Paperwork, Arrrrrrgh

[Max Reheat]

I didn't think we were arguing. I thought we were having a discussion.
If that's the way you feel then that's your right.
Enjoy the rest of your leave.

I was trying to discuss it but some pretty condescending remarks about what I should and shouldn't know as a snec left me a bit wound up, especially as it turns out I had read the paras mentioned and knew the majority of it but didn't know them by reference number. I can give you a DECU NSN off the top if my head, can any of you? Probably not. That's because I spent a long time changing stuff like that and because I'm a little bit of a geek

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

My post, number 7 of this thread

Off Topic Ex S&P Do try and keep up old chap Off Topic

Tell me about it!
Living, learning, learning, living...
Cap'n Slog would be proud of us (TB...... stfu before you start!)

Also Off Topic TB - You need to read the whole post mate. I was answering Max's comment about every day being a school day and thus meant that Cap'n Slog would be proud that we were trying to gain something positive from the discussion - sharing knowledge, etc, etc

My tongue in cheek reference to you was to try to stop you flippantly sticking your oar in and taking the proverbial...

That worked didn't it (not)??
DT_Xtremez_30:Like the old proverb says "You can always tell a Norvern Marnkey..... but not a lot"
DT_Xtremez_42:

 

[MrMasher]

Luckily for you, most of the RAFs paperwork is destroyed after a few months or years of storage. So, unluckily, you will never know what has been kept or what is still available .

I know because I store it! The 707's are kept for years, once an aircraft goes 6 months out of major the pre major 707s are destroyed. That's alot of codes and snags!
I also impound it when required and see how quickly a jobcard can be fished out examined and blame apportioned.

The buzzword these days is litigation.....

 

[Teh Wal]

... I can give you a DECU NSN off the top if my head, can any of you? Probably not. That's because I spent a long time changing stuff like that and because I'm a little bit of a geek

Wessex, J-type emergency battery: 5J 1115903
Haven't on Walters since 1986 DT_Xtremez_35:.
The day you stop learning (or think you stop learning!) is the day to move on.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

The day you stop learning (or think you stop learning!) is the day to .....

.....retire...

.... or curl your toes up and croak
DT_Xtremez_42:

Wessex, J-type emergency battery: 5J 1115903
Haven't on Walters since 1986 DT_Xtremez_35:

You, Sir, are a VERY sad manDT_Xtremez_06:

DT_Xtremez_15:

 

[Ex-Bay]

Many many years ago, when we had an RAF, some fool in the Ministry decided to find out exactly what we proles did between tea-breaks. So we had this Holerith card thingy for each job (I was in Germany at the time). Naturally, the list of time expended did no include time spent filling in the card until one or blokes, furious at the waste of time, ink and temper, put a very neat entry in the "extras": "Filling in this stupid form".

It was a while before anyone noticed, by which time we were all doing it. Too late to stop it then.
The Cards were withdrawn a few weeks later.

 

[feckinG RANT]

I was trying to discuss it but some pretty condescending remarks about what I should and shouldn't know

Par for the course on here lately, loads of heroes happy to give a slating from the safety of their own keyboards!

As I said before, I take your view, and for what it’s worth, at my camp we use IAW and nothing else. In my section I have the world most picky docs guy too, god help me if he finds out about it!

 

[PTR Hoar]

Tbh I don't see what the big problem is, yes a great deal of time is spent filling out paperwork and I personally make sure I claim for that time fully, it would take no time at all to write the extra "al state XX", which you would obviously have to hand having the publication right in front of you as we all do every time lol

 

[Max Reheat]

yes but its just one more thing every time. It all adds up so where do we draw the line? Next is the introduction of batch numbers used and TMEC cal dates, it just goes on and on

 

[TrickyTree]

... Next is the introduction of batch numbers used and TMEC cal dates, it just goes on and on

It came out of last week's Avionics TM's meeting here that henceforward every time we use a certain piece of test equipment we have to state not just the serial number of the equipment but that of its cable set, too!

 

[Rigga]

...and so you should!

We civvies record all Serial No's of the kits that we use including cable sets and Torque Wrenches of all sizes (and the Rigs we set them on too) so that, if they're found defective we can retrace and repair the work done, if needed.

As for the time taken to complete paperwork...well, so what?
If that's what the honourable sirs want, give it to them - and when they complain give it to them again.

