MECHANIC IS INFORMED HE WAS NON-COMPLIANT WITH AN AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE AD HE PERFORMED ON A B767-300 ACFT BRACKET LOCATION.

Narrative

IT WAS BROUGHT TO MY ATTN THAT I WAS NON COMPLIANT ON A PENDING AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE ENGINEERING ORDER; THAT I PERFORMED ON AN ACFT FROM THE B767 FLEET. ON THE ENGINEERING ORDER I MISSED THE REMOVAL OF A BOLT THAT WAS STILL SHOWN ON THE FIGURE; BUT WAS IN VERBIAGE; TO REINSTALL ONLY 2 BOLTS NOT 3. MY MEASUREMENT FOR THE LOCATION OF THE BRACKET DID NOT MATCH THE ENGINEERING ORDER MEASUREMENT. DID NOT APPLY SEALANT AROUND THE EDGES OF THE BRACKET NOR DID I USE ENAMEL OVER THE ALODINE AND PRIMER. DID NOT PUT PART NUMBER ON THE BRACKET. IN TRYING TO REMEMBER WHY I MISSED THESE STEPS; I CANNOT REMEMBER IF IT WAS THAT I WAS RUSHED; DISTR; OR GIVEN WRONG ADVICE FROM ANOTHER MECH; BUT NO EXCUSE; I KNOW BETTER THAN THAT; AND FROM NOW ON I WILL ALWAYS SPECIFICALLY READ AND ACCOMPLISH EVERY MAINT ACT TO THE EXACT VERBIAGE ON WORK CARD. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED HE IS AN AIRFRAME MECHANIC AND THE AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE (AD) REQUIRED THE REMOVAL OF ONE OF THREE GROUNDING STUDS ON THE AVIONICS RACK IN THE LOWER E/E COMPARTMENT DUE TO CORROSION PROBLEMS. THE AD ALSO REQUIRED A NEW BRACKET BE INSTALLED AND THE REMOVED STUD BE RELOCATED TO THE NEW BRACKET HE HAD INSTALLED. REPORTER STATED HE DID NOT REMOVE THE THIRD GROUNDING STUD AS CALLED OUT IN THE ENGINEERING ORDER; MOSTLY DUE TO HE JUST LOOKED AT THE PICTURE; WHICH SHOWED THE THIRD STUD REMAINING IN THE ORIGINAL LOCATION. INSTEAD OF APPLYING PRIMER PAINT AND THE REQUIRED ENAMEL ON THE NEW BRACKET; HE FOLLOWED PAST PRACTICE AND APPLIED ALODINE TREATMENT AND TWO COATS OF PRIMER. THIS WAS NOT PER THE AD PROCEDURE.