This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report.
Think rollerstamping (stamping off an inspection as being done when it was not done or was just partially done) of inspections is bad? That's not the half of it.
In many cases at Boeing's PSD Division where I worked, Boeing personnel colluded to ensure that inspection points on the manufacturing plans, that informed the inspector which critical items to inspect and were what the inspector stamped to signify they performed the inspection, never were added to the plans as required to even be rollerstamped.
This was done by delaying and ignoring my original call (later taken up by a few other inspectors) for PSD to comply with putting the required inspections on the plans that were missing.
These inspections were called out as "mandatory," if required to be on a plan, in what is called a "canned notes document." However, PSD refused to recognize the canned note document even applied to PSD, even though it was called out in our QA Manual specifically for auditing PSD plans to for correct inspection points.
Instead of following the requirements, PSD pretended the canned note document did not apply, and revised the QA manual to delete its reference. Years went by when supposedly PSD was writing their own canned notes document, an effort in which "foot dragging" would be an understatement.
All of the while, critical airplane engines, auxiliary power units and the struts that held the engines to the wings went out of PSD for delivery on airplanes to Boeing's customers without these required critical inspections done at all by any PSD inspector, rollerstamper or not, as they were missing from the plans with full knowledge of PSD management of the time.
Both before and after my report of this to the FAA, the FAA was complicit in letting airplanes deliver to customers that were never inspected as required by anyone to any level if integrity due to these inspections missing from the plans that built those airplanes:
(Boeing intranet address)
That site lists the D6T11148 document as the document M.E. uses for canned notes on O&IRs at PSD. Could it be that us line inspectors were lied to on the applicability of that document to plans at PSD to keep us from writing up the obvious lack of the required inspection points on the plans to "facilitate the delivery schedule" and save the costs that needless mandatory inspection points would entail for inspectors who were, in actuality, really just instructors? Elementary, my dear Watson (Sorry for that).
See Exhibit I for the planning NCR (Non-Conformance Record number) I wrote that caused our management not to "identify and verify the applicability of the correct canned notes document for future EBUs (Engine Build-Ups)," as the answer on the NCO (Non-Conformance Order) from our QA Supervisor that roller stamped it states, but to delete it from our QA Manual, because we knew immediately, somehow, "that it didn’t apply to PSD," but are going on four years now, still "searching" for the correct document.
The almost four year purposely fruitless "search" for that document has saved the Company countless dollars. Dollars that would have been spent on the longer manufacturing flows that would have resulted from having the required inspection points on the plans. Overtime expenditures would have been more also, as these longer flows would have forced everyone to work a little later, when they did work overtime.
Countless more dollars were saved in passing on the defects that would have been caught during these missing process inspections to the airlines, and not documenting them and fixing them at Boeing. Of course, we wouldn’t have documented them in our current system, but I’m speaking of what an ethical Quality System would do, as opposed to what we would do.
And, of course, the longer manufacturing flow I spoke of would have only resulted if ethical inspectors like (name) and I did the inspections, because any extra process inspections would only take the roller stamper crowd at PSD only mere milliseconds more to stamp off, without any actual inspection required.
See Exhibit J for for four emails on the subject of PSD’s lack of canned notes (one email dated 12/10/98, from (name), M.E. Supervisor, and three emails, dated 2/11/99, 3/9/99, and 4/20/99, from (name), my supervisor at the time).
The first email from (the Manufacturing Engineer Supervisor) states that a previous finding or observation from you (the FAA) was written that was answered that M.E. would incorporate mandatory canned notes at the implementation of either Resident Work Plans or CAPP, whichever comes first.
(My QA supervisor) tried to find the finding, but couldn’t, as I recall. Perhaps you can check your files. We have a habit of conveniently losing things that would cause us extra work, like canned notes documents, and FAA findings and observations.
Anyway, Resident Work Plans have come and gone at PSD, with no canned notes document as promised from M.E. What I don’t get, is that a canned notes document is not a responsibility of M.E. to make and incorporate. It is our job, QA’s--specifically, QA Planning’s. We shouldn’t need the permission of M.E. to make and incorporate that document. It is our responsibility, and, even if M.E. wanted nothing to do with them, as the emails from (my QA supervisor) attest, we could shove them down their throat if they didn’t want to swallow them, if we really wanted to do our jobs.
You can see from (the M.E. supervisor's) email, that it was me, with my forbidden fruit knowledge of mandatory canned notes from the Everett 777 First Article Verification Team, that started the whole sad affair of trying to get PSD planning to call out the minimum inspections required, by writing the first "canned notes missing" planning pickups in early December 1998.
Nothing has happened since, unless you call the canned note website something, which I don’t, because it is even more insufficient, in not having the minimum inspections required, than what we have now on our O&IRs, without a canned notes document. The last email from (my QA supervisor) says he was making a PSD document.
An official PSD canned notes document was never made. (A fellow line inspector) said that he saw this "canned notes document" (my QA supervisor) wrote of once, and it was no such thing. It was a list of inspections, just like the D6T11148 document, but missing the column that stated whether the canned note was mandatory or not. So it was worthless, from a canned note document standpoint.
A real canned note document would have been circulated to the line inspectors, in an ethical Quality System, so they could use it to verify the correct inspections were on the jobs, as our QA Planning department never did.
Our QA department seemed to like inspections on the plans as much as Manufacturing did, so we find things as they are today--all hosed up, just as they were when I arrived at PSD, despite my efforts. Anyway, after the April email from (my QA supervisor), and still no canned notes document, I pretty much gave up hope for one.
Strangely, PSD sent (name), I believe from M.E., to be PSD’s representative when they made up this new web-based "canned notes" system. We once again abrogated our QA Planning responsibility, and let M.E., which is aligned with serving Manufacturing, not us, pick which inspections Manufacturing got, which was pretty much none.
The Last Inspector