A B737-300 ENGINEERING REPAIR AUTHORITY WAS WORKED ON A FUSELAGE PANEL WITH LOOSE FASTENERS LOCATED UNDER THE CENTER FUEL CELL. INSPECTOR REFUSES TO SIGN FINAL INSPECTION DUE TO INCOMPLETE PAPERWORK THAT LACKED A PRESSURE LEAK CHK.

Narrative

ON THURS/JUN/06; A MECHANIC HANDED ME AN ENGINEERING AUTHORITY. I LOOK OVER THE PAPERWORK AND DID NOT AGREE WITH IT. THE PRODUCTION SUPVR CALLED MY SUPVR. THE SUPVR CAME INTO THE READY ROOM AND ASKED ME TO STAMP OFF THE PAPER WORK OR GET A UNION STEWARD. MY SUPVR WENT TO THE ENGINEERING DEPT TO TELL ME WHY THE STEP I WAS TO SIGN OFF WAS GOOD. THERE IS NO LEAK CHK ON THE ENGINEERING AUTHORITY OR NON ROUTINE CARD. THERE IS NO WAY TO REJECT AN ENGINEERING AUTHORITY. PRODUCTION SAYS THEY DID NOT HAVE ENOUGH TIME TO FIX THE NON ROUTINE; AND ENGINEERING SAID THEY CAN MAKE ANYTHING THEY WANT AN INSPECTION ITEM. I DID NOT FEEL SAFE STAMPING THE CARDS OFF. I WAS STRONG ARMED INTO SIGNING THIS PAPERWORK.CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: THE RPTR STATED THE AIRPLANE WAS A B737-300 AND THE ENGINEERING REPAIR WAS TO TIGHTEN FASTENERS THAT WERE LOOSE AND ELONGATED ON A PANEL LOCATED ON THE LOWER FUSELAGE UNDER THE CENTER FUEL CELL. THE PANEL WAS NOT REMOVED FOR THE REPAIR AND ONLY THE LOOSE AND ELONGATED FASTENERS WERE WORKED. THE RPTR; ASSIGNED AS A STRUCTURES INSPECTOR WITH 37 YEARS ACFT MAINT EXPERIENCE; REFUSED TO SIGN OFF THE FINAL INSPECTION DUE TO NOT HAVING CONFIDENCE IN THE REPAIR PROC. THE REPAIR PROC DID NOT INCLUDE A PRESSURE LEAK CHK AND WAS GIVEN A 5 YEAR RECHK; WHICH THE RPRTER DID NOT FEEL WAS REALISTIC. THE RPTR; AT A MEETING WITH ENGINEERING PRODUCTION MANAGEMENT; AND INSPECTION MANAGEMENT; WAS PRESSURED INTO SIGNING THE FINAL INSPECTION.