Narrative:

During my maintenance layover inspection, I entered aircraft log item stating 'from left/O-rt wing I/B flap I/B transmission assembly has oil leak.' this leak was in the area of the outboard output shaft. My maintenance actions were to remove and replace the output shaft packing. Several days later, I was notified that air carrier had taken some exception to this maintenance action, stating that this packing was not considered a line replaceable unit, and that special checks are required on flap transmissions at shop level, as the shop is primarily responsible for the maintenance and overhaul of these components. Air carrier sent a maintenance alert detailing the company's position on the matter. Although the aircraft had no further leaks or problems after being returned to service, air carrier eventually routed the aircraft to maintenance, to replace the transmission assembly as a reliability issue. I can understand air carrier's position for changing the transmission assembly for reliability, but I would like to detail the reasons for which I considered the packing replacement a viable option. 1) the transmission was not being removed from its position in the aircraft, and I was making no statement that I was returning to service an 'overhauled transmission.' this is the only time special in-shop checks are performed per component maintenance manuals to certify the part as being overhauled. I viewed the replacement of the output shaft packing as a general, normal maintenance function requiring no special test equipment (reference far 43.2). 2) far 43.13 states '...each person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance shall use the methods, techniques, and practices described in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or other methods, techniques, and practices acceptable to the administrator.' below is a list of the controled manuals used in the maintenance actions to remove and replace this packing. A) maintenance manual -- was used to remove flap drive couplings and gain access to packing. B) ipc -- was used to determine part location, effectivity, and manufacturing part number. Note, the enclosed line replaceable unit alert from air carrier states the ipc is a reference only type manual, which is contrary to air carrier's own technical operations policy procedures manual which describes the ipc as a controled technical manual. C) boeing standard practice manual -- was used to remove and install this o-ring over the output shaft. The maintenance manual was again used to reconnect the flap torque tubes, service the transmission and operations check. 3) all work was documented in the aircraft log per far 43.9. Note: the far does not require a per maintenance manual signoff for every maintenance item. Only a description of the work performed or reference to data acceptable to the administrator is required along with name, date, and signature with certificate number for aircraft return to service. I feel that my maintenance actions were performed to manufacturer's standards and that the scope and detail of these activities were performed in accordance with accepted data, and accepted industry practices per far 43.13. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the replacement of the flap transmission would have required 8 hours elapsed time while the o-ring only took 1 hour and the aircraft was back in service. The reporter said the FAA has made contact and the repair was discussed.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727-200 WAS DISPATCHED AND OPERATED WITH A COMPONENT REPLACED ON A LINE REPLACEABLE UNIT IN CONFLICT WITH FAR AND COMPANY PROCS.

Narrative: DURING MY MAINT LAYOVER INSPECTION, I ENTERED ACFT LOG ITEM STATING 'FROM L/O-RT WING I/B FLAP I/B TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY HAS OIL LEAK.' THIS LEAK WAS IN THE AREA OF THE OUTBOARD OUTPUT SHAFT. MY MAINT ACTIONS WERE TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THE OUTPUT SHAFT PACKING. SEVERAL DAYS LATER, I WAS NOTIFIED THAT ACR HAD TAKEN SOME EXCEPTION TO THIS MAINT ACTION, STATING THAT THIS PACKING WAS NOT CONSIDERED A LINE REPLACEABLE UNIT, AND THAT SPECIAL CHKS ARE REQUIRED ON FLAP TRANSMISSIONS AT SHOP LEVEL, AS THE SHOP IS PRIMARILY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MAINT AND OVERHAUL OF THESE COMPONENTS. ACR SENT A MAINT ALERT DETAILING THE COMPANY'S POS ON THE MATTER. ALTHOUGH THE ACFT HAD NO FURTHER LEAKS OR PROBS AFTER BEING RETURNED TO SVC, ACR EVENTUALLY ROUTED THE ACFT TO MAINT, TO REPLACE THE TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY AS A RELIABILITY ISSUE. I CAN UNDERSTAND ACR'S POS FOR CHANGING THE TRANSMISSION ASSEMBLY FOR RELIABILITY, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO DETAIL THE REASONS FOR WHICH I CONSIDERED THE PACKING REPLACEMENT A VIABLE OPTION. 1) THE TRANSMISSION WAS NOT BEING REMOVED FROM ITS POS IN THE ACFT, AND I WAS MAKING NO STATEMENT THAT I WAS RETURNING TO SVC AN 'OVERHAULED TRANSMISSION.' THIS IS THE ONLY TIME SPECIAL IN-SHOP CHKS ARE PERFORMED PER COMPONENT MAINT MANUALS TO CERTIFY THE PART AS BEING OVERHAULED. I VIEWED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE OUTPUT SHAFT PACKING AS A GENERAL, NORMAL MAINT FUNCTION REQUIRING NO SPECIAL TEST EQUIP (REF FAR 43.2). 2) FAR 43.13 STATES '...EACH PERSON PERFORMING MAINT, ALTERATION, OR PREVENTIVE MAINT SHALL USE THE METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES DESCRIBED IN THE CURRENT MANUFACTURER'S MAINT MANUAL OR OTHER METHODS, TECHNIQUES, AND PRACTICES ACCEPTABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR.' BELOW IS A LIST OF THE CTLED MANUALS USED IN THE MAINT ACTIONS TO REMOVE AND REPLACE THIS PACKING. A) MAINT MANUAL -- WAS USED TO REMOVE FLAP DRIVE COUPLINGS AND GAIN ACCESS TO PACKING. B) IPC -- WAS USED TO DETERMINE PART LOCATION, EFFECTIVITY, AND MANUFACTURING PART NUMBER. NOTE, THE ENCLOSED LINE REPLACEABLE UNIT ALERT FROM ACR STATES THE IPC IS A REF ONLY TYPE MANUAL, WHICH IS CONTRARY TO ACR'S OWN TECHNICAL OPS POLICY PROCS MANUAL WHICH DESCRIBES THE IPC AS A CTLED TECHNICAL MANUAL. C) BOEING STANDARD PRACTICE MANUAL -- WAS USED TO REMOVE AND INSTALL THIS O-RING OVER THE OUTPUT SHAFT. THE MAINT MANUAL WAS AGAIN USED TO RECONNECT THE FLAP TORQUE TUBES, SVC THE TRANSMISSION AND OPS CHK. 3) ALL WORK WAS DOCUMENTED IN THE ACFT LOG PER FAR 43.9. NOTE: THE FAR DOES NOT REQUIRE A PER MAINT MANUAL SIGNOFF FOR EVERY MAINT ITEM. ONLY A DESCRIPTION OF THE WORK PERFORMED OR REF TO DATA ACCEPTABLE TO THE ADMINISTRATOR IS REQUIRED ALONG WITH NAME, DATE, AND SIGNATURE WITH CERTIFICATE NUMBER FOR ACFT RETURN TO SVC. I FEEL THAT MY MAINT ACTIONS WERE PERFORMED TO MANUFACTURER'S STANDARDS AND THAT THE SCOPE AND DETAIL OF THESE ACTIVITIES WERE PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACCEPTED DATA, AND ACCEPTED INDUSTRY PRACTICES PER FAR 43.13. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE REPLACEMENT OF THE FLAP TRANSMISSION WOULD HAVE REQUIRED 8 HRS ELAPSED TIME WHILE THE O-RING ONLY TOOK 1 HR AND THE ACFT WAS BACK IN SVC. THE RPTR SAID THE FAA HAS MADE CONTACT AND THE REPAIR WAS DISCUSSED.

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.