Maintenance Error Management System

[wgaf]

wgaf:
"Please don't get flippant about the amount of time that the young lads and lasses, in the RAF today, spend away and where they spend that time. Statistically the facts are that RAF personnel, of all trades, spend far more time in sh1tholes getting shot at and mortared than the likes of the retired old sncos and chiefs who presume that they know it all ever did!"

I wasnt being flippant about the time the present RAF personnel spend away from home - In fact I didnt even mention it. Indeed I have spent 10 months in one year away from home when based in Germany.

I fully apppreciate what current servicemen (and possibly you too) do and how they perform their duties in rather unsavoury places. I too have been in similar situations. I merely stated that a lot of crusty old snecs that I know have a great deal of badges, and some of them had many more than some Regiment guys, from before the war on terrorism started. This isn't the first war in the world.

You are entitled to your opinions and I am entitled to counter them with mine.

I will disregard your personal remarks made towards me, because you don't know me.

Haddon-Cave may prove you right! But I doubt it. And the "knowledgeable" RAF you revere so much will not stay the same - because of its lack of knowledge.

That's all.
Rigga

And you don't know me.
The RAF that I 'revere' as you put it, no longer exists, beaten to within an inch of its' life by civilian contractors and corporate companies with no other thought than lining their own pockets.
As for 'lack of knowledge' that's qute some insult to throw at still serving personnel. What on earth makes you think that you have anymore knowledge than those still serving. Many highly educated and with years of service behind them. Smacks of arrogance in the extreme.
The fact remains that the RAF and its' personal are not a corporate body. A corporate entity implies that it is there for the purpose of making money. The RAF and other armed forces are classed as a necessary drain on the public purse, therefore cannot be classed as corporate.
MEMS is, wether or not the so called gurus' like it, merely reinventing the wheel. A company has seen a gap in the market and gone in all guns blazing to make a huge profit, money that could be better spent elsewhere, a fact the fat cats of civvy industry care not a jot about. We have human factors measures in place already that if properly followed are more than adequate, the fact that it is not to the civilian worlds liking is irrelevant, or should be. We are not civilians and the more we become intertwined with them the further we go down a slippery slope.

 

[duffman]

Rumblings here are that it will rip us to pieces!!!

Where abouts do you work?

 

[Rigga]

MEMS and MEDA were developed as an internal management system for the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. When the results of the system were promulgated Boeing, in a move similar to Volvo when it released drawings of Seat Belts free to the manufacturing world, released the MEMS And MEDA systems to the aviation world - FREE.

The aviation world has taken to this system for two reasons:
1. Its FREE
2. It works

Because MEMS works so well it is now part of an ICAO mandated safety management system throughout most aviation authorities across the world.

It is not just an RAF system - across the EU the military are doing exactly what your doing - trying to get airworthiness right. The military is just 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Like my advice, which is also free, you dont have to take it. Unlike your job, facilitating HF, it's take it or leave it.

You seem to have an issue with MEMS because, I believe, you are part of the HF problem caused by a previously stated bad introduction/training/implementation. Your knowledge is lacking, and if your knowledge is lacking so are the others you teach...

Don't close your mind to new ideas just because you don't like them, or you feel your being taken for a ride. Do research instead of opinions. Think about what it can do for you and your work. Don't just do QA - do airworthiness.

I really hope this helps your attitude change, if not your mind.



...and 'Corporate' is nothing to do with profit. It means to appear as 'one body' which the RAF does so well.

 

[wgaf]

MEMS and MEDA were developed as an internal management system for the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. When the results of the system were promulgated Boeing, in a move similar to Volvo when it released drawings of Seat Belts free to the manufacturing world, released the MEMS And MEDA systems to the aviation world - FREE.

The aviation world has taken to this system for two reasons:
1. Its FREE
2. It works

Because MEMS works so well it is now part of an ICAO mandated safety management system throughout most aviation authorities across the world.

It is not just an RAF system - across the EU the military are doing exactly what your doing - trying to get airworthiness right. The military is just 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Like my advice, which is also free, you dont have to take it. Unlike your job, facilitating HF, it's take it or leave it.

You seem to have an issue with MEMS because, I believe, you are part of the HF problem caused by a previously stated bad introduction/training/implementation. Your knowledge is lacking, and if your knowledge is lacking so are the others you teach...

Don't close your mind to new ideas just because you don't like them, or you feel your being taken for a ride. Do research instead of opinions. Think about what it can do for you and your work. Don't just do QA - do airworthiness.

I really hope this helps your attitude change, if not your mind.



...and 'Corporate' is nothing to do with profit. It means to appear as 'one body' which the RAF does so well.

