A300
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Communication Breakdown; Situational Awareness; Human-Machine Interface; Distraction; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Maintenance Action
Human Factors; Aircraft; Equipment / Tooling
AMT called for an Open Deferral to track the fuel leak which required a re-inspection every seven days as listed per Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) 28-11-00-06 Section-2;(c.b). Maintenance Display- FOUND SMALL FUEL SEEP RIGHTHAND INBOARD TANK INBOARD AFT SPAR AREA 10' INCHES OUTBOARD OF FUSELAGE. Corrective Action is the 'Add' to Open Deferral List for tracking per AMM specifications. The leaks are categorized by drying the leak area; waiting a minimum of ten minutes; and measuring across the wetted area: 1). Slight Seepage? A measurement not exceeding 10 cm (4' inches) in any direction. 2). LEAK LOCATION SLIGHT SEEPAGE HEAVY SEEPAGE RUNNING LEAK? Exposed areas where leakage cannot spread to a potential fire source A; B; C; (definition for re-inspection). 'A' [means] a permanent leak repair is optional at the Operator's decision (reference Structural Repair Manual (SRM) 51-76-20). If the leak is not repaired; than do a regular inspection each week to make sure that there is no change of the leak rate. The tracking level was set to seven days; the Repetitive Action block was not set to [Yes] Y; the Terminating block was set to C-Check. The first check was completed and the item was closed. Since the Repetitive Action block was not set to repeat every 7-days; the next action was scheduled at the 'C' Check; the next check should have been a re-check of the leak within 7-days and then the Maintenance Tracking Computer System would have scheduled another item in 7-days and so on. I am not aware who found the item not tracking correctly. Maintenance Control personnel did correct the tracking level approximately three weeks later. Inspection specifications were reset in computer for corrected tracking weekly specifications (7 days) for progression of leak. The item was then re-inspected per the interim specifications and continued in service. I do not recall the actions that may have happened about this item that occurred 30 days prior to this notification. From what I have reviewed; I did not set the Repetitive Action to cycle every 7-days after the first re-inspection. The AMT did the first inspection [approximately] one week later and 'Closed' the item. Since the item was closed and not having the re-inspection cycle set correctly; the Maintenance Tracking System did not auto-generate the next inspection [that was] due within 7-days. The item was treated as a single inspection with no further action until C-Check instead. Difficult to say what could prevent this. There are several variables that could help prevent this; majority are human factors. To push the failure down line is difficult as well as the Maintenance Tracking Computer is only doing what is told; the AMT is doing what the Tracking System pushes out. This all began with an error at ground level and had a domino effect [on] Day-7. Layover aircraft at ZZZ1 finished open deferral for fuel leak paperwork on Aircraft Release paperwork. Open Deferral List tracking set-up error for repetitive re-inspection until repaired or out of additional limits; which require a different tracking level per the AMM. Inboard AFT Spar at wing root.
Reporter stated he was the Maintenance Controller who deferred the fuel leak seepage using the allowed seven day Repetitive Inspection procedures under AMM Chapter 28-11-06. He originally entered a 'Y' for 'Yes' in their Maintenance Tracking Computer System to perform the repetitive inspections. But he did not like the way the system was responding to other data he was entering; so he went back one window on the computer to re-enter some of the data; was distracted by other Controller aircraft issues; and when he returned to the window; did not notice the 'Y' he had previously entered had been removed in the process. As a result; their Tracking System defaults to a 'No' in the same entry block when the 'Y' does not appear. He just flat out missed seeing the incorrect entry for repetitive inspections after the first seven day re-inspect.Reporter stated he has since recommended their Air Carrier reconfigure their Tracking System default mode go to a 'Y' entry; instead of a 'No' entry. That way; even if the additional repetitive inspections are not necessary; the aircraft still meets the Airworthiness Release requirements. The fuel seepage is generally coming from a leaking rivet head at the inboard fuel tank. Externally applied sealant does not stop the seepage. A permanent repair was accomplished during a fuel tank entry procedure.
A Maintenance Controller reports how a Repetitive Inspection deferral requirement was not continued for a fuel seepage leak at the right inboard (I/B) fuel tank; inboard aft spar area on an A300 aircraft.