Narrative:

On nov/xa/99, I was assigned an 'a' check on the line here in ZZZ. My job was the routine check and inspection on #1 and #3 engines. During the course of the inspection, I found items that needed to be looked at further. So I wrote them up in the logbook. After returning to work, I was told by my management that this was not 'a hangar 'a' check -- it was a line 'a' check' and that some of my write-ups were 'not valid' even though the suspect parts were replaced. I have now received a warning letter in my personal file for not understanding the scope of line inspections nor were they (the write-up areas) included in the 'a' check. I have copies of the write-ups and a copy of air carrier 'a' check. I was taught in a&P school that if you had a question about something, write it up and do the corrective action. My management team here in ZZZ has created a hostile work environment and wants mechanics to 'pencil whip' jobs here in ZZZ and if you don't toe the line, you'll be written up for doing your job. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated a number of reports were written up on discrepancies found on #1 and #3 engines during the 'a' check in question. The reporter said the major problems found were the main engine fuel control rod engines worn beyond maintenance manual limits and required replacement. The reporter said parts are limited at ZZZ and are not stocked to support an 'a' check. The reporter stated local maintenance management wants to limit the scope of the check and avoid write-ups. The reporter said the FAA primary maintenance inspector has been checking the 'a' check paperwork recently but no findings or action has been taken.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A LEAD TECHNICIAN RPTS HOSTILE ATTITUDE OF LCL CARRIER MAINT MGMNT GROUP DUE TO NUMBER OF DISCREPANCIES WRITTEN UP ON A DC10-10 SCHEDULED 'A' CHK.

Narrative: ON NOV/XA/99, I WAS ASSIGNED AN 'A' CHK ON THE LINE HERE IN ZZZ. MY JOB WAS THE ROUTINE CHK AND INSPECTION ON #1 AND #3 ENGS. DURING THE COURSE OF THE INSPECTION, I FOUND ITEMS THAT NEEDED TO BE LOOKED AT FURTHER. SO I WROTE THEM UP IN THE LOGBOOK. AFTER RETURNING TO WORK, I WAS TOLD BY MY MGMNT THAT THIS WAS NOT 'A HANGAR 'A' CHK -- IT WAS A LINE 'A' CHK' AND THAT SOME OF MY WRITE-UPS WERE 'NOT VALID' EVEN THOUGH THE SUSPECT PARTS WERE REPLACED. I HAVE NOW RECEIVED A WARNING LETTER IN MY PERSONAL FILE FOR NOT UNDERSTANDING THE SCOPE OF LINE INSPECTIONS NOR WERE THEY (THE WRITE-UP AREAS) INCLUDED IN THE 'A' CHK. I HAVE COPIES OF THE WRITE-UPS AND A COPY OF ACR 'A' CHK. I WAS TAUGHT IN A&P SCHOOL THAT IF YOU HAD A QUESTION ABOUT SOMETHING, WRITE IT UP AND DO THE CORRECTIVE ACTION. MY MGMNT TEAM HERE IN ZZZ HAS CREATED A HOSTILE WORK ENVIRONMENT AND WANTS MECHS TO 'PENCIL WHIP' JOBS HERE IN ZZZ AND IF YOU DON'T TOE THE LINE, YOU'LL BE WRITTEN UP FOR DOING YOUR JOB. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED A NUMBER OF RPTS WERE WRITTEN UP ON DISCREPANCIES FOUND ON #1 AND #3 ENGS DURING THE 'A' CHK IN QUESTION. THE RPTR SAID THE MAJOR PROBS FOUND WERE THE MAIN ENG FUEL CTL ROD ENGS WORN BEYOND MAINT MANUAL LIMITS AND REQUIRED REPLACEMENT. THE RPTR SAID PARTS ARE LIMITED AT ZZZ AND ARE NOT STOCKED TO SUPPORT AN 'A' CHK. THE RPTR STATED LCL MAINT MGMNT WANTS TO LIMIT THE SCOPE OF THE CHK AND AVOID WRITE-UPS. THE RPTR SAID THE FAA PRIMARY MAINT INSPECTOR HAS BEEN CHKING THE 'A' CHK PAPERWORK RECENTLY BUT NO FINDINGS OR ACTION HAS BEEN TAKEN.

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.