Narrative:

A twin commander 690B collapsed the right hand main landing gear in 2008. My employing repair station company recovered the plane from the runway. The damage was assessed and repairs were made. The damage was along the belly of the right side of the fuselage. This was a very large project. This was to be my first major repair project. We removed and repaired damage to the aircraft. The major repairs were done per contracted engineering drawings. The repairs were performed; inspected; tested and aircraft was returned to service.during the month of august 2010; the aircraft went to a pre-buy inspection at another facility. During inspection they found some discrepancies on the repairs we made needing re-work. These repairs included insufficient rivet edge distance on stringers and over bucked rivets. I was notified by my employer of the findings and informed that the re-work was to be done by another facility.this was my first and biggest major repair project. I realize the scope and detail of a project like this requires much more attention to detail. I need to request [increased] inspection by multiple inspectors on the work performed during and after repairs. This will assure better quality of work. I also need to inspect closer the work performed by myself and those assisting me. A project like this is too big for just one inspector. My employer has notified its employees of new protocol to have even more attention to detail and scope of the jobs we perform.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Mechanic and a Fixed Base Owner/Operator; with an Inspection Authorization (I/A) rating; report about inadequate Major Repairs they had performed on a Aero Twin Commander 690B aircraft. Damage was previously caused by a failure of the hydraulic actuator clevis fitting on the right Main Landing Gear (MLG).

Narrative: A Twin Commander 690B collapsed the right hand main landing gear in 2008. My employing Repair Station company recovered the plane from the runway. The damage was assessed and repairs were made. The damage was along the belly of the right side of the fuselage. This was a very large project. This was to be my first major repair project. We removed and repaired damage to the aircraft. The major repairs were done per Contracted Engineering drawings. The repairs were performed; inspected; tested and aircraft was returned to service.During the month of August 2010; the aircraft went to a pre-buy inspection at another facility. During inspection they found some discrepancies on the repairs we made needing re-work. These repairs included insufficient rivet edge distance on stringers and over bucked rivets. I was notified by my employer of the findings and informed that the re-work was to be done by another facility.This was my first and biggest major repair project. I realize the scope and detail of a project like this requires much more attention to detail. I need to request [increased] inspection by multiple inspectors on the work performed during and after repairs. This will assure better quality of work. I also need to inspect closer the work performed by myself and those assisting me. A project like this is too big for just one Inspector. My employer has notified its employees of new protocol to have even more attention to detail and scope of the jobs we perform.

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.