A Maintenance Manager performed a two engine boroscope on an MD-80 after a flight crew received a windshear alert and advanced both throttles to the firewall. Manager informed Mechanic he was not qualified to do the Hot Section Boroscoping.

Narrative

Aircraft was scheduled to fly. The weather along the route of flight was unstable and the crew received a windshear alert and advanced both throttles to the firewall. This resulted in both engines overspeeding and overtemping. This was verified by ZZZ1 maintenance once the aircraft arrived. The EDP showed the #1 engine N1 reached 105% with an EGT of 657 degrees for 12 seconds. The #2 engine showed N1 reached 104% with and EGT of 654 degrees for 8 seconds. ZZZ1 maintenance was told by maintenance control that the engines would probably need to be replaced in ZZZ1; but they would get back with more information because they were talking with propulsion engineering about a maintenance ferry to ZZZ2. A short time later; Maintenance Control Coordinator called back and stated that propulsion engineering said that a maintenance ferry was possible if both engines were checked out and a power assurance test was performed with no abnormalities or vibrations. Maintenance Control stated that one of the requirements was a turbine boroscope looking closely at the T4 blades and to refer to the appropriate paragraph of Aircraft Maintenance Manual 72-00-00. Maintenance control also stated that an inspector was not needed and anyone on the line could do this boroscope inspection. He asked if ZZZ1 maintenance could accomplish this and I thought we could. I had my afternoon shift pull up the Aircraft Maintenance Manual reference and go to the aircraft and start opening up both engines. I quickly read through the Aircraft Maintenance Manual reference and saw that a flex-scope was needed and knew that we did not have one. I called Air Carrier X's stores and asked if we could borrow their flex-scope and was told that inspection had it locked up. I then called Air Carrier Y and they stated that their scope was a very high dollar tool and did not think they would loan it to us; but someone from inspection would call back and let us know. I then called maintenance control back and told him that we had a problem because we did not have access to a flex-scope. I told him that Air Carrier X had one; but it was locked in the inspection department. Maintenance control stated that he would make a few calls and get the flex-scope for us. A little while later; maintenance control called back and stated that the scope was down at another hangar and we could go and pick it up. He stated that the engine Engineering Maintenance Ferry Release was in my mailbox. I drove down and got the scope and went to the aircraft. By afternoon crew had the external areas of the engines checked out and were almost all set for the boroscope inspections and we started with the right engine. I had some difficulty getting around the burner section; but did not find any melted metal or damage. Once satisfied with the right engine; I started on the left engine. This engine was more difficult than the first one and I had trouble getting the scope to go where I wanted. Because of this; it seemed to take a very long time. I did not find any melted metal or damage area and was satisfied that it too was OK for the ferry flight. While we were closing up the engines; the flight crew showed up and asked how it was going. We told them that the engines looked OK; but we still need to perform a power assurance checkout; so they went back to the terminal. We finished closing up and prepared to take the plane out for the run. Both engines started normally. We taxied out to the run-up block and performed a power assurance check and found no abnormal vibrations. Maintenance control was not sure that we would get the flight out because of ground stops going to ZZZ2. I told him that the Tower had notified us that they would work with us to get our flights out. It has come to my attention that in the Aircraft Maintenance Manual reference for the Hot Section Boroscope; there is a caution about only persons completing 2 different course number classes on boroscoping could do the hot section inspection. When I read through the Aircraft Maintenance Manual reference; I did not see or catch this and I was operating under the information that I was told by the Maintenance Controller that anyone could do this boroscope; I think; because it was for a maintenance ferry flight and not a revenue flight. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: Reporter stated that all weekend long; he couldn't understand how he could have missed the 'Caution' note in the boroscope paperwork. When he returned to work; he was reviewing all the maintenance manual documents he had left on his desk; that had the date and time printed and sent to him; and realized the 'Caution' section had not printed. The boroscope paperwork is over one hundred pages long; but the section for the boroscope is approximately twenty pages. Maintenance control had already started printing; but decided only the twenty pages were necessary. So they canceled the print process; which also canceled all the colored reference attachments for the boroscope work. By the time the printing actually stopped; maintenance control had the twenty pages they believed were necessary. As a result; none of the red; yellow or blue colored attachments for the boroscope procedure and training requirements were printed. The 'Caution' note was in red.