requiring more testing and modifications based on the results of those tests.

Well maybe if Pratt and Whitney would stop acting bush league and institute proper change control and documentation, then there wouldn't be so many QC issues.

Control of Design and Development Changes (7.3.7) Pratt & Whitney *could not provide evidence of required engineering technical reviews and approvals for specification change requests and component requirement change requests. There was no evidence of integrated product team review and approvals in accordance with the F135 specification change request procedure for approximately 100 records reviewed.** There was also no evidence of management approvals for component requirement change requests of Rolls-Royce components. The lack of technical review can lead to specification changes being implemented without adequate analysis on impacts to the product or system.*

Their test env mgmt is straight D-League. That's the best way to get months of QC tossed and projects set back.

Inventory of EVB equipment racks, software change requests, and *problem reports were informally managed by e-mails and an excel spreadsheet.** In addition, the configuration of the laboratory can be altered or interrupted during formal test by other remote users. The EVB simulates the entire propulsion system while using electronics that are functionally equivalent to flight hardware. The EVB laboratory was used for software configuration item tests, integration tests, failure mode and effects tests, acceptance tests, and system evaluation tests. The SDP required that software test verification uses a configuration controlled set of test assets with test log files, software versions, and configuration of the EVB. Pratt & Whitney’s lack of formal configuration management control in the EVB laboratory may invalidate verification test results on critical software verification test activities*