Narrative:

Installation of incorrect part number APU battery on aircraft. Shortly after beginning my shift; I was instructed by the supervisor to replace the APU battery (for time). I was told by the supervisor that the battery was on the counter in stores. I went to get the battery from stores and was informed by mr. X that he was unable to issue the battery. I then took the battery and yellow tag from stores. I referenced the 2 part numbers on the task card and noted that the battery in my possession did not match either of the part numbers. I began to address the effectivity of the APU battery part numbers by consulting (individually) with the quality control inspector who had just received the battery and the accessory shop technician who had just worked on the battery. Both informed me; definitively; that the battery was effective for the CRJ900 aircraft. After having received confirmation that the battery was effective; I completed the task card assigned. As soon as the aircraft arrived at the gate; I replaced the APU battery with the correct part number unit in accordance with the task card and returned the aircraft to service. Supplemental information from acn 820245: I am not sure when or how this problem was found -- only that a CRJ200 APU battery found its way to a CRJ900 aircraft. My supervisor informed me by phone. There were 2 identical looking APU batteries in the stores room; 2 different part numbers. I picked up the paperwork and verified the part number and serial number of one battery starting the receiving process. The battery was received in accordance with engineering order #X which is the correct build specification for the part number. I will mention that I got to the build specification via the CRJ900 icon in the computer. I read the title description; but did not notice the very top line that stated 'CRJ200 engineering order X.' during the receiving process; I did not include the phrase 'not effective for aircraft X and aircraft Y' in the remarks column on the parts tag. This was an oversight of mine. I had noticed on the in-house work order that the build specification referenced was that of the CRJ900 APU battery I had received the night before; but not the correct build specification for the part number I was working with. I called mr. Y in the shop and explained my issue. He then came over and assured me that the build specification reference was just a clerical mistake and corrected his mistake. Although this was a clerical error; he went to further assure me that I was indeed working with a CRJ900 APU battery. I finished receiving the battery and turned it over to stores to issue out. After a short period of time; I was called once again; with mrs. Z saying that stores had a problem issuing the battery to the aircraft. Mrs. Z told me that the part number was not on the task card for remove/install of a CRJ900 APU battery. I then told her that the second battery in receiving inspection was the same part number that was on her task card and that I would receive that battery to alleviate any discrepancy in part number. At this time I did not make the connection that this battery may not be effective for the 900. I only knew that the part number she needed was not the same I received. I did receive the second battery and once again turned it over to stores to issue and I told mrs. Z that it was in stock awaiting her. This is when my part in this event ended. Several things could be done. In the description block of the parts tag could read crj-200 APU battery. When accessing build specifications from the computer and using a specific aircraft type icon; i.e.; crj-900 engineering order; only build specifications effective for that airframe will be viewed. When receiving/issuing the battery in the computerized parts inventory system; you could include a 'CRJ200 aircraft serial number specific only.' because the APU batteries for both aircraft types look identical; you could add a note to the build specification

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A mechanic and Maintenance Inspector report on the events that contributed to a CRJ-200 APU battery being installed in a CRJ-900.

Narrative: Installation of incorrect part number APU battery on aircraft. Shortly after beginning my shift; I was instructed by the Supervisor to replace the APU battery (for time). I was told by the Supervisor that the battery was on the counter in stores. I went to get the battery from Stores and was informed by Mr. X that he was unable to issue the battery. I then took the battery and yellow tag from Stores. I referenced the 2 part numbers on the task card and noted that the battery in my possession did not match either of the part numbers. I began to address the effectivity of the APU battery part numbers by consulting (individually) with the Quality Control Inspector who had just received the battery and the Accessory Shop Technician who had just worked on the battery. Both informed me; definitively; that the battery was effective for the CRJ900 aircraft. After having received confirmation that the battery was effective; I completed the task card assigned. As soon as the aircraft arrived at the gate; I replaced the APU battery with the correct part number unit in accordance with the task card and returned the aircraft to service. Supplemental information from ACN 820245: I am not sure when or how this problem was found -- only that a CRJ200 APU battery found its way to a CRJ900 aircraft. My Supervisor informed me by phone. There were 2 identical looking APU batteries in the Stores room; 2 different part numbers. I picked up the paperwork and verified the part number and serial number of one battery starting the receiving process. The battery was received in accordance with Engineering Order #X which is the correct Build Specification for the part number. I will mention that I got to the Build Specification via the CRJ900 icon in the computer. I read the title description; but did not notice the very top line that stated 'CRJ200 Engineering Order X.' During the receiving process; I did not include the phrase 'Not effective for Aircraft X and Aircraft Y' in the remarks column on the parts tag. This was an oversight of mine. I had noticed on the in-house work order that the build specification referenced was that of the CRJ900 APU battery I had received the night before; but not the correct Build Specification for the part number I was working with. I called Mr. Y in the shop and explained my issue. He then came over and assured me that the Build Specification reference was just a clerical mistake and corrected his mistake. Although this was a clerical error; he went to further assure me that I was indeed working with a CRJ900 APU battery. I finished receiving the battery and turned it over to Stores to issue out. After a short period of time; I was called once again; with Mrs. Z saying that Stores had a problem issuing the battery to the aircraft. Mrs. Z told me that the part number was not on the task card for remove/install of a CRJ900 APU battery. I then told her that the second battery in receiving inspection was the same part number that was on her task card and that I would receive that battery to alleviate any discrepancy in part number. At this time I did not make the connection that this battery may not be effective for the 900. I only knew that the part number she needed was not the same I received. I did receive the second battery and once again turned it over to Stores to issue and I told Mrs. Z that it was in stock awaiting her. This is when my part in this event ended. Several things could be done. In the description block of the parts tag could read CRJ-200 APU battery. When accessing Build Specifications from the computer and using a specific aircraft type icon; i.e.; CRJ-900 Engineering Order; only Build Specifications effective for that airframe will be viewed. When receiving/issuing the battery in the computerized parts inventory system; you could include a 'CRJ200 aircraft serial number specific only.' Because the APU batteries for both aircraft types look identical; you could add a note to the Build Specification

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of April 2012 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.