Narrative:

On jul/mon/06 I was assigned to work on a military aircraft. The job I was assigned to work was a boeing service bulletin to inspect/repair the left horizontal stabilizer rear spar attach pins. A non routine card was issued to comply with the service bulletin and a copy of the bulletin was provided for instructions to do the task. At some point; someone issued an air carrier X routine job instruction card to perform along with the non routine card; to comply with the boeing service bulletin. The job instruction card is what our air carrier uses to comply with the inspection/repair of the horizontal stabilizer attach pins. This job instruction card is marked as an airworthiness directive. After working several steps of the job instruction card; I noticed the part numbers of the replacement pins provided to comply with the service bulletin did not exactly match the part numbers called out in the job instruction card. The pin's base part number matched but the dash (-) numbers did not. To the best of my knowledge the pin part numbers did match the boeing service bulletin part numbers. I brought this to the attention of my foreman and the oncoming shift foreman. I also brought this to the attention of the bay manager. My foreman said he would look into it. The next day I checked with my foreman to find out how the job instruction card would be handled. He did not give me a definite answer. The following day; I asked to see the job instruction card and discovered the card was completed and signed off. There was a printed and signed note on the cards stating the work was completed in accordance with the service bulletin and referenced the non routine work card issued to comply with the service bulletin. I am concerned because the routine job instruction card is an airworthiness directive operation; and marked 'no substitutions or deviations allowed.' I am not sure this documentation is in compliance with FAA FARS and air carrier X maintenance program. I do not believe an airworthiness directive job instruction card can be referenced to another card for completion. To the best of my knowledge the part numbers of the pins installed do match the boeing service bulletin part numbers. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: the reporter stated the basic part number of the pins was correct but the dash numbers were different on the carrier's job card. The part numbers and the dash numbers were correct on the service bulletin. Since the carrier's job card was stamped as an airworthiness directive; the difference in dash numbers would make signing off for work accomplished on this card questionable. An airworthiness directive allows no substitution of data without engineering approval.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-700 HAD A SVC BULLETIN ON THE HORIZ STABILIZER REAR SPAR ATTACH PINS. JOB WAS WORKED WITH THE SVC BULLETIN AND ANOTHER CARRIER'S JOB CARD.

Narrative: ON JUL/MON/06 I WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK ON A MIL ACFT. THE JOB I WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK WAS A BOEING SVC BULLETIN TO INSPECT/REPAIR THE L HORIZ STABILIZER REAR SPAR ATTACH PINS. A NON ROUTINE CARD WAS ISSUED TO COMPLY WITH THE SVC BULLETIN AND A COPY OF THE BULLETIN WAS PROVIDED FOR INSTRUCTIONS TO DO THE TASK. AT SOME POINT; SOMEONE ISSUED AN ACR X ROUTINE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD TO PERFORM ALONG WITH THE NON ROUTINE CARD; TO COMPLY WITH THE BOEING SVC BULLETIN. THE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD IS WHAT OUR ACR USES TO COMPLY WITH THE INSPECTION/REPAIR OF THE HORIZ STABILIZER ATTACH PINS. THIS JOB INSTRUCTION CARD IS MARKED AS AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE. AFTER WORKING SEVERAL STEPS OF THE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD; I NOTICED THE PART NUMBERS OF THE REPLACEMENT PINS PROVIDED TO COMPLY WITH THE SVC BULLETIN DID NOT EXACTLY MATCH THE PART NUMBERS CALLED OUT IN THE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD. THE PIN'S BASE PART NUMBER MATCHED BUT THE DASH (-) NUMBERS DID NOT. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE PIN PART NUMBERS DID MATCH THE BOEING SVC BULLETIN PART NUMBERS. I BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTN OF MY FOREMAN AND THE ONCOMING SHIFT FOREMAN. I ALSO BROUGHT THIS TO THE ATTN OF THE BAY MGR. MY FOREMAN SAID HE WOULD LOOK INTO IT. THE NEXT DAY I CHKED WITH MY FOREMAN TO FIND OUT HOW THE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD WOULD BE HANDLED. HE DID NOT GIVE ME A DEFINITE ANSWER. THE FOLLOWING DAY; I ASKED TO SEE THE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD AND DISCOVERED THE CARD WAS COMPLETED AND SIGNED OFF. THERE WAS A PRINTED AND SIGNED NOTE ON THE CARDS STATING THE WORK WAS COMPLETED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SVC BULLETIN AND REFED THE NON ROUTINE WORK CARD ISSUED TO COMPLY WITH THE SVC BULLETIN. I AM CONCERNED BECAUSE THE ROUTINE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD IS AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE OP; AND MARKED 'NO SUBSTITUTIONS OR DEVS ALLOWED.' I AM NOT SURE THIS DOCUMENTATION IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH FAA FARS AND ACR X MAINT PROGRAM. I DO NOT BELIEVE AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE JOB INSTRUCTION CARD CAN BE REFED TO ANOTHER CARD FOR COMPLETION. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE THE PART NUMBERS OF THE PINS INSTALLED DO MATCH THE BOEING SVC BULLETIN PART NUMBERS. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE BASIC PART NUMBER OF THE PINS WAS CORRECT BUT THE DASH NUMBERS WERE DIFFERENT ON THE CARRIER'S JOB CARD. THE PART NUMBERS AND THE DASH NUMBERS WERE CORRECT ON THE SVC BULLETIN. SINCE THE CARRIER'S JOB CARD WAS STAMPED AS AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE; THE DIFFERENCE IN DASH NUMBERS WOULD MAKE SIGNING OFF FOR WORK ACCOMPLISHED ON THIS CARD QUESTIONABLE. AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE ALLOWS NO SUBSTITUTION OF DATA WITHOUT ENGINEERING APPROVAL.

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.