Narrative:

I was working as a quality control inspector in receiving a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator that was received to us by a repair vendor; in this case it was the component manufacturer. This horizontal stabilizer trim actuator went through the initial receiving and review; performed by myself and after reviewing the documents and the time constraints; I passed the receiving process on to maintenance records who in turn reset the times; for the assembly and subassemblies as required and returned the receipt back to quality control receiving. 2 days later; a second inspector; mr. X; completed the inspection receipt and placed the assembly into stock. The error occurred when I incorrectly assumed that the component manufacturer who was also the repair vendor in this case; was an approved vendor for air carrier X and I assumed that because a carrier approved vendor returned the component to the manufacturer for repair; that the documentation was valid and the work was done by an approved source. This apparently was not the case; wherein the manufacturer of the component is not listed as an approved vendor for repairing this part. I am unaware of the circumstances as to how this error was revealed. I am not familiar with what action was taken regarding the installation of this component at this time. It is my understanding that the director of quality control is involved at this point. The event occurred because the component was probably required for that evening's scheduled maintenance and the receiving process can be long and complex at times; especially when other discrepancies often have to be corrected before a part can be received. Whether any of the above conditions existed at this time; I am not sure; but that is usually the case with these type components. I did; however; apparently accept the condition that the component was sent to an approved vendor for repair and that that vendor in turn sent it to the component manufacturer for further repair as acceptable for recertification. Although it seemed to be a given; I should have checked the approved vendor list for this receipt. If I had; I may have assumed the list to be incomplete because the manufacturer seemed to be an obvious acceptable source. At least the discrepancy would have been addressed sooner than now and the problem may have been corrected by now. Clearly a 100% vendor approval verification regardless of whether the part is supplied by the component manufacturer or is a common component on our aircraft. That would be the failsafe answer. The problem of having multiple certifications provided by the vendors due to the parts changing hands of various vendors before arriving to air carrier X for quality control final receiving; does make it difficult to determine which vendor is the actual source of the component prior to arriving into air carrier's hands. A single source document would prevent further confusion that could lead to similar mistakes like what happened in this case. Supplemental information from acn 816478: I inadvertently accepted a horizontal stabilizer trim actuator from our vendor at that was supplied to them by their sub-contractor manufacturer X. Manufacturer X is the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator's manufacturer and primary overhaul facility for the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator we use on the crj. Since the facility did not work on the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator; they provided no 8130 certification paperwork for the part. The only certification paperwork came from manufacturer X who performed the work and provided us with an easa form 1 attesting to the serviceability of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator provided to air carrier X. Vendor provided us with a packing slip and exchange confirmation for the part that was provided (horizontal stabilizer trim actuator was new to our system). The only difference between this horizontal stabilizer trim actuator and all other horizontal stabilizer trim actuators receivedthat have been worked on by manufacturer X is that our vendor did not provide us with an 8130 for the part in question. This horizontal stabilizer trim actuator is currently installed on aircraft X. The paperwork on file at the maintenance records center was reviewed by the FAA and they questioned as to why manufacturer X was not on our list of approved vendors. Currently; we are reviewing our policies and procedures to verify if receipt of the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator that I accepted was valid. If the receipt was not valid; it is my understanding that manufacturer X will be audited and added to our list of vendors in favor of our regular vendor for the repair of horizontal stabilizer trim actuators. Although this has not been formally classified as an event; I feel that it is in my best interest to get this information out in the open now. In march of 2008; it was my understanding that each of our primary vendors are required to audit or have their secondary-subcontract vendors audited to the standards required by air carrier X. Once that information has been obtained and documented; the secondary vendor is then authorized to perform maintenance on air carrier X's parts using the authority of the primary vendor. I was informed yesterday that because the secondary vendor is not on our list of approved vendors that my understanding may be invalid. Procedures manual 20-03 should be revised to reflect this subcontractor issue. Currently the vendor requirement manual and procedures manual are in conflict with one another. This needs to be fixed along with the status of manufacturer X as a vendor on our vendor list; if they are required to be there. If it is determined that my receipt was in error; then manufacturer X must be added to our vendor list. The consequences of not sorting out this issue will be the grounding of the entire crj fleet if this issue is not rectified soon. Please understand that we are in the middle of a product recall on the crj horizontal stabilizer trim actuators and we must do everything we can to ensure the crj horizontal stabilizer trim actuators are available for receipt into our system. Callback conversation with reporter acn 816478 revealed the following information: reporter stated the horizontal stabilizer trim actuator (hsta) for the crj-700's is currently on a product recall for leaking oil from the jackscrew gearbox case; apparently from the seals. The cause for the leaking oil is still being reviewed. The manufacturer of the jackscrew is also trying to determine if reported air locks in the oil reservoir of the jackscrew is contributing to the oil leaks; or is a separate issue that may also be affecting accurate reading of the oil level when using the oil sight gauge. Reporter stated they are opening the jackscrew oil servicing port to relieve any possible air lock; in order to determine accurate jackscrew gear box oil level when using the external sight gauge. Access to the jackscrew compartment requires removal of a panel with numerous screws. Reporter stated the hsta in question was an exchange unit with a different serial number and not one of the jackscrews off of their own crj-700's with known serial numbers in their database.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: Two aircraft inspectors describe the confusion and complexity of performing Receiving Inspection documentation on a Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) for their CRJ-700 from an outside vendor; that also involved a secondary vendor.

