EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Confusion; Communication Breakdown; Fatigue; Situational Awareness
Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural MEL / CDL; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Incorrect / Not Installed / Unavailable Part; Human Factors; Company Policy; Chart Or Publication
Nine hours into shift; volunteered to go on a 'road-trip' to another airport to remove and replace a faulty component. I hurried to grab my tools; references etc. I was given a part; and got on the road. Drove 3.5 hours; removed and replaced part; no fault messages. Aircraft is fixed and I completed a successful road trip. Or so I thought...  What I did not realize is the part I was given was not 'effective' for the aircraft. I did not request the part myself; it was requested by our Maintenance Controller. This individual is not at fault however; because he requested the correct part. The Parts System we use to request parts recognized the part I was given as 'Interchangeable With' the correct part. Unfortunately it may be interchangeable; but it is not 'effective' for the aircraft I was working on. But once again the blame rests solely on me. Had I double checked the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) to verify the difference between the two parts I would've been able to extinguish this whole situation. So as you can see; many factors came into effect: never dealing with these two different parts; I was given a part instead of requesting it myself; rushing out the door; long drive; and high hours on the job. But I consider none of these factors in any way as an excuse. I enjoy going on road trips; I have always considered them a great learning experience. And I don't consider this any differently. I have learned from the mistake I made and intend to be much more careful about part effectivity in the future. [Contributing factor was] not double checking/verifying the 'Effectivity' of the part given to me. [Recommend] not trusting the system we use to request parts. Aircraft overnighting at ZZZ1 gate. Complacency.
A Line Mechanic reports replacing a faulty component on an EMB-135 aircraft with a part identified by their Parts Computer System as being 'Interchangeable with' the part he removed. The new part was interchangeable; but not 'Effective' for the aircraft. Mechanic noted the Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC) had the correct information; but was not used to verify.