AN EC135 WAS FOUND TO HAVE AN ENG HEAT SHIELD BRACKET CRACKED WITHIN LIMITS BUT WAS NOT DOCUMENTED OR DEFERRED. PARTS WERE ON ORDER.

Narrative

FOUND CRACK ON PREFLT OF EXHAUST EXTRACTOR HEAT SHIELD ATTACH BRACKET. TECHNICAL SUPPORT WAS CONTACTED AND PART WAS PLACED ON ORDER. IT WAS DETERMINED THAT THE CRACK ON THE BRACKET COULD NOT PROPAGATE ANY FARTHER. THERE WAS LESS THAN 10% OF THE TOTAL AREA EFFECTING THE HEAT SHIELD. DETERMINED THAT WOULD NOT EFFECT AIRWORTHINESS OF ACFT UNTIL NEW PART ARRIVED AND WAS INSTALLED. EXTRACTOR WAS INSPECTED FOR CONDITION OF EXTRACTOR HEAT SHIELD WHILE PART WAS ON ORDER AND NO INDICATION THAT IT STILL POSED AN AIRWORTHINESS RISK WAS DETERMINED. APPROX 1 1/2 WKS LATER; OUR CHK AIRMAN ARRIVED ON SITE AND DURING HIS PREFLT GNDED THE ACFT. WE HAD NOT MADE A WRITE-UP CONCERNING THIS DISCREPANCY PRIOR TO THE GNDING WRITE-UP. DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE EXTRACTOR'S DESIGN; ONLY WELDING WOULD HAVE BEEN AN ACCEPTABLE REPAIR. THERE WAS NO PROVISION IN OUR AREA FOR WELDING TITANIUM USING ACCEPTABLE METHODS -- RIVETS WOULD HAVE NOT WORKED. IT WAS VIEWED IN MY OPINION AND THE PLT'S ON SITE THAT THIS CRACKED ATTACH BRACKET POSED NO THREAT TO SAFETY; AND WAS IN NO WAY DIFFERENT THAN STOP DRILLING A CRACK IN AN ENG FIREWALL. OUR ONLY FAULT WAS NOT 'OFFICIALLY' WRITING UP DISCREPANCY AND CLRING IT. THE ACFT MEL DOES NOT COVER EXHAUST OR CRACKS IN AN ENG FIREWALL; BUT SINCE THIS ITEM STILL FUNCTIONED AS AN EXTRACTOR AND HEAT SHIELD AND WAS STILL OPERATIONAL; WHY WOULD IT BE MEL'ED? WE DID NOT SEE THE PROB AS AN ISSUE TO GND THE ACFT. IN RETROSPECT; IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN WRITTEN UP AND CLRED BY INSTALLING A NEW EXTRACTOR. A NEW EXTRACTOR HAS SINCE BEEN INSTALLED.