Narrative:

Aircraft structures brought non routine item for material verification in order to initiate modification for GPWS antenna installation. The previously generated 'snrm' [installation and approved materials effectivity] already had the step of 'verify material and fabricate trippler per engineering drawing. Material was verified per drawing materials list. Only the materials list was provided along with the trippler drawing' page for pattern and size verification. The trippler was verified to match drawing and materials; and was given an ok to install once aircraft preparation was completed. Instrument was bought off after verification of fastener installation and conductivity tests were performed. The effectivity of the drawing was not questioned; and was taken to be the correct one; as the snrm was generated to break down the process to specific steps. Since the engineering order does not specifically state different confign drawings; the trippler fabrication and installation was accomplished per the information given. The drawing was not checked for effectivity since no reason was given nor implied of different configns. Figure note 18 of drawing was not seen nor noticed due to it not being available to inspection and it being listed at bottom of the drawing literature after fabrication processes. All information available was not presented to the inspector. Information did not follow a logical pattern on drawing. Engineering failed to present/highlight pertinent information; and gave too general and broad instructions. Engineering order is also misleading by using specific confign drawing in its title; rather than using the overall installation drawing number. Fragmented information was given to the inspector. Engineering needs to further break down the instruction set. Also; they need to highlight effectivity and confign deviations. Maintenance needs to present all available parts of a drawing/manual so inspector can make better-informed decisions. Engineering order is very misleading by listing wrong effectivity in its title rather than listing overall installation drawing.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B727-100 GS ANTENNA MODIFICATION ENGINEERING ORDER DID NOT GIVE CLR AND CONCISE INSTALLATION AND MATERIAL REQUIREMENT INSTRUCTIONS.

Narrative: ACFT STRUCTURES BROUGHT NON ROUTINE ITEM FOR MATERIAL VERIFICATION IN ORDER TO INITIATE MODIFICATION FOR GPWS ANTENNA INSTALLATION. THE PREVIOUSLY GENERATED 'SNRM' [INSTALLATION AND APPROVED MATERIALS EFFECTIVITY] ALREADY HAD THE STEP OF 'VERIFY MATERIAL AND FABRICATE TRIPPLER PER ENGINEERING DRAWING. MATERIAL WAS VERIFIED PER DRAWING MATERIALS LIST. ONLY THE MATERIALS LIST WAS PROVIDED ALONG WITH THE TRIPPLER DRAWING' PAGE FOR PATTERN AND SIZE VERIFICATION. THE TRIPPLER WAS VERIFIED TO MATCH DRAWING AND MATERIALS; AND WAS GIVEN AN OK TO INSTALL ONCE ACFT PREPARATION WAS COMPLETED. INST WAS BOUGHT OFF AFTER VERIFICATION OF FASTENER INSTALLATION AND CONDUCTIVITY TESTS WERE PERFORMED. THE EFFECTIVITY OF THE DRAWING WAS NOT QUESTIONED; AND WAS TAKEN TO BE THE CORRECT ONE; AS THE SNRM WAS GENERATED TO BREAK DOWN THE PROCESS TO SPECIFIC STEPS. SINCE THE ENGINEERING ORDER DOES NOT SPECIFICALLY STATE DIFFERENT CONFIGN DRAWINGS; THE TRIPPLER FABRICATION AND INSTALLATION WAS ACCOMPLISHED PER THE INFO GIVEN. THE DRAWING WAS NOT CHKED FOR EFFECTIVITY SINCE NO REASON WAS GIVEN NOR IMPLIED OF DIFFERENT CONFIGNS. FIGURE NOTE 18 OF DRAWING WAS NOT SEEN NOR NOTICED DUE TO IT NOT BEING AVAILABLE TO INSPECTION AND IT BEING LISTED AT BOTTOM OF THE DRAWING LITERATURE AFTER FABRICATION PROCESSES. ALL INFO AVAILABLE WAS NOT PRESENTED TO THE INSPECTOR. INFO DID NOT FOLLOW A LOGICAL PATTERN ON DRAWING. ENGINEERING FAILED TO PRESENT/HIGHLIGHT PERTINENT INFO; AND GAVE TOO GENERAL AND BROAD INSTRUCTIONS. ENGINEERING ORDER IS ALSO MISLEADING BY USING SPECIFIC CONFIGN DRAWING IN ITS TITLE; RATHER THAN USING THE OVERALL INSTALLATION DRAWING NUMBER. FRAGMENTED INFO WAS GIVEN TO THE INSPECTOR. ENGINEERING NEEDS TO FURTHER BREAK DOWN THE INSTRUCTION SET. ALSO; THEY NEED TO HIGHLIGHT EFFECTIVITY AND CONFIGN DEVS. MAINT NEEDS TO PRESENT ALL AVAILABLE PARTS OF A DRAWING/MANUAL SO INSPECTOR CAN MAKE BETTER-INFORMED DECISIONS. ENGINEERING ORDER IS VERY MISLEADING BY LISTING WRONG EFFECTIVITY IN ITS TITLE RATHER THAN LISTING OVERALL INSTALLATION DRAWING.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of January 2009 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.