Commercial Fixed Wing
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Training / Qualification; Other / Unknown; Communication Breakdown; Confusion
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR
General Flight Cancelled / Delayed
Aircraft; Staffing; Human Factors; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Manuals; Procedure
While taxiing Aircraft X on cabin walk through found missing access panels and overhead bins out of alignment. Bin access panels were unsecured and flight crew mentioned that they felt overhead bins should close by themselves. Found all screws for panels missing and all bins not operating the way flight crew claimed. My only reference at the time was Aircraft X so entered discrepancies in logbook and went to next assigned aircraft move. Aircraft was moved to hangar and taken OTS (Out of Service). [Updated] and Emergency Exit rows with Tray tables installed were in question.Vendor installed new interior poorly aligning overhead bins; not installing hardware and overhead bins were found to have BAM (Bin Assist Mechanisms) inoperative. When following up on Aircraft X's status was informed bin access panels were NEF (Non-Essential Furnishings); bin gaps were covered by AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) reference. I expressed my concern of missing fasteners and flight crews mention of overhead bins inoperative. [Lead Mechanic] took time to look up IPC (Illustrated Parts Catalog) for access panels and informed aircraft required each panel to be secured with screws. We then looked at other [Updated] aircraft and found that BAM worked. [Lead Mechanic] called [Maintenance Engineering] and suggested Aircraft X be taken OTS upon return to ZZZ. I called [Maintenance Operations Manager] to let them know that screws were missing and BAM were probably inoperative. My only reference to missing screws and inoperative BAM was Aircraft X; I was moving aircraft. I spoke to [Aircraft Maintenance Manager]. Was contacted by (ZZZ [Maintenance Operations Manager]) 10 minutes after [Aircraft Maintenance Manager] conversation that [a second Maintenance Operations Manager] wanted an explanation of Aircraft X and if I wanted a steward present to find one. Called an agitated [second Maintenance Operations Manager] in presence of [ZZZ Maintenance Operations Manager] and steward. Started to explain to [second Maintenance Operations Manager] that I had provided [Aircraft Maintenance Manager] with; [second Maintenance Operations Manager] made it clear I would explain myself and my inaction. After explaining Aircraft X's condition was told by an angry [second Maintenance Operations Manager] I should call FAA and self disclose that I let an aircraft fly out of configuration and file a report on my behalf. [Second Maintenance Operations Manager] then explained that I would be meeting Aircraft X when it reached ZZZ and correct my inaction. In my opinion [second Maintenance Operations Manager] tried to intimidate; pressure me and put blame on me for Aircraft X's condition.Outsourcing of Aircraft maintenance is a big part of this occurrence. Turnover and face to face with shift change on aircraft condition.
I decided to review OTS (Out of Service) on [web based system] for status of [updated] Evaluation visits at various stations.I noted that ZZZ Maintenance mentioned in an [web based system] update that [Engineering Order JXXXXXX] does NOT apply to Aircraft X. The aircraft was returned to service. This aircraft is in fact currently configured in the [updated] configuration. While the applicability status of this particular [Engineering Order JXXXXXX] revision is true; I questioned what other [Engineering Order] revisions might apply to this aircraft. According to [Maintenance Computer System] was accomplished at ZZZ1 on [previous year]. By the basic criteria applied to other aircraft; Aircraft X may fit the criteria for evaluation of the [update]. Review of the OTS History reports indicated that this aircraft has not had said evaluation complied with at any [company] maintenance station. If this condition is true; this aircraft needs to be evaluated in the same manner as all 14 other aircraft that were modified at ZZZ1 are being inspected.Apparently selection of the aircraft requiring evaluation of the [update] may have been based upon status of later [Engineering Order] revisions. [Engineering Order JXXXXXX] is an active revision. [Engineering Order] revisions [JXXXXXX] and [JXXXXXY] are marked as 'retired' and not viewable in the Currently Active [Engineering Order] search online.
Aircraft technicians reported incorrect installation of interior modification by air carrier outside vendor as well as miscommunication and incorrect information in maintenance systems.