Narrative:

Aircraft came in with a placard on the lower display unit. I went out to try to repair the aircraft. I found that the display unit was not in stock at this station. To verify that the display unit was the cause of the malfunction; I swapped the upper and lower display units. I then returned the display units to their original positions. I did not comply with a test 30 as required by aircraft maintenance manual 31-63-01. It was an oversight on my part. I then went into the zone and asked the lead to get a deferral on this log page. He did so and also completed the log page. The part was replaced after the next flight and test 30 was complied with. Supplemental information from acn 820716: I helped do the deferral for the lower display unit; which was on a placard when the aircraft arrived. The part was not in stock. Part number needed was XXX display unit -- the part had been swapped for troubleshooting with the upper display unit by avionics technician. A test 30 should have been performed but was inadvertently missed. Callback conversation with reporter acn 820716 revealed the following information: reporter stated the test-30 procedure was required because the avionic's technician had broken into the EICAS system when the upper and lower EICAS display units were swapped for troubleshooting purposes. The deferral of the lower EICAS was appropriate; but the B767-400 CAT-2 and CAT-3 status should also have been downgraded prior to departure. Had the test-30 been performed; the downgrading of the CAT-2 and CAT-3 status would not have been required.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Mechanic and Lead Mechanic describe their involvement with the dispatching of a B767-400 aircraft without performing a required CAT-2 and CAT-3 test procedure after swapping the upper and lower EICAS Display Units.

Narrative: Aircraft came in with a placard on the lower display unit. I went out to try to repair the aircraft. I found that the display unit was not in stock at this station. To verify that the display unit was the cause of the malfunction; I swapped the upper and lower display units. I then returned the display units to their original positions. I did not comply with a Test 30 as required by Aircraft Maintenance Manual 31-63-01. It was an oversight on my part. I then went into the zone and asked the Lead to get a deferral on this log page. He did so and also completed the log page. The part was replaced after the next flight and Test 30 was complied with. Supplemental information from ACN 820716: I helped do the deferral for the lower display unit; which was on a placard when the aircraft arrived. The part was not in stock. Part number needed was XXX display unit -- the part had been swapped for troubleshooting with the upper display unit by Avionics Technician. A Test 30 should have been performed but was inadvertently missed. Callback conversation with Reporter ACN 820716 revealed the following information: Reporter stated the Test-30 procedure was required because the Avionic's Technician had broken into the EICAS system when the upper and lower EICAS display units were swapped for troubleshooting purposes. The deferral of the lower EICAS was appropriate; but the B767-400 CAT-2 and CAT-3 status should also have been downgraded prior to departure. Had the Test-30 been performed; the downgrading of the CAT-2 and CAT-3 status would not have been required.

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.