Date: 201704
Local time of day: 0001-0600
Location: ZZZ.Airport, US
Light: Night
Aircraft: Regional Jet 900 (CRJ900)
Operator: Air Carrier
Operating under: Part 121
Mission: Passenger
Flight phase: Parked
Aircraft component: APU Electrical
Reporter organization: Air Carrier
Reporter function: Technician
Reporter qualification: Maintenance Powerplant; Maintenance Airframe
Human factors: Situational Awareness; Communication Breakdown
Second reporter function: Lead Technician
Anomaly: Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
Detector: Person Maintenance
When detected: Routine Inspection
Result: General Maintenance Action
Contributing factors: Procedure; Company Policy; Equipment / Tooling
Primary problem: Equipment / Tooling

Narrative: CRJ 900 Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM) states that a tool was needed to perform an APU Battery change. That tool is a hoist. Mechanics came to me stating that we do not have this tool and that it is necessary for safe installation of an APU battery. They refused to complete the task due to improper safety equipment. I notified the supervisor that in the task card; job set up states to install hoist. The supervisor's immediate reaction was to send home the mechanics for insubordination because they were refusing to do a job even though they viewed it as safety risk. I told the supervisor that I believed it to be a safety risk to install a battery without using the hoist. He then agreed that it was a safety risk and that he did not want to see anyone get hurt. He was aware that the battery weighs over 80 LBS. It then was break time. During break the supervisor looked up in the introduction in the AMM for tooling. He stated that the introduction states that; 'In some cases; the recommended tools and fixtures given in the Maintenance Procedure are given to make the removal or installation of a component easier; but are not necessary.' He then showed again that maintenance procedure remains equally safe for the persons who do the maintenance and for the equipment. But I told him he missed the statements; 'While the maintenance procedure may specify these tools and fixtures to help a person who the maintenance; maintenance procedure can be done even if the tool or fixture is not available (unless specified differently) with the conditions that follow: The intent of the maintenance procedure is not significantly altered and the revised maintenance procedure is approved by the operator's engineering authority.' Bombardier assumes no responsibility for the precision of the revised maintenance procedure. I argued that the statement above did not condone us to be able to alter from the task because 1) There was no blue page listing that it was appropriate to do so as Bombardier stated needed to be done and 2) altering from the task and not using the listed tool is liable to cause injury to the mechanic doing the job because there is not a safe way of lifting a battery into the Aft Equipment Bay. The response of the supervisor was that we have been doing it this way for years without injury so it must be safe. I do not believe that this is a safe action and that just because we have not had an injury in the past by not following this AMM procedure does not prevent from having an injury in the near future. With the threat of sending home mechanics because they refused to install an APU Battery unsafely I went ahead and installed it and notified the supervisors on duty that I intended on reporting this to the safety department because I found it a violation of safety. The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health's recommended weight limits has this task listed as high probability of lower back injury if you list the variables into their lifting equation. The cause of this safety hazard is Company's constant denial of requests for this tooling that is needed for the safe removal and installation of an APU Battery. Management has been notified several times that they need to purchase this tool and it is constantly rejected. Company states that they are a safety oriented company yet they continue to deny this request for equipment that can prevent back injuries. This has started to become an issue since Company implemented OSHA's new work place regulation. The stands that were used to aid in installation of the battery without the hoist have been tagged out since they are higher than OSHA new fall policies. It has been stated that an email was sent that allows removal of the handrails if entering the AFT Equipment Bay because then the aircraft becomes the rails; yet mechanics have not seen a policy in writing so they are concerned about violating these regulations and being terminated. I voiced my concerns to managementbut was told that the battery must be changed. Purchase the hoist.


Second narrative: [Report narrative contained no additional information.]


Synopsis: CRJ-900 maintenance technicians reported they did not have the proper equipment to safely replace an APU battery.