EMB ERJ 190/195 ER/LR
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Time Pressure; Workload; Distraction; Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General Maintenance Action
Manuals; Aircraft; Human Factors
I was the Maintenance Control Coordinator on shift when we took the call from the [flight] crew that the [Forward] Left Main Passenger Door (L1) slide was accidently; partially deployed. We then had our On-call Contract Maintenance (OCM) come out and inspect and determined [whether] the slide [release] strings started to come apart. I informed him [the Contract Mechanic] that we would have to send a road trip [Maintenance crew] from ZZZ1 to replace the slide assembly. I then made a call to Shift Supervisor X and informed him what the incident was and that we needed him and another mechanic to go replace the slide assembly.I then pulled up the Aircraft Illustrated Parts Catalog (AIPC) and looked at the Part Numbers (P/Ns) to see if they had any in stock. I then pulled the P/N off the AIPC; P/N XXX-5; and looked up the location in our Contract Provider's software Parts Inventory program. I then called Supervisor X back and had him verify stock. He then checked the AIPC as well and determined they had the slide in stock. He then called me back and said he and another Mechanic were going to replace the slide. At that time we had several other aircraft out of service [that] we were working and [we were] short staffed; so I wasn't able to fully indulge myself into the situation. I expected Supervisor X to run with it and take care of the situation as far as parts and manual references go. I heard nothing back from them until they had the old slide removed when Supervisor X called back and said the old slide they removed had a different P/N that stated '190' on the slide assembly and the one they had [from stock] stated '170.' That's when I pulled the AIPC back up and we reviewed the AIPC together. We both agreed that the AIPC showed the P/N above as being valid on this ERJ-190; but before moving further we wanted additional review. That's when I called and spoke to our Base Maintenance Lead Inspector about the issue. I asked him to pull up the AIPC and explained to him our situation. I reviewed the AIPC and he agreed with us with the part being valid for installation. I then called the Supervisor back and told him that after talking to the Lead Inspector; we are good to install the part. He agreed and they moved forward. After installing the slide; the Supervisor called back and said he still didn't feel comfortable with it but agreed that the AIPC showed it was good. The next day; he called up and talked to me again about it and I told him that if he was still worried; I would move another slide with the '190' showing on it and they can go back and replace the slide assembly again. After getting back to the office; the Supervisor contacted the Aircraft Manufacturer asking for further guidance on the issue. They responded later with the fact that they agreed the AIPC was wrong/misleading and would remove this P/N from the AIPC during their next [AIPC] revision. We then put the ERJ-190 out of service and sent a road trip to ZZZ to replace the slide assembly. While I agree the wrong part was installed; I believe the incorrect/misleading AIPC led to this situation happening.  The AIPC was incorrectly labeled and misleading; causing us to install an in-effective [Not-Effective] part on the aircraft. Workload saturation.  Reference material incorrect.
I; Maintenance Controller X; took a call from Maintenance Supervisor X in ZZZ1 about a Part Number (P/N) 'Effectivity' question about an escape slide part number that was installed on an ERJ-190 aircraft. The Maintenance Supervisor was just coming back from a road trip in ZZZ and stated that he was concerned that he may have inadvertently RII'd an ineffective ['Not-Effective'] escape slide on the Left Main Entry (L1) Door the night before.  Because when he went to put the Removal and Install (R/I) [part number information] into our Contract Provider's software Parts Inventory Program; the program kept showing the part was ineffective [not-Effective] for the specific aircraft. Supervisor X had stated to me that the P/N he installed on the aircraft was showing in the ERJ-190 EMB Illustrated Parts Catalog (IPC); but it did not have a usage or 'Effectivity' range [of aircraft] on it.  So Supervisor X thought it was effective at the time he installed it. IPC also showed the BKD water mark on it; and at the time I told Supervisor X my concern was that it had the BKD watermark and I did not know what that meant at the time. Supervisor X then stated that he talked to the Nightshift Maintenance Control Coordinator about it and they came to the conclusion as well; that they thought it was an 'Effective' part for the aircraft at the time. I told Supervisor X if he wanted to be sure about that; he could then submit an Technical Request for [Part Number clarification] on the Aircraft Manufacturer's website and see what the Manufacturer's clarification would be.  But I don't recall when I actually advised him to go this route. Supervisor X then told me he did not have access to that so I gave him information so he could submit a request to Embraer to get a disposition on the matter. Supervisor X then submitted the request that day. The IPC had an incorrect part number that was 'Not Effective' to the aircraft.  That mislead the Supervisor and myself to believe it was an 'Effective' part for the aircraft. Manufacturer's manuals should have been updated to show the correct information to Maintenance as to effectivity; and the correct part to be installed. Individuals should have a clearer understanding on how the manuals are laid out and the definitions of each term or abbreviation. Take more time to research what each abbreviation or term means and not assume anything. Manufacturer should have been faster in responding to an AOG technical support clarification request. Aircraft. The request was submitted as an Aircraft On Ground (AOG) request; but the response from the Manufacturer was not received until two days later. In which it turned out that the P/N that was installed; was wrongly showing in the IPC publication and that the Aircraft Manufacturer was going to remove that P/N in the next [AIPC] Revision. And that indeed; the part was 'Not Effective' to the aircraft. That was the extent of my involvement on the matter. Going forward; I will be more diligent in my research and understanding of the IPC. I will re-read the introduction of the IPC to get a more in-depth grasp of how to correctly interpret the Embraer IPC before giving my suggestion to Maintenance requiring technical questions.
A Maintenance Control Coordinator and another Controller report about a Forward Entry Door escape slide that was replaced on an ERJ-190 aircraft using the Manufacturer's Aircraft Illustrated Parts Catalog (AIPC). Escape slide installed was 'Not Effective' for the aircraft due to AIPC was found to have incorrect and misleading Part Number (P/N) information.