The biggest problem the RAF has with HF and I'll include MEMS with this is the original delivery. We know about airworthiness in the RAF. Probably just as much as our civvy counterparts. We certainly don't need to be told about it by a company who's only interest is in lining their own pockets.
This has nothing to do with 'closing my mind to new ideas just because I don't like them' This is to do with standing up and telling people that actually we don't need your interpretation of HF and airworthiness. MEMS may well work well in the civvy world. That has no comparison to service life and how we have treat our personnel and equipment.
I really don't think it's my attitude that needs changing. I think it's the attitude of civilian companies,who are only after the big buck with as little effort as possible used to gain it and the associated people further up the food chain who want to cosy upto to these companies for their own needs. They have nothing but their own interests at heart and only serve as a shinig example of why the military world should cast them adrift.
'Corporate' in this context refers to a company, i.e. a money making business.
'Corporate' to appear as one body is refering to corporate blame/responsibility.

 

[Little Tronk]

Where abouts do you work?

Not far from London and spend a lot of time in desert!

 

[Chaka]

MEMS and MEDA were developed as an internal management system for the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. When the results of the system were promulgated Boeing, in a move similar to Volvo when it released drawings of Seat Belts free to the manufacturing world, released the MEMS And MEDA systems to the aviation world - FREE.

The aviation world has taken to this system for two reasons:
1. Its FREE
2. It works

Because MEMS works so well it is now part of an ICAO mandated safety management system throughout most aviation authorities across the world.

It is not just an RAF system - across the EU the military are doing exactly what your doing - trying to get airworthiness right. The military is just 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Like my advice, which is also free, you dont have to take it. Unlike your job, facilitating HF, it's take it or leave it.

You seem to have an issue with MEMS because, I believe, you are part of the HF problem caused by a previously stated bad introduction/training/implementation. Your knowledge is lacking, and if your knowledge is lacking so are the others you teach...

Don't close your mind to new ideas just because you don't like them, or you feel your being taken for a ride. Do research instead of opinions. Think about what it can do for you and your work. Don't just do QA - do airworthiness.

I really hope this helps your attitude change, if not your mind.



...and 'Corporate' is nothing to do with profit. It means to appear as 'one body' which the RAF does so well.

Well written Rigga.

I do find it mildly amusing that individuals such as Wgaf are hell bent are blaming civilian companies for the RAFs woes.

The RAF is now not capable of supporting itself due to the cutbacks imposed over the years by the politicians and civilian support is needed. When I joined there was 120,000 peeps now probably around 43000 serving. The RAF (as always) is adapting and evolving and due to these cutbacks it has found itself working closely with civilian companies and its associated industry standards.

Where Flt Safety/Airworthiness issues are concerned your standards at home and in theatre must be the same or else people will die. Any systems that promotes the FS/AW/QA/HF cause needs supporting.

One final point, next time your sparkly new Typhoon/Harrier/Merlin arrives on the Sqn from the civvy factory consider how many civilian geeks,boffins,engineers,aircrew it has taken to design,develop,build,test and deliver that product to you. DT_Xtremez_21:

 

[wgaf]

Well written Rigga.

I do find it mildly amusing that individuals such as Wgaf are hell bent are blaming civilian companies for the RAFs woes.

The RAF is now not capable of supporting itself due to the cutbacks imposed over the years by the politicians and civilian support is needed. When I joined there was 120,000 peeps now probably around 43000 serving. The RAF (as always) is adapting and evolving and due to these cutbacks it has found itself working closely with civilian companies and its associated industry standards.

Where Flt Safety/Airworthiness issues are concerned your standards at home and in theatre must be the same or else people will die. Any systems that promotes the FS/AW/QA/HF cause needs supporting.

One final point, next time your sparkly new Typhoon/Harrier/Merlin arrives on the Sqn from the civvy factory consider how many civilian geeks,boffins,engineers,aircrew it has taken to design,develop,build,test and deliver that product to you. DT_Xtremez_21:

Chaka, as some people on here know I have had a great deal to do with the civilians who design, devlop, build and test these aircraft so I know how they work.
I most certainly do not blame the civvy companies for all the RAFs woes, I do however firmly believe that the vast majority of them are in it for nothing but profit and the majority of civvy engineers I have met agree. It is these companies and the standard of the product they supply that I rail against.
As for supporting "any system that promotes the FS/AW/QA/HF cause" That system has to be of value to the RAF and not just be there to fill the coffers of the civilian company that provided it, at the tax payers expense. I see no benefit in providing a b@stardised version of systems that have been tried before and work adequately, it just smacks of a waste of money and man hours. Bring in a NEW system that has been tried, tested and developed for a military enviroment with all the corresponding anomalies that brings and you would have my whole hearted support. Until that day I will continue to stand up and be counted for my beliefs.
If people like Rigga and yourself don't like it unlucky, do something about it, prove me wrong, design a system specifically for the mlitary. But I will tell you if I thinks it's cr@p and a waste of money, more importantly for me I will also let you know if the important people in all this, i.e. the lads in the hangars and flight lines around the RAF, who the civvy companies expect to carry out the end product, are wasting their time. Which with MEMS they are.

