DHC-8-300 HAD THE INSPECTION OF THE #3 FLAP BALL SCREW ACCOMPLISHED. DUE TO CONFUSING AND CONFLICTING JOB CARD PROC; THE AMOUNT OF BACKLASH WAS NOT PROPERLY RPTED.

Narrative

ON OCT/SAT/04 IT IS ALLEGED THAT I COMPLETED A FLAP BALL SCREW BACKLASH INSPECTION OF ACFT X #3 L-HAND FLAP BALL SCREW AND WAS NEGLIGENT IN NOT FILLING OUT A DEFERRED MAINT TIME FOR A DISCREPANT BALL SCREW. IN COMPLETING THE WORK CARD; I COMPLETED THE INSPECTION PART AND CAME TO THE RPTING PART 'ACTION REQUIRED' #5 AND #6 ON THE WORK CARDS. I WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE THE FLAP BALL SCREW BACKLASH 'SPREADSHEET' AND READ THE WORK CARD FURTHER FOR INSTRUCTION ON RPTING. I SAW THE EXCEPTION TO USING A DEFERRED MAINT TIME STATED IN BOTH WORK CARDS UNDER ITEM #5. '(ONLY IF IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO USE THE FLAP BALL SCREW CHART SPREADSHEET; TABLE 1 OF THIS WORK CARD WILL BE USED TO DETERMINE THE APPROPRIATE REQUIRED ACTION. IF DEFERRALS WERE ISSUED AS A RESULT OF USING TABLE 1; AN ADDITIONAL 70 HR DEFERRED MAINT TIME WILL BE ISSUED WITH THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT: 'TABLE 1 OF WORK CARD WAS USED TO DETERMINE ACTUATOR DEFERRED MAINT TIMES. RESULTS REQUIRE EVALUATION.')' SINCE THE NOTES THAT FOLLOWED THIS STATEMENT INDICATING THAT A DEFERRED MAINT TIME NEEDED TO BE MADE FOR BALL SCREWS UNDER 3000 CYCLES DID NOT HAVE ANY NUMBERS OR LETTERS SEPARATING THEM FROM THE FORMER STATEMENT EXCLUDING TABLE 1 DEFERRED MAINT TIMES; I DID NOT CONSIDER THEM SEPARATE FROM THE EXCEPTION OF USING A DEFERRED MAINT TIME. SINCE WE WERE USING A SPREADSHEET NOW; I FULLY EXPECTED SOMEONE TO BE MONITORING THE BALL SCREW BACKLASH DEGRADATION BY WAY OF THE SPREADSHEET. I THOUGHT 'WHY HAVE THE SPREADSHEETS UNLESS SOMEONE WOULD MONITOR THEM OTHERWISE THEY SEEM USELESS TO ME.' SINCE I WAS ABLE TO COMPLETE THE SPREADSHEET AND DID NOT KNOW THAT NO ONE WAS MONITORING THE SPREADSHEETS; I THOUGHT MY JOB HAD BEEN COMPLETED SINCE IN INTERPED THE EXCEPTION AS MEANING THERE WERE NO DEFERRED MAINT TIMES NEEDED IF I USE THE SPREADSHEET. SINCE I FULLY EXPECTED SOMEONE TO BE MONITORING THE SPREADSHEETS; I DIDN'T EXPECT TO HAVE A PROB WITH TRACKING. IT IS ONLY NOW; SINCE THE MATTER HAS COME UP; THAT I REALIZE THAT THE WORK CARD COULD HAVE BEEN INTERPED THAT THE NOTES WERE SEPARATE FROM THE EXCEPTION AND NO ONE WAS MONITORING THE SPREADSHEETS. FROM NOW ON; I WILL UNDERSTAND IT TO MEAN THAT THERE ARE DEFERRED MAINT TIMES NEEDED FOR ALL BALL SCREWS UNDER 3000 CYCLES. AS I RECALL; I TRIED TO CONSULT OTHER INSPECTORS FOR INPUT INTO THE STATUS OF DEFERRED MAINT TIMES USING THESE WORK CARDS AND THE SPREADSHEET TO RECORD BALL SCREW BACKLASH. I DON'T THINK ANYONE ELSE I WORKED WITH; AT THE TIME; KNEW WHAT IT MEANT EITHER. SINCE THIS CAUSED UNINTENDED PROBS WITH TRACKING BALL SCREW DEGRADATION; I VIEW THIS AS A MISUNDERSTANDING OR A MISINTERP OF THE INTENT OF 2 OF THE PARAGRAPHS IN THESE WORK CARDS #5 AND #6. MY SUGGESTION FOR CLARIFICATION OF THE WORK CARD IS TO NUMBER THE NOTES THAT ARE PLACED BTWN #5 AND #6 INSTEAD OF USING THEM AS 'NOTES.' SINCE I INTERPED THE NOTE'S PLACEMENT AS PART OF THE EXCEPTION FROM THE PARAGRAPH ABOVE; SOMEONE ELSE MAY DO THIS ALSO.