Narrative: I was working as a Quality Control Inspector in receiving a Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator that was received to us by a repair vendor; in this case it was the component manufacturer. This Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator went through the initial receiving and review; performed by myself and after reviewing the documents and the time constraints; I passed the receiving process on to Maintenance Records who in turn reset the times; for the assembly and subassemblies as required and returned the receipt back to Quality Control Receiving. 2 days later; a second Inspector; Mr. X; completed the inspection receipt and placed the assembly into stock. The error occurred when I incorrectly assumed that the component manufacturer who was also the repair vendor in this case; was an approved vendor for Air Carrier X and I assumed that because a carrier approved vendor returned the component to the manufacturer for repair; that the documentation was valid and the work was done by an approved source. This apparently was not the case; wherein the manufacturer of the component is not listed as an approved vendor for repairing this part. I am unaware of the circumstances as to how this error was revealed. I am not familiar with what action was taken regarding the installation of this component at this time. It is my understanding that the Director of Quality Control is involved at this point. The event occurred because the component was probably required for that evening's scheduled maintenance and the receiving process can be long and complex at times; especially when other discrepancies often have to be corrected before a part can be received. Whether any of the above conditions existed at this time; I am not sure; but that is usually the case with these type components. I did; however; apparently accept the condition that the component was sent to an approved vendor for repair and that that vendor in turn sent it to the component manufacturer for further repair as acceptable for recertification. Although it seemed to be a given; I should have checked the approved vendor list for this receipt. If I had; I may have assumed the list to be incomplete because the manufacturer seemed to be an obvious acceptable source. At least the discrepancy would have been addressed sooner than now and the problem may have been corrected by now. Clearly a 100% vendor approval verification regardless of whether the part is supplied by the component manufacturer or is a common component on our aircraft. That would be the failsafe answer. The problem of having multiple certifications provided by the vendors due to the parts changing hands of various vendors before arriving to Air Carrier X for Quality Control final receiving; does make it difficult to determine which vendor is the actual source of the component prior to arriving into air carrier's hands. A single source document would prevent further confusion that could lead to similar mistakes like what happened in this case. Supplemental information from ACN 816478: I inadvertently accepted a Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator from our vendor at that was supplied to them by their sub-contractor manufacturer X. Manufacturer X is the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator's manufacturer and primary overhaul facility for the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator we use on the CRJ. Since the facility did not work on the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator; they provided no 8130 certification paperwork for the part. The only certification paperwork came from Manufacturer X who performed the work and provided us with an EASA Form 1 attesting to the serviceability of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator provided to Air Carrier X. Vendor provided us with a packing slip and exchange confirmation for the part that was provided (Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator was new to our system). The only difference between this Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator and all other Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuators receivedthat have been worked on by Manufacturer X is that our vendor did not provide us with an 8130 for the part in question. This Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator is currently installed on Aircraft X. The paperwork on file at the Maintenance Records Center was reviewed by the FAA and they questioned as to why Manufacturer X was not on our list of approved vendors. Currently; we are reviewing our policies and procedures to verify if receipt of the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator that I accepted was valid. If the receipt was not valid; it is my understanding that Manufacturer X will be audited and added to our list of vendors in favor of our regular vendor for the repair of Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuators. Although this has not been formally classified as an event; I feel that it is in my best interest to get this information out in the open now. In March of 2008; it was my understanding that each of our primary vendors are required to audit or have their secondary-subcontract vendors audited to the standards required by Air Carrier X. Once that information has been obtained and documented; the secondary vendor is then authorized to perform maintenance on Air Carrier X's parts using the authority of the primary vendor. I was informed yesterday that because the secondary vendor is not on our list of approved vendors that my understanding may be invalid. Procedures Manual 20-03 should be revised to reflect this subcontractor issue. Currently the Vendor Requirement Manual and Procedures Manual are in conflict with one another. This needs to be fixed along with the status of Manufacturer X as a vendor on our vendor list; if they are required to be there. If it is determined that my receipt was in error; then Manufacturer X must be added to our vendor list. The consequences of not sorting out this issue will be the grounding of the entire CRJ fleet if this issue is not rectified soon. Please understand that we are in the middle of a product recall on the CRJ Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuators and we must do everything we can to ensure the CRJ Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuators are available for receipt into our system. Callback conversation with reporter ACN 816478 revealed the following information: Reporter stated the Horizontal Stabilizer Trim Actuator (HSTA) for the CRJ-700's is currently on a product recall for leaking oil from the jackscrew gearbox case; apparently from the seals. The cause for the leaking oil is still being reviewed. The manufacturer of the jackscrew is also trying to determine if reported air locks in the oil reservoir of the jackscrew is contributing to the oil leaks; or is a separate issue that may also be affecting accurate reading of the oil level when using the oil sight gauge. Reporter stated they are opening the jackscrew oil servicing port to relieve any possible air lock; in order to determine accurate jackscrew gear box oil level when using the external sight gauge. Access to the jackscrew compartment requires removal of a panel with numerous screws. Reporter stated the HSTA in question was an exchange unit with a different serial number and not one of the jackscrews off of their own CRJ-700's with known serial numbers in their database.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of May 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.