This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report:
Please investigate the bypassing of inspectors that try to do their jobs per the FAA-approved procedures. I have been a victim of this in the fitcheck area since my return from banishment in the office.
An example of this, from page 55, which I reiterate:
Anyway, I found that often the composite repair technicians would use the wrong composite material to lay up the repairs, or would set their equipment to heat up or cool down the repair too fast during the cure, or record insufficient thermocouple readings than the minimum required. I wrote NCR revisions on these items, as there was no way to fix the errors without ripping out the repairs and starting over. This threw the composite repair mechanics for a loop, as that had never happened to them before at PSD. One technician, the one who usually did the repairs at PSD, (name), (from) Renton EMF Composites shop (shop I.D.), thereafter would go get my lead of the time, (name), to do the "inspection", as he didn’t like me inspecting his work, and writing his mistakes up. (My QA Lead) came out to speak to me about the situation, stating that he had known that composite repair technician for, I believe, a seemingly ridiculous amount of time, like 15 years, and that he "did good work", implying I should not be looking at his work at all, like him. I said that, "We don’t buy off a mechanic’s work just by who he is, we buy off the work by inspecting the work itself, right?". (My QA Lead), seemingly reluctantly, agreed. (My QA Lead) was always good at spouting occasionally that things should be done per procedure, demonstrating, occasionally, quite a knowledge of those procedures, but when it came to actually performing his own inspections per those procedures, he ignored them, revving up his "Briggs and Stratton" endowed stamp to the redline in order to "support the delivery schedule." (One of the other QA Leads) didn’t even have that many ethics, as he would tell you to ignore procedures, and then roller stamp. I had somewhat more respect, although it was in the negative range, for (the other QA Lead), because at least, in a sick way, he was more consistent in not doing his job. Anyway, I believe examples of the tags I wrote on these bad composite repairs was (NCR I.D.) and (NCR I.D.) Revision 1 and Revision 2 on 737X T/Rs. I wrote bad cures up on the PSD repairs I inspected, even after consulting with (name), the Auburn QA Lead that oversaw the inspectors that worked with (name), composite repair mechanic, whose work I was inspecting on NCR (NCR I.D.), I believe. (The Aurburn QA Lead) said that his inspectors had stopped writing similar bad cures up at the Auburn Site, as the disposition of the tags always came back "structurally and functionally acceptable" to engineering. I knew that that didn’t absolve QA from having to write up the tags, as "structurally and functionally acceptable" meant it was still a discrepant part, and the only organization that could allow such products to be used, by "structurally and functionally acceptable" dispositions, was Engineering. I ignored his ignorant or careless method and always wrote bad cures up at PSD, before the composite repair technicians bypassed me, because, as I stated earlier, it was always my ethic to get discrepant items fixed, or documented, as required, once they came to my attention.
The Last Inspector