Regional Jet 200 ER/LR (CRJ200)
Workload; Communication Breakdown; Time Pressure; Troubleshooting
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance
General Maintenance Action
Aircraft; Human Factors; Procedure
The following events occurred at a Maintenance (Mx) hangar on shift.Early in the shift I was working on my aircraft when the inspector asked me to come with him so he could show me a discrepancy he had just found and wrote up. He showed me that the passenger (pax) door seal was torn under the support wheel of the door. He informed me that he would get the parts and removal and installation task for me. After removal of the door seal; and upon inspection of the door seal retainer and given the prior problem with the pax door seal; it appeared the pax door support wheel lock lever was bent back and was the cause; or at least a contributing factor in the damage of the pax door seal which required replacement. I believe that when the door was either deployed or retracted; the lock lever from the support wheel was catching on the door seal. I documented my inspection findings by noting that the pax door support wheel lock lever was bent on the Aircraft work order form. I decided to show the inspector the bent lock lever and asked him to look up the part in the GMM (General Maintenance Manual) to see if it was an RII (Required Inspection Item) item. He then left to look up the part.  Upon seeing my write up for the pax door support wheel lock lever; my lead that night; appeared to get irritated. He and I inspected the damage together. After looking at the bent support wheel lock lever; he directed me to change my write up of the problem. He specifically told me to change the write up to pax door support wheel will not lock. He told me 'you can just beat the lock lever straight; or use a hydraulic press to reshape it. I've done it before on other aircraft'; and for the corrective action state that you adjusted the support wheel with the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) task for adjusting the wheel assembly. That particular task that he said you could sign off the adjustment of the support wheel with; deals with the pulley system and does not say anything about being able to beat the lever back into proper shape. Around this time the inspector came back with his RII stamp and overheard mine and my lead's conversation about him asking me to change the write up from pax door support wheel lock lever is bent; to pax door support wheel will not lock. I advised my lead that I refuse to change my write up of the problem. I felt that this was a safety issue requiring appropriate attention and repair. As a result of my refusal to obey his direction he became very angry; loud; sarcastic; aggressive; and threatening to me. He would not let up and repeatedly tried to bend me to his will to change the write up. It was determined by the inspector that the item I had written up WAS an RII item and the inspector stamped over top of my write up; RII. My lead's behavior became worse when he learned that we did not have the parts in stock and the aircraft would have to be AOG (Aircraft on Ground). He became even more irate; threatening; and intolerable. I felt extremely uncomfortable and bullied by his verbal conduct and his behavior and action in invading my personal space and getting close to me. I felt my lead was attempting to physically intimidate me as his verbal conduct was unsuccessful in getting me to change the write up. I admit to refusing to obey his order to change the write up; which ultimately resulted in the grounding of the Aircraft. I respectfully submit that such order was both unlawful and unreasonable.Later in the shift; on the same aircraft; I discovered a high temperature problem with hydraulic system #3 while performing the necessary operational checks for the door seal that I had changed. I then [investigated] the problem by using common knowledge about the system by running system #3 hydraulic pumps 3a and 3b independent of each other. I noticed that with just pump 3a on the temperature would raise 1 degree every 15-20 seconds and was reading approx. 85 C. When 3a pump was turned off and 3b was turnedon; the reservoir temp for hydraulic system 3 would drop down to about 50 C within a few minutes; which is normal operating temperature. Hydraulic pump 3a was not functioning normally and again when turned on for a short period of time; the hydraulic temp rose again to approx. 80 C; causing the high temperature reading in the system. I went and notified my lead of the high temperature problem with system #3. He immediately declared without any other regard to what the system was actually doing with the pumps on and off: 'It's the reservoir; it's always the reservoir; you'll need to change it'. The Inspector overheard the problem and printed out the FIM (Fault Isolation Manual) [guidance] for me. My lead took the FIM and pointed to the last corrective action which says replace reservoir. I pointed out to him that there are many steps per the FIM that must be followed prior to changing the reservoir; [for example] taking a level 1 hydraulic fluid sample; purging hydraulic system #3 reservoir; and changing the temp transducer on the reservoir; and that none of those steps had been complied with yet. He still declared he thought it was the reservoir. I then indicated that I believed the problem to be hydraulic pump 3a. My lead reacted to my statement of belief as if he was disgusted. I then began to explain to him my reasoning and outlined for him my troubleshooting methods and findings. My lead restated numerous times: 'it's the reservoir'. I disagreed. We continued the disagreement of opinion discussing the issue. He appeared to be angered; again with me. In an attempt to break the impasse; I ran hydraulic pump 3a with him present. I pointed out that pump 3a was making very audible grinding/shattering noises when in operation (which is clearly not normal). He still insisted it was the reservoir. I disagreed with him. I also pointed out that pump 3a was scalding hot (you could fry an egg on it) which is not normal and that pump 3b was warm/hot to the touch. My lead and I still disagreed and we continued arguing