 

[duffman]

Where Flt Safety/Airworthiness issues are concerned your standards at home and in theatre must be the same or else people will die. Any systems that promotes the FS/AW/QA/HF cause needs supporting.

The environment at the moment doesn't support that.
Too many times you hear/read briefings about doing things right at all times. However at some point someone will write or say 'However in operations....' Or ' Our primary mission on ops is to generate a/c.' Or words to that effect that leave people with a strong impression that it is 'do things right as and when it suits, but when that is we will leave it up to you.' Some people may say well that's your job to make decisions regarding a/c safety, and it is to a certain extent at the right level.
Never the less, people do percieve that they should make these decisions in isolation as they feel, sometimes, it is a case of slopey shoulders and a deaf ear has already been turned. Such briefings will also include reference to the new QA/HF event etc, and leave a strong perception that the RAF is pulling in two different directions at the same time. Even if this isn't true to a certain extent it doesn't matter, perception can rule in such cases.

A never ending change of names, roles, areas covered and process to which FS/AW/QA/HF pertain hardly help matters by the usual 2 year post promotion seekers. It leaves people in a apathetic state towards it all.

Even the best system is pointless without the right attitudes and people. Who knows the Hadden cave report will bring?

Does anyone know when it will be made public.

 

[Weebl]

One final point, next time your sparkly new Typhoon/Harrier/Merlin arrives on the Sqn from the civvy factory consider how many civilian geeks,boffins,engineers,aircrew it has taken to design,develop,build,test and deliver that product to you. DT_Xtremez_21:

Then take the panels off, remove the random tools, spares, rivet tails and swarf they left in while still attaining the Civilian HF Certificate qualification and accept the aircraft into RAF service.

Nobody is arguing these systems cannot work, what is being argued is that people have seen 7 or 8 such systems being implemented in their time. None have been properly resourced or implemented, every single one has been the best thing since sliced bread which we will accept or be branded dinosaurs.

What p1sses me off is ex RAF now civvy aircraft engineers who seem to be able to state they are better at everything than we are and if we disagree with anything they say we are clearly sh1te at out jobs, while at the same time inferring the RAF of today lives in hotels watching everybody else work.

 

[rest have risen above me]

MEMS and MEDA were developed as an internal management system for the Boeing Commercial Airplane Company. When the results of the system were promulgated Boeing, in a move similar to Volvo when it released drawings of Seat Belts free to the manufacturing world, released the MEMS And MEDA systems to the aviation world - FREE.

The aviation world has taken to this system for two reasons:
1. Its FREE
2. It works

Because MEMS works so well it is now part of an ICAO mandated safety management system throughout most aviation authorities across the world.

It is not just an RAF system - across the EU the military are doing exactly what your doing - trying to get airworthiness right. The military is just 15 years behind the rest of the world.

Like my advice, which is also free, you dont have to take it. Unlike your job, facilitating HF, it's take it or leave it.

You seem to have an issue with MEMS because, I believe, you are part of the HF problem caused by a previously stated bad introduction/training/implementation. Your knowledge is lacking, and if your knowledge is lacking so are the others you teach...

Don't close your mind to new ideas just because you don't like them, or you feel your being taken for a ride. Do research instead of opinions. Think about what it can do for you and your work. Don't just do QA - do airworthiness.

I really hope this helps your attitude change, if not your mind.



...and 'Corporate' is nothing to do with profit. It means to appear as 'one body' which the RAF does so well.

Free... the RAF seem to be getting civvies in to teach it, so it's costing money. DT_Xtremez_19:

I'm still hovering on the fence here as no-one seems to be able to provide a tangible example.

 

[Realist78]

Well written Rigga.

I do find it mildly amusing that individuals such as Wgaf are hell bent are blaming civilian companies for the RAFs woes.

The RAF is now not capable of supporting itself due to the cutbacks imposed over the years by the politicians and civilian support is needed. When I joined there was 120,000 peeps now probably around 43000 serving. The RAF (as always) is adapting and evolving and due to these cutbacks it has found itself working closely with civilian companies and its associated industry standards.

