A B737-300 WAS DAMAGED BY A JETWAY. REPAIR WAS ACCOMPLISHED PER THE SRM AND ENGINEERING AUTH. LATER; FAA REQUIRED ADDITIONAL 6 RIVETS REPLACED.

Narrative

I WAS THE INSPECTOR ON ACFT IN JUN/05 DURING A SHEET METAL REPAIR TO THE FORWARD L FUSELAGE AT BODY STATION 259.5. THE ACFT HAD SUSTAINED DAMAGE BY A JETWAY IN THE AREA OF THE PITOT PROBES AND BUTT SPLICE. THE WORK WAS PERFORMED IN ACCORDANCE WITH AUTH X. THE REPAIR WAS CLASSIFIED AS A MAJOR AND THE ENGINEERING AUTH REFLECTED THAT THE INSTRUCTIONS WERE FAA APPROVED. I WAS INFORMED ON OCT/THU/05 THAT THERE HAD BEEN AN FAA INQUIRY INTO THE 'APPEARANCE' OF THE REPAIR. ON AUG/THU/05 IN ZZZ; A REPAIR CORRECTION WAS GENERATED TO INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE REPAIR WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ACR X ENGINEERING AUTH. AT THAT TIME IT WAS DETERMINED TO BE IN ACCORDANCE. ON AUG/FRI/05 IN ZZZ; ANOTHER REPAIR CORRECTION WAS GENERATED TO REPLACE 6 RIVETS ON THE REPAIR WHICH WAS ACCOMPLISHED. TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE; THE REPAIR WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE B737-300 SRM AND ANY DEVS WERE ADDRESSED BY THE FAA APPROVED ENGINEERING DOCUMENT. I KNOW OF NO REASON WHY 6 RIVETS WOULD NEED TO BE REPLACED ON THE REPAIR 2 MONTHS AFTER INSTALLATION AND 8 DAYS AFTER THE REPAIR WAS REVIEWED AND FOUND TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENGINEERING AUTH. AFTER I SIGNED OFF THE INSTALLATION OF THE REPAIR; MY SHIFT ENDED AND IT IS POSSIBLE THAT THE ACFT WAS FLOWN PRIOR TO THE PAINT AND SEALANT FULLY DRYING. OTHER THAN THE SEALANT; I KNOW OF NO ISSUES THAT WOULD AFFECT THE AIRWORTHINESS OR NON COMPLIANCE IN REGARDS TO THE APPROVED DOCUMENTATION USED FOR THE REPAIR.