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.