A DHC8-400 HAD A DISCREPANCY RPT REGARDING A 'PUSHER SYS FAIL' CAUTION MESSAGE. TESTED PER SVC LETTER AND CHKS OK. ACFT DISPATCHED.

Narrative

ON JUN/THU/06 AT APPROX XA00 I WAS CALLED OUT TO INVESTIGATE A DISCREPANCY CALLED IN BY THE CREW ON ACFT X. THE RPTED DISCREPANCY WAS A 'PUSHER SYS FAIL' CAUTION MESSAGE. BEFORE LEAVING THE OFFICE I OBTAINED A COPY OF ACFT MAINT FORM. THE SVC LETTER WAS MARKED AS ACR ENGINEERING APPROVED DATA ON THE SVC LETTER INDEX PAGE. AS I LEFT THE OFFICE MY LEAD MECH SAID THAT HE BELIEVED THAT THE ACFT HAD NOT BEEN 'MODDED' AS REFED IN THE SVC LETTER BUT I WAS TO WAIT WHILE HE INVESTIGATED FURTHER. SINCE THIS ACFT WAS NEW TO THE FLEET THE REQUIRED INFO WAS NOT READILY AVAILABLE. WHEN I ARRIVED AT THE ACFT IT WAS FULLY BOARDED READY FOR DEP. I RESET PWR TO THE STALL PROTECTION SYS AS REFED IN THE SVC LETTER AND AFTER THE UNIT COMPLETED ITS SELF-TEST ALL FLT DECK INDICATIONS RETURNED TO NORMAL. SINCE THE SYS SHOWED NO INDICATIONS OF FAILURE AFTER THE SELF-TEST AND GIVEN THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN BOARDED FOR SOME TIME I DECIDED TO RELEASE THE ACFT BACK INTO SVC. I SIGNED OFF THE LOGBOOK AND LEFT. AFTER A PROLONGED PERIOD MY LEAD MECH FINALLY GOT AN ANSWER FROM TECHNICAL SVCS THAT THEY HAD DETERMINED THE ACFT TO BE POST-MODIFICATION AND THAT THE ACFT WAS THEREFORE NOT COVERED UNDER THE SVC LETTER. BY THAT TIME THE ACFT HAD ALREADY DEPARTED. I IMMEDIATELY INFORMED MAINT CTL THAT THE ACFT HAD BEEN RETURNED TO SVC USING THE SVC LETTER AND SUGGESTED THAT WHEN THE ACFT REACHED ITS DEST ZZZ THE APPROPRIATE RETURN-TO-SVC AMM TASK SHOULD BE ACCOMPLISHED. ZZZ MAINT ACCOMPLISHED THE CHK AND ALL CHKED GOOD.