Narrative:

I accomplished job card X; inspect main lang gear (medium large transport) keel beam door hinge & actuator fitting - ndt; on aircraft X. On the left actuator fitting; I found the bushing migrated about a 1/8' on the forward lug. The bush had moved aft. On the right actuator fitting; I found that the bushing on the aft lug was missing. I commented to the mechanic assigned to the job that the bushing was gone and he told me that it was in the parts bag with the rest of the hardware. I verified that the bushing was in the parts bag.I completed the inspections required by the job card. Qc inspector assisted me with the ndt portion and he commented about the bushing being migrated on the left medium large transport actuator fitting. I do not remember if he commented about the bushing missing from the lug on the right medium large transport actuator fitting at that time however he did tell me the next day that he noted that the bushing was not in the lug of the fitting. I created two non-routine work cards in with discrepancy descriptions stating that the bushings had migrated. At this point I would like to point out that in the job card there is a note that states 'if damage has been noted to the (lh or rh) actuator fitting; including bushing migration; contact engineering with details of any wear or damage findings to report to airbus and obtain repair authorization before further flight.' this job card is also created and driven by [an] airworthiness directive.during my next routine shift; I found that the non-routines were signed off and tallied. The completion statement was 'cleaned lug; found bushing installation ok for continued service.'I feel that this was not an adequate corrective action for the discrepancy that I noted and that basically nothing was done to correct the discrepancy or notify engineering as required by the job card. I brought this to qc supervisors attention; and he reopened both non-routines to have them worked. At the beginning of first shift; qc supervisor; interviewed me and qc [a different] inspector had bought back the non-routines. [The inspector] stated that the machinist called him out to look at the bushings because he couldn't find anything wrong. [Qc inspector] stated that he did not see anything wrong. The bushings were installed and looked correct. [Qc supervisor] acknowledged that there needed to be more investigation and at that time it was left to management to resolve.the next night I came in and found that both non-routines had again been signed off as ok for service. [Qc supervisor] also sent emails to qc manager for higher level management resolution. I believe that undocumented maintenance was accomplished by someone reinstalling the bushings before the machine shop came out to look at the job. Normally when bushing migration is found on this inspection; the machinist will remove the bushing and measure the bore of the fitting. This information is then passed on to engineering for them to use in creating a repair authorization.my immediate concern is that both the left and right medium large transport actuators on aircraft X are not properly installed because the bushings were found to be migrated and then reinstalled improperly. They are to be an interference fit per the documentation. Also engineering is to provide the repair authorization as stated in the job card; not arbitrarily reinstalled and not documented. I believe that the upper attach points for the medium large transport door actuator for both left and right gear doors be disassembled; the bushings in question be removed and inspected including measuring the bores of the fittings. The findings should then be given to engineering for review and a proper repair provided. Anything less cannot be considered as being in compliance with [the] ad. Going forward; policies or protocols should be in place to address issues concerning undocumented maintenance. I would like to see a policy that if an inspector is unsure of the findings and non-routines written by another inspector; that a work stop be placed on the non-routines in question and the matter investigated with the originator of the non-routine. I am giving this information as I believe the aircraft was released into service in an unairworthy condition.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Inspector working on an Airbus reported that the MLG door bushings had migrated out of the lug and engineering was not contacted as required per the job card.

Narrative: I accomplished job card X; Inspect Main Lang Gear (MLG) Keel Beam Door Hinge & Actuator Fitting - NDT; on Aircraft X. On the left actuator fitting; I found the bushing migrated about a 1/8' on the forward lug. The bush had moved aft. On the right actuator fitting; I found that the bushing on the aft lug was missing. I commented to the mechanic assigned to the job that the bushing was gone and he told me that it was in the parts bag with the rest of the hardware. I verified that the bushing was in the parts bag.I completed the inspections required by the job card. QC Inspector assisted me with the NDT portion and he commented about the bushing being migrated on the left MLG actuator fitting. I do not remember if he commented about the bushing missing from the lug on the right MLG actuator fitting at that time however he did tell me the next day that he noted that the bushing was not in the lug of the fitting. I created two non-routine work cards in with Discrepancy descriptions stating that the bushings had migrated. At this point I would like to point out that in the job card there is a note that states 'If damage has been noted to the (LH or RH) actuator fitting; including bushing migration; contact Engineering with details of any wear or damage findings to report to Airbus and obtain repair authorization before further flight.' This job card is also created and driven by [an] Airworthiness Directive.During my next routine shift; I found that the non-routines were signed off and tallied. The completion statement was 'Cleaned lug; found bushing installation OK for continued service.'I feel that this was not an adequate corrective action for the discrepancy that I noted and that basically nothing was done to correct the discrepancy or notify engineering as required by the job card. I brought this to QC Supervisors attention; and he reopened both non-routines to have them worked. At the beginning of first shift; QC Supervisor; interviewed me and QC [a different] Inspector had bought back the non-routines. [The Inspector] stated that the machinist called him out to look at the bushings because he couldn't find anything wrong. [QC Inspector] stated that he did not see anything wrong. The bushings were installed and looked correct. [QC supervisor] acknowledged that there needed to be more investigation and at that time it was left to management to resolve.The next night I came in and found that both non-routines had again been signed off as OK for service. [QC Supervisor] also sent emails to QC Manager for higher level management resolution. I believe that undocumented maintenance was accomplished by someone reinstalling the bushings before the machine shop came out to look at the job. Normally when bushing migration is found on this inspection; the machinist will remove the bushing and measure the bore of the fitting. This information is then passed on to Engineering for them to use in creating a repair authorization.My immediate concern is that both the left and right MLG actuators on Aircraft X are not properly installed because the bushings were found to be migrated and then reinstalled improperly. They are to be an interference fit per the documentation. Also Engineering is to provide the repair authorization as stated in the job card; not arbitrarily reinstalled and not documented. I believe that the upper attach points for the MLG Door actuator for both left and right gear doors be disassembled; the bushings in question be removed and inspected including measuring the bores of the fittings. The findings should then be given to Engineering for review and a proper repair provided. Anything less cannot be considered as being in compliance with [the] AD. Going forward; policies or protocols should be in place to address issues concerning undocumented maintenance. I would like to see a policy that if an inspector is unsure of the findings and non-routines written by another inspector; that a work stop be placed on the non-routines in question and the matter investigated with the originator of the non-routine. I am giving this information as I believe the aircraft was released into service in an unairworthy condition.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site 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.