Paperwork, Arrrrrrgh

[Max Reheat]

Just heard that as well as putting IAW on all job cards they also now want an AL state putting in to make the job card legal. And AMMs are getting their own trade code just to make adding up hours take that little bit longer. I thought they were heavy or light, 23 or 25.

We are getting our hands tied behind our backs with all this cr@p, I'm now seeing paperwork take twice as long as jobs and thats wrong, total waste of manpower.

 

[Talk Wrench]

Just heard that as well as putting IAW on all job cards they also now want an AL state putting in to make the job card legal.

Standard Practice in the 145 world.

TW

 

[Lcfcfox1]

At least you shouldn't have to worry about the AMM's trade code because they come under the supervisors code be it light or heavy.

 

[monobrow]

Just heard that as well as putting IAW on all job cards they also now want an AL state putting in to make the job card legal.

I remember being told this in about 2005. If you sign a job off IAW an MP that gets amended, and subsequently has a problem in that area.... How would they know if you carried out the original or amended procedure?

 

[rumblefish]

At least you shouldn't have to worry about the AMM's trade code because they come under the supervisors code be it light or heavy.

AMM's put their trade code in brackets after their surname (28) as there is no supervisor with their trade code.
It is nothing new, it has been the practice for about three years.

 

[MrMasher]

AMM's put their trade code in brackets after their surname (28) as there is no supervisor with their trade code.
It is nothing new, it has been the practice for about three years.

IAW chap and AL state has been in force for several years too.

If you've done your job right then you should have the AP handy.

It's to ensure you do the job right and LEGALLY CERTIFY that.

 

[Tin basher]

What this thread needs is the arrival of Capt SlogDT_Xtremez_14:.

DT_Xtremez_30:Max what you need to do is get together all the p or p* MP's and associated paperwork then climb into a landrover with your lads, take some sharp pens, find a quiet spot on the airfield and somewhere to have a brew, and once there you can quickly "catch up" with the admin you know it makes sense.DT_Xtremez_30:

 

[Max Reheat]

IAW on the back of a 707B I know has been around for years, Ive never seen an AL state put on the back of one though, only on the front cover of a 707MC. And if it's such common practice why have I never seen it used by anybody at any camp I've been at and never had a card rejected for it? Same goes for trade code 