37000 Feet | Browse and search NASA's Aviation Safety Reporting System |
|
Attributes | |
ACN | 922994 |
Time | |
Date | 201012 |
Local Time Of Day | 0001-0600 |
Place | |
Locale Reference | ZZZ.Airport |
State Reference | US |
Environment | |
Light | Night |
Aircraft 1 | |
Make Model Name | B737-800 |
Operating Under FAR Part | Part 121 |
Flight Phase | Parked |
Component | |
Aircraft Component | Company Operations Manual |
Person 1 | |
Function | Inspector |
Qualification | Maintenance Powerplant Maintenance Airframe |
Events | |
Anomaly | Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical Deviation - Procedural Published Material / Policy |
Narrative:
A B737-800 arrived in the new hanger in the evening for a fan blade lube on #1 engine. Four technicians and a lead from ZZZ were assigned to the job. I was the inspector. The task card has a block for the inspector to check if the technicians have watched the fan lube video. All four technicians had watched the video; but the lead had not; so he went to watch it and I signed-off the block. The fan lube was a normal routine event; with no part changes and no damage found. The job was completed in record time. At the end of the shift there was some discussion about the ETOPS status of the aircraft. Apparently some of the technicians were not ETOPS qualified. My lead and a hangar/line lead were involved in the discussions and were in contact with maintenance control; trying to decide if this aircraft was qualified for ETOPS. It was determined from maintenance control that since I was an ETOPS qualified inspector and had bought the job off [signed-off]; the aircraft was still ok for ETOPS. It seemed like a logical determination at the time. The aircraft flew to ZZZ1 and back; and came back to the hangar the following night for a fan blade lube on #2 engine. Another inspector was assigned to it; but ZZZ [maintenance] was doing the job again. The inspector was informed about what had occurred last night. He questioned how maintenance control could allow aircraft X to remain on ETOPS [status] after what happened last night. He called maintenance control and explained this to another controller and the controller agreed with the inspector. Re-visiting the event; it appears to me that tonight's controller and inspector are correct in insisting that ETOPS qualified technicians sign-off the blocks on the [fan blade lube] task card and an ETOPS qualified inspector buys-off [signs for] the job also. Note: if this is actually correct; then there is a problem with the aircraft being ETOPS qualified. Last night's paperwork has not been corrected; (non-ETOPS qualified technicians had stamped-off on the technician blocks on the task card).suggestion to prevent this from happening again: add a block for the inspector to verify that the technician is ETOPS qualified if the aircraft is an ETOPS aircraft. It never even crossed my mind to check this out.
Original NASA ASRS Text
Title: A Maintenance Inspector reports about a Fan Blade Lube Task Card that was signed-off by non-ETOPS qualified technicians on a B737-800 ETOPS aircraft and questions whether or not the aircraft should be allowed to remain under an ETOPS category.
Narrative: A B737-800 arrived in the new hanger in the evening for a fan blade lube on #1 engine. Four Technicians and a Lead from ZZZ were assigned to the job. I was the Inspector. The task card has a block for the Inspector to check if the Technicians have watched the fan lube video. All four Technicians had watched the video; but the Lead had not; so he went to watch it and I signed-off the block. The fan lube was a normal routine event; with no part changes and no damage found. The job was completed in record time. At the end of the shift there was some discussion about the ETOPS status of the aircraft. Apparently some of the Technicians were not ETOPS qualified. My Lead and a Hangar/Line Lead were involved in the discussions and were in contact with Maintenance Control; trying to decide if this aircraft was qualified for ETOPS. It was determined from Maintenance Control that since I was an ETOPS Qualified Inspector and had bought the job off [signed-off]; the aircraft was still OK for ETOPS. It seemed like a logical determination at the time. The aircraft flew to ZZZ1 and back; and came back to the hangar the following night for a fan blade lube on #2 engine. Another Inspector was assigned to it; but ZZZ [Maintenance] was doing the job again. The Inspector was informed about what had occurred last night. He questioned how Maintenance Control could allow Aircraft X to remain on ETOPS [status] after what happened last night. He called Maintenance Control and explained this to another Controller and the Controller agreed with the Inspector. Re-visiting the event; it appears to me that tonight's Controller and Inspector are correct in insisting that ETOPS Qualified Technicians sign-off the blocks on the [Fan Blade Lube] Task Card and an ETOPS Qualified Inspector buys-off [signs for] the job also. NOTE: If this is actually correct; then there is a problem with the aircraft being ETOPS qualified. Last night's paperwork has not been corrected; (Non-ETOPS qualified Technicians had stamped-off on the Technician blocks on the task card).Suggestion to prevent this from happening again: add a block for the Inspector to verify that the Technician is ETOPS qualified if the aircraft is an ETOPS aircraft. It never even crossed my mind to check this out.
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.