And when it all goes Pete Tong you should ask first: Exactly who's name will give you permission to break the rules if targets can't be made? And you want it in writing.

In the 70's we had the RIGHT to refuse to sign for work with which we disagreed, I believe you still have this RIGHT.

Normally it was Short-Cut work, as instructed by engos, and I even saw refusals used several times (I was an SAC at the time) by my Cpls and Cheifs, getting the engos to sign for the specific work which they required - and which the Team conducted but did not sign for.
We were fireproof - having obeyed by an order to conduct work and then also fireproof for not signing for work below our expected standard.

That particular practice stopped many engos habitually dictating low standards or shoddy practices for the sake of speed, making them take on the whole mantle of their responsibilities, personally.
Boot instantly on the other foot.

I'm sure, if you looked in the right places, you could find where this "anomally" still sits in RAF Regulations.

I'm not saying you should try it - but you could remind people of its existance.

 

[TrickyTree]

...In the 70's we had the RIGHT to refuse to sign for work with which we disagreed, I believe you still have this RIGHT..

Do you know, I'm struggling to think of a single instance in almost 25 years service where I've been instructed to do this. There have been occasions (more in recent years) where I've been told to skip parts of an MP or even a whole procedure but I've always qualified that jobcard with either an ADF or more usually a Lim Log entry. Of course I can't sign those off, and asking J Eng O or whoever to do so does somewhat concentrate their mind onto what they've asked of me!

Usually if I don't agree with what's written the card get's re-written until I am happy. And as a supervisor I am quite content, even encouraging, for subordinates to do the same.

 

[Past Engineering]

With regards to TME etc that has been in for some time, on some MPs there has been a space to record this data allready part of the MP. Most people are right it is only when a. something happens or b. When a new training package is put together that these 'hidden' gems come to the fore, an example is the doozy we had pointe dout to us yesterday:

JAP 100A-01 Chapt 4.3.2, Para 3:

Each of these stages has specific responsibilities. At each stage the individual who has carried out the work detailed is to sign for it. When one or more individuals are involved with a maintenance task, each person is to identify and sign for the work that they have carried out themselves.

So this has been interpreted that if a task needs more than one person i.e. a jack up then each person is to sign for the actual jack he operated rather than an entry; Aircraft jacked up IAW xxx and three 1st signatures for the whole process and one 2nd sig or another example was if two people are required to fit a large panel each person annotates the card and signs for the screws he/she has installed.

So if you think it is bad now if people really get there teeth into this one and implement it as first interpreted above, it can only get worse.

As for recording batch numbers this was first given as a requirement to us in the early 90s at St Athan on the 16 FI wing change programme.

 

[Max Reheat]

Each of these stages has specific responsibilities. At each stage the individual who has carried out the work detailed is to sign for it. When one or more individuals are involved with a maintenance task, each person is to identify and sign for the work that they have carried out themselves.

So where do we stand on seperate entires for trade assistance?

 

[Past Engineering]

That was my point, as others have said some of this stuff being discussed is not new it has only just been noticed due to either an investigation or complaint about standards of documentation.

As I said this one only got highlighted yesterday and apparently it has been in there for quite some. The point you made about trade assistance is exactly one of the issues that was mentioned yesterday along with the jacking and panels one. But when you have people who insist you follow something that is blatently going to cause headaches/heartaches then the best that one can do is take it up the relevant food chain if they try to implement it within your particular work area to get a definitive answer or the JAP amended accordingly.

 

[Little Tronk]

Mate, you're confusing the Edition date with the issue number or Al state. See here --> http://www.jap100a-01.mod.uk/Jap(d)/jap100a02titlepage.htm

And you are refering to the JAP 100A-01 which has an edition date of Dec 2001 and is at issue 21 (Al21). This thread (over the past page or 2) is mainly refering to JAP100A-02 which is edition dated Dec 2002, Al 21.

Accepted..

 

[Teh Wal]

So where do we stand on seperate entires for trade assistance?

Back into the realms of JAP 100A-02 at Chapter 4.2, Para 3.4 I'm afraid.

