Narrative:

Early morning. I was in the hangar when I was informed of a crj-200 at the gate with an open discrepancy for minor damage to the left wing to fuselage fairing. I was given an engineering order for the damage with the instructions for tap testing; taping and planning delays for inspection and permanent repair. I took mechanic 'X' with me over to the gate to accomplish the steps in the engineering order.I glanced at the engineering order to see where the damage was and saw the panel number. We went to the gate and looked up where this panel is on the aircraft. The ramp where the aircraft was parked was poorly lit and the flashlight I had was failing; making it hard to see. I saw an obvious spot on the fairing that was damaged and tap tested the area and due to the darkness didn't see any other damage in that area. I told mechanic 'X' to tape the area; which she did as instructed; which is her only involvement in this incident. There were no markings on the aircraft to annotate the mapping of the fairing damage and the documentation of the mapping was not with the aircraft logbook at this time. I returned to the hangar and found the inspector who had looked at the damage and asked him to get the non-routine card of the mapping for me; then took the engineering order and wrote the two planning delays for the re-inspect and permanent repair. When I wrote the planning delays; I used the term dent instead of puncture so it was incorrect in that regard. There were actually two areas of minor damage to this area and not one; the inspector saw one and I saw the other; causing the confusion. When this error was found; the engineering order was updated and the disposition for both sets of minor damage was the same. The paperwork was corrected to show both sets of damage at that point. My supervisor notified me of the error. This event had several contributing factors. The first was that there were too many different people involved in this one project. It has been my experience that mistakes are less likely; when the same person is involved in the entire process of mapping; marking and documenting. It would also have been helpful to have been given the pictures of the damage involved to ensure I know what it looked like so I would have realized there was a second damaged part there.I should have also read the entire engineering order prior to going to the aircraft; and not just look at location and disposition [in the engineering order]. The mapping markings should have been left on the fuselage to ensure there would be no confusion and I should have went and got better lighting out to the aircraft. Then; when the review of the planning delays was done; the damage description of dent and not puncture was [also] missed.there were three people who could have prevented this error had any one of us noticed the signs. Although I had just returned to work from being off for an extended time on disability; I do not feel this was any factor in the event except for the fact that I had been away from the environment for an extended period of time and was just getting back into the flow of things; so [I] may not have been on top of my game. The dent was measured and mapped and added to the engineering order as a revision and the paperwork was corrected.I would suggest that as much as possible; that there be as few different people involved in these types of events; to keep the possibility of confusion to a minimum. In the event that different people will be involved; there should be a verbal turn over from one person to the next to lessen the possibility of confusion. Also all available records; pictures and documentation should always be left with the aircraft logbook.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Mechanic was called out to a gate for an open discrepancy requiring inspection of a left wing to fuselage fairing on a CRJ-200 aircraft for damage. Confusion;lack of having adequate paperwork and poor lighting contributed to the Mechanic noticing a different damage area on fairing that was not recorded.

Narrative: Early morning. I was in the hangar when I was informed of a CRJ-200 at the gate with an open discrepancy for minor damage to the left wing to fuselage fairing. I was given an Engineering Order for the damage with the instructions for tap testing; taping and planning delays for Inspection and permanent repair. I took Mechanic 'X' with me over to the gate to accomplish the steps in the Engineering Order.I glanced at the Engineering Order to see where the damage was and saw the panel number. We went to the gate and looked up where this panel is on the aircraft. The ramp where the aircraft was parked was poorly lit and the flashlight I had was failing; making it hard to see. I saw an obvious spot on the fairing that was damaged and tap tested the area and due to the darkness didn't see any other damage in that area. I told Mechanic 'X' to tape the area; which she did as instructed; which is her only involvement in this incident. There were no markings on the aircraft to annotate the mapping of the fairing damage and the documentation of the mapping was not with the aircraft Logbook at this time. I returned to the hangar and found the Inspector who had looked at the damage and asked him to get the Non-Routine Card of the mapping for me; then took the Engineering Order and wrote the two planning delays for the re-inspect and permanent repair. When I wrote the planning delays; I used the term dent instead of puncture so it was incorrect in that regard. There were actually two areas of minor damage to this area and not one; the Inspector saw one and I saw the other; causing the confusion. When this error was found; the Engineering Order was updated and the disposition for both sets of minor damage was the same. The paperwork was corrected to show both sets of damage at that point. My Supervisor notified me of the error. This event had several contributing factors. The first was that there were too many different people involved in this one project. It has been my experience that mistakes are less likely; when the same person is involved in the entire process of mapping; marking and documenting. It would also have been helpful to have been given the pictures of the damage involved to ensure I know what it looked like so I would have realized there was a second damaged part there.I should have also read the entire Engineering Order prior to going to the aircraft; and not just look at location and disposition [in the Engineering Order]. The mapping markings should have been left on the fuselage to ensure there would be no confusion and I should have went and got better lighting out to the aircraft. Then; when the review of the planning delays was done; the damage description of dent and not puncture was [also] missed.There were three people who could have prevented this error had any one of us noticed the signs. Although I had just returned to work from being off for an extended time on disability; I do not feel this was any factor in the event except for the fact that I had been away from the environment for an extended period of time and was just getting back into the flow of things; so [I] may not have been on top of my game. The dent was measured and mapped and added to the Engineering Order as a revision and the paperwork was corrected.I would suggest that as much as possible; that there be as few different people involved in these types of events; to keep the possibility of confusion to a minimum. In the event that different people will be involved; there should be a verbal turn over from one person to the next to lessen the possibility of confusion. Also all available records; pictures and documentation should always be left with the aircraft logbook.

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.