B737-800
Maintenance Airframe; Maintenance Powerplant
Situational Awareness
Aircraft Equipment Problem Less Severe; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Maintenance; Deviation / Discrepancy - Procedural Published Material / Policy
General None Reported / Taken
Company Policy; Aircraft; Procedure
I was working as a mechanic when I was assigned to a radio call for possible blade damage to the number 2 engine on [Aircraft X]. When I inspected the damage to blade 13 on initial inspection the blade appeared to be properly addressed per the AMM (Aircraft Maintenance Manual) 72-XX-XX-XXX-XXX-XX. My normal procedure is to check a 30 day history on the AC (aircraft) then contact [Maintenance Control] to determine if the repair had been documented and the follow up FPI (Fluorescent Penetrant Inspection) had been accomplished within the requisite 10 cycles or 25 hours. There was nothing in the AML (Aircraft Maintenance Logbook) or safe for the previous 30 days for [Aircraft X]. I then contacted [Maintenance Control] to have them check the engine log for the Number 2 engine to look for damage noted to blade 13. The [Maintenance Control] technician informed me that the company no longer tracks repairs to blades and told me that if there was a question about whether the blade was addressed properly or not my only recourse was to re-accomplish the AMM. When I asked how they were tracking the FPI for the blade after blending I was informed that if the FPI was deferred per the AMM there would be a [notice] but I would only see it for 30 days after the follow-up and if the FPI was accomplished at the repair there would be no documentation of the repair.The Company needs to either resume tracking repairs to the engine per the engine log or come up with a new system to track them.
A Maintenance Technician reported that a repair and follow-up procedures were not documented as per company procedure.