Narrative:

April 2009. As a lead aircraft maintenance technician (amt); a B767-300ER in my work area. The aircraft had a discrepancy for the left VOR bearing flag in view on both rdmis. I assigned an amt to remove and install the left VOR receiver. I first pulled up the amm 34-51-01 to review the remove and install procedures for the VOR receiver. I then pulled up illustrative parts catalog (ipc); ipc 34-51-01-01 to order VOR receiver. I located part numbers that were effective for aircraft number using ipc effectivity filter. I called parts department with parts information. Ipc item 80U P/north 822-0297-001 recalling was not in stock. Ipc item 80L P/north 622-5220-103 was in stock and was effective for the B767-300. It cross-referenced under optional parts with P/north 822-0297-001. I then ordered part for aircraft. I instructed amt to install P/north 622-5220-103 and verbally told amt the part is effective per ipc. Amt completed task. The aircraft was dispatched. Two days later; the same B767-300 was in my work area again. In the work package paperwork a maintenance job card was installed to replace left VOR receiver due to incorrect P/north for aircraft. I called maintenance control center to inquire about this setup. I wanted to find out why this P/north is incorrect. I was told P/north 622-5220-103 receiver does not meet ICAO annex 10 FM immunity standards; which is a requirement for certain european routes. The aircraft could fly domestic us and south america and be an effective part. Before this; I had no knowledge of these FM standards. I went back to ipc 34-51-01-01 item 80L. I found additional information under miscellaneous data; stating 'P/north 622-5220-103 is fully interchangeable and intermixable with 822-0297-001 if FM immunity standards are not required. Contact technical support if 622-5220-103 is installed on any of these aircraft.' the aircraft are required to be restricted from certain routes; where compliance with FM immunity standards is required per our engineering revision authorization (era). On that day; on the computer screen; I focused on P/north and effectivity along with optional parts data. Seeing that the P/north was effective for B767-300; part was installed. I did not fully interpret the miscellaneous data in ipc that prevented the part from being effective. In review of my actions; the maintenance manual did not reference a parts precaution for FM immunity; in the form of a caution note in 34-51-01 instructions. In conjunction with amm; the verbiage in ipc section 34-51-01-01; did not trigger in my mind to focus on the miscellaneous data statement as a primary source to approve part effectivity. I feel if a statement is placed directly under the first line stated in bold print; 'part not for use on european routes'; this would have prevented me from accepting this part as effective and not installing part. Also adding notes to maintenance manual with a reminder about FM immunity parts information would help prevent parts clarification issues. I complied with maintenance job card and installed new P/north 822-0297-001; left VOR receiver per amm.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Lead Mechanic reports on the lack of an appropriately placed 'Caution Note' in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) and the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) indicating the left VOR he installed on a B767-300; was not for use on European routes. Certain aircraft are restricted because VOR receiver does not meet ICAO Annex 10 FM immunity standards.

Narrative: April 2009. As a Lead Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT); a B767-300ER in my work area. The aircraft had a discrepancy for the left VOR bearing flag in view on both RDMIs. I assigned an AMT to remove and install the left VOR receiver. I first pulled up the AMM 34-51-01 to review the remove and install procedures for the VOR receiver. I then pulled up Illustrative Parts Catalog (IPC); IPC 34-51-01-01 to order VOR receiver. I located part numbers that were effective for aircraft number using IPC effectivity filter. I called parts department with parts information. IPC item 80U P/N 822-0297-001 recalling was not in stock. IPC item 80L P/N 622-5220-103 was in stock and was effective for the B767-300. It cross-referenced under optional parts with P/N 822-0297-001. I then ordered part for aircraft. I instructed AMT to install P/N 622-5220-103 and verbally told AMT the part is effective per IPC. AMT completed task. The aircraft was dispatched. Two days later; the same B767-300 was in my work area again. In the work package paperwork a maintenance job card was installed to replace left VOR receiver due to incorrect P/N for aircraft. I called Maintenance Control center to inquire about this setup. I wanted to find out why this P/N is incorrect. I was told P/N 622-5220-103 receiver does not meet ICAO Annex 10 FM immunity standards; which is a requirement for certain European routes. The aircraft could fly domestic US and South America and be an effective part. Before this; I had no knowledge of these FM standards. I went back to IPC 34-51-01-01 item 80L. I found additional information under miscellaneous data; stating 'P/N 622-5220-103 is fully interchangeable and intermixable with 822-0297-001 if FM immunity standards are not required. Contact technical support if 622-5220-103 is installed on any of these aircraft.' The aircraft are required to be restricted from certain routes; where compliance with FM immunity standards is required per our Engineering Revision Authorization (ERA). On that day; on the computer screen; I focused on P/N and effectivity along with optional parts data. Seeing that the P/N was effective for B767-300; part was installed. I did not fully interpret the miscellaneous data in IPC that prevented the part from being effective. In review of my actions; the maintenance manual did not reference a parts precaution for FM immunity; in the form of a caution note in 34-51-01 instructions. In conjunction with AMM; the verbiage in IPC section 34-51-01-01; did not trigger in my mind to focus on the miscellaneous data statement as a primary source to approve part effectivity. I feel if a statement is placed directly under the first line stated in bold print; 'PART NOT FOR USE ON EUROPEAN ROUTES'; this would have prevented me from accepting this part as effective and not installing part. Also adding notes to maintenance manual with a reminder about FM immunity parts information would help prevent parts clarification issues. I complied with maintenance job card and installed new P/N 822-0297-001; left VOR receiver per AMM.

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.