This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote):
Please use extreme caution when approving any changes to the drawings to delete drawing designated torques. Engineering, like QA, is under extreme pressure from shop management to delete any requirements, no matter how safety related, in order to compress their build times, save cost, meet schedules, and as (my inspector coworker) said, "to push more garbage out the door." Our QA Management has totally capitulated to their every unethical whim, and Engineering may also. Do not allow any drawing designated torques that were on the drawings from inception of a program, or drawing designated torques that were added because of problems found in service, to be deleted.
Use the same "fault tree analysis", or similar tools, that were used in type design approval, when deciding if a torque should be deleted or not. Please do not consider the current extreme state of ineffectiveness of our line inspection force as a reason to delete those torques. This report is meant to restore that effectivity, with your help. An engineering change to delete torques that is presented to you with the reasoning that less inspection will save BCAG money, in my opinion, should be rejected. Believe, me (I’ve witnessed this), that, while the reasoning for most engineering changes to delete drawing designated torques may be dressed up with statistics and other manipulated data and reasoning, the only driver behind these changes is to, as (my inspector coworker) said, "to push more garbage out the door," without any real consideration of the consequences, because as (my corrupt QA supervisor) said, the statistics say our products are fool-mechanic-proof and cannot crash because of uninspected manufacturing error.
The Last Inspector