A B737-400 WAS DISPATCHED IN NON COMPLIANCE WITH THE INCORRECT EFIS NAVIGATIONAL DISPLAY INSTALLED. CAUSED BY PUBLICATION DEFICIENCY.

Narrative

ON 11/SUN/2001 SHIFT AVIONICS LINE. I WAS GIVEN AN ASSIGNMENT BY MY LEAD AVIONICS TECH. THE WORK ASSIGNMENT WAS ACFT XYZ LOCATED AT THE HOLDING AREA. THE JOB ASSIGNMENT WAS REPLACEMENT OF THE FO'S HORIZONTAL SIT INDICATOR AND WORK A LOG BOOK DISCREPANCY INVOLVING TROUBLESHOOTING AN AUTO PLT PROB. I WAS TOLD THE HORIZONTAL SIT INDICATOR WAS ROBBED FOR ACFT XYA. MY LEAD TECH TOLD ME THE PART WAS ORDERED EARLIER DURING A DIFFERENT SHIFT AND WAS PULLED FROM STOCK; AND READY FOR; PICK UP AT LINE STORES. I RETRIEVED THE PART FROM STORES AND PROCEEDED TO THE ACFT AND REPLACED THE FIRST OFFICERS HORIZONTAL SIT INDICATOR 'HSI'; PER THE AVIONICS JOB CARD. THIS INCLUDED THE USE OF A 'TEST BOX.' OK FOR SVC. I THEN TROUBLE SHOT THE AUTO PLT DISCREPANCY AND FOUND I NEEDED A MODE CTL PANEL. I ASSIGNED A TECH TO ASSIST IN THE REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT OF THE MCP. THE ACFT WAS MOVED FROM THE HOLDING AREA TO GATE X BY MAINT. AFTER INSTALLING THE MODE CTL PANEL. I WAS NOTIFIED DAYS LATER THAT THE 'HSI' COMPONENT THAT I REPLACED ON ACFT XYZ (FO'S) WAS THE WRONG PART NUMBER. THE WRONG PART NUMBER WAS ORDERED DURING SHIFT FOR ACFT XYZ. A REQUEST FROM ENGINEERING AND RECORDS TO REMOVE THE 'HSI' AND REPLACE WITH ANOTHER PART. THIS WAS ACCOMPLISHED 11/WED/2001 IN ZZZ1; US. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE EFIS INDICATOR HAD BEEN ORDERED ON THE PREVIOUS SHIFT AND WAS INSTALLED WITH A JOB CARD. THE RPTR SAID THE JOB CARD HAS THE SAME INFO AS THE MAINT MANUAL FOR INSTALLATION AND TESTING OF THE INSTRUMENT. THE RPTR STATED THE INSTRUMENT TESTED OK AFTER INSTALLATION AND THE PART NUMBER WAS ENTERED IN THE MAINT COMPUTER AND WAS ACCEPTED. THE RPTR SAID NEITHER THE JOB CARD NOR THE MAINT MANUAL HAD ANY INFO ON EFFECTIVITY OF THE PART FOR DIFFERENT MODELS OF THE B737. THE RPTR STATED THE CARRIER HAS HAD 24 INCIDENTS OF THE WRONG PART INSTALLED AND DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE MAKING IMPROVEMENTS. THE RPTR SAID NO STANDARD EXISTS TO HAVE THE PART NUMBER PAINTED ON THE PART AS SOME HAVE NUMBERS AND OTHERS NONE. THE RPTR STATED THE MAINT COMPUTER HAS MAJOR FLAWS AS IT IS SUPPOSED TO BE PROGRAMMED TO REJECT A PART THAT IS NOT ON THE ACFT EFFECTIVITY LIST; BUT MOST TIMES DOES NOT PERFORM THIS FUNCTION.