Narrative:

I am an a & P mechanic. With air carrier airlines working in their fiberglass/composite shop in ZZZ, us. I have 11 yrs experience as an a & P mechanic, with air carrier, 1 1/2 yrs in the fiberglass shop. I repair DC9 radomes, tailcones, ADF and VOR antenna. I have been directed by both air carrier composite repair training personnel and air carrier quality audit person not to remove repairs done in the past, by someone else, that I felt (in many cases, or most cases, was certain) had been done improperly. These repairs are leading to failures of radomes when they are tested for radar transmissivity (transmission effeciency) when completed in the shop, prior to release to service. Radome serial number wxxw is one such radome. It was repaired in the fiberglass shop by myself and upon completion was taken to test lab test facility for transmission efficiency, where it was tested twice and failed both times. I was informed after the testing that it (radome sn: wxxw) was going to be returned to service in spite of it's failure during testing. Due to the localizer of the failure, my repairs did not contribute to that failure. My two repairs were not in that area. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the radomes are being repaired with an unapproved method and not per the structural repair manual as required. The reporter said the shop management, quality control and the composite training department were advised of this problem, but have not revised the procedure to the approved methods. The reporter stated the repaired radomes are sent to an outside test facility and the radomes are not passing the microwave transmissivity tests directly affecting the radar presentation seen by the crews. The reporter stated the shop management brought in the aircraft manufacturers engineer to hopefully approve the present method and revise the structural repair manual. The reporter said this request was denied as the engineer pointed out the unapproved repair allows no damage tolerance and would be a problem with a rear engined aircraft.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A DC-9 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH A RADOME REPAIR NOT ACCOMPLISHED PER THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL.

Narrative: I AM AN A & P MECH. WITH ACR AIRLINES WORKING IN THEIR FIBERGLASS/COMPOSITE SHOP IN ZZZ, US. I HAVE 11 YRS EXPERIENCE AS AN A & P MECH, WITH ACR, 1 1/2 YRS IN THE FIBERGLASS SHOP. I REPAIR DC9 RADOMES, TAILCONES, ADF AND VOR ANTENNA. I HAVE BEEN DIRECTED BY BOTH ACR COMPOSITE REPAIR TRAINING PERSONNEL AND ACR QUALITY AUDIT PERSON NOT TO REMOVE REPAIRS DONE IN THE PAST, BY SOMEONE ELSE, THAT I FELT (IN MANY CASES, OR MOST CASES, WAS CERTAIN) HAD BEEN DONE IMPROPERLY. THESE REPAIRS ARE LEADING TO FAILURES OF RADOMES WHEN THEY ARE TESTED FOR RADAR TRANSMISSIVITY (XMISSION EFFECIENCY) WHEN COMPLETED IN THE SHOP, PRIOR TO RELEASE TO SERVICE. RADOME SERIAL NUMBER WXXW IS ONE SUCH RADOME. IT WAS REPAIRED IN THE FIBERGLASS SHOP BY MYSELF AND UPON COMPLETION WAS TAKEN TO TEST LAB TEST FAC FOR XMISSION EFFICIENCY, WHERE IT WAS TESTED TWICE AND FAILED BOTH TIMES. I WAS INFORMED AFTER THE TESTING THAT IT (RADOME SN: WXXW) WAS GOING TO BE RETURNED TO SERVICE IN SPITE OF IT'S FAILURE DURING TESTING. DUE TO THE LOC OF THE FAILURE, MY REPAIRS DID NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THAT FAILURE. MY TWO REPAIRS WERE NOT IN THAT AREA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE RADOMES ARE BEING REPAIRED WITH AN UNAPPROVED METHOD AND NOT PER THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL AS REQUIRED. THE RPTR SAID THE SHOP MGMNT, QUALITY CTL AND THE COMPOSITE TRAINING DEPT WERE ADVISED OF THIS PROB, BUT HAVE NOT REVISED THE PROC TO THE APPROVED METHODS. THE RPTR STATED THE REPAIRED RADOMES ARE SENT TO AN OUTSIDE TEST FAC AND THE RADOMES ARE NOT PASSING THE MICROWAVE TRANSMISSIVITY TESTS DIRECTLY AFFECTING THE RADAR PRESENTATION SEEN BY THE CREWS. THE RPTR STATED THE SHOP MGMNT BROUGHT IN THE ACFT MANUFACTURERS ENGINEER TO HOPEFULLY APPROVE THE PRESENT METHOD AND REVISE THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL. THE RPTR SAID THIS REQUEST WAS DENIED AS THE ENGINEER POINTED OUT THE UNAPPROVED REPAIR ALLOWS NO DAMAGE TOLERANCE AND WOULD BE A PROB WITH A REAR ENGINED ACFT.

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.