Date: 201403
Local time of day: 0601-1200
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Daylight
Aircraft: B737-300
Operator: Corporate
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Tactical
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: Main Gear
Reporter organization: Corporate
Reporter function: Lead Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Inspection Authority; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Confusion; Training / Qualification
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Post-flight; on Ramp
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Aircraft; Human Factors
Primary problem: Human Factors

Narrative: Aircraft Maintenance pre-flight Inspection package was being worked a Boeing 737-300 aircraft. Myself and one other Technician noted the Right Main Gear strut with low chrome (low extension). I printed the Boeing Chapter Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) reference for servicing the strut and brought it out to the aircraft. Technician Y stated that the extension measured [well] and that no action was required; [and] then signed-off the strut inspection task on the Pre-flight Inspection Check paperwork. Technician Y approached me with concerns about the low strut. I measured the strut myself and found it to be approximately 2' inches below the minimums called out in the AMM; and the Strut Servicing Placard in located in the main wheel well. After approaching Technician Y; he was insistent that he had found the strut OK for service and that no further action was required. I pointed out the proper method of measuring the extension to Technician Y. Technician Y re-reviewed the paperwork and Placard then stated that he must have 'misinterpreted' the graph [on the Placard] and that we was incorrect on his earlier conclusion. One hour later the aircraft was dispatched to ZZZ1 with [passengers] on-board; myself and Technician Y included. Immediately after arrival an Aircraft Maintenance Post-flight Inspection work package was performed. On the post flight inspection; Technician A approached me with a flashlight that was found turned 'On' and still lit in the Main Landing Gear (MLG) wheel well. When I asked my team if they knew who it belonged to Technician Y asked 'where was it found'? I told him it was found in the main gear wheel well. Technician Y then stated 'It's mine. I used it this morning to read the Strut Servicing Placard in the wheel well. I later looked for it in there but could not find it'. I have three safety concerns: 1) A Technician was not able to interpret a servicing graph and was not receptive to other concerns that the strut was not OK for service.2. A Technician would use a flashlight while working on an aircraft; loose it; look for it and not find it; then just walk away. 3. An aircraft completed a 1.5 hour flight with a flashlight laying on the keel beam in the MLG wheel well.

Callback: Reporter stated he is a Lead Mechanic for a company that also provides contract Maintenance support for a Operator that uses a B737-300 aircraft as an Avionics flying test bed. He previously retired from an Air Carrier. Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) Y (that he reported about) has had other instances of questionable maintenance practices; so the (Reporter) has been more observant of the work assigned to AMT Y. As a Lead Technician; he is concerned AMT Y doesn't understand the seriousness of aircraft maintenance work.



Synopsis: A Lead Aircraft Maintenance Technician (AMT) reports about instructing another Technician on how to read a Main Landing Gear (MLG) Strut Servicing Placard on a B737-300 aircraft. Technician subsequently left his flashlight in the MLG wheel well after completing the strut service but did not inform anyone he had misplaced his light prior to departure.