All -
As regards " re-work "...
During my last years @ Spirit Aerosystems Tulsa, QA sent out a message that doumentation would be required going forward, for all re-work performed on Boeing aircraft components ( B737 series Aft Flaps was my work area ).
Before the date specified for the start of documenting all re-work, I felt compelled to try coaxing senior leadership into abandoning the effort before it got started. I shotgun E-mailed
QA and all Management levels with the same message...at the same time.
I pointed out that the time required for workers to input the data and also to call QA for making special inspections... was simply unsupportable and unsustainable. From memory, and Aft Flap Aft Spar was assembled using a combo of 123 total rivits and " Hylock " fasteners. I asked the question of how each fastener requiring re-work could readily be identified ?
For example... how would you inform QA about the location of each & every fastener in question...when they wanted each one to have its own input documentation and inspection?
Example: " 57th rivit in from the Rt outboard edge " ?
Example: " 8th Hylock on the upper row of fasteners joining the spar web to the spar cap " ? The whole shebang would have to have been digitized, and also provide pre-formed wording and / or codes to speed use. Even then...workers would be at the SMS computer for inordinate amounts of time.
I also pointed out that QA inspection levels were already demanding, and new ( increased ) re-work documentation / inspection regimine would have over-obligated QA inspectors; with the result being greatly delayed inspections. To my suprise, QA retracted the message; and things settled back down ! My first level supervisor thanked me for getting management to change their mind.
My second-level supervisor ( who was only seen on the production floor maybe once a year ), made it a point to come down to the floor.... specically to see me. He then proceeded to try and ream me out for the amount of time I must have expended...formulating and obviously very persuasive & successful E-mail message. The day's production needs... making the " rate "... were the paramount concerns, he sternly assured . Figuring he would not take the time to personally find out how much time I had actually spent on the message,
I told him an amount about 1/3rd the actual time I had spent.
And, off he went.
My point: At Spirit, Tulsa.... You could re-work errors you found and/ or made yourself all you needed to.... right up until the task or item was " bought " by QA. Re-work after the item was sold to QA , required prior authorizarion from Engineering and QA.....before such re-work could be legally undertaken ( per QA regs ). Some re-work requires specific Engineering review and aurhorization. For example: when a worker found a " non-shear " rivit ( excess gap rivit head-to-structure), they were allowed to re-drill the hole, and install a .001" or .002"
" oversize " as needed; to straighten out the crooked hole.
However....if the hole was still crooked after trying the .002"
" over " rivit.... they had to obtain Engineering aurhorization to try the last allowable fix.....use of a .003" oversize rivit.
One can see how such items might have contributed to " travel work " in the past, and even so today.
With regards,
357Mag
As regards " re-work "...
During my last years @ Spirit Aerosystems Tulsa, QA sent out a message that doumentation would be required going forward, for all re-work performed on Boeing aircraft components ( B737 series Aft Flaps was my work area ).
Before the date specified for the start of documenting all re-work, I felt compelled to try coaxing senior leadership into abandoning the effort before it got started. I shotgun E-mailed
QA and all Management levels with the same message...at the same time.
I pointed out that the time required for workers to input the data and also to call QA for making special inspections... was simply unsupportable and unsustainable. From memory, and Aft Flap Aft Spar was assembled using a combo of 123 total rivits and " Hylock " fasteners. I asked the question of how each fastener requiring re-work could readily be identified ?
For example... how would you inform QA about the location of each & every fastener in question...when they wanted each one to have its own input documentation and inspection?
Example: " 57th rivit in from the Rt outboard edge " ?
Example: " 8th Hylock on the upper row of fasteners joining the spar web to the spar cap " ? The whole shebang would have to have been digitized, and also provide pre-formed wording and / or codes to speed use. Even then...workers would be at the SMS computer for inordinate amounts of time.
I also pointed out that QA inspection levels were already demanding, and new ( increased ) re-work documentation / inspection regimine would have over-obligated QA inspectors; with the result being greatly delayed inspections. To my suprise, QA retracted the message; and things settled back down ! My first level supervisor thanked me for getting management to change their mind.
My second-level supervisor ( who was only seen on the production floor maybe once a year ), made it a point to come down to the floor.... specically to see me. He then proceeded to try and ream me out for the amount of time I must have expended...formulating and obviously very persuasive & successful E-mail message. The day's production needs... making the " rate "... were the paramount concerns, he sternly assured . Figuring he would not take the time to personally find out how much time I had actually spent on the message,
I told him an amount about 1/3rd the actual time I had spent.
And, off he went.
My point: At Spirit, Tulsa.... You could re-work errors you found and/ or made yourself all you needed to.... right up until the task or item was " bought " by QA. Re-work after the item was sold to QA , required prior authorizarion from Engineering and QA.....before such re-work could be legally undertaken ( per QA regs ). Some re-work requires specific Engineering review and aurhorization. For example: when a worker found a " non-shear " rivit ( excess gap rivit head-to-structure), they were allowed to re-drill the hole, and install a .001" or .002"
" oversize " as needed; to straighten out the crooked hole.
However....if the hole was still crooked after trying the .002"
" over " rivit.... they had to obtain Engineering aurhorization to try the last allowable fix.....use of a .003" oversize rivit.
One can see how such items might have contributed to " travel work " in the past, and even so today.
With regards,
357Mag
