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

8/7/2007

 

​This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report:
 
Please investigate the torque "anti-sabotage" putty situation at PSD. During the time of QA Supervisors (name) and (name), the requirement to apply tamper proof putty (blue (material specification) putty at PSD) to fastener torques we witnessed was removed from our (document I.D. number) Torque Requirements and (document I.D. number) Stamps and Seals QOIs under the guise of all our products at PSD being "high heat areas" in which the putty would burn off in moments once the engine was started. (One of the noted QA supervisors) just came out and told us to stop applying putty when he made the personal decision to stop the use of it, and then when (the other noted QA supervisor) came in, he at least had the sense to have us start doing it again until the QOIs were changed (reference the Exhibit AD email. Also see the Exhibit AE email for his direction not to apply it anymore, later). Anyway, the "high heat" reason not to apply putty, I believe, came from Renton’s Stamps and Seals QOI. The problem is this: most of our products are not composed of high heat areas. Any area forward of the engine cores are not, and only the underside of the struts are. 90% of the strut areas, and most of the engine fancase areas are made of aluminum, which cannot be used in high heat areas by engineering design. We should at least still be applying putty in those areas. But there is another problem with the current "no use of putty by QA" policy. You’d think that, if QA could not apply (material specification) putty on the engines and struts because it does not withstand high heat, then there would be none of it at PSD, right? Wrong. Shop mechanics use it all of the time on the plumbing installations, even those in the definitely high heat core areas of the engines. They use the same (material specification) putty we used to use, just pink...and yellow...colors, not "QA" blue. What, you’re asking? How could this be? Why was QA so hot to get rid of inspection putty, when shop still uses the same stuff, just different colors, on the hottest parts of the airplane? I’m glad you asked, as I believe I have the answer, and it even fits perfectly in with the corruption so far documented first-hand in the QA Management ranks.

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