Where Flt Safety/Airworthiness issues are concerned your standards at home and in theatre must be the same or else people will die. Any systems that promotes the FS/AW/QA/HF cause needs supporting.

One final point, next time your sparkly new Typhoon/Harrier/Merlin arrives on the Sqn from the civvy factory consider how many civilian geeks,boffins,engineers,aircrew it has taken to design,develop,build,test and deliver that product to you. DT_Xtremez_21:

I have no intention of considering what hordes of people have been doing in THEIR JOB for a company that has been contracted to provide the MOD with a product at enormous expense for huge profits.

 

[wgaf]

Free... the RAF seem to be getting civvies in to teach it, so it's costing money. DT_Xtremez_19:

I'm still hovering on the fence here as no-one seems to be able to provide a tangible example.

Not quite. The RAF has paid civvies companies vast amounts of money for a few civvies to come along to teach it to personnel in the RAF with an instructing tick (BIT course etc) these instructors are then expected to go forth and spread the word.

 

[rest have risen above me]

Ooop North we received two sessions one RAF one Civvy and I'm not going to be high up on the organisational scale in this system (No teaching or no invest role). I will be on the shop floor putting theses MEMS in..lol

 

[wgaf]

Ooop North we received two sessions one RAF one Civvy and I'm not going to be high up on the organisational scale in this system (No teaching or no invest role). I will be on the shop floor putting theses MEMS in..lol

Yep, the idea is that the instructors teach it and people on the shop floor implement the system. Sound familiar?

 

[rest have risen above me]

Yep, the idea is that the instructors teach it and people on the shop floor implement the system. Sound familiar?

Of course it does thats the basic system the RAF has always worked lol.
Today I'll teach you avionics then tomorrow you can go and fix airyplanes...der
Today I'll teach you JPA tomorrow you can close PSF and spend the morning re learning it and then in the afternoon going to the gym. lolDT_Xtremez_42:

What I was trying to ascertain was. Is every camp getting the civvy course for all JNCO and above like here? (Because that's a decent business idea. lets get something free and sell it to the RAF)

 

[wgaf]

Of course it does thats the basic system the RAF has always worked lol.
Today I'll teach you avionics then tomorrow you can go and fix airyplanes...der
Today I'll teach you JPA tomorrow you can close PSF and spend the morning re learning it and then in the afternoon going to the gym. lolDT_Xtremez_42:

What I was trying to ascertain was. Is every camp getting the civvy course for all JNCO and above like here? (Because that's a decent business idea. lets get something free and sell it to the RAF)

I'll be honest and say I don't know about other camps in the RAF.But that is not the case here in Wilts. We are delivering MEMS in conjuction with HF lectures.
Just reread my previous post, comes across as a bit sarcastic, apologoes for that it certainly wasn't meant to be.

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

I'll be honest and say I don't know about other camps in the RAF.But that is not the case here in Wilts. We are delivering MEMS in conjuction with HF lectures.

It was at Marham with BAe and in civvy street as well..

 

[wgaf]

It was at Marham with BAe and in civvy street as well..

Could you expand on that? Does everyone, where you are, get MEMS training straight away or are a few selected people going to be trained then disseminate the methods through briefs?

 

[duffman]

Could you expand on that? Does everyone, where you are, get MEMS training straight away or are a few selected people going to be trained then disseminate the methods through briefs?

As I understand it it depends on the level you are at. Sacs/cpls get one brief, sncos and up get another brief. Then there is another set of training courses if your job is to investigate a MEMS issue, this, I believe is FS upwards level in specialist posts. The briefs are given by SMEs to those that need to know the most, ie FS in specialist posts. Training cell after a course/brief from SMEs then disseminate the info to those on the shop floor usually during induction to a unit/squadron. But as always there will be slight variations depending on unit etc.

Whoops realised you asked LLKC about civvy street.

 

[wgaf]

As I understand it it depends on the level you are at. Sacs/cpls get one brief, sncos and up get one brief. Then there is another set of training courses if your job is to investigate a MEMS issue, this, I believe is FS upwards level. The briefs are given by SMEs to those that need to know the most, ie FS investigator. Training cell after a course/brief from SMEs then disseminate the info to those on the shop floor. But as always there will be slight variations.

I'm in a training cell now and a selected number of the instructors are the ones who pass the 'word' around personnel at the same time as their human factors brief.
This is one of my problems with this sort of thing, there is no cohesive strategy throughout the RAF to deliver the product. It is dumped in our laps and we are told to make it work with little or no support from the companies who sell the product as they have already made their fast buck. It has happened before and it will happen again when MEMS falls out of favour or a new buzz phrase comes into fashion.