A B757-200 R ENG FAN BLADE DAMAGE WAS REPAIRED WITHOUT CLR MAINT MANUAL DOCUMENTATION. DAMAGED AREA WAS ADJACENT TO PREVIOUS REPAIR.

Date: 2004-01 · Aircraft: B757-200 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: aircraft-equipment-problem-critical|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy|other-no-repair-documentation

Synopsis

A B757-200 R ENG FAN BLADE DAMAGE WAS REPAIRED WITHOUT CLR MAINT MANUAL DOCUMENTATION. DAMAGED AREA WAS ADJACENT TO PREVIOUS REPAIR.

Narrative

ON JAN/FRI/04; I BLENDED #7 BLADE ON #2 ENG ON ACFT X. THE BLEND WAS FACE DAMAGE (SEE MAINT MANUAL 72 31 02 PAGE 807 ITEM 7 'CONVEX'). AFTER EVALUATING THE BLADE I FELT LIKE THIS DAMAGE REPAIR I WAS ABOUT TO DO WAS A CUMULATIVE REPAIR CONCERN CONSIDERING REPAIR WORK THAT WAS DONE ON THIS SAME BLADE DEC/WED/03. THERE WOULD BE LESS THAN 1 INCH CLRNC SEPARATING THE 2 REPAIRS WHEN COMPLETED. PAGE 803 ITEM 1C ADDRESSES CUMULATIVE REPAIRS WHEN IT COMES TO LEADING EDGE AND TRAILING EDGE REPAIRS. THESE REPAIRS MUST BE SEPARATED BY A MINIMUM OF A CORD WISE MEASUREMENT; SEE PAGE 804 ITEM 7. THE MAINT MANUAL DOES NOT ADDRESS CUMULATIVE REPAIR SEPARATION BTWN FACE DAMAGE (CONVEX OR CONCAVE) AND LEADING OR TRAILING DAMAGE WHICH IS WHAT I WAS DEALING WITH AT THIS TIME. ACR X ENG CTLR WAS CONTACTED WITH THIS CONCERN ON MY PART. DIGITAL PICTURES WERE SENT ALONG WITH MEASUREMENTS. ALTHOUGH HE GAVE NO PLACE IN THE MAINT MANUAL THAT ADDRESSES THIS SEPARATION; HE ASSURED ME THAT IT WOULD BE A LEGAL REPAIR WHEN COMPLETED. NO CONCERN FOR THE LEADING EDGE DAMAGE LESS THAN 1 INCH AWAY. MY POS IS AND WAS AT THE TIME THAT OUR MANUALS ARE LACKING IN ADDRESSING THIS COMBINATION OF REPAIRS AND THAT I SHOULD HAVE NOT WORKED THAT BLADE. I WAS ORDERED TO WORK THE BLADE OR 'BE SENT HOME' BY THE SUPVR ON DUTY. THE DAMAGE THAT I HAD WRITTEN UP SHOWED CLR SIGNS THAT SOMEONE TRIED TO WORK/REPAIR THE PRESENT EXISTING DAMAGE OUT BUT STOPPED. THIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPT WAS NOT IN OUR ACFT HISTORY; MEANING UNDOCUMENTED. ANOTHER REASON FOR THE BLADE TO BE REMOVED; SENT TO THE SHOP AND POSSIBLY FURTHER INVESTIGATION. ALSO; THIS PREVIOUS ATTEMPT AT REMOVING THIS DAMAGE MADE IT DIFFICULT TO DETERMINE THAT BLADE'S ORIGINAL THICKNESS WHEN TRYING NOT TO EXCEED THE ALLOWANCE GIVEN ON PAGE 807 ITEM 7 (.030 INCH MAX). THE REPAIR I PERFORMED IN THE END; WAS BY ITSELF A LEGAL REPAIR. SO THIS RPTING PROCESS IS TO SAY THAT I PERFORMED A REPAIR WITHOUT BEING GIVEN CLR DOCUMENTATION ON THIS CUMULATIVE REPAIR ALLOWANCE. THIS IS SOMETHING I PERFORMED AFTER BEING ORDERED TO 'WORK ON THE BLADE OR BE SENT HOME.' THIS IS WORK THAT I WOULD NOT HAVE DONE IF LEFT TO INTERP AND APPLY THE COMPANY MANUALS ON MY OWN. OR IN THIS CASE; LACK OF MANUAL COVERAGE FOR THIS COMBINATION OF CUMULATIVE REPAIR CONDITION.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

Source: NASA Aviation Safety Reporting System (public domain). Reports are voluntary submissions and are not verified by NASA.