Narrative:

At start of shift, I was given write-up zxxxy and copy of srm 53-00-11, figure 202. Working with my lead and an engineer, I was told how to proceed with the repair. Trusting their yrs of experience and expertise, I cut out the damage to include removing skin in 3 stringer bays. I made a good cut-out with 1 inch radius corners, didn't nick stringers. Inspection approved that damage was properly removed. This was the extent of my involvement with the repair. I later found out, the cut-out was beyond limits. It was to have only been in 1 stringer bay. An engineer looked at the cut-out, and made a statement on back of write-up that cut-out was ok. The doubler was installed by workers on a later shift, per srm 53-00-11. I was told by a fellow worker the srm used was for a small repair and there was a different srm reference for a large repair. The lead did not want to reprocess the write-up for a different srm reference. The cut-out section was approximately 5 inches by 10 inches, over 2 stringers. I believe the final repair was safe for service. Engineering followed the progress on repair, inspection returned the plane to service.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: AN AIRBUS A320 WAS RELEASED FROM HVY MAINT WITH A SKIN REPAIR NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE STRUCTURAL REPAIR MANUAL, BUT WITH ENGINEERING REPAIR APPROVAL.

Narrative: AT START OF SHIFT, I WAS GIVEN WRITE-UP ZXXXY AND COPY OF SRM 53-00-11, FIGURE 202. WORKING WITH MY LEAD AND AN ENGINEER, I WAS TOLD HOW TO PROCEED WITH THE REPAIR. TRUSTING THEIR YRS OF EXPERIENCE AND EXPERTISE, I CUT OUT THE DAMAGE TO INCLUDE REMOVING SKIN IN 3 STRINGER BAYS. I MADE A GOOD CUT-OUT WITH 1 INCH RADIUS CORNERS, DIDN'T NICK STRINGERS. INSPECTION APPROVED THAT DAMAGE WAS PROPERLY REMOVED. THIS WAS THE EXTENT OF MY INVOLVEMENT WITH THE REPAIR. I LATER FOUND OUT, THE CUT-OUT WAS BEYOND LIMITS. IT WAS TO HAVE ONLY BEEN IN 1 STRINGER BAY. AN ENGINEER LOOKED AT THE CUT-OUT, AND MADE A STATEMENT ON BACK OF WRITE-UP THAT CUT-OUT WAS OK. THE DOUBLER WAS INSTALLED BY WORKERS ON A LATER SHIFT, PER SRM 53-00-11. I WAS TOLD BY A FELLOW WORKER THE SRM USED WAS FOR A SMALL REPAIR AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SRM REF FOR A LARGE REPAIR. THE LEAD DID NOT WANT TO REPROCESS THE WRITE-UP FOR A DIFFERENT SRM REF. THE CUT-OUT SECTION WAS APPROX 5 INCHES BY 10 INCHES, OVER 2 STRINGERS. I BELIEVE THE FINAL REPAIR WAS SAFE FOR SVC. ENGINEERING FOLLOWED THE PROGRESS ON REPAIR, INSPECTION RETURNED THE PLANE 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.