This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report:
Engine reallocations. I’ve checked into this some more and it, like a dead fish in a trash can on a 100 degree day, stinks more and more the closer I get to it.
Our QA Supervisor Tom Nakamichi told inspectors that inquired on this taboo subject that the engines are only assigned to a customer A/P at the point when the forklift driver brings them into the building and sets them down at the start of the EBU monorail for receival inspection.
Of course, he has no documentation to back this up, it is just "tribal knowledge" apparently. This doesn’t satisfy those inspectors like (name) and I, who want to do our jobs correctly and per procedures, as there are no procedures that state what Nakamichi said.
The vendor paper placards that are received on some of the engine shipping covers that indicate a specific customer for that engine would seem to indicate that Nakamichi is lying to us on this subject (see Exhibit AX for a copy of a placard I removed from the fancase of a Rolls Royce 777 engine when I did the receival of it, which indicates (Boeing customer three letter I.D.) as the customer that engine was built for).
Of course lying to a lowly line inspector is just a walk in the park for QA Supervisors with the ethics of Thomas Nakamichi. His ethics, though, are not his fault. They are a requirement of his job at BCAG. This is typical. QA Management says anything, right or wrong (they don’t seem to care which, if it serves their purposes), to get inspectors off of a certain subject they don’t want explored for obvious reasons, even if they know little or nothing about whether their reasoning is true. This used to bother me. Now it doesn’t. The meeting with Nakamichi on 1/11 filled me in perfectly on why they don’t seem to care, as I’m sure I have repeated too many times before.
Anyway, what we as line inspectors are supposed to do if an engine is received that is not the correct configuration required by that customer per the drawing, is to initiate an "information only" paper pickup or rework "info only" NCR stating the fact that it is the wrong configuration. Then either M.E. Planning or QA Planning will initiate a B/L (blueline job) to rework the engine per a SCCR (Supplier Configuration Change Request) to the correct configuration. Sounds OK, right? Wrong.
This is illegal, even if our QA Management managed to get our engine receival QOI approved to state it. The (document I.D.) document, section 18.104.22.168., states that SCCRs are only ("only" is underlined in the document also) to be used to incorporate engine manufacturer requested changes into the engines. This prohibits using them the way we do at PSD--to reallocate engines.
Section 6.45 of the document, which defines a SCCR, states that a SCCR requires the support of a SMB/SSB or special installation approval by the CAA/DGAC/FAA/JAA, and commitment by the Boeing Change Board, not just a paper "info only" pickup initiated by a lowly PSD line inspector.
Section 3.2.1. of the document states that the engine manufacturers must supply configuration changes, S/Ns, and shortages to Boeing before installation of the engine on a Boeing A/P. That information probably is required much earlier by Boeing than when the forklift driver brings the engine in the plant.
This just in: I saw a stray email sitting on a table in my area for several days and looked at it (see Exhibit AP). It shows how casually we "reallocate" engines at PSD, for just convenience of production issues. While this was just a "reallocation" of engines from one position to another on a 747, which I don’t know is kosher or not to do without a reallocation letter, the same casual, uncaring for the configuration of the product, attitude exists when swapping engines of different configurations among different customers. I believe there used to be, but I don’t know if the situation still exists or not, configuration differences between inboard and outboard engines on some 747s (optional ADP on inboard engines?).
The Last Inspector