Cessna Citation 700 technicians reported they were notified by management that the left engine was over serviced. The technicians stated they followed the maintenance manuals for servicing the engine oil.
Synopsis
Cessna Citation 700 technicians reported they were notified by management that the left engine was over serviced. The technicians stated they followed the maintenance manuals for servicing the engine oil.
Narrative
Aircraft X was just released for flight as I came into work. The tech on the previous shift serviced left hand engine with 1.5 qts of oil. Maintenance Control grounded the aircraft and put a write up that said lh (Left Hand) engine over serviced. I looked at the lh engines oil gauge and it was properly service. I questioned my supervisor why did they ground it? He replied that they have a new procedure that flags this particular engine for over servicing whenever 1.5 qt's of oil is added. I asked if they had any information on this program and Maintenance Control replied no. Maintenance Control told my supervisor that we were supposed to drain the oil out of the engine and service it to one qt low level. Another Maintenance Control fella describe a different way to service it. Long story short both of their ways were wrong and we would have to deviate from aircraft tech data. I took the plane outside and performed an idle run and checked the oil service to be at the proper level that the Honeywell mx (Maintenance) manual prescribes. Deviating from the manuals is a recipe for disaster. We as professional aircraft maintainers never act on verbal ways to conduct mx on any aircraft. We must always follow all the aircrafts tech data at all times. We can't compromise the safety of flight.Suggestions: Deviating from using aircraft mx manuals is not acceptable.
Second reporter narrative
Per company policy; I am reporting the following concerns related to the Aircraft X engine incident as communicated to me by my supervisor:Maintenance Control reported on a work order that the Aircraft X's engine was over-serviced. That report was false based on the Honeywell Maintenance Manual. This misrepresentation of maintenance contradicts the manufacturer's guidance and undermines compliance at the time of this incident.Also; my supervisor reported that management threatened him and us. This was understood as a threat to shut us down. This type of statement is egregious and inappropriate in any manner; no matter how it was phrased - it came across as a threat: do it. This reflects repeated threats from management about closing us or moving us from our families.Management has expressed that they believe we are underperforming. However; our work has been performed under the plan with an emphasis on safety; accuracy; and adherence to manuals and FAA requirements. These threats and pressures create a hostile and unsafe work environment. They undermine the integrity we show in our work and place employees in a position where they are pressured to choose between doing the job safely and following improper directives. This not only threatens compliance and safety but also carries into our personal lives; causing stress for our families and damaging morale. In closing; I would like to thank the maintenance management team for their support and standing with us during these times of change.Suggestions: Provide clear communication from management that threats of shutdown or relocation will not be used against employees.Establish a zero-tolerance policy for hostile or threatening statements from management toward employees.Ensure maintenance records are accurate; factual; and reviewed against manufacturer's manuals before being finalized.Create a stronger reporting pathway for mechanics to raise safety; compliance; or workplace harassment concerns without fear of retaliation.
Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.