A DC9-30 ENG TURBINE DISC WAS INSPECTED FOR BLADE SPREADING. ENG FAILED AND REQUIRED REMOVAL IN 20 HRS. COMPANY REQUIRED INSPECTION AGAIN. ENG FAILED.

Narrative

A NOTCH CHK OF THE T-4 BLADES ON A JT8-9 WAS PERFORMED ON THE R ENG DURING A SCHEDULED MAINT INSPECTION. THIS OCCURRED IN ZZZ1 BY A QUALIFIED INSPECTOR WITH 30 YRS SENIORITY WITH THE COMPANY; AND 11 YRS AS AN INSPECTOR. THIS INSPECTION REQUIRES INSPECTING THE BLADES FOR SPREADING/LOOSENESS; TO START WITH A 10 INCH PER LB FORCE DOWN TO A 2 INCH PER LB FORCE IF FAILURE AT THE HIGHER READINGS; TAKEN AT A MINIMUM 6 DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. SO THIS INSPECTION HAD FAILED AT MORE THAN ONE LOCATION ACCORDING TO THIS INSPECTOR. THIS REQUIRES THE ENG TO BE REMOVED WITHIN A 20 HR FLY-BACK LIMIT. TO THE POINT OF FLY-BACK THIS WAS DONE PROPERLY. BUT WHEN IT RETURNED TO ZZZ; THE COMPANY REQUIRED THE INSPECTION TO BE RE-DONE; AND I WAS ASSIGNED TO DO THIS INSPECTION. I WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO HAVE A POWERPLANT ENGINEER PRESENT TO VERIFY THE RESULTS. NOW I HAVE BEEN DOING THIS INSPECTION FOR 16 YRS; AND TELL YOU I COULD TEACH ANYONE TO DO THIS WITHIN A FEW MINS; AND DO IT PROPERLY -- A SIMPLE INSPECTION. THE ENGINEER HAD NEVER DONE THIS INSPECTION (SELF-ADMITTED); AND HAD NEVER EVEN SEEN IT DONE??. THE ENG STILL FAILED THE INSPECTION AS I SUSPECTED IT WOULD. THIS IS NOT AN ISOLATED CASE; IN REF TO THIS INSPECTION. I FAIL TO SEE THE REASON FOR THIS SCENARIO; AND I ALSO ASKED THE ENGINEER WHY; IF WE DON'T TRUST THE INSPECTION DEPT IN ZZZ1 OR ANY OTHER STATION TO DO THIS; WHY BOTHER HAVING IT SCHEDULED SO? ALSO; IF WE DON'T TRUST THESE SAME INSPECTORS TO DO A PROPER JOB; WHY AREN'T WE ALSO RE-INSPECTING THE ENGS THEY SIGN OFF AS GOOD? NO ANSWER WAS FORTHCOMING; THOUGH I SUSPECT I KNOW THE ANSWER. WHAT HAS BECOME OF OVERSIGHT? I WONDER; HOW MUCH IS BEING OVERLOOKED THAT WE; AS INSPECTORS OR MECHS; ARE NOT INVOLVED WITH?