Narrative:

I was performing an rii inspection of aircraft X left-hand wing 1-3 slat track to rub block clearances. I noticed that the inboard rub blocks were the reinstalled worn blocks. However; the wear face had been ground or filed and polished to a new profile. I asked for the approved documentation for modifying the blocks from the mechanic. I was told my maintenance lead had approved it. I asked him to provide some approved data allowing for the modifications and was repeatedly refused. I noted that maintenance engineering had a north/right requesting that removed worn components were to be routed back to them for evaluation. My requests again were refused and my maintenance supervisor was sent over. I pointed out that these blocks were flight control load bearing surfaces and we weren't in compliance with maintenance engineering requests and that I needed approved data allowing for the modification of the parts before I could approve the work performed. I also explained that random hand filing of these flight control load bearing surfaces without documentation wasn't in compliance with good maintenance practices. My requests and concerns were dismissed and refused by the maintenance supervisor. This all took place at the aircraft in front of the assigned mechanics and maintenance lead. Eventually; the supervisor brought the line quality control lead over. I reviewed my concerns about the undocumented maintenance on the wear blocks and whether the re-profiling modification could make sufficient contact with the track and; therefore; wear properly. I was asked how the parts were to be installed in the aircraft by the line quality control lead. I outlined the aircraft maintenance management instrument procedure for him. He and the maintenance supervisor left the area and 5 minutes later a line inspector was sent over to inform me I had been removed from the aircraft; was to give a turnover and report to an aircraft which wasn't scheduled to be in ZZZ during my shift. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated the crj-700 had arrived with an unknown problem causing the slats to fail to extend and the rub blocks have a well-engineered role in ensuring the reliability of the slat function. He had concerns over the undocumented modification of theses blocks. He does not know what material the blocks are made of. Reporter stated he felt pressured to sign for undocumented maintenance on a high profile aircraft with a flight control failure problem. When working as an inspector; he falls under the quality control department because his carrier does not have a chief inspector. Reporter stated he gets direction and assignments from their maintenance supervisors; who also handle their time-off requests; vacations; travel; sick pay and payroll. He was reassigned to another aircraft that was not even scheduled to arrive at his station during his shift. Reporter stated a shift lead later informed him; he would make sure all the slat track rub blocks would be replaced; even the modified ones.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Inspector performing a Required Inspection Item (RII) on Slat Track to Rub Block clearances on a CRJ-700; describes his efforts to obtain approved documentation for the rework on the old rub blocks that were reinstalled.

Narrative: I was performing an RII inspection of Aircraft X left-hand wing 1-3 Slat Track to Rub block clearances. I noticed that the inboard Rub blocks were the reinstalled worn blocks. However; the wear face had been ground or filed and polished to a new profile. I asked for the approved documentation for modifying the blocks from the Mechanic. I was told my Maintenance Lead had approved it. I asked him to provide some approved data allowing for the modifications and was repeatedly refused. I noted that Maintenance Engineering had a N/R requesting that removed worn components were to be routed back to them for evaluation. My requests again were refused and my Maintenance Supervisor was sent over. I pointed out that these blocks were flight control load bearing surfaces and we weren't in compliance with Maintenance Engineering requests and that I needed approved data allowing for the modification of the parts before I could approve the work performed. I also explained that random hand filing of these flight control load bearing surfaces without documentation wasn't in compliance with good maintenance practices. My requests and concerns were dismissed and refused by the Maintenance Supervisor. This all took place at the aircraft in front of the assigned Mechanics and Maintenance Lead. Eventually; the Supervisor brought the Line Quality Control Lead over. I reviewed my concerns about the undocumented maintenance on the wear blocks and whether the re-profiling modification could make sufficient contact with the track and; therefore; wear properly. I was asked how the parts were to be installed in the aircraft by the Line Quality Control Lead. I outlined the Aircraft Maintenance Management instrument procedure for him. He and the Maintenance Supervisor left the area and 5 minutes later a Line Inspector was sent over to inform me I had been removed from the aircraft; was to give a turnover and report to an aircraft which wasn't scheduled to be in ZZZ during my shift. Callback conversation with Reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated the CRJ-700 had arrived with an unknown problem causing the slats to fail to extend and the Rub Blocks have a well-engineered role in ensuring the reliability of the slat function. He had concerns over the undocumented modification of theses blocks. He does not know what material the blocks are made of. Reporter stated he felt pressured to sign for undocumented maintenance on a high profile aircraft with a flight control failure problem. When working as an Inspector; he falls under the Quality Control Department because his carrier does not have a Chief Inspector. Reporter stated he gets direction and assignments from their Maintenance Supervisors; who also handle their time-off requests; vacations; travel; sick pay and payroll. He was reassigned to another aircraft that was not even scheduled to arrive at his station during his shift. Reporter stated a Shift Lead later informed him; he would make sure all the Slat Track Rub Blocks would be replaced; even the modified ones.

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.