The Last Boeing Inspector
  • The Last Inspector's Blog
  • The Boeing-FAA "Working Together" Fraud Negating Boeing Airplane Quality
  • Boeing's 100 Year Heritage of Building Something Worse Than Required
  • Boeing's Vast Network of Fraud
  • Other Boeing Fraud
  • Troubling Facts about Boeing's Culture of Fraud
  • Jump Page
  • About/Contact Me
  • Crashes Because of Rollerstamping
  • What is Rollerstamping?
  • New Fraud, Same as the Old Fraud
  • Boeing Workers Agree: Only Fly on Boeing Planes if you Have a Death Wish

​
​​​

Daily Report Quote

2/14/2007

 

This quote is also from my first report to the FAA local MIDO office, when I was naive and chose not to believe all those press reports about the FAA being the "handmaiden of the aviation industry" and a "tombstone agency."

I was assigned a desk in the Liaison Engineering office with (name), (name), (name), (name), and another Liaison Engineer. I diligently did my work, rarely leaving the office because I had a task to do. I researched every process monitoring procedure in the Boeing Company. I wrote the new procedure for PSD, along with designing new forms to support the procedure. I believe I had it finished in a couple months. I then had a meeting with (my QA supervisor) and (my QA Lead) to go over it. We discussed the procedure, and I told (my QA supervisor) what I thought he needed to do next to implement it. I told (my QA supervisor) I was ready to go back out on the floor to my inspection job, as I was done with the project. A startled look came across his face. He told me that no, he had another project for me to work on, auditing our...QA Manual.

(My QA Lead) set me up with all of the stuff I needed. Auditing the manual was required per our QOI, and (name) and (name) had done it before I started it. I saw that they had only did a cursory job to make it look like we were complying with the manual auditing requirements, but we really weren‘t. There was no official schedule. I went through the QOI on the subject and made up updated Microsoft Word based audit schedule forms, whereas the old forms you had to fill out by hand. I found that we were not only required per the QOI to audit the manual to make sure the QOIs were up to date, but we were required to audit our actual organizational compliance to the QOIs, which the prior auditors had conveniently omitted from their process. I made up new forms to accomplish this. I put this all in a book and presented it to (my QA Lead) to look over and have (my QA supervisor) stamp the audit schedule forms I had made up, as that was required per the QOI.

It never got done. It just sat on (my QA supervisor's) desk. I gave up. I just started to audit the QOIs for being up-to-date with all the requirements and to make them as good as the Prime Division’s QOIs, trying to incorporate the best of all of them and making ours common with theirs. I did this of my own volition as I was receiving no direction from (my QA supervisor) and only a small amount from (my QA Lead) (when I started). I guess I knew I was just being warehoused and kept off of the production floor, and the manual auditing was just meaningless "make-work" they had no intention of ever using, but as usual, I denied it, as I didn’t want to believe it--to come to grips with what that would really mean. I still went to crew meetings with the rest of my crew, though I seldom strayed out to the shop to visit with them because my work ethic always "kept my nose to the grindstone".

At one of these crew meetings somehow the subject of what I was doing came up. I don’t remember what the prompt was, but I remember making the comment that I had job security, as our QA manual was so screwed up, that it would take "a billion man-hours to fix it." I was very thorough with my revisions to the QOIs. I only included items I knew were required. I reviewed every Company quality procedure I could find to make sure these QOIs were as good, or better than, all of them. I was proud of my extensive revisions to the QOIs. I thought they were as good as any of the Prime Division’s QOIs. When I completed them I put them on (my QA supervisor's) desk. There they sat and piled up. They were never signed and submitted for inclusion in the manual. I believe I know why. During my auditing of the manual, I became very aware how our manual was the most primitive out there. It seemed only very minimal changes were ever made to the manual, while other Division’s were significantly revised, and often. (Another QA Lead) read one of my revised QOIs. He said I needed to keep them as simple as possible, because if we put something new in them, "then we might have to comply with it."
​

I believe that was the reason why my QOIs, which resembled very closely the professionally updated QOIs of the Prime Divisions, were never submitted to the FAA for incorporation in the manual. PSD worked to it’s own unwritten Quality System, and any additions to the FAA-approved manual were simply adding to the risks PSD would get a finding from the FAA, and not in PSD’s best cost and schedule interests.


Comments are closed.

    Author:

    The Last Inspector
    Gerald Eastman

    Archives

    November 2018
    June 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    January 2018
    December 2017
    November 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    March 2011
    February 2011
    December 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    September 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    June 2006

    Categories

    All
    Airbus-is-actually-regulated
    Airbus Must Be A Monopoly
    Boeing Centennial
    Boeing-chief-counsel-letter
    Boeing-continues-to-offend
    Boeingfaa-fraud
    Boeing Improper Delegation
    Boeing Production Cuts
    Boeing Quality A Shell Organization
    Boeing Quality Subversion
    Boeing Quid Pro Quo Hiring Of Government Officials
    Boeing's Legacy Of Corruption
    Boeing-spreading-corruption
    Daily Report Quote
    Doug Bain Letter
    First Blog Post
    First Letter To FAA
    Important Announcements
    Important Warning
    Inspector General Investigation
    Necessity Of Boeing Failure
    OIG Letter
    Sabatini Letter
    Safer Crew And Passengers
    The Evil Nature Of Boeing Management
    Thomas Nakamichi Meeting
    Unlike Boeing

    RSS Feed

Proudly powered by Weebly
  • The Last Inspector's Blog
  • The Boeing-FAA "Working Together" Fraud Negating Boeing Airplane Quality
  • Boeing's 100 Year Heritage of Building Something Worse Than Required
  • Boeing's Vast Network of Fraud
  • Other Boeing Fraud
  • Troubling Facts about Boeing's Culture of Fraud
  • Jump Page
  • About/Contact Me
  • Crashes Because of Rollerstamping
  • What is Rollerstamping?
  • New Fraud, Same as the Old Fraud
  • Boeing Workers Agree: Only Fly on Boeing Planes if you Have a Death Wish