Technicians report incomplete documentation during creation of a Deferred Maintenance Entry in the log book. This was discovered and corrected by other Technicians.
Synopsis
Technicians report incomplete documentation during creation of a Deferred Maintenance Entry in the log book. This was discovered and corrected by other Technicians.
Narrative
Aircraft suffered damage to the cabin door from an impact strike by a jet bridge. Measurements were taken and assessment of the damage was given to Maintenance Control as the 2 areas of damage; Dent & Nicks; both were out of limits. Maintenance Control Controller was handling the event and sent the info to Embraer for determination. Sometime around XA00; Aircraft X was hooked up to be towed to a gate; as tow team was notified that the aircraft was ok for service and cleared to leave. I found out that someone was rushing the return to service due to other AOG (Aircraft On Ground) aircraft. I contacted Maintenance Control and was notified that the ETD was approved; the EO (Engineering Order) was in process and would be ready soon. My Quality Control and I printed out copies of the EO and ETD; went over it with the Controller and Maintenance Control Supervisor over the phone as he had provided screenshot of what the logbook should look like; due to multiple Deferred Maintenance Tasks (DMTs) for the dents and nicks to the door to make sure we were getting everything right in the book and was discussed that the 50FC (Flight Cycles) DMTs covered everything required. Quality Control and I agreed everything looked good and I entered all of the info of the logbook screenshots into the logbook and we signed the EO/ETD's. We missed the verbiage of step 6 for creating a 100FC DMT that was reoccurring.
Second reporter narrative
On Date; a Jet Bridge contacted the Main Cabin Door in ZZZ. Maintenance inspected the damage; and both areas were found to be out of limits. We submitted an E-Track to Embraer for repair conditions or a Fly-By period. Embraer wrote up an ETD for us; then with that we had to write an Engineering Order (EO). I have not had training in creating EOs and have never really dealt with them; and my Supervisor did not have the EO Software on the Maintenance Control Computer here in our office; so we asked Quality Control to write us the EO. Once it was sent to us; we reviewed it; wrote up Logbook examples of the deferrals for ZZZ Maintenance to fill out; and were getting ready to send ZZZ the EO.I had some confusion about a couple steps of the EO - for example the EO does not specifically mention the Nicks - so I discussed it with my Shift Supervisor. We went over the EO together and we came to an agreement on the way we were interpreting the EO deferrals. We sent the EO; ETD and the Logbook Examples to ZZZ for them to enter into the Logbook.We ended up missing 1 Deferred Maintenance Task (DMT) that had information supplied on step 6 of the EO for a 100 FC recurring Detailed Inspection. We mistakenly understood this to be optional; and we thought it was covered from the previous step 5 DMT for 50 Flight Cycles (FC) - to perform 1 of 3 nondestructive inspection (NDI) methods. We did not include this 100 FC DMT in the logbook; and subsequently this aircraft went to Quality Control 2 days later where this was noticed and brought to my attention.Another suggestion was made from Quality Control; is the EO could have been written differently - to state more clearly 'Create a DMT for 'these inspections' '; rather than stating 'Do a DET inspection' and having the block to sign.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.