This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote). This item might have some applicability to the recent explosion of a 737 in Japan, with all of the passengers thankfully (but barely) escaping with their lives, mostly due to an alert ground crew person at the airport gate it had just pulled up to noticing the leaking fuel from a puncutured fuel tank caused by an omitted or misplaced washer on a fastener before the passengers could be engulfed by the resulting conflagration:
This item is almost Deja Vu to the (below) item. It is not that major, unless you expect BCAG to build conforming products to the fastener level, which I think you might. It illustrates again how screwed up (BCA) is to requirements that would allow us to build products with stable conformity from unit to unit. It mainly has an effect on inspectors like me, who actually inspect fastener installations, and who don’t like to guess what the configuration of the product should be when I inspect it. This item is one of the few situations where engineering has not screwed up, and that common sense and (engineering specification) requirements, without modification, should prevail. However they don’t, because shop does what they want, whether it is right or not, and inspectors don’t care or don’t speak up because our corrupt QA Management will find us new jobs beside the freeway if we do: It has to do with washer position on fastener installations. Many of our drawings show fastener installations where a bolt, a plain washer, and a nut are called out without a specific head direction or washer position callout. The washer should go under the nut, as it is uncountersunk, and no such washers should go under the head, right? Wrong per shop tribal knowledge and build methods. No, the washer always is installed under the component, bolt head or nut, that gets rotated during installation, per shop preference of which side to rotate. This shows how often shop reads their specs, as this might have been partially true about 15 years ago, per the (engineering specification) spec. I don’t know if you want to write us up for this or not. You are welcome to. It is mainly illustrative of the inability and/or unwillingness of inspectors to attempt to politely enforce even basic fastener installation requirements like these for fear of the "is it critical!" berating "yell" that (inspector's name) got from (my QA supervisor) in that crew meeting when speaking of missing "non-critical" shakedown inspection buyoffs, and fear of the later "not supporting the delivery schedule" private meeting with (my QA supervisor) to get your "award" for enforcing basic Engineering requirements, a CAM (Corrective Action Memo, any three of which result in termination). See Exhibit AI item 1 for an email I sent to the keeper of the (engineering specification) spec about this subject. He seems to think the drawing is deficient if it doesn’t state where to put the washer. The middle sentence of his answer, I believe, is in error, as it should not be up to the mechanic where to put the washer. See the following sections of (the engineeriung spec) for what shop should be doing in these situations, and what we would be making them do, if we weren’t instructors, and were really inspectors allowed to inspect the product:...
...(Note about washer use requirements on painted parts) Nope, most of the parts we misplace the drawing washer on are bare parts, and if such a primered part existed for which we needed to comply with this section by having a washer under the head that we had to torque because of no access to the nut, then we wouldn’t just take the drawing plain washer, that should always be under the nut, and put it under the head for protection of the finish. We should comply with the spec section X.X.X above, and add an additional (correct washer) from Table XX, as required, and put it under the head, leaving the plain drawing washer under the nut.
The Last Inspector