Trade Malpractices

[propersplitbrainme]

Here at the blunt base of the RAF the subject of trade malpractices has been at the fore recently. We have experienced further trainees utilising incorrect tools or their own tools in the training regime whilst suggesting or claiming that this is simply a reflection of what they know goes on the 'real world'.
What is the current techie cardres' view on this and what do you do if you see someone using the wrong tools for a job. Leave them be as long as the job gets done?

 

[Weebl]

Depends.

I quite often use an adjustable or a ratchet handle to 'tap' something that technically requires me to go get a tiny little hammer. Not talking about welting stuff, just the little taps that sometimes need to be applied.

I also used a great big fcuk off extension bar as a drift the other day because we had nothing purpose made for the job unless I was happy to ground the jet for the 2 weeks that would be required for Tool Stores to deny my application for a great big fcuk off drift.

Using Leathermans and Maglights while in a training environment is just asking for trouble.

GS screwdrivers do make good levers though.

 

[Twiggles]

As Weebl says, sometimes there is a need to utilise a tool in a manner for which it was not intended. As to personal tools, I have not yet served on a front line squadron where carrying a mini maglight and a leatherman is acceptable.

All depends what you mean by using the wrong tool as well. Are we talking about using a GS as a drift, or using it to pad out a spanner and get a bolt turning?DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[Goatherdingsplitter]

As Weebl says, sometimes there is a need to utilise a tool in a manner for which it was not intended. As to personal tools, I have not yet served on a front line squadron where carrying a mini maglight and a leatherman is acceptable.

All depends what you mean by using the wrong tool as well. Are we talking about using a GS as a drift, or using it to pad out a spanner and get a bolt turning?DT_Xtremez_42:

One of our FT trainees couldn't even use the right tool correctly. Striking a parallel pin punch on the ground face (with a hide faced ffs) citing that this was how he had been shown at the front line, because it places a larger surface area on the object to be drifted out.

Cue closer examination of the drift and the eventual realization that the "big end" was indeed convex and that the little end had wrecked the hide faced hammerDT_Xtremez_42:

This is but one of a number of cunning methods that we are informed they are shown out in the real world (when they are not packing bearings with jointing compound instead of grease).DT_Xtremez_35: Yes this also happened.

I'll agree that there will always be a need to find new and innovative use for our tools (i do draw the line at personal tools though) and I have, when operationally necessary, done so on many occasions during my 36 years; but never in training ffs.

Imagine how our tradesmen would react if they had to buy all their tools as per civvy trades:0

 

[Realist78]

One of our FT trainees couldn't even use the right tool correctly. Striking a parallel pin punch on the ground face (with a hide faced ffs) citing that this was how he had been shown at the front line, because it places a larger surface area on the object to be drifted out.

Cue closer examination of the drift and the eventual realization that the "big end" was indeed convex and that the little end had wrecked the hide faced hammerDT_Xtremez_42:

This is but one of a number of cunning methods that we are informed they are shown out in the real world (when they are not packing bearings with jointing compound instead of grease).DT_Xtremez_35: Yes this also happened.

I'll agree that there will always be a need to find new and innovative use for our tools (i do draw the line at personal tools though) and I have, when operationally necessary, done so on many occasions during my 36 years; but never in training ffs.

Imagine how our tradesmen would react if they had to buy all their tools as per civvy trades:0

Now that is funny!DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[enginesuck]

I have on many occasions used tools inappropriatly such as using a spanner as a hammer etc etc but when your on a crew in and there are troops in contact you do anything that will work. However the personal tool issue is completely different... .hang em out to dry !

 

[SecretSquirrel]

I agree that some tools must be 'misused' sometimes but there is nothing worse than personal tools such as Leathermans and Maglites.

Especially when some cnuts wearing it on their belt...


DT_Xtremez_25:

 

[Realist78]

I agree that some tools must be 'misused' sometimes but there is nothing worse than personal tools such as Leathermans and Maglites.

Especially when some cnuts wearing it on their belt...


DT_Xtremez_25:

Off TopicA few particularly nasty diseases spring to mind.DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[dkh51250]

Weebl, please tell me you are joking. Tapping things with ratchets (containing ball bearings) because you can't get a hammer?

By the way it would not be tool stores who deny you the right to your bit of kit.
All that you have succeeded in doing by your actions is to ensure that some other poor so and so will find themselves in the same predicament you did.

Trust me, ground that jet, and all the right questions will be asked.

 

[duffman]

They seem to get shown very little at our place. The spend very very little time on trade. The chance to show them anything good or bad is rare. Personal tools I draw the line at, as some else said your asking for trouble, however quite a few including j/sncos seem quite keen on them. Which is a poor example to set. I've had people doing leak checks on running engines with a visible fuel leak and people rocking up with their torches.

 

[Twiggles]

One of our FT trainees couldn't even use the right tool correctly. Striking a parallel pin punch on the ground face (with a hide faced ffs) citing that this was how he had been shown at the front line, because it places a larger surface area on the object to be drifted out.

Cue closer examination of the drift and the eventual realization that the "big end" was indeed convex and that the little end had wrecked the hide faced hammerDT_Xtremez_42:

This is but one of a number of cunning methods that we are informed they are shown out in the real world (when they are not packing bearings with jointing compound instead of grease).DT_Xtremez_35: Yes this also happened.

LMAO! Sorry, it is funny and one actually wonders how low the level of standards are out there now. Are these guys AMM's returning to learn a trade, and is there any idea of how much (if any) exposure to actual trade work they are getting on the squadrons before returning.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

I realise that it would be very easy for us here at Cosford to adopt a sanctimonious attitude towards this subject, but I feel it is worth pursuing so please bear with me.

