
Time
Date	200812
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B757-200
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Plan	IFR
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician
Qualification	technician : powerplant technician : airframe
Experience	maintenance avionics : 6 maintenance technician : 22
ASRS Report	816382
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	other personnel other
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : less severe maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other other : 2
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Consequence	other
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : manuals performance deficiency : testing performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements performance deficiency : scheduled maintenance
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Maintenance Human Performance Chart Or Publication
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

I am a long time amt with my airline. In the morning I installed an APU start panel in aircraft X. Everything operated normal and no aircraft incidences occurred. But; the manufacturer's part number I installed was not effective for that aircraft; even though it was the same carrier part number. I used the ipc manual to verify that the manufacturer's part number I installed would cross to the same carrier part number as what the ipc correct effectivity showed. I failed to see the manufacturer's part number I installed was not effective for my aircraft. The ipc is correct and I should have looked at the manufacturer's part number instead of the carrier part number for the correct effectivity. The serial number I entered in the aircraft logbook was detected by carrier's parts system as being incorrect effectivity for that aircraft. 2 days later; the APU panel I installed was removed and the correct effectivity part number APU panel was installed without incident. I was made aware of this mistake by my manager. Paying more attention to the ipc would have prevented this incident.

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AFTER INSTALLING A COCKPIT APU START PANEL ON A B757-200; A MECHANIC IS LATER INFORMED BY HIS MANAGER; THE START PANEL WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THAT AIRCRAFT.

Narrative: I AM A LONG TIME AMT WITH MY AIRLINE. IN THE MORNING I INSTALLED AN APU START PANEL IN ACFT X. EVERYTHING OPERATED NORMAL AND NO ACFT INCIDENCES OCCURRED. BUT; THE MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBER I INSTALLED WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR THAT ACFT; EVEN THOUGH IT WAS THE SAME CARRIER PART NUMBER. I USED THE IPC MANUAL TO VERIFY THAT THE MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBER I INSTALLED WOULD CROSS TO THE SAME CARRIER PART NUMBER AS WHAT THE IPC CORRECT EFFECTIVITY SHOWED. I FAILED TO SEE THE MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBER I INSTALLED WAS NOT EFFECTIVE FOR MY ACFT. THE IPC IS CORRECT AND I SHOULD HAVE LOOKED AT THE MANUFACTURER'S PART NUMBER INSTEAD OF THE CARRIER PART NUMBER FOR THE CORRECT EFFECTIVITY. THE SERIAL NUMBER I ENTERED IN THE ACFT LOGBOOK WAS DETECTED BY CARRIER'S PARTS SYSTEM AS BEING INCORRECT EFFECTIVITY FOR THAT ACFT. 2 DAYS LATER; THE APU PANEL I INSTALLED WAS REMOVED AND THE CORRECT EFFECTIVITY PART NUMBER APU PANEL WAS INSTALLED WITHOUT INCIDENT. I WAS MADE AWARE OF THIS MISTAKE BY MY MGR. PAYING MORE ATTN TO THE IPC WOULD HAVE PREVENTED THIS INCIDENT.

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.