Jackson Gray

Aerospace hand metrology. IPC-certified for electronics. Write-ups a QE can work from cold.

What sets me apart

Twenty months of hand metrology on aerospace hardware at Pratt & Whitney. Blade outer air seals and bearing ducts, GD&T, First Article Inspection, AS9100 records. The tightest characteristic I measure is a .005" profile with a radius gage under magnification.
IPC-A-610 and IPC/WHMA-A-620, both CIS, both earned at EPTAC in January and February 2026. I paid for them and I took the time off to sit them, before any employer asked for them, because the roles I wanted listed them and I didn't have them.
Solumina, SAP, and Teamcenter every day. MES, ERP, and PLM. When a system is new, I learn it fast: three production systems in twenty months, and a full-stack software certificate before that.
A BS in Computer and Electrical Engineering in progress. The electronics side is a degree track, not a certificate alone.
I caught a vendor escape at incoming inspection that 13,000+ pieces and years of prior inspection had missed, and my write-up became the record every corrective action was built on.

Work

The escape

Receiving inspection on vendor-machined hardware, a part family I had inspected thousands of times. Standard incoming inspection to the print.

One machined depth read a few thousandths off target. Close enough to pass a glance, outside tolerance on the gage. [CONFIRM: did I re-measure and check a second piece before holding the lot, or hold on the first reading?] I held the lot and wrote it up the way I write everything: the characteristic and its print reference, the requirement, the gage and its calibration status, the readings to the print's decimals, where on the part, how many pieces and which lot, where I put them, and what I recommended.

The investigation traced the condition back years. More than 13,000 suspect pieces, all of which had cleared prior inspection. Nobody else had caught it.

The supplier corrective action and the escape documentation were both built on that first write-up. Months later I read through the whole package and the description of the nonconformance was still my wording, unchanged, because nobody had needed to come back and ask what I meant. RTX recognized it with a SPOT award, which is an internal safety and quality recognition that doesn't get handed out much.

The award was nice. The thing I'd point at is that one write-up held as the record for a multi-year escape without a single clarifying conversation.

Stopping work on interpretation

After a unit move, my area picked up bearing ducts, a part family we had seen once before. The work instructions for it were a mess. Steps that didn't match the print, references that pointed nowhere.

I halted inspection and went to my supervisor and the QA tech. Both tried to work out what engineering meant and offered a reading I could inspect to. I wasn't willing to accept the part on an interpretation. If the instruction is wrong, the acceptance is wrong, and the record says I accepted it.

Engineering updated the work instructions. Then I inspected to them and the part was accepted.

Unwilling to accept on interpretation is different from refusing to budge. I gave them exactly what I needed to proceed, and I proceeded the moment I had it.

A record error, and what I did about it

Cross-checking barcodes against a lot in the MES, I marked the wrong serial as held. The nonconforming part was physically segregated the entire time and never shipped. But the record was wrong, so the serial that should have been on hold showed as bought off, and a good serial showed as held.

I caught it the following week. I went straight to my supervisor and QA, we corrected the records, and the bought-off serial was pulled back. No further fallout. It was month-end and the pressure was real, and none of that is the reason. I didn't check the screen against the tag before I committed the record.

The part being right in your hand does not mean the record is right, and the record is what the next person works from.

Write-up

The standard

The goal is that someone can work it just by reading what I wrote: locations, sizes, references.

That means every nonconformance I write has the same bones. The characteristic and where it lives on the print. The requirement, nominal and tolerance, as printed. The method and the gage, with the gage ID and its calibration due date. The actual readings, to the print's decimals, never rounded. Where on the part. How many pieces, which lot, how many sampled. Where the material is now and how it's tagged. What I recommend. Who I am and when I wrote it.

What it doesn't have is my opinion about why. Cause is the QE's call and the supplier's problem. If I speculate, someone downstream inherits my guess as a lead. I write what I measured and where I put the parts.

Worked example

Illustrative. The part, the lot, the gage IDs, and the readings are invented. The structure is exactly how I write them.

Print excerpt, characteristics table

Print excerpt, characteristics table
Char.	Feature	Requirement	Method
5	Bore diameter	Ø.5000 +.0005 / -.0000	Bore gage
6	Slot width	.2500 ± .0010	Gage blocks / pin
7	Slot depth	.3750 +.0000 / -.0030	Depth micrometer
8	Fillet radius, slot floor	R.0300 ± .0050	Radius gage, 10x

