37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 887546 |
Time | |
Date | 201005 |
Local Time Of Day | 0001-0600 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Light | Dawn |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | MD-80 Series (DC-9-80) Undifferentiated or Other Model |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Parked |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Elevator ControlSystem |
Person 1 | |
Function | Lead Technician |
Qualification | Maintenance Airframe Maintenance Powerplant |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural Maintenance Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
I was to assign two mechanics to remove and replace the left elevator control tab on an md-80 aircraft; as per the aircraft maintenance manual (amm) it is a required inspection item (rii)! I spoke to the quality assurance supervisor late in the evening and informed him that a rii was needed on the replacement of the tab. That is the proper procedure here. I also spoke with manager 'X' several times during the night and gave him updates. After completing the post flight checks on the aircraft; the mechanics were ready to start on the control tab and due to it being a flight control one of the mechanics called manager 'X' and again asked for qa to be there for the rii.earlier morning; I once again called manager 'X' and he stated the quality assurance supervisor was standing right in front of him and they talked. After they talked he came back on the line with me and told me that I would have to accomplish the rii. Once again I stated that I had never worked on the tabs and quality assurance should do the rii; he agreed. During all this time the mechanics started the job and when quality assurance finally arrived at the aircraft and saw that they had placed the control tab on the aircraft; the inspector told them to remove it because he had to see the installation. That is also the correct procedure; but he walked off the job. The mechanic working the aircraft came in and reported what had happened.I once again called manager 'X' and updated him; told him the tab was just hung and was not complete. I told him the mechanic said it would only take about 15 minutes to remove and to get quality assurance back out. The manager called me back and told me to do the rii. He put me in the position to do the wrong thing and I felt pressured; I told him that I followed the same procedure as quality assurance. On the next work night manager 'Y' came to talk with me he stated that station manager 'Z' had ordered him to do an investigation on my actions for that night.we have a quality assurance department which is responsible for rii inspections. I followed all required procedures and I feel that based on my past reports; this investigation ordered by station manager 'Z' is retaliation. Pressure was put on me to accomplish an rii after quality assurance walked off the job.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Line Lead Mechanic reports about his efforts to get their Quality Assurance (QA) department at his Station to perform an RII Inspection during the installation procedure of an MD-80 Left Elevator Control Tab. Lead Mechanic felt he was pressured to do the RII and put him in a position to do the wrong thing.
Narrative: I was to assign two mechanics to remove and replace the Left Elevator Control Tab on an MD-80 aircraft; as per the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) it is a Required Inspection Item (RII)! I spoke to the Quality Assurance Supervisor late in the evening and informed him that a RII was needed on the replacement of the tab. That is the proper procedure here. I also spoke with Manager 'X' several times during the night and gave him updates. After completing the post flight checks on the aircraft; the mechanics were ready to start on the control tab and due to it being a flight control one of the mechanics called Manager 'X' and again asked for QA to be there for the RII.Earlier morning; I once again called Manager 'X' and he stated the Quality Assurance Supervisor was standing right in front of him and they talked. After they talked he came back on the line with me and told me that I would have to accomplish the RII. Once again I stated that I had never worked on the tabs and Quality Assurance should do the RII; he agreed. During all this time the mechanics started the job and when Quality Assurance finally arrived at the aircraft and saw that they had placed the control tab on the aircraft; the Inspector told them to remove it because he had to see the installation. That is also the correct procedure; but he walked off the job. The Mechanic working the aircraft came in and reported what had happened.I once again called Manager 'X' and updated him; told him the tab was just hung and was not complete. I told him the Mechanic said it would only take about 15 minutes to remove and to get Quality Assurance back out. The Manager called me back and told me to do the RII. He put me in the position to do the wrong thing and I felt pressured; I told him that I followed the same procedure as Quality Assurance. On the next work night Manager 'Y' came to talk with me he stated that Station Manager 'Z' had ordered him to do an investigation on my actions for that night.We have a Quality Assurance department which is responsible for RII Inspections. I followed all required procedures and I feel that based on my past reports; this investigation ordered by Station Manager 'Z' is retaliation. Pressure was put on me to accomplish an RII after Quality Assurance walked off the job.
Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.