Date: 201207
Local time of day: 1801-2400
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: EMB ERJ 135 ER/LR
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Pitot-Static System
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Inspector
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Communication Breakdown
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Human Factors; Chart Or Publication; Aircraft
Primary problem: Chart Or Publication

Narrative: This report is being submitted in regards to Pitot Static Work Card under Maintenance Manual (M/M) 34-10-00. I complied with the Work Card Inspection Items using tooling/equipment noted on page one. I replaced pitot tubes that were found to be damaged based on the limits given in the work cards. When damage was found; additional tooling was used to verify limit exceedance. Now there is some confusion with a 'Scarf' Check and the use of a Goniometer; which was not listed on page one tooling/equipment. All other inspections on this card are done through 'Visual Inspection' process and when a defect issue was found additional tooling was used. But the work card changes direction at checking pitot scarf and Visual Inspection process now becomes a Goniometer process; even though this was not listed as a required tool. To further confuse things; there was also a note listing a Pitot Part Number (P/N) [for certain pitots]. I hope this submission can clear confusion or misunderstanding and issues resolved. If I would have found evidence of scarf damage; I would have used a Digital Protractor (which is a Goniometer) to verify damage. I believe this work card was rushed into production creating Inspection issues. This was poorly written and an incomplete list of tooling noted and inspection methods not consistent through the entire work card. Work cards should have a trial run to verify it can be accomplished before it is issued for use in production.

Callback: Reporter stated he was working an EMB-135 aircraft. The early version of the Visual Inspection Check Job Card was driven by concerns that various Line Stations and Maintenance Bases may not have been accomplishing the complete visual inspection of the pitots. That was because most locations did not have a Goniometer (Digital Protractor) available to check for scarf damage at the forward end of the pitot. That issue was clarified on later revisions of the Pitot Inspection Card.Reporter stated that # 1 and # 2 pitot tubes are the same style; but # 3 pitot; located on the lower right side of the fuselage is a different style (shape) and subject to corrosion around the static port holes on the # 3 pitot tube.



Synopsis: An Aircraft Inspector reports about a confusing Job Card and lack of any specific reference to Goniometer (Digital Protractor) tool required to complete a visual inspection of pitot-static tubes on their EMB-135 aircraft.