Nonconformance record

Nonconformance record
Field	Entry	Why it's there
Part	Bracket, sensor mount, P/N EX-1042, Rev C	Rev matters more than P/N. A QE checking whether the requirement changed needs it first.
Characteristic	Char. 7, slot depth, sheet 1, zone C4	The number and the zone. Nobody should have to hunt the print to find what I'm talking about.
Requirement	.3750 +.0000 / -.0030, min .3720	Written as printed, then the limit I'm calling against, so the reader doesn't have to do the math to check me.
Method and gage	Depth micrometer DM-0117, 0 to 1", .0001 resolution, cal due 2026-11-30	Gage ID means the reading is traceable. Cal date means nobody has to ask whether the gage was in date before they trust the number.
Readings	.3712, .3714, .3711 at three points along slot length	To the print's decimals. Three readings so the QE can see spread, not just a single number I could have flubbed.
Location	Full slot length, shallowest at the end nearest datum B	Tells the QE whether it's a uniform miss or a taper, which changes what they'll ask the supplier.
Quantity and lot	6 of 6 sampled nonconforming, lot L-26-0912, 24 pieces received, full lot held	Sample result and lot size together. "Six bad" means nothing without "of six sampled, from twenty-four."
Segregation	Red-tagged, MRB cage shelf 3, MES status set to Hold, NC number logged on the tag and the traveler	Where the parts physically are and what the system says. Both, because I've had those disagree.
Recommendation	Hold pending MRB review. No cause stated.	I recommend, I don't disposition. Cause isn't mine to assign.
Inspector, date	J. Gray, 2026-09-12	So the QE knows who to ask, in the rare case they need to.

Capabilities

Hand metrology and mechanical inspection

Hand metrology and mechanical inspection
Capability	Specifics	Evidence
Hand gages	Calipers, micrometers, height gauges, profilometers, radius gages, go/no-go, feeler gages	Daily, twenty months, aerospace hardware
Tightest work	.005" profile with a radius gage under magnification. We verify to about .002". Prints dimensioned to four decimals, and print resolution is not tolerance.	Blade outer air seals
GD&T	Datums, feature control frames, profile, position, runout, as they appear on production prints	Every print I inspect to
First Article Inspection	FAI on new part introductions and after process changes	Bearing ducts, after a unit move
AS9100 records	Nonconformance write-ups, inspection records, controlled-document and revision checks before working an order	Audit exposure at Pratt & Whitney [CONFIRM: internal, external, or both]
CMM	I interpret and disposition CMM reports and understand gage R&R, fixturing, and programs. I have not operated one. I'd expect to be trained.	Report review on the parts I inspect
Receiving inspection	Vendor hardware to print, revision verification, lot and cert handling, segregation and hold	The 13,000-piece escape started here
Overhead crane	Certified through Pratt & Whitney. Never used in my role. Not current, and I'd want retraining before rigging anything.	Certification on file

Electronics inspection readiness

IPC-A-610 CIS, expires January 2028. IPC/WHMA-A-620 CIS, expires February 2028. Both earned at EPTAC in January and February 2026, on my own initiative and my own money, after I saw them listed as preferred qualifications on a posting and before I had an interview anywhere.

I don't have professional electronics inspection hours yet. That's the gap, and here's what I'm doing with it. A-610 Class 3 acceptance criteria, studied to the point where the difference between Class 2 and Class 3 on a chip component fillet is reflex, not lookup. Harness prints, which are a wire list and a from-to table, not a geometry print. Bench work on SMT and through-hole practice boards and crimped DT-series harness samples, built right and built wrong on purpose, then graded against A-610 and A-620 under a loupe. [CONFIRM: which of the bench work is actually done by launch. Cut anything that isn't.]

The BS in Computer and Electrical Engineering is the other half. Electronics is where the degree is going, not only where the certs are.

Systems

Daily: Solumina (MES), SAP (ERP), Teamcenter (PLM).
Not yet used: Jira, CAD.

Gaps

No CMM operation. No CAD. No Jira. No J-STD-001. No CIT. No ASQ certification. No MRB seat, though I support MRB through what I write. No tubing or composites inspection.

These are the things I'd expect to be trained on, and I learn systems fast. Three production systems in twenty months, and a full-stack software certificate in 2024 before I ever touched a gage.

About

Work history

Quality Inspector, Pratt & Whitney (RTX), North Berwick, Maine. January 2025 to present.

Dimensional and visual inspection of blade outer air seals and bearing ducts, receiving through in-process. First Article Inspection. AS9100 documentation. Nonconformance write-ups. Each morning: check priorities and available work. On receiving parts: verify revision numbers and controlled documents for updates, then work the instructions to completion. Nonconforming material gets segregated and written up with exactly what the issue is and what spec it violates.

Line Cook, The Goldenrod, York, Maine. Seasonal, since 2019.

In season I work both. Roughly 78 hours a week.

Education

BS, Computer and Electrical Engineering, University of Southern Maine, Honors program. Funded through the RTX Employee Scholar Program. In progress, paused since fall 2025, resuming.

Flatiron School, Full-Stack Software Engineering certificate (TypeScript, Python), May 2024.

IPC-A-610 CIS (exp. January 2028). IPC/WHMA-A-620 CIS (exp. February 2028). EPTAC, 2026.

Where I'm headed

Electronics inspection on hardware that ships. Quality engineering once the EE degree is done. I want the bar set by the team around me, not only by me.

Contact

Jackson Gray.

South Berwick, Maine.

[FILL: email, from ../portfolio env or leave blank]