This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report.
Of course, the QOI still states that we are supposed to verify they (fitted parts tags) are filled out correctly, even if we don’t have to stamp them, and any inspector worth his salt should know that they should be attached to the job that reinstalls the items they were attached to, even if our QOI doesn’t specifically state to do that. It also doesn’t say not to do that, so it doesn’t conflict with the various (documents), and QOIs of Divisions that are not as hosed as ours, that state to attach them to the jobs.
I should have changed the QOI to have us stamp all Fitted Parts Tags, considering the fact my revision never was approved. Per the QACR (Quality Assurance Change Request)process, (my QA supervisor) is supposed to either sign and submit the QACR to you, tell me what he thinks needs to be changed and return it to me for revision, or reject it altogether, in a reasonable amount of time, which over a year and a half isn’t.
Also note, on fitted parts, that our plans are as nonconforming as our Quality System. There should be a notation in the parts list of the plan that removes the fitted part with the "F" coded part number, bracketed as a non-issued part, along with an inspection operation for QA to verify the fitted part tag is filled out correctly, the part is marked with the fitted part "F" suffix code after the part number, and the part is rubber stamped with the unit I.D. (The inspection operation will not say all of that, but that is what the inspector should look at when such an inspection exists.
This inspection operation exists in the...canned note document.) Then the job that reinstalls the part will have the same notation in the parts list of the "F" coded part number, bracketed as a non-issued part, along with an inspection operation for QA to verify the fitted part tag is for the correct unit and part number, and to remove it and staple it to the job.
There should also be a "OK to Close" buyoff for the parts if the reinstallation of the parts will close an area off to inspection.
When I was in the 747 strut area, the plans all were correct, with my help, if I remember right, except for the fitted part reinstallation inspection. The same plans have probably regressed to their former sad non-compliant state to "facilitate the delivery schedule" in my forced banishment to my "make work" job.
Anyway, check out job (I.D.) on 777 struts for an indication of how out of compliance with planning requirements our fitted parts jobs are. I don’t believe any of the fitted parts that are removed are listed on the parts list with their "F" codes for shop to fill out the Fitted Parts Tags correctly with, as they rarely, if ever, fill them out.
Also, the fitted parts inspection is missing for the parts that are removed in operations 20, 30, and 40. Of course, this plan is not alone by far.
All of our plans are probably noncompliant with planning and QA planning requirements for fitted parts. Check them out. I think most of these plans are the strut uncrate and crate jobs, but there are others too in the strut shop and probably a few on the engine lines.
All of these plans that are missing the required inspections, of course, don’t bother our QA Management. Quite the opposite. The fewer inspections, the more money the Company saves, and the higher their merit bonuses and chances for promotion will be.
This just in: I was right! "The same plans have probably regressed to their former sad non-compliant state to ‘facilitate the delivery schedule’ in my forced banishment to my ‘make work’ job." Yep. True, it was done, just as expected. They deleted the fitted parts requirements from job (I.D.) (747 strut receival job, I believe).
The Last Inspector