Narrative:

Number 2 engine change was being accomplished. This was an assigned engine change on the work package. As part of this process; four forward engine mount bolts were installed to attach the engine to the A320 aircraft. These four bolts (copies of the part tags are in the attachment) were entered into the [records] system under repair orders XXXX and YYYY. There was no entry in the [company's part tag] remarks section; block-9; showing what actions were taken to make these bolts serviceable. Maintenance procedures manual (mpm) xx-00-12; 9-A; [referencing] block 9; item 10; note 1; states: 'record data as needed in place provided. In the space provided for remarks; enter an appropriate 14 crash fire rescue equipment; far 43.9 entry. Example: 'repaired / inspected; in accordance with component maintenance manual (cmm) / aircraft maintenance manual (amm) / job planning card (jpc) / engineering order (eo) section and document number.' mpm xx-00-12;9A; block 9; item 10; note 2 states that 'the term used to identify the work performed by the vendor on the vendor's certification tag is to be transposed onto block 9 of the company's parts tag.' mpm xy-00-10; 8.B; states 'component job cards produced in the engine shops will remain with the serviceable tag until installation on the next higher assembly. Upon installation; they will be routed to aircraft records with the company part tags. Engine shop job cards that are part of a work package will be routed to aircraft records with the completed engine pack. These company part tags had no documentation with them of any kind. There was just the serviceable copy that was turned in with the work pack. The other company part tags that came from our engine shop had the company part tags and the engine job cards that were referenced in the remarks section of the company parts tag. I was auditing the aircraft work pack and found the parts tags with the missing documentation in the remarks section of the company parts tags. I feel that there is a lack of information of what the requirements are to complete paperwork based on the mpm. I feel this is true at the mechanic and management level. I feel this is a perfect example of complacency; lack of knowledge; and norms that are three of the 'dirty dozen' that are alive and well in this situation. I feel this is true of the individuals that made the parts serviceable; and the individuals that installed the parts on the aircraft. I talked to our flight safety representative and he suggested that I make the quality control manager aware of the situation in an attempt to correct the situation. I notified the quality control manager and he called me back. He told me there was no problem; since there was an individual that signed block 11 [of the company's parts tag] with their identifying information in block 13 that was signing that; the statement in block 10 had been complied with.mechanics need to have ongoing classroom and other training about what is in the mpm; with the opportunity to ask questions about what and why. Computer based training (cbt) training does not allow the opportunity to ask questions; and hear the responses that will often trigger additional questions. Mechanics need to know when; and why; to question if a parts tag; procedure; job card; or engineering order is actually in agreement with the mpm and other documentation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Mechanic reports four forward engine mount bolts were installed to attach an engine to an A320 aircraft without any entry in the Remarks section of their company's Part Tags indicating what actions were taken to make the bolts serviceable. He was auditing the Aircraft Work Package and found the Part Tags with the missing documentation.

Narrative: Number 2 Engine change was being accomplished. This was an assigned engine change on the Work Package. As part of this process; four forward engine mount bolts were installed to attach the engine to the A320 aircraft. These four bolts (copies of the Part Tags are in the attachment) were entered into the [Records] System under Repair Orders XXXX and YYYY. There was no entry in the [company's Part Tag] remarks section; Block-9; showing what actions were taken to make these bolts serviceable. Maintenance Procedures Manual (MPM) XX-00-12; 9-A; [referencing] Block 9; Item 10; NOTE 1; states: 'Record data as needed in place provided. In the space provided for REMARKS; enter an appropriate 14 CFR; FAR 43.9 entry. EXAMPLE: 'Repaired / Inspected; in accordance with Component Maintenance Manual (CMM) / Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) / Job Planning Card (JPC) / Engineering Order (EO) Section and Document Number.' MPM XX-00-12;9A; Block 9; Item 10; NOTE 2 states that 'The term used to identify the work performed by the Vendor on the Vendor's Certification Tag is to be transposed onto Block 9 of the company's Parts Tag.' MPM XY-00-10; 8.B; states 'Component Job Cards produced in the Engine Shops will remain with the Serviceable Tag until installation on the next higher assembly. Upon installation; they will be routed to Aircraft Records with the company Part Tags. Engine Shop Job Cards that are part of a Work Package will be routed to Aircraft Records with the completed Engine Pack. These company Part Tags had no documentation with them of any kind. There was just the serviceable copy that was turned in with the Work Pack. The other company Part Tags that came from our Engine Shop had the company Part Tags and the Engine Job Cards that were referenced in the remarks section of the company Parts Tag. I was auditing the Aircraft Work Pack and found the parts tags with the missing documentation in the remarks section of the company Parts Tags. I feel that there is a lack of information of what the requirements are to complete paperwork based on the MPM. I feel this is true at the Mechanic and Management level. I feel this is a perfect example of complacency; lack of knowledge; and norms that are three of the 'Dirty Dozen' that are alive and well in this situation. I feel this is true of the individuals that made the parts serviceable; and the individuals that installed the parts on the aircraft. I talked to our Flight Safety Representative and he suggested that I make the Quality Control Manager aware of the situation in an attempt to correct the situation. I notified the Quality Control Manager and he called me back. He told me there was no problem; since there was an individual that signed Block 11 [of the company's Parts Tag] with their identifying information in Block 13 that was signing that; the statement in Block 10 had been complied with.Mechanics need to have ongoing classroom and other training about what is in the MPM; with the opportunity to ask questions about what and why. Computer Based Training (CBT) training does not allow the opportunity to ask questions; and hear the responses that will often trigger additional questions. Mechanics need to know when; and why; to question if a parts tag; procedure; job card; or Engineering Order is actually in agreement with the MPM and other documentation.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.