The whole bloody, messy procedure is a pain in the arris to get your head around but once you've got the process square in your mind and done it a few times it becomes just another part of the job. I know we all rush to get the paperwork bit of the job done as quick as possible but to be honest there's no real time penalty for doing it properly... and as I keep saying "it's all about self preservation"; no-one will help you come the time of the BOI if you're not prepared to help yourself now - that's not aimed specifically at you Max, it's a comment that is levelled at anyone who works with aircraft engineering documentation. Advice (some good, some bad) is offered on all manner of subjects by many different people but it's up to individuals to act upon or accept that advice as they see fit.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

When a new training package is put together that these 'hidden' gems come to the fore, an example is the doozy we had pointed out to us yesterday:

JAP 100A-01 Chapt 4.3.2, Para 3:

Each of these stages has specific responsibilities. At each stage the individual who has carried out the work detailed is to sign for it. When one or more individuals are involved with a maintenance task, each person is to identify and sign for the work that they have carried out themselves.

With all due respect, you found this out only yesterday????? Mate this has been in the JAP, and before that the 100B-01 for eons now.

So this has been interpreted that if a task needs more than one person i.e. a jack up then each person is to sign for the actual jack he operated rather than an entry; Aircraft jacked up IAW xxx and three 1st signatures for the whole process and one 2nd sig or another example was if two people are required to fit a large panel each person annotates the card and signs for the screws he/she has installed.

OK, I'm going to sound 'high horsey' here, but I can't genuinely believe that there are still places out there that are allowing multiple tradesmans sigs against a single entry, with only one supervisors sig for the lot. That has been taught as an absolute no-no at Cosford for at least 10 years.
If individual parts of the job can be broken into identifiable activities such as operating a single jack, then strictly speaking that is what each tradesman should sign for; "Aircraft raised on jack, left mainplane jack operated" or something like that.
If the job is less easily defined, and the example of fitting a large panel is an excellent example and one we use, then you have to be realistic; one persons signs for the task and the other signs as assisting.

 

[Past Engineering]

propersplitbrainme, firstly I added the comment

As I said this one only got highlighted yesterday and apparently it has been in there for quite some.

in my second post, but I have to admit that in the 30 years I was in the MOB I was not aware of this requirement (finished in 99) and since being back on an RAF base involved in maintenance for some time now we have had no one point out that this is required and neither has one SNCO/JNCO etc within our aircraft type pointed out that this is the way it is now done. Our management are now looking at this as we also have to comply with the spirit of the JAP where it is directly readable across into the civvy arena or is just best practice etc that had not been thought of before.

For your second point I agree complex technical tasks are, and allways have been, broken down into individual elements for signature, but you mentioned that it is now taught that for jack ups and similar that the tradesperson is to sign for the jack he/she actually operated and that the supervisor is to oversign each individual operator rather than one signature for all jack operators and depend on how you interpret the sentence this must also apply for trade assist surely?

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

OK, I'm going to sound 'high horsey' here, but I can't genuinely believe that there are still places out there that are allowing multiple tradesmans sigs against a single entry, with only one supervisors sig for the lot. That has been taught as an absolute no-no at Cosford for at least 10 years.
....

PSBM - maybe this is part of the perennial communication issue. Trainees are taught how to do things by the book (and an up-to-date book at that).

They then leave Cosford and enter a bright new world, full of new knowledge, ready to take on all sorts of new challenges. Unfortunately when they arrive at a unit, they find the tired old arguments of "Well, we've always done it this way", or "What do those tossers know back at Cosford" plus a whole raft of more choice comments.

Most new guys probably have a good stab at pointing out that maybe things have changed, orders amended, etc but eventually get ground down by the Jurassic views they encounter.

Yes, they should have more guts/stamina, but everyone has a limit to how far they're willing to push their supervisors/bosses, after all they know their careers depend on solid appraisals.
DT_Xtremez_06:

The same can happen to newly promoted Cpls and Sgts, although they have no excuses (in my humble opinion), as they should already have the qualities needed and courage to stand ready to challenge archaic attitudes.
DT_Xtremez_42:

On the other hand, in an operational environment, other priorioties tend to get in the way, as Stevienics eloquently put on another thread:

Without knowing the damage, hard to say. However, to lift it out requires you to take off the lumpy, turny, spinny bits at either end first to lighten it, plus dump whatever juice is in it and whatevers left of the blades.

Someone has to go there and do that. Yummy..

"......removed in accordance AP XXXX, what was the AL number again mate?" (Fzzzzzzzzzzzzz.Ting!)

DT_Xtremez_42: