This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote):
Please also investigate the following drawing designated torque problem that illustrates how clueless we have been: We have always, since PSD inception, torqued almost all of the drawing designated torques on the inlets, exhaust plugs and sleeves, QADs, generators, hydraulic pumps, you name it, anything with a circular pattern, or even a multiple row installation like the (model I.D.) fan cowl chine, in a circular pattern, in violation of (specification section) (referenced in the reference section below) that states not to successively tighten adjacent bolts or nuts in that situation, and instead to first snug up all the bolts, snugging up opposite bolts all around, then tighten all the bolts, applying the final torque to opposite bolts in a pattern similar to that shown in Figure X of the spec.
The reason? When you tighten adjacent bolts on a part like an inlet or exhaust sleeve, you chase a gap around the inlet or sleeve, which gets larger and larger as you progess, and this gap gets pushed all the way around, getting concentrated between the first and last torqued bolts. This probably overstresses the first torqued bolt, and structure in that area. Excessive gap at that area also results. We never check the gap between the noted parts and the engine that I am aware of, so unknown gapping conditions exist in service. This may also effect the "calibrated eyeball" inspected (basically uninspected) fit and fair of these parts, also. If we haven’t notified you of the many thousands of discrepant installations that resulted from this improper torquing of drawing designated torques, then please write us up. Who knows how many thousands of engines have bolts rattling around in their inlets or exhaust installations because of this problem. Even your local uneducated auto mechanic knows not to do this on the tires on your car, but we don’t care, as we only care, it seems, about what will "push more garbage out the door" faster. This very recently came up as an issue at PSD, as (name), the thorough inspector who still falsely believes (per the unwritten BCAG Quality System ) that he is an inspector, and not a mechanic instructor on corporate welfare, (brought it up). He started making shop torque anything that fit the noted section of (the spec), including inlets and exhaust sleeves, per the noted section. This made shop go ballistic, as you might know would happen per my descriptions of their character so far. They did the usual, and instead of happily complying with the obvious spec requirement, to make sure that products shipped from PSD from now on would conform to requirements, they immediately began an effort to kill the spec requirement for PSD, just so our build times would not increase by the few minutes that building conforming products would require. I found out (the inspector) was enforcing this by shop rumor. (My QA supervisor) knows about this. But does he tell all his inspectors to make sure they make shop torque per the requirement? No. And you know only too well why. See Exhibit AH for an email that shows the PSD "mechanic’s position" on this and other issues of torque. It shows that pretty much only the build times are what they care about, not the safety of the people on board our aircraft.
The Last Inspector