There is an inaccuracy in the account of Mr Barnett’s claim about pressure to buy off lost nonconforming parts. By policy, he does not have the authority to do that at Boeing. Engineers are in the driver’s seat when it comes to addressing the use of nonconforming materials on the airplane. QA managers can disagree with the engineer and seek to get engineering to revise their disposition. For him to feel pressure would mean that he had a document in hand with an engineering disposition that substantiates the circumstance and for whatever reason he is not going along. The engineering community owns the technical opinion on the nonconforming material. QA simply authorizes and confirms that the document is accurate and that the process is following prescribed paths. He is inflating his role to sound wrongfully treated. The engineer is taking responsibility for the safety of the disposition when he signs his name to it. Barnett can seek higher authority in the engineering group to override a disposition he disagrees with. If he is rejected in that pursuit, he looks pretty bad to the system. In the end, there are plenty of engineers with more time and expertise than Barnett who can dispute his claims. This account seems pretty narrow and needlessly alarming.
1 Like