the reasons for our respective opinion. He pointed to the fact that pump 3a was making correct pressure and said over again it's a reservoir problem. We could not agree. We walked over to the paperwork cart where the inspector happened to be. Finally my lead in a dismissive manner said to me to: 'write it up how you think it should be wrote up'. After I wrote up the discrepancy; he made copies of the paperwork for MX control and went into the office. There was no other discussion between my lead and myself until later in the back shop.I followed his instruction. On the aircraft work order; I wrote 'hydraulic system 3 high temp with 3a pump on and 3b off.' I ordered the new hydraulic pump from stores and several mechanics and I started the removal process for hydraulic pump 3a. The other mechanics on shift including the several Bombardier mechanics came over to the aircraft and had commented on how horrible the hydraulic pump had sounded. One mechanic said it sounded like a bearing going out.  Once the old pump was removed we took the pump in the back shop to secure it down with the vise because we had to swap over the unions from the old pump to the new pump and replace the packings. During this process my lead came in the back shop and saw the 2 hydraulic pumps and immediately got hostile; offensive; and again invaded my personal space. He asked why I had not changed the reservoir. I responded to him that it was not the problem that I had wrote up on the aircraft paperwork. He then loudly kept repeating: 'It's not going to fix it; It's not going to fix it'; which made a scene in front of my coworkers. It made me feel uncomfortable; and I did not understand why he was trying to make me feel this way; considering he asked me to write up the problem on the paperwork how I thought it should be wrote up. As he stormed out of the back shop he ordered other mechanics to go get a reservoir out of stock with all the packings and get it ready because the pump would not fix it. I avoided my lead and I did not talk to him the rest of the shift. The supervisor on duty came into the back shop just as we finished swapping the unions over to the new pump. He asked what was going on; and I gave him a brief description of what had happened; and asked him if it was alright to install the new pump because it was ready to be installed and suggested that we could talk after the shift. He agreed. I began the install of the hydraulic pump 3a with a few mechanics. We installed the new hydraulic pump 3a and performed the necessary servicing; bleeding; leak checks; and operational tests. The pump was operational; and no more defects for hydraulic system 3 were found by myself or first shift (turnover). All operational checks were satisfactory; and no more high temperature messages appeared.I never received any kind of acknowledgment about the pump actually fixing the problem on the aircraft from my lead; supervision; or base manager. Instead I was called into the base manager's office; with the supervisor present to discuss the event that occurred. I answered a few of his questions and gave them a brief description of what had happened; and was told by the manager and supervisor that we would talk again the following day; because they needed to sit down and talk with my lead. At no time when I left the manager's office did I feel that I was at risk of being wrote up; let alone having disciplinary action taken against me (time off work without pay).I have since learned that I am being wrote up and disciplined for insubordination because I did not follow an alleged direct order from my lead to change the reservoir. I do not believe that any of my actions; conduct; and/or performance constitutes insubordination. Insubordination is comprised of three elements: a direct; clear order that is lawful and reasonable communicated from a supervisor to an employee; the direct unequivocal order must be understood by the employee and; a willful and intentional refusal to obey a lawful and reasonable order by the supervisor either verbally or through non-performance.Although my lead repeatedly expressed his belief that the reservoir was the problem; it was never communicated to me as a direct order. This is supported by his last statement to me: 'write it up how you think it should be wrote up'. The first element of insubordination therefore is not satisfied. Had he truly wanted me to change the reservoir; and like general practice in our hanger; he could have simply placed on the aircraft work order that the reservoir was bad from 'his troubleshooting'. This was not the case. My lead's conduct that night was one of irritation; aggressiveness; cursing under his breath; threatening; and physical intimidation directed towards me. His conduct; I felt; was clear evidence of retaliation as a result of my write up in incident #1 above; which grounded his aircraft. I respectfully submit that my lead's close held opinion that the reservoir was the problem was wholly unreasonable given his failure to fully analyze the issue. His (gut) feeling proved wrong. It appears his desires discipline against me to divert attention from his misconduct and 'snap' judgment errors.We are all human. I can admit my errors. In this matter I cannot admit to an error or the alleged violation because I have committed none.I believe that incident #1 was a result of my lead wanting the plane at the gate (on time) and did not want the aircraft to be grounded. I strongly believe he was trying to compromise the safety of our passengers by having me change a write up for something that was bad and we did not have in stock; so that his aircraft could make gate time. Since I stood my ground and would not change my write up and got the inspector involved; the plane was AOG and did not fly on that day due to waiting on parts. I believe that incident #2 involving my lead and myself was simply
A Maintenance Technician reported that while troubleshooting a Bombardier CRJ200 hydraulic overheat problem; the Mechanic and the Lead working the aircraft could not agree on what path to take to make a proper repair. The Mechanic and Lead also disagreed on an entry door seal repair due to a support wheel lock lever that was bent.