Date: 202012
Local time of day: 1201-1800
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Flight plan: IFR
Mission: Passenger
Airspace: Class C ZZZ
Aircraft component: Turbine Engine
Component problem: Malfunctioning
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Human factors: Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Critical; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural FAR; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Other Engine Change
Result: Aircraft Aircraft Damaged; General Maintenance Action; General Work Refused
Contributing factors: Staffing; Equipment / Tooling; Procedure; Aircraft
Primary problem: Procedure

Narrative: We had walked into the hanger that morning and found out that we were doing an engine change. The engine had already been removed and needed to be installed. My Supervisor was the one in charge of the operation and he had wanted us hang the engine on the FWD top mount first then the AFT mount and then the bottom FWD mount. The task has you install the AFT mount 1st and then the 2 FWD mount; but since I had worked with him before on engine installs I just followed his lead. We had got the 1st mount installed on the aircraft we ran into some trouble on the AFT mount. We had ended up damaging both the upper and lower cowling and 2 hinge fitting panels. Later I had found out that the 2 panels were supposed to be removed before the engine ever can off the plane. We ended up pulling the engine back off aircraft and on removal the engine had snapped down and had made a small nick on the FWD mount. My other Supervisor (who was working with us the whole time) was trying to tell me that the damage was no big deal when I knew that the FWD mount had no damage limits. I had ended up writing up the damage to all 3 parts that got damaged.I believe that the damage to the aircraft could have been prevented if the 2 panels had been removed and we had followed the task in order. There should also be note in the task stating that the AFT mount needs to go in 1st. I also believe that supervisors shouldn't be doing the work of the mechanics. They seem to have a time ordinated mentally over a safety one.


Second narrative: On DATE on first shift at the ZZZ maintenance hangar; the right engine of aircraft X was being installed by the first shift maintenance crew. The individuals who performed and assisted in the task and include; myself (NAME2 RII Inspector); NAME (Maintenance Supervisor); NAME1 (Maintenance Supervisor); NAME3 (Maintenance Lead); NAME4 (Maintenance Technician); NAME5 (Maintenance Technician); NAME6 (Maintenance Technician); and NAME7 (Maintenance Technician). NAME8; Assistance Chief Inspector was also a witness to some portions of the task being performed. During the installation of the right engine the upper trans cowling 443AT; the lower trans cowling 443AB; and the upper and lower rear thrust reverser hinge line fairings 443BT and 443BB were damaged. Also there was damage to the forward engine mount on the pylon side. NAME (Maintenance Supervisor) was taking the lead on the job and operating the heavy duty forklift. Of the employees performing the task NAME had the most experience in doing this specific engine CF34-8C5 installation. NAME6 was the only technician besides NAME who had performed the specific installation task before and he had only performed it one time. Before the job started there was a safety meeting to discuss the possible dangers of the job. Everyone was assigned a position on the lifts; on the aircraft pylon; or on the ground. NAME8 present at the safety meeting and shortly thereafter I saw him from a distance talking to NAME about the task giving him some advice on how to install the engine and to make sure the task was followed exactly. Since I was on the lift and carrying out other duties I did not hear much of the conversation but it seemed more like an argument. NAME8 left the job site and we began to hoist the engine in place. NAME directed the mechanics to install the forward engine mount first because it was easier. NAME mentioned to us all that he had done at least five successful engine changes this way with no issues. At this point no one made an objection this. The two mechanics on the engine pylon; NAME4 and NAME5 aligned the forward engine thrust mount into place and torqued and safetied the nuts and bolts. They then attempted to align and fit into place the aft thrust mount. After a few minutes of trying the aft thrust mount would not fit into place. At that point myself and NAME6 double checked the manual instructions which we had on hand on the lift. We mentioned to all that the aft thrust mount should have been installed first according to the instructions the manual laid out. NAME stated that it should not matter and they proceeded to try again to fit the aft thrust mount into place. NAME3 kept saying that he thought some thing was binding where he was in the front side of the engine pylon. He mentioned this several times but because we were all in different positions around the engine we could not see was he was talking about. NAME3 asked NAME specifically if the panel 443BT is supposed to come off because it seemed like it was in the way. NAME replied that he had never seen that panel come off in his experience. They proceeded for another few minutes and then decided to remove the engine from the aircraft and put it on the stand to double check if anything was wrong with the engine mounts on the engine side. After the engine was secured on the stand. We found the above mentioned aircraft damage. A few minutes after the damage was discovered we did some more research. We found that the technicians that removed the engine the day before on second shift failed to remove panels 443BT and 443BB that are specifically mentioned in the removal task. We believe that this was the cause of the damage to the aircraft. With the panels installed there was not enough room to position the engine in place correctly. As an R.I.I. I rejected the installation in the maintenance software program and the maintenance staff asked for engineering relief for the damage. NAME then refused to sign the AMM task even though he took the lead on the job and operated the engine lift thereby performing undocumented maintenance on the aircraft.There were many factors that contributed to this incident. One was a serious lack of experience with this specific task. At other airlines they have an engine installation and removal team the handles all engine changes because of the complexity of the task and the teamwork it takes to do the job with five or more individuals. Most of the tasks frequently performed at ZZZ are done individually or with one helper. Only one technician on the job had performed the task more than one time. The complexity of the task meant that all involved had to read and understand a greater amount of technical data in a short period of time. Also the order of installation instructions were not followed because the most experienced technician claimed it was easier to perform the instructions out of order safely. Human factors also was a cause of this incident. The supervisor taking the lead on the job; NAME; has a reputation at ZZZ for being cocky and having a know it all 'one up you' personality. I have noticed that he has a condescending leadership style and likes to be condescending to his employees to make himself look good. Rather than train his people and build his employees up he would rather tear them down to make himself look better. I have been at Company almost six years and unfortunately Company management is full of people like NAME. I believe this creates a work environment that is intimidating and detrimental to open communication. People like NAME create a 'shame' environment where people are afraid to speak up when something is done wrong or doesn't look right to them. This creates and enhances human error.  Failure to read and understand the entire task and remove all the panels on the list for the removal task CRJ 900 AMM 71-00-00-000-801-A02-PSA led to the 2nd shift mechanics failing to actually remove the required panels. Failure to follow the installation order of specified steps in the task may have led to error also.More training by experienced technicians on more complex and team oriented task to train inexperienced technicians. In the manuals special notes to identify where the order of installation is a must and cannot be deviated from.(example: Note - Aft Thrust mount MUST BE INSTALLED prior to forward engine mount to avoid damage to aircraft and engine.) Better Leadership training for Supervisors with less than 3 years experience to avoid the cocky and condescending 'know it all' leadership culture. Make Maintenance Supervision and leadership responsible and accountable for the maintenance they perform on all Company aircraft. No running away and only making the mechanics on the floor sign something off when the job is not done right and something is broken.


Synopsis: Technicians reported that appropriate AMM references were overridden by Supervisor and the engine mounts and access panels were damaged.