AN L1011-500 WAS OPERATED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCORRECT #2 ENG FIRE LOOP INSTALLED CAUSED BY THE ILLUSTRATED PARTS CATALOG LISTING LOOP EFFECTIVITY IS VAGUE AND DOES NOT CLEARLY LIST ENG MODEL.

Narrative

ON JUL/THU/99; AN ENG WAS REMOVED FROM THE #2 POS OF AN ACR L1011 (ACFT XYZ) DUE TO A HISTORY OF FALSE FIRE WARNING INDICATION. 2 DAYS LATER SHOP PERSONNEL DISCOVERED A FIRE DETECTOR LOOP INSTALLED ON THE ENG WAS NOT THE PROPER EFFECTIVITY FOR AN RB211-524. RECORDS REVEALED THAT I HAD INSTALLED THE INCORRECT PART ON THAT ENG ON JUL/XY/98. 2 FACTORS CONTRIBUTED TO THIS ERROR; THE IPC IS VAGUE AND THE INCORRECT PART NUMBER WAS LISTED ON THE ONGOING MAINT RPT. THE L1011 IPC 26-11-26; FIGURE 1; PAGE 2; ITEM 500; LISTS MULTIPLE PART NUMBERS FOR THE FIRE LOOP. THE EFFECTIVITY COLUMN TO THE R OF THE PART NUMBERS DOESN'T CLRLY LIST THE ENG MODEL NUMBER FOR THE PART NUMBER GIVEN. THE ACFT DISCREPANCY WAS TROUBLESHOT 2 DAYS EARLIER AT ANOTHER STATION. THE REPAIR WAS DEFERRED DUE TO LACK OF PARTS. THE INCORRECT PART NUMBER WAS LISTED IN THE ONGOING MAINT RPT. THAT NUMBER WAS USED WHEN ORDERING THE PART. I HAVE RESEARCHED ACFT RECORDS AND HAVE IDENTED AT LEAST 4 OTHER ACFT IN THE ACR L1011 THAT HAVE HAD THE SAME INCORRECT PART INSTALLED WITHIN THE PAST YR. TO CORRECT THIS RECURRING PROB THE IPC MUST BE CLARIFIED TO IDENT THE EFFECTIVITY BY ENG MODEL. INCREASED VIGILANCE SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN WHEN A PART NUMBER IS GIVEN IN THE ONGOING MAINT RPT.