Narrative:

I am an engine inspector and it was brought to my attention that there were two each 9th stage high pressure compressor (hpc) vanes that had some damage on the concave side. I looked up the specifications and it referred me to the component parts manual that said nicks and dents up to 0.002 inches deep were serviceable. These were deeper than that and it looked like someone had tried to blend the damage and in doing so removed the protective coating on the vane. The engine inspection paperwork stated that no coating was allowed to be missing. I made a write-up stating the facts and when I returned to work on the next shift it was signed-off by another inspector on dayshift and an engineer using the [engine] module level engine inspection paperwork instead of the component parts manual inspection paperwork. The [engine] module level engine inspection paperwork states that parts removed from the module (physically separated) during the course of repair must be inspected to the serviceability inspection limits specified in the component parts manual inspection documents. These vanes were zero-time vanes; overhauled at the vendor and damaged during installation somehow and should be inspected per the component parts inspection paperwork. I also noticed that the dents I had written-up were blended without any documentation. I made another write-up and did hold the vanes 'out of service'; stating that the vanes still had missing coating which is required per the component parts inspection specifications and that the [engine] module level inspection paperwork directs you to the component parts manual inspection procedure. Again; the engineer wrote that it was ok to use the module level engine inspection paperwork and the discrepancy is authorized per ZZZ's engineering procedure and stamped-off by a dayshift inspector and his supervisor. The engine module has since been made serviceable and released for continued build-up.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: An Engine Inspector reported finding damaged 9th Stage High Pressure Compressor (HPC) vanes that were beyond serviceable limits and missing the required protective coating on the PW-2000 vanes. He later discovers the damage was reworked; but not documented; and company Engineering authorized ignoring the inspection requirements.

Narrative: I am an Engine Inspector and it was brought to my attention that there were two each 9th Stage High Pressure Compressor (HPC) vanes that had some damage on the concave side. I looked up the specifications and it referred me to the Component Parts Manual that said nicks and dents up to 0.002 inches deep were serviceable. These were deeper than that and it looked like someone had tried to blend the damage and in doing so removed the protective coating on the vane. The Engine Inspection paperwork stated that no coating was allowed to be missing. I made a write-up stating the facts and when I returned to work on the next shift it was signed-off by another Inspector on dayshift and an Engineer using the [engine] module level Engine Inspection paperwork instead of the Component Parts Manual Inspection paperwork. The [engine] module level Engine Inspection paperwork states that parts removed from the module (physically separated) during the course of repair must be inspected to the Serviceability Inspection Limits specified in the Component Parts Manual Inspection documents. These vanes were Zero-Time vanes; overhauled at the Vendor and damaged during installation somehow and should be inspected per the Component Parts Inspection paperwork. I also noticed that the dents I had written-up were blended without any documentation. I made another write-up and did hold the vanes 'Out of Service'; stating that the vanes still had missing coating which is required per the Component Parts Inspection specifications and that the [engine] module level Inspection paperwork directs you to the Component Parts Manual Inspection procedure. Again; the Engineer wrote that it was OK to use the module level Engine Inspection paperwork and the discrepancy is authorized per ZZZ's Engineering Procedure and stamped-off by a dayshift Inspector and his Supervisor. The engine module has since been made Serviceable and Released for continued build-up.

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.