Narrative:

Mechanic Y created a maintenance write-up item in the logbook [requiring a verification check for condition prior to flight]; to defer the #2 engine abradable liner that had damage located from the two to three o'clock position [on the fan case inner surface]. After initial review of the deferral; I felt that it lacked detailed information concerning the damage specified. I then called maintenance and spoke with mechanic Y concerning the lack of information on the deferral. He informed me that he had been in conversation with engineer X and then explained to me the extent of the damaged area (crater damage 13.5' x 3.5') inches. I was initially concerned that the damaged area was not within limits; but during our conversation he reiterated the fact that engineer X informed him the damage fell within the 'over serviceable-limit extensions' in accordance with (in accordance with) the aircraft maintenance manual (amm) 72-00-00-200 due to the fact that the damaged areas length was [less than] <5 x it's width. Mechanic Y at that point updated the deferral with a detailed description of the damage and I reviewed the deferral using the 'over serviceable-limit extension' reference with the understanding that the 'over serviceable-limit extension' was concerned more with the size of the area (length <5x width) than the overall length and width; due to input received from engineer X. But within that task was a statement 'if the damage is within the maximum serviceable limit in accordance with amm 72-23-00-210 a width greater than 2.5' inches is considered the maximum width allowed and under the remarks area refers back to the 'over serviceable-limit extension'. It was found that the 'over serviceable limit extension' in accordance with amm 72-00-00-200 was not an appropriate deferral due to the fact that the damaged area was greater than 2.5' inches in width.I was informed by maintenance control management. The amm limits were misinterpreted due to differing opinions on how the information was evaluated. The aircraft was taken out of service and #2 engine was removed and replaced. Be more vigilant in reading and interpreting the aircrafts maintenance manuals (amm) without the influence of others.

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A Maintenance Controller and Line Mechanic describe the order of finding; researching and decision making used to defer a damaged abradable liner that was 'out of limits' on the #2 engine fan case inlet on an A319 aircraft.

Narrative: Mechanic Y created a Maintenance write-up item in the logbook [requiring a verification Check for condition prior to flight]; to defer the #2 Engine abradable liner that had damage located from the two to three o'clock position [on the Fan Case inner surface]. After initial review of the deferral; I felt that it lacked detailed information concerning the damage specified. I then called Maintenance and spoke with Mechanic Y concerning the lack of information on the deferral. He informed me that he had been in conversation with Engineer X and then explained to me the extent of the damaged area (crater damage 13.5' x 3.5') inches. I was initially concerned that the damaged area was not within limits; but during our conversation he reiterated the fact that Engineer X informed him the damage fell within the 'Over Serviceable-Limit Extensions' In Accordance With (IAW) the Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 72-00-00-200 due to the fact that the damaged areas length was [less than] <5 x it's width. Mechanic Y at that point updated the deferral with a detailed description of the damage and I reviewed the deferral using the 'Over Serviceable-Limit Extension' reference with the understanding that the 'Over Serviceable-Limit Extension' was concerned more with the size of the area (length <5x width) than the overall length and width; due to input received from Engineer X. But within that task was a statement 'If the damage is within the maximum serviceable limit IAW AMM 72-23-00-210 a width greater than 2.5' inches is considered the maximum width allowed and under the remarks area refers back to the 'Over Serviceable-Limit Extension'. It was found that the 'Over Serviceable Limit Extension' IAW AMM 72-00-00-200 was not an appropriate deferral due to the fact that the damaged area was greater than 2.5' inches in width.I was informed by Maintenance Control Management. The AMM limits were misinterpreted due to differing opinions on how the information was evaluated. The aircraft was taken out of service and #2 Engine was removed and replaced. Be more vigilant in reading and interpreting the Aircrafts Maintenance Manuals (AMM) without the influence of others.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2013 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.