Narrative:

On the night of nov/xa/98, my crew worked aircraft for an oil leak #2 engine. The mechanic that troubleshot the problem was azzy. The right engine had a write-up for oil leaking from the compressor rear frame oil scavenge B sump fitting calling for the gasket to be replaced. This was not the problem. The problem was much deeper than first thought. We got technical services involved. Told them what we found xyz. He said that we had an engine change in area of the leak with oil in the tailpipe pointing to the recoup duct. But he wanted to discuss with an engineer, BBB QQQ. BBB QQQ said we had an engine change. The supervisor yyxx was aware at all times what was going on. Yyxx knew we had to ferry to abc for engine change. At around XA30 I made a logbook maintenance entry stating that the engine had to be changed. When mr. X and I left work that morning the original write-up and the engine change entries were still open with the supervisor, technical services, engineer and management (mxmx) under the understanding the engine would be changed. This did not happen. Yyxx signed off the original write-up using azzy name and employee number and mxmx signed the engine change item. Azzy was never aware that yyxx was going to do something like this. The aircraft had one more logbook entry regarding an oil leak #2 before it even left ZZZ. This engine should have been changed and supervision should have never used an employee's name and number under false pretenses.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767 WAS RETURNED TO SVC WITH A #2 ENG OIL LEAK THAT REQUIRED AN ENG CHANGE TO CORRECT. RPT WAS SIGNED OFF ILLEGALLY BY A SUPVR USING AN UNAUTH SIGNATURE AND EMPLOYEE NUMBER.

Narrative: ON THE NIGHT OF NOV/XA/98, MY CREW WORKED ACFT FOR AN OIL LEAK #2 ENG. THE MECH THAT TROUBLESHOT THE PROB WAS AZZY. THE R ENG HAD A WRITE-UP FOR OIL LEAKING FROM THE COMPRESSOR REAR FRAME OIL SCAVENGE B SUMP FITTING CALLING FOR THE GASKET TO BE REPLACED. THIS WAS NOT THE PROB. THE PROB WAS MUCH DEEPER THAN FIRST THOUGHT. WE GOT TECHNICAL SVCS INVOLVED. TOLD THEM WHAT WE FOUND XYZ. HE SAID THAT WE HAD AN ENG CHANGE IN AREA OF THE LEAK WITH OIL IN THE TAILPIPE POINTING TO THE RECOUP DUCT. BUT HE WANTED TO DISCUSS WITH AN ENGINEER, BBB QQQ. BBB QQQ SAID WE HAD AN ENG CHANGE. THE SUPVR YYXX WAS AWARE AT ALL TIMES WHAT WAS GOING ON. YYXX KNEW WE HAD TO FERRY TO ABC FOR ENG CHANGE. AT AROUND XA30 I MADE A LOGBOOK MAINT ENTRY STATING THAT THE ENG HAD TO BE CHANGED. WHEN MR. X AND I LEFT WORK THAT MORNING THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP AND THE ENG CHANGE ENTRIES WERE STILL OPEN WITH THE SUPVR, TECHNICAL SVCS, ENGINEER AND MGMNT (MXMX) UNDER THE UNDERSTANDING THE ENG WOULD BE CHANGED. THIS DID NOT HAPPEN. YYXX SIGNED OFF THE ORIGINAL WRITE-UP USING AZZY NAME AND EMPLOYEE NUMBER AND MXMX SIGNED THE ENG CHANGE ITEM. AZZY WAS NEVER AWARE THAT YYXX WAS GOING TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS. THE ACFT HAD ONE MORE LOGBOOK ENTRY REGARDING AN OIL LEAK #2 BEFORE IT EVEN LEFT ZZZ. THIS ENG SHOULD HAVE BEEN CHANGED AND SUPERVISION SHOULD HAVE NEVER USED AN EMPLOYEE'S NAME AND NUMBER UNDER FALSE PRETENSES.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 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.