ACR MECHS INSTALLED THE WRONG MAJOR MLG ENG BEARING DURING A 'HUSH KIT' ENG MODIFICATION.

Narrative

ON NOV/XX/94 I WAS MADE AWARE OF A PROB WITH THE INSTALLATION OF THE #1 BEARING I INSTALLED ON A JT8D-9 HUSH KIT ENG. THE IMPROPER PART NUMBER BEARING WAS INSTALLED IN THE SHOP WHILE ENG WAS RETROFITTED WITH A HUSH KIT. THE PROPER PART NUMBER BEARING WAS NOT KITTED WITH THE OTHER PARTS. A SVCABLE BEARING WAS ON THE PARTS CART. HOWEVER; IT WAS A NON-HUSH KIT BEARING. THE BEARINGS LOOK ALIKE SO I BELIEVE THE PROB CAN BE ALLEVIATED BY UTILIZING MORE CLRLY STATED PAPER WORK AND ADDITIONAL TRAINING IN THIS AREA. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT THE ACFT MAKE AND MODEL FROM WHICH THE ENG IS USED WAS A DC-9. HE ADVISED THAT THE WRONG BEARING WAS FOUND DURING THE DISASSEMBLE OF ANOTHER ENG FOR UNRELATED REASONS. HE SAID THAT EVEN THOUGH THE PART NUMBER IS SHOWN ON THE SVCABLE PART TYPE; HE AND OTHER MECHS WERE GUILTY OF NOT CHKING FOR THE CORRECT NUMBER DESIGNED FOR THE HUSH KIT MODIFICATION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THERE HAD BEEN A TOTAL OF 5 OTHER ACFT THAT THE WRONG BEARING HAD BEEN USED AND THAT THEY WERE ALL OTS EXPERIENCING NO DIFFICULTY. IN ADDITION; EACH ENG IS ALWAYS TESTED FOR PROPER OP IN A TEST CELL PRIOR TO RELEASING FOR SVC. R IS ON A 'SELF DISCLOSURE' AGREEMENT WITH THE FAA. THEREFORE; THIS MATTER HAS BEEN NOT ONLY RPTED TO THE FAA; BUT THE FAA HAS ISSUED A LETTER TO THE COMPANY AND ALL MECHS COVERING THE INCIDENT AND A RECORD MADE TO HOLD FOR 2 YRS. IT WAS SUGGESTED TO THE RPTR TO LOOK AT A COPY OF THE COMPANY LETTER TO THE FAA WHICH OUTLINES THE PROPOSED AND CORRECTIVE ACTION TAKEN SO HE CAN SEE THAT THOSE ACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE TO HIM AND HE UNDERSTANDS THEM.