Narrative:

A losa (line operations safety audit) observation was performed highlighting the ongoing issues that technicians are having with the ipc (illustrated parts catalog) system in edocs (electronic document control system). An airbus A320 required a spoiler elevator computer replacement (second). The technician utilized the ipc through edocs to conduct his research for part effectivity. He stated that it was very challenging and time consuming to decipher all the cumbersome notes that could potentially determine if the part was effective for the aircraft. Those notes included researching coa's (change order authorizations); ad's (airworthiness directives); service bulletins; etc. To determine the pre or post status. It took the technician over an hour and a half to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. After the observation; I called the parts hotline telephone number to see if he would be able to give better guidance on determining part effectivity more efficiently. I had asked him to run through the same scenario that the technician faced with the second. It took him over an hour to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. It has been documented in the past that wrong parts have been installed on aircrafts due to the inefficiencies of the ipc system. The question has been asked by technicians working the terminal and or line environment on why parts that are not effective for the aircraft not being filtered out even after the ipc edocs system asks for aircraft nose numbers? When aircraft nose number is entered into the ipc; it should filter out the parts that are not effective for the aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Maintenance Technician had to spend an inordinate amount of time researching whether a particular part is correct for a particular aircraft tail number. Streamlining this process will decrease the chance of an incorrect part being installed.

Narrative: A LOSA (Line Operations Safety Audit) observation was performed highlighting the ongoing issues that technicians are having with the IPC (Illustrated parts Catalog) system in EDOCS (Electronic Document Control System). An Airbus A320 required a spoiler elevator computer replacement (SEC). The technician utilized the IPC through EDOCS to conduct his research for part effectivity. He stated that it was very challenging and time consuming to decipher all the cumbersome notes that could potentially determine if the part was effective for the aircraft. Those notes included researching COA's (Change Order Authorizations); AD's (Airworthiness Directives); service bulletins; etc. to determine the pre or post status. It took the technician over an hour and a half to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. After the observation; I called the parts hotline telephone number to see if he would be able to give better guidance on determining part effectivity more efficiently. I had asked him to run through the same scenario that the technician faced with the SEC. It took him over an hour to finally determine that the part was effective for the aircraft. It has been documented in the past that wrong parts have been installed on aircrafts due to the inefficiencies of the IPC system. The question has been asked by technicians working the terminal and or line environment on why parts that are not effective for the aircraft not being filtered out even after the IPC EDOCS system asks for aircraft nose numbers? When aircraft nose number is entered into the IPC; it should filter out the parts that are not effective for the aircraft.

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.