Drawing Checking 2

[debodine]

I teach drawing check procedures occasionally at my company to new personnel. New folks here will not be checking drawings right away, but we want them to know our check process so they will understand what we will be looking for on their drawings. Also, someday most of them WILL be checking drawings. We boil checking down to three primary arenas:

1. Drawing Format. Does the drawing use the appropriate border, line types, symbology, view orientation, text sizes, dimension styles, etc., in accordance with the company drafting manual?

2. Design Content: Is the design in compliance with FAA Regulations, Industry Standards, Company and Customer Requirements, etc? Were appropriate materials and processes used, and does the design perform the intended function?

3. Configuration Control: Are the appropriate changes applied to the correct aircraft? Are design changes properly controlled as to form, fit and function?

I recommend (and practice when I check) three separate reviews of the drawing...one for each type of content.

We see checking as adding great value. However, I strongly push in the classroom for a checking engineer to remember that adding value generally means only marking up suggested changes when something is outside the design intent. "That's the way we did it at my previous employment" or "I really like it better this way" are NOT valid reasons to mark up items.

However, I said "generally" because sometimes long experience can add an enhancement that increases the drawing value. Thus it may be perfectly valid to say (and I have said this during checks), "The view breakout and orientation you have selected gets the job done. However, in my experience on the aircraft if you change this view orientation or provide an additional breakout here, you will greatly enhance the understanding of the person who has to install that item."

 

[rmw]

To me, the checker adds value when he/she catches drafting and format errors, my drawing errors, etc., on the drawing. The checker is a pain in the a** when he/she thinks it is his/her responsibility to redesign the project. By the time the checker gets, it has been vetted through a series of reviews in front of key senior engineering personnel tasked with approving or rejecting design work, so I often have to say to a checker if you don't like the design, take it up with the Chief Engineer, he has approved and promoted it, other wise if it meets GT&D standards, approve it.

We are often reminded by Management that we own the drawing, not the checker.

rmw

 

[hokie66]

The only thing that this thread shows is that "checker" means different things to different people. In my work, the checker (or verifier) is the last line of defence against both poor drawing and bad design. When the checker and designer don't agree, then it is taken to someone higher for resolution.