This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote):
As I can’t write this up again due to the fact that not just banishment to a make-work job in the office will result, but banishment from BCAG itself will likely result, please take care of this discrepancy for me. While I don’t know if another El Al style crash will result or not if corrosion causes some damage to these unprotected roller swaged bushings, Engineers put requirements on drawings and in specs for a reason, not just on a whim, as QA seems to think by the way we enforce them. The noted problem is C/T (Common To) (the) (part number) installation, C/T the (part number) spring beams, C/T the (part number) nested bushings. See the noted latter two tags for references. Also see "flag" (in a circle) 8 on the figure on SB (Service Bulletin) 747-54A2152 revision 4 page 54 on the upper half of the page entitled "Typical Spring Beam Lug Rework, Nested Bushing Installation," which states on page 60, step 10, to do a "bead sealant in swaged lip." The service bulletin is much more clear than the drawing and spec on this issue. Do not stop with the write up of this installation. I suspect the same discrepancy exists on all similar bushing installations on all of our struts. We, as QA, should not have the luxury, as we do now, to say which things on the drawing we will ensure are (done) correctly, and which we will purposely ignore, even though we know they are not done correctly.
The Last Inspector