Narrative:

On the morning of feb/sat/03, at approximately XA30, I was approached by the production supervisor about some paperwork errors. The aircraft in question was a B737-300. The problem was that each non routine write up had had a 'return to service' attached and was lined out with an initial and another one listed below it. This is acceptable, provided the old inspector job card is available. This was not the case. The old non routine write-ups in all 3 instances, were missing as well as the safety copy. I got involved, because the aircraft was ready to return to service once these 3 non routine write ups were signed off on the new job card. The inspector and myself questioned the mechanic, who had originally lined through the original job card. I brought on the new job card. His response was that the inspector had thrown away the original, due to having written on the multi-step part of the form that there were no cracks. Then, after further inspection, found that there were, indeed, cracks. So, he felt that it would be best to destroy the original, since it had erroneous information, and start a fresh one. This was told to me by the mechanic, who had lined through the 'inspector job card attached' on the new job card. I feel that the mistake that was made was due to lack of knowledge of our mpm guidelines dealing with the inspector job card multi-task paperwork. I feel that the aircraft was safe for return to service.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: A B737-300 PAPERWORK DISCREPANCY DELAYED ACFT RETURN TO SVC. 3 WRITE UPS WERE MADE ON AN INSPECTION JOB CARD, BUT JOB CARD WAS DISCARDED.

Narrative: ON THE MORNING OF FEB/SAT/03, AT APPROX XA30, I WAS APCHED BY THE PRODUCTION SUPVR ABOUT SOME PAPERWORK ERRORS. THE ACFT IN QUESTION WAS A B737-300. THE PROB WAS THAT EACH NON ROUTINE WRITE UP HAD HAD A 'RETURN TO SVC' ATTACHED AND WAS LINED OUT WITH AN INITIAL AND ANOTHER ONE LISTED BELOW IT. THIS IS ACCEPTABLE, PROVIDED THE OLD INSPECTOR JOB CARD IS AVAILABLE. THIS WAS NOT THE CASE. THE OLD NON ROUTINE WRITE-UPS IN ALL 3 INSTANCES, WERE MISSING AS WELL AS THE SAFETY COPY. I GOT INVOLVED, BECAUSE THE ACFT WAS READY TO RETURN TO SVC ONCE THESE 3 NON ROUTINE WRITE UPS WERE SIGNED OFF ON THE NEW JOB CARD. THE INSPECTOR AND MYSELF QUESTIONED THE MECHANIC, WHO HAD ORIGINALLY LINED THROUGH THE ORIGINAL JOB CARD. I BROUGHT ON THE NEW JOB CARD. HIS RESPONSE WAS THAT THE INSPECTOR HAD THROWN AWAY THE ORIGINAL, DUE TO HAVING WRITTEN ON THE MULTI-STEP PART OF THE FORM THAT THERE WERE NO CRACKS. THEN, AFTER FURTHER INSPECTION, FOUND THAT THERE WERE, INDEED, CRACKS. SO, HE FELT THAT IT WOULD BE BEST TO DESTROY THE ORIGINAL, SINCE IT HAD ERRONEOUS INFO, AND START A FRESH ONE. THIS WAS TOLD TO ME BY THE MECHANIC, WHO HAD LINED THROUGH THE 'INSPECTOR JOB CARD ATTACHED' ON THE NEW JOB CARD. I FEEL THAT THE MISTAKE THAT WAS MADE WAS DUE TO LACK OF KNOWLEDGE OF OUR MPM GUIDELINES DEALING WITH THE INSPECTOR JOB CARD MULTI-TASK PAPERWORK. I FEEL THAT THE ACFT WAS SAFE FOR RETURN TO SVC.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.