Narrative:

Aircraft called for maintenance. They had a discrepancy on the left emergency window (cabin). Window had a leaky noise and the window was cracked. I proceeded to inspect the window. We pressurized the aircraft. No leak was noted and no crack on the window. I found delamination on the top of the window. I used the lead technician's computer; which gave me the wrong information because the computer revision was not up to date. Found a new revision that states; 'if damage extension is within 25% of area I surface; the transparency must be replaced within next 800 cycles.' the information from the old revision states; 'if damage extension is within 25% of the area I; continue in normal operations.' my information at the time I signed off the aircraft was the wrong revision.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN EMB140 LEFT EMER WINDOW WITH A RPTED LEAK AND CRACK WAS EVALUATED USING AN OUT-OF-DATE MAINT MANUAL PROC. WAS ALLOWED TO CONTINUE IN SVC WITH NO LIMITS.

Narrative: ACFT CALLED FOR MAINT. THEY HAD A DISCREPANCY ON THE L EMER WINDOW (CABIN). WINDOW HAD A LEAKY NOISE AND THE WINDOW WAS CRACKED. I PROCEEDED TO INSPECT THE WINDOW. WE PRESSURIZED THE ACFT. NO LEAK WAS NOTED AND NO CRACK ON THE WINDOW. I FOUND DELAMINATION ON THE TOP OF THE WINDOW. I USED THE LEAD TECHNICIAN'S COMPUTER; WHICH GAVE ME THE WRONG INFO BECAUSE THE COMPUTER REVISION WAS NOT UP TO DATE. FOUND A NEW REVISION THAT STATES; 'IF DAMAGE EXTENSION IS WITHIN 25% OF AREA I SURFACE; THE TRANSPARENCY MUST BE REPLACED WITHIN NEXT 800 CYCLES.' THE INFO FROM THE OLD REVISION STATES; 'IF DAMAGE EXTENSION IS WITHIN 25% OF THE AREA I; CONTINUE IN NORMAL OPS.' MY INFO AT THE TIME I SIGNED OFF THE ACFT WAS THE WRONG REVISION.

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.