B737-800
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Communication Breakdown; Workload; Training / Qualification
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy; Ground Event / Encounter Vehicle
Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Flight Cancelled / Delayed; General Maintenance Action
Procedure; Aircraft; Human Factors
On DATE; Aircraft X was pushed back from [its spot] at approximately XX:25 hrs. At XX:29 hrs a call was received from the flight deck to Operations Control concerning a possible aircraft damage from an improper release from the tug. A manual task was created to dispatch an AMT to [the spot] for an inspection of the nose gear. After a few moments a crowd had gathered around the nose gear area and the Captain was conversing with some individuals on the ground through the flight deck window. A few minutes passed and a cell phone call was received by NAME in the Hangar from the Ramp Maintenance Director NAME1. NAME1 had told NAME that the aircraft sustained no damage and was good for flight. NAME relayed that information to myself; [and] Operations Control.Immediately after the call from NAME1 stating the aircraft had no damage from the improper push back; both the Hangar and Operations Control were under the impression that an AMT had inspected the nose gear area and informed the Maintenance Director on the ramp NAME1 that the aircraft was clear and the call was then made to the Hangar stating that fact. After a few minutes had passed another radio call was placed to Operations Control from the flight deck asking when the AMT's would arrive. It was at that time I realized that the AMT's had not arrived on [the spot] to perform the nose gear inspection and that we were given false information by the Ramp Maintenance Director NAME1. I then called the on duty Coordinator and was informed the AMT's were enroute to [the spot] to accomplish the nose gear inspection. The AMT's arrived on [the spot] at XX:45 hrs and noticed the damage to the R/H nose gear door linkage as well as minor damage to the R/H nose gear door and called Aircraft X not airworthy. The aircraft was then taxied under power to [the spot] and the aircraft was called [out of service] at that time. The aircraft was later repositioned to the hangar for repairs.This event occurred due to the fact that the ramp crew pushed out an Aircraft X on [the spot] incorrectly thus damaging the nose gear door and nose gear door linkage. The Ramp Maintenance Director NAME1 then informed Operations Control and Hangar with false information which started some confusion of the airworthiness of Aircraft X on [the spot].Re-train the ramp crews the correct way to accomplish the push out of the aircraft. Inform the Ramp Maintenance Director not to inspect aircraft of suspected aircraft damage or to inform the Hangar or Operations Control whether an aircraft is airworthy or not. Leave it for the licensed aircraft mechanics. The Hangar and Operations Control will no longer accept information from the Ramp Crew Service or Maintenance Director regarding aircraft damage. The Hangar and Operations Control will ensure phone or radio contact at a minimum with Tech Ops AMT's or Tech Ops management to ensure any aircraft damage is airworthy or not.
Technician reported that an aircraft was damaged during towing; causing confusion when a non maintenance manager reported the aircraft ready for service; despite there being ground damage.