This quote is also from my addendum (supplement) to my first report (continued from previous day's quote):
Do you think the exemption for PSD not to witness engineering required leak-proof torques on the engines and struts was given because our mechanics make few, if any, mistakes, the engines don’t need the plumbing systems we install to run (as (my QA Supervisor) would probably tell us line inspectors), or that some huge, statistically valid study was done by QE (Quality Engineering) to show that the risk of a leaking connection to ETOPS was minimal in relation to the inspection costs saved? Nope. Read Exhibit AL for the real, sad truth from the eyewitness engineer that worked the PSD X-XX change, (name), of why this critical torque witness was axed for PSD--simple (non-statistically valid) lies. What the last sentence of the first paragraph of the email shows, is the reasoning PSD QA used to probably accede to their real bosses’ unethical, purely non-quality and non safety related wishes, Manufacturing Management. Lies.
The Last Inspector