AN ACFT INSPECTOR REPORTS ON THE RECENT CHANGES IN MAINT PROCEDURES THAT INADVERTENTLY HAVE THE INSPECTOR SIGNING FOR DAMAGE VERIFICATION AND REPAIR CRITERIA FROM THE MANUFACTURER; AS A BASIS FOR DEFERRING MAINT.

Narrative

SIGNED OFF THE BLOCK ON ENGINEERING ORDERS (EMBRAER X AND CRJ Y) WHICH STATES THIS DOCUMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED TO ENSURE THE APPROVAL DATE IS ACCEPTABLE FOR THE DAMAGE OR CONDITION FOR DEFERRAL. THE EMB ACFT IS TAIL #X. THE ENGINEERING ORDER FOR THE CRJ ACFT WAS DONE PRIOR TO THIS ACFT WHICH I'M NOT SURE OF THE TAIL NUMBER. I THINK IT WAS Y; BUT I'M NOT SURE. IN BOTH CASES ON THE ENGINEERING ORDER; I WAS REQUIRED TO REVIEW THE ENGINEERING ORDER AND SIGN OFF THE BLOCK ON THE ENGINEERING ORDERS. THE CRJ ENGINEERING ORDER EITHER FAXED OR E-MAILED TO THE MAINT STATION WHICH WAS IN ZZZ. THE ENGINEERING ORDER FOR THE EMB I SIGNED OFF WAS THEN FAXED TO MAINT CTL. THE EMB ACFT WAS AT ZZZZ. THIS IS A NEW PROC THAT HAS STARTED DOING ENGINEERING ORDERS. AFTER REVIEWING THE ENGINEERING ORDERS FOR THE EMB ACFT; I FELT THAT THERE MAY BE A QUESTION OF CORRECTIVE PROC. I'M NOT SURE IF A FAXED OR E-MAIL COPY OF AN ENGINEERING ORDER THAT HAS A BLOCK SIGNED OFF IS CORRECT. ALSO; IT WOULD APPEAR THAT DUE TO THE FORMAT OF THE ENGINEERING ORDER THAT I WAS AT THE STATION WHERE THE ACFT WERE; WHEN IN FACT I WAS NOT THERE. I'M NOT SURE IF I HAVE BROKEN ANY POLICY. IT HAS BEEN FELT THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR SOMEONE ELSE TO REVIEW THE ENGINEERING ORDER FOR PROPER DEFERRALS ON THE ENGINEERING ORDER; WHICH A MANUFACTURER'S APPROVAL IS NEEDED TO RETURN AN ACFT TO SVC TO ENSURE THAT THE DATA IS CORRECT FOR THE DAMAGE AND THAT THE DEFERRAL IS CORRECT. FOR SOME REASON THIS TASK HAS BEEN PLACED ON THE INSPECTION DEPT. A DIFFERENT PROC IS NEEDED TO DO THIS STEP; EITHER AT THE BASE; OR HAVE AN APPROVAL BLOCK ON THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ENGINEERING ORDER; FOR AN INSPECTOR TO SIGN OFF ON. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: REPORTER STATED THE PROCEDURE CHANGES FOR ACCEPTING AND APPROVING DAMAGE REPAIRS; OR CONTINUED IN-SERVICE OF ACFT WITH DAMAGES REQUIRING PERIODIC INSPECTIONS; STEMMED FROM INCORRECT INFO PREVIOUSLY SENT TO EMBRAER AND BOMBARDIER BY MAINT. AS A RESULT; INSPECTION WAS ONLY SUPPOSED TO BE GIVEN THE TASK OF ENSURING THAT DATA USED TO DEFER DAMAGE ON AN ACFT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE ENGINEERING ORDER REFERENCED IN THE MEL RELEASE. NOT FOR INSPECTORS TO PHYSICALLY RE-VERIFY THE ACTUAL DAMAGE. REPORTER STATED THE ENGINEERING ORDER SIGNOFF BLOCK MAKES IT SEEM LIKE THE INSPECTOR WAS ACTUALLY PRESENT TO SEE THE DAMAGE; WHICH IS NOT THE CASE.