<< >> NASA ASRS Report 667362, July 2005

A B737-300 was dispatched with the incorrect remote electronics unit installed due to failure to check effectivity of part number.

Attributes
ACN	667362
Time
Date	200507
Local Time Of Day	0001 To 0600
Place
Locale Reference	airport : zzz.airport
State Reference	US
Altitude	agl single value : 0
Aircraft 1
Operator	common carrier : air carrier
Make Model Name	B737-300
Operating Under FAR Part	Part 121
Flight Phase	ground : maintenance
Person 1
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician
Qualification	technician : airframe technician : powerplant
ASRS Report	667362
Person 2
Affiliation	company : air carrier
Function	maintenance : technician
Events
Anomaly	aircraft equipment problem : critical maintenance problem : improper documentation maintenance problem : improper maintenance non adherence : far non adherence : published procedure
Independent Detector	other other : 3
Resolutory Action	none taken : detected after the fact
Factors
Maintenance	contributing factor : schedule pressure performance deficiency : inspection performance deficiency : installation performance deficiency : logbook entry performance deficiency : non compliance with legal requirements
Supplementary
Problem Areas	Environmental Factor Aircraft Maintenance Human Performance
Primary Problem	Maintenance Human Performance

Narrative:

Myself and another mechanic were assigned to work on aircraft. Aircraft came in with 2 logbook discrepancies. The first one was 'flight attendant interphone inoperative;' and the second one was 'first officer volume control panel inoperative -- will not switch from radio #2.' we both decided to change out the remote electronics unit. So my partner went back to stock room and came back with the remote electronics unit. He confirmed to me that he did check computer parts reference effectivity on it and it showed effective for aircraft. So I went on and right&right'ed the remote electronics unit and operations checked it. Operations check was normal and I signed off the discrepancies. As usual; I always doublechk computer parts reference effectivity on the part again; but this time I totally forgot about it.

Related reports:

• A B737-800 was dispatched in non compliance with a remote el...
• A fokker 100 was dispatched in non compliance with the aft e...
• A B737-300 was dispatched in non compliance with the incorre...
• An MD80 was dispatched in non compliance with a deferred lav...
• A B757-200 was dispatched with suspected inadequate cooling ...
• A B737-700 was dispatched in non compliance with the electro...

	Enter your search terms Submit search form
	Web www.37000feet.com

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 WAS DISPATCHED WITH THE INCORRECT REMOTE ELECTRONICS UNIT INSTALLED DUE TO FAILURE TO CHK EFFECTIVITY OF PART NUMBER.

Narrative: MYSELF AND ANOTHER MECH WERE ASSIGNED TO WORK ON ACFT. ACFT CAME IN WITH 2 LOGBOOK DISCREPANCIES. THE FIRST ONE WAS 'FLT ATTENDANT INTERPHONE INOP;' AND THE SECOND ONE WAS 'FO VOLUME CTL PANEL INOP -- WILL NOT SWITCH FROM RADIO #2.' WE BOTH DECIDED TO CHANGE OUT THE REMOTE ELECTRONICS UNIT. SO MY PARTNER WENT BACK TO STOCK ROOM AND CAME BACK WITH THE REMOTE ELECTRONICS UNIT. HE CONFIRMED TO ME THAT HE DID CHK COMPUTER PARTS REF EFFECTIVITY ON IT AND IT SHOWED EFFECTIVE FOR ACFT. SO I WENT ON AND R&R'ED THE REMOTE ELECTRONICS UNIT AND OPS CHKED IT. OPS CHK WAS NORMAL AND I SIGNED OFF THE DISCREPANCIES. AS USUAL; I ALWAYS DOUBLECHK COMPUTER PARTS REF EFFECTIVITY ON THE PART AGAIN; BUT THIS TIME I TOTALLY FORGOT ABOUT IT.

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.