A B767 ACFT WITH GE CF-6 ENGS WAS RELEASED FOR SVC WITH LIMITED FLT CYCLES DUE TO A DAMAGED APT-2 BLADE. THE CONTINUE IN SVC LIMITS RELEASE DOCUMENT USED HOWEVER; WAS FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TURBINE BLADE.

Date: 2007-02 · Aircraft: B777-200 · Phase: ground

Anomalies: deviation-discrepancy-procedural-far|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-maintenance|deviation-discrepancy-procedural-published-material-policy

Synopsis

A B767 ACFT WITH GE CF-6 ENGS WAS RELEASED FOR SVC WITH LIMITED FLT CYCLES DUE TO A DAMAGED APT-2 BLADE. THE CONTINUE IN SVC LIMITS RELEASE DOCUMENT USED HOWEVER; WAS FOR A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TURBINE BLADE.

Narrative

MONDAY SOMETIME IN THE EARLY MORNING HRS (UNSURE OF THE EXACT TIME; AS I HAD BEEN SOUND ASLEEP AT HOME) ENGINEER CALLED TO ADVISE OF ZZZ HAVING FOUND DAMAGE ON (1) HPT -2 BLADE ON ACFT NXXX IN EXCESS OF AMM LIMITS AND AN ENG CHANGE WOULD BE REQUIRED. UPON ARR AT WORK ON MONDAY I FOUND AN EMAIL MESSAGE CONTAINING PHOTOS OF THE DAMAGED HPT -2 BLADE. THE EMAIL HAD BEEN SENT BY PRODUCTION SUPVR ZZZ. AFTER REVIEWING THE PHOTOS I REVIEWED THE B767 AMM FOR POSSIBLE 'CONTINUE IN SVC' LIMITS FOR THIS CONDITION. I FOUND WHERE THE AMM ALLOWED THE CONDITION FOR UP TO 10 FLT CYCLES. I IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED THE MAINT CTL AND ADVISED OF THESE 'FLY-BACK' LIMITS. ZZZ MAINT WAS IMMEDIATELY CONTACTED; THE ENG CHANGE WAS POSTPONED AND THE ACFT WAS RETURNED TO SVC. AT A ROUTINE CONFERENCE CALL WITH CF6 ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION; WE DISCUSSED THE CONDITION IN LENGTH AND AGREED; BASED ON THE BLADE CONDITION; THAT WE SHOULD SEEK APPROVAL FROM GE ACFT ENGS TO OPERATE THE ENG FOR UP TO 50 CYCLES PRIOR TO REMOVING THE ENG. TUESDAY; AGAIN I WAS CONTACTED AT HOME AND AWAKENED IN THE EARLY MORNING HRS BY ENGINEER. SHE HAD SOMEONE ON THE TELEPHONE FROM ZZZ (I DID NOT GET THE NAME). THIS INDIVIDUAL WAS STATING THAT THE 'CONTINUE IN SVC' LIMITS APPLIED ONLY TO POST GE SIB 72-910 BLADES. I TOLD THEM THAT I WOULD INVESTIGATE FURTHER FIRST THING TUESDAY MORNING WHEN I ARRIVED AT WORK AND WOULD ISSUE THE APPROPRIATE PAPERWORK AS NECESSARY AS WE WERE ALREADY PURSUING ADDITIONAL TIME WITH GE. WHEN I ARRIVED AT WORK ON TUESDAY; I IMMEDIATELY CHKED AND DISCOVERED THAT THE AMM; IN FACT; STATED THE LIMIT ONLY TO POST GE SIB 72-910 BLADES. AGAIN; I MET WITH OTHER MEMBERS OF CF6 PWR-PLANT ENGINEERING AND PRODUCTION TEAM AND WE ALL AGREED THAT; THOUGH NOT STATED; THIS BLADE COULD CONTINUE WITHOUT CAUSING ANY ADVERSE EFFECTS ON ENG OPERATIONAL PERFORMANCE. WE ALSO AGREED TO CONTINUE PURSUIT OF GE APPROVAL TO CONTINUE OPERATING THIS ENG FOR UP TO 50 FLT CYCLES. SINCE WE HAD OVERLOOKED THIS STATEMENT IN THE AMM; I CONTACTED ENGINEERING AND AUTH A RELEASE TO OPERATE THE ENG FOR 10 CYCLES WITH THE POSSIBILITY OF EXTENDING TO 50 CYCLES PENDING GE APPROVAL. RELEASE WAS ISSUED AND A MESSAGE WAS SENT TO ZZZ. I WAS ADVISED VIA EMAIL THAT GE WOULD BE APPROVING THE REQUEST FOR THE 50 CYCLES OF OP.

More incidents for this aircraft family →

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