This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report. (Continued from previous day's quote):
Of course, using this method, I found errors those other inspectors never found because of their roller stamping "supporting the delivery schedule" nature, or faulty calibration of their eyeballs.
It was obvious this was the case, as probably the second tag I had to write as a result of my, I thought minimum, inspection method was (I believe) on a weekend I was working in the 777 EBU (Engine Build Up) area.
It was rare for me to be assigned to that area, and that was probably the first two days I worked in that area ever, as I have spent only about four total days in my almost four and one half year career at PSD inspecting in the 777 EBU area.
Anyway, things were slow that weekend, and I inspected very few jobs, but one of the few jobs I did inspect had a clearance problem I found with my "inspection tool" inspection method between a tube and some vendor bolt heads fastening a couple fancase sections together.
This clearance problem was so bad it should have been obvious to even the majority of inspectors using the "calibrated eyeball" method of inspection only. The mechanic tried to loosen the tubing and adjust it to obtain the required clearance, but he couldn’t without preloading the tubing. It was obvious it was a design error, and all installations built prior to that one had been bought off that way due to the "supporting the delivery schedule" "calibrated eyeball" error-prone and see-what-you-want-to-see-prone inspection method.
I wrote NCR (number) on L/N (number) on that design error, which led to a drawing change of the one tube that had the clearance problem (see drawing (number) sheet PL revision BH that rolled the (part number) discrepant installation to the (part number)). The installation I wrote up was approximately the 37th installation that was inspected before being written up.
What’s disturbing, is that, I would think, but don’t know, that there would be a QA requirement (maybe this would be a FAI or FAV inspection) for the inspector that inspected the first, brand spanking new, installation (I think the tag I noted was written on a 777-300 installation) to go over it with a fine toothed comb and find all possible design errors that could haunt us in production, like the installation I noted that could never be made to meet the drawing clearance requirements, so that they could all be fixed prior to a bunch of discrepant units going out.
This would save the company a lot of money. But apparently that is not a requirement at PSD (or is but we don’t do it, which would be normal), but this is: If an inspector writes up a design error that was missed by multiple other inspectors, we won’t reward him for catching the possible safety-related defect and chastise or fire the other inspectors for their incompetence, we’ll instead "shoot the messenger," and chastise, fire, or transfer the inspector who wrote up the possible safety-related defect and made the other roller stamping inspectors, the kind of inspectors we want, look bad, into a meaningless "make work" job to keep him from writing things like this up.
The Last Inspector