Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported pressure from Maintenance Control department to install incorrect part onto airplane.
Synopsis
Aircraft Maintenance Technician reported pressure from Maintenance Control department to install incorrect part onto airplane.
Narrative
ZZZ Maintenance facility received main cabin door steps for a BeechJet 400XP. Prior to installing the steps on the aircraft the technician verified part number in the manufactures Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC). It was found that the part number received was not effective for our serial number of aircraft. The technician notified maintenance control of this discrepancy in hopes that they had documentation from the manufacturer stating we could use the part number received. Maintenance control told the technician that we are allowed to use all the part numbers of stairs in the IPC no matter the effectivity. They could not provide any documentation showing this from the manufacturer. After phone calls from the manufacturer they stated they did not have any documentation showing all stairs were applicable to all serial number of aircraft. Maintenance control continued to try and pressure the technician into making a bad decision and install the stairs on the aircraft without documentation because they said and I quote 'We have been doing it like that for years.' This creates a bad culture; an unsafe aircraft condition and noncompliance with the manufacturer manual.Encourage maintenance control to comply with the manufacturer maintenance manual at all cost.
Second reporter narrative
BeechJet 400XP was in for routine/ non-routine maintenance at ZZZ. A set of air-stair- stairs were to be replaced and a lead maintenance noticed the Parts Number (PN) on the manual did not appear in the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) Quality Control was alerted. I contacted Person A and was told to contact the Person B and another person. The answer was the following from Maintenance Controller. 'The IPC doesn't list an effectivity code for these stairs. They are approved for all 400 series aircraft. ' A maintenance lead and I challenged that answer and asked for something in writing that states we can install them on the aircraft. I responded with: 'We can't force the installer to sign the release for this event. If; the end user which determines airworthiness of a part (mechanic) discovers a conflict in traceability and proper identification of the part he's doing the right thing no matter the component.'The manual is a document that provides the installer data to determine airworthiness; in this case the installer has conflicting data.' I/ we received the following answer from Maintenance Controller.' I'm done with this... rob the stair assembly or whatever parts need from Aircraft Y and get us a Color X aircraft please! 'Upon inspecting the stairs on the other aircraft (donor) before removal the PN was checked. It was discovered the effectivity is incorrect for the installation on the other aircraft.Maintenance and Quality Control both were assertive with Maintenance Controller; and did not install the stairs that were to be removed and installed on the original aircraft. We still had the effectivity issue.In the meantime; Quality Control and Maintenance at ZZZ started email chains with Company explaining the issue. Maintenance and Quality Control were looking for a solution not engaging in a back and forth.I; being involved in this issue began to gather information from individuals on the floor. A conversation took place between Maintenance Controller and a maintenance lead. Paraphrasing the leads words: [Instead of finding a solution they (Maintenance Controller) became more and more agitated to the point it was bordering on a threat; it was very uncomfortable. They said we're just making stuff up cuz we don't want to fix it.Keeping this short as possible the result was an inspector in ZZZ contacted Company and sorted out the effectivity and the correct assembly that appears in the IPC was shipped and installed.My over all concern is we are creating a hazard an opportunity for a safety escape. A quick example: a young mechanic and or an unassertive one feels the pressure installs an incorrect part or something of that nature because Maintenance Controller is 'demanding it be done'. The next time it could be a navigation download or incorrect push rod for a trim tab we must address this issue. Company must update their IPC for the 400 which is the root cause for this entire situation.Mechanics and pilots have a symbiotic relationship with one goal; preserving human life; by providing a safe product. Maintenance Controller must be trained/ counseled covering what authority they have and do not. Maintenance Controller does not have the final say; nor are in any position to demand anything that is obviously outside of FAR's; company manuals and Policy.Young mechanics need to be educated on the exact role of Maintenance Controller and understand their direction and leadership come from the Maintenance manager; production managers and leads not Maintenance Controller. Maintenance Controller does not make airworthy decisions for anyone; the techs; leads; and pilots make that decision. Maintenance Controller does however; release the aircraft back into service. However; that release is 100% predicated on the signatures; paperwork; and final determination of airworthiness completed by maintenance and Quality Control pilots.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.