The sort of malpractices I'm talking about are the use of personal torches, random implements as drifts, oversized drills as countersinking tools and such like. And, discussing this with other instructors today, the application of correct torque loadings (or even using a torque wrench at all) is entirely absent in at least one workplace. And it rubs off on new tradesmen who get the impression that its OK as long as it gets the job done. The attitude of 'can do safely' is, as we discussed today, being alarmingly eroded.

The fall back position that we often adopt is to state that the aircraft would not be made serviceable if we didn't employ some malpractice or cut a corner. Is that really a reason though? Can we not just say no, in my last operational post as a rect controller I discovered that this word can be used provided you can justify yourself; there are not many engineering managers who have the cahonas to sanction a short cut (or similar) when they know for a fact its is happening and will be used with their blessing.

 

[MontyPlumbs]

I realise that it would be very easy for us here at Cosford to adopt a sanctimonious attitude towards this subject, but I feel it is worth pursuing so please bear with me.

The sort of malpractices I'm talking about are the use of personal torches, random implements as drifts, oversized drills as countersinking tools and such like. And, discussing this with other instructors today, the application of correct torque loadings (or even using a torque wrench at all) is entirely absent in at least one workplace. And it rubs off on new tradesmen who get the impression that its OK as long as it gets the job done. The attitude of 'can do safely' is, as we discussed today, being alarmingly eroded.

The fall back position that we often adopt is to state that the aircraft would not be made serviceable if we didn't employ some malpractice or cut a corner. Is that really a reason though? Can we not just say no, in my last operational post as a rect controller I discovered that this word can be used provided you can justify yourself; there are not many engineering managers who have the cahonas to sanction a short cut (or similar) when they know for a fact its is happening and will be used with their blessing.

One possible be reason might be the time these guys are spending OOA as AMMs. Chinook lads for example spend loads of time away during their 2 years pre-FT and as such probably think using a leatherman on an aircraft is common practice RAF wide (because it is when your sandyside).

Possible?

The misuse/lack of knowledge of tools however, is completely different. I once asked an AMM on tool stores for a speed brace and finch lever. I got a torque wrench, 6 inch exension and a GS....go figure.DT_Xtremez_14:DT_Xtremez_14:

 

[duffman]

IThe sort of malpractices I'm talking about are the use of personal torches, random implements as drifts, oversized drills as countersinking tools and such like. And, discussing this with other instructors today, the application of correct torque loadings (or even using a torque wrench at all) is entirely absent in at least one workplace. And it rubs off on new tradesmen who get the impression that its OK as long as it gets the job done. The attitude of 'can do safely' is, as we discussed today, being alarmingly eroded.

Sometimes drifts aren't always the best option lots of times a GS is simply the better tool to use. Mainly due to it's length(boom boom) or for reasons of access or you may not to lever something in straight away after. If I'm honest I can't remember the last time I used a drift. In a bay they are useful the item is often right infront of you, on a/c it's obviously different.
Lack of torque loadings? Do you mean for everything?

 

[enginesuck]

ah the old torque loading ! Ill torque Engine mounts and Wheels everything else is two white Knuckles iaw chp 23-00 ( funny how i know the AP reference but not the loadings !)

 

[Harry B'Stard]

Engineering Malpractice

Engineering Malpractice

What is more worrying to me is the number of trainees that know how to do it wrong... but non of them seem to be aware of how to do it correctly!

I admit I've used incorrect tools in the past, but only on consideration of the task, the length of time required to go to stores and get the correct kit and most importantly the amount of damage I might cause by not using the correct tool!

Most of all though... I would NEVER cut corners in a training environment! That's just day one basics!DT_Xtremez_30:

HTB

 

[Talk Wrench]

ah the old torque loading ! Ill torque Engine mounts and Wheels everything else is two white Knuckles iaw chp 23-00 ( funny how i know the AP reference but not the loadings !)

Out here in the civil world, every torque loading should be carried out as specified in the maintenance procedure and signed for accordingly along with the serial number of the torque wrench used.

I suspect that the RAF don't yet have this in place but I reckon that it will be implemented soon.

When it comes down to it, if you haven't torqued everything iaw the manufacturers instructions, the aircraft is not in a serviceable condition.

TW

 

[MontyPlumbs]

Out here in the civil world, every torque loading should be carried out as specified in the maintenance procedure and signed for accordingly along with the serial number of the torque wrench used.

I suspect that the RAF don't yet have this in place but I reckon that it will be implemented soon.

When it comes down to it, if you haven't torqued everything iaw the manufacturers instructions, the aircraft is not in a serviceable condition.

TW

As per the ISO 9001 system as well, each torque wrench that is adjustable should be set on an accra-torque every time it is used, and the details of the job, serial number of wrench and technicians signature entered into a log.

I fight a losing battle at work to get everyone using torque wrenches. Everyone seems to prefer air tools! DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[fileeth]

It always used to be that you were shown (if lucky enough) or carried out the task for the first few times using the corect tools, procedures etc.. so you had knowledge of/could always prove that you knew how/what was supposed to be done.
If you were caught out carrying out malpractices or short cuts then it was down to your professional choice (gashness in the worse case sernarios) and so you reaped the rewards!!!!!!!!!!

 

[I Look Like Kevin Costner]

As per the ISO 9001 system as well, each torque wrench that is adjustable should be set on an accra-torque every time it is used, and the details of the job, serial number of wrench and technicians signature entered into a log.

I fight a losing battle at work to get everyone using torque wrenches. Everyone seems to prefer air tools! DT_Xtremez_09:

There is no "torque loading" in Armourer. LOL

Scary thing I saw in civvy street was engineers not using torque wrenchs for doing up V band clamps on an air con pack refit.. I did and the LAE wondered why I was.. Must admit, I didn't write the torque wrench number down.. I will remember next time I do..