EMB145 RPTS RECEIVING AN FAA LETTER OF INVESTIGATION FOR VIOLATION OF THE GPM WHEN CLRING A WINDSHIELD HEAT RPT WITH CHKS OK.

Narrative

AT APPROX XA30; I WAS ASSIGNED TO WORK ON ACFT. SEEING THAT THE ACFT HAD A PREVIOUS DISCREPANCY FOR THE #1 WINDSHIELD HEAT; I INFORMED MY CREW CHIEF THAT I WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO TROUBLESHOOT THIS PROB. MY CREW CHIEF THEN NOTIFIED MAINT OPS CTLR OF THE PROB AND THE NEED TO PUT THE PLANE IN THE OTS LIST. I THEN PERFORMED AN OPS CHK. DURING THE OPS CHK; I RECEIVED NO FAILURE. I THEN PROCEEDED TO CHK THE SYS FURTHER BY CHKING TEMP SENSORS IN THE WINDSHIELD. I FOUND NO FAULTS THERE. I CHKED THE SECURITY OF THE OTHER WIRING TO AND FROM THE TEMP CONTROLLER; THE WINDSHIELD; AND THE CONTACTOR -- AGAIN I FOUND NO FAULTS. RE-ASSEMBLY FOLLOWED BY ANOTHER OPS CHK STILL REVEALED NO FAULTS. I EVEN TESTED THE SYS WITH THE ACFT PRESSURIZED; WHICH I'VE BEEN TOLD CAN REVEAL SENSOR DEFECTS IN THE WINDSHIELD. THE FAULT ISOLATION MANUAL CALLS FOR AN OPS CHK; IF THE SYS PASSES THE OPS CHK IT CALLS FOR NO FURTHER TROUBLESHOOTING. AFTER SEVERAL MORE OPS CHKS WITH NO FAULTS DISPLAYED ON THE MAINT COMPUTER; THE CONTROLLER; OR THE EICAS DISPLAY AND A TOTAL OF APPROX 4 HRS RESEARCH AND TROUBLESHOOTING; I RELEASED THE ACFT TO SVC AT XE30. THE APR/THU/05 LETTER TO ME SAYS THAT IT APPEARED THAT THE ACTION I TOOK 'OPS CHK GOOD' HAD ALREADY BEEN ACCOMPLISHED AND SUGGESTS THAT MY ACTIONS WERE IN CONFLICT WITH GPM CHAPTER 12-00 FOR HANDLING OF REPEAT DISCREPANCIES. I SUBMIT THAT MY ACTIONS WERE ENTIRELY PROPER AND WERE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH GPM 12-00. GPM 12-00 PART C) ON REPEAT DISCREPANCIES STATES THAT IF A DISCREPANCY IS IDENTED AS A REPEAT; THE TECHNICIAN IS TO 'A) ENSURE ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAS BEEN UTILIZED AND A PROPER COURSE OF CORRECTIVE AND TROUBLESHOOTING ACTIONS HAVE BEEN TAKEN' AND 'B) IF UNABLE TO VERIFY CORRECTION OF THE DISCREPANCY; NOTIFY A PERSON DIRECTLY IN CHARGE' AS DEFINED BY GPM 4-00. I BELIEVE THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF MY ACTIONS SHOWS THAT I ENSURED THAT ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAD BEEN UTILIZED AND A PROPER COURSE OF CORRECTIVE AND TROUBLESHOOTING ACTIONS HAD BEEN TAKEN; SO I COMPLIED WITH PART A). WITH RESPECT TO PART B) IF UNABLE TO VERIFY CORRECTION OF THE DISCREPANCY; 'NOTIFY A PERSON DIRECTLY IN CHARGE' AS DEFINED BY GPM 4-00. I BELIEVE THAT MY DESCRIPTION OF MY ACTIONS SHOWS THAT I ENSURED THAT ALL AVAILABLE TECHNICAL DATA HAD BEEN UTILIZED. I SUBMIT THAT MY ACTIONS WITH RESPECT TO THIS ACFT WERE ENTIRELY PROPER. HOWEVER; IF THE FAA BELIEVES THAT I SHOULD HAVE USED DIFFERENT PROCS; I WILL; OF COURSE; DO EVERYTHING I CAN TO COMPLY WITH THOSE PROCS IN THE FUTURE.