Narrative:

Monday sometime in the early morning hours (unsure of the exact time; as I had been sound asleep at home) engineer called to advise of ZZZ having found damage on (1) hpt -2 blade on aircraft nxxx in excess of amm limits and an engine change would be required. Upon arrival at work on monday I found an email message containing photos of the damaged hpt -2 blade. The email had been sent by production supervisor ZZZ. After reviewing the photos I reviewed the B767 amm for possible 'continue in service' limits for this condition. I found where the amm allowed the condition for up to 10 flight cycles. I immediately contacted the maintenance control and advised of these 'fly-back' limits. ZZZ maintenance was immediately contacted; the engine change was postponed and the aircraft was returned to service. At a routine conference call with CF6 engineering and production; we discussed the condition in length and agreed; based on the blade condition; that we should seek approval from ge aircraft engines to operate the engine for up to 50 cycles prior to removing the engine. Tuesday; again I was contacted at home and awakened in the early morning hours by engineer. She had someone on the telephone from ZZZ (I did not get the name). This individual was stating that the 'continue in service' limits applied only to post ge sib 72-910 blades. I told them that I would investigate further first thing tuesday morning when I arrived at work and would issue the appropriate paperwork as necessary as we were already pursuing additional time with ge. When I arrived at work on tuesday; I immediately checked and discovered that the amm; in fact; stated the limit only to post ge sib 72-910 blades. Again; I met with other members of CF6 power-plant engineering and production team and we all agreed that; though not stated; this blade could continue without causing any adverse effects on engine operational performance. We also agreed to continue pursuit of ge approval to continue operating this engine for up to 50 flight cycles. Since we had overlooked this statement in the amm; I contacted engineering and authority/authorized a release to operate the engine for 10 cycles with the possibility of extending to 50 cycles pending ge approval. Release was issued and a message was sent to ZZZ. I was advised via email that ge would be approving the request for the 50 cycles of operation.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B767 ACFT WITH GE CF-6 ENGS WAS RELEASED FOR SVC WITH LIMITED FLT CYCLES DUE TO A DAMAGED APT-2 BLADE. THE CONTINUE IN SVC LIMITS RELEASE DOCUMENT USED HOWEVER; WAS FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TURBINE BLADE.

Narrative: MONDAY SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HRS (UNSURE OF THE EXACT TIME; AS I HAD BEEN SOUND ASLEEP AT HOME) ENGINEER CALLED TO ADVISE OF ZZZ HAVING FOUND DAMAGE ON (1) HPT -2 BLADE ON ACFT NXXX IN EXCESS OF AMM LIMITS AND AN ENG CHANGE WOULD BE REQUIRED. UPON ARR AT WORK ON MONDAY I FOUND AN EMAIL MESSAGE CONTAINING PHOTOS OF THE DAMAGED HPT -2 BLADE. THE EMAIL HAD BEEN SENT BY PRODUCTION SUPVR ZZZ. AFTER REVIEWING THE PHOTOS I REVIEWED THE B767 AMM FOR POSSIBLE 'CONTINUE IN SVC' LIMITS FOR THIS CONDITION. I FOUND WHERE THE AMM ALLOWED THE CONDITION FOR UP TO 10 FLT CYCLES. I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE MAINT CTL AND ADVISED OF THESE 'FLY-BACK' LIMITS. ZZZ MAINT WAS IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED; THE ENG CHANGE WAS POSTPONED AND THE ACFT WAS RETURNED TO SVC. AT A ROUTINE CONFERENCE CALL WITH CF6 ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION; WE DISCUSSED THE CONDITION IN LENGTH AND AGREED; BASED ON THE BLADE CONDITION; THAT WE SHOULD SEEK APPROVAL FROM GE ACFT ENGS TO OPERATE THE ENG FOR UP TO 50 CYCLES PRIOR TO REMOVING THE ENG. TUESDAY; AGAIN I WAS CONTACTED AT HOME AND AWAKENED IN THE EARLY MORNING HRS BY ENGINEER. SHE HAD SOMEONE ON THE TELEPHONE FROM ZZZ (I DID NOT GET THE NAME). THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS STATING THAT THE 'CONTINUE IN SVC' LIMITS APPLIED ONLY TO POST GE SIB 72-910 BLADES. I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD INVESTIGATE FURTHER FIRST THING TUESDAY MORNING WHEN I ARRIVED AT WORK AND WOULD ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK AS NECESSARY AS WE WERE ALREADY PURSUING ADDITIONAL TIME WITH GE. WHEN I ARRIVED AT WORK ON TUESDAY; I IMMEDIATELY CHKED AND DISCOVERED THAT THE AMM; IN FACT; STATED THE LIMIT ONLY TO POST GE SIB 72-910 BLADES. AGAIN; I MET WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF CF6 PWR-PLANT ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION TEAM AND WE ALL AGREED THAT; THOUGH NOT STATED; THIS BLADE COULD CONTINUE WITHOUT CAUSING ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON ENG OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE. WE ALSO AGREED TO CONTINUE PURSUIT OF GE APPROVAL TO CONTINUE OPERATING THIS ENG FOR UP TO 50 FLT CYCLES. SINCE WE HAD OVERLOOKED THIS STATEMENT IN THE AMM; I CONTACTED ENGINEERING AND AUTH A RELEASE TO OPERATE THE ENG FOR 10 CYCLES WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING TO 50 CYCLES PENDING GE APPROVAL. RELEASE WAS ISSUED AND A MESSAGE WAS SENT TO ZZZ. I WAS ADVISED VIA EMAIL THAT GE WOULD BE APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR THE 50 CYCLES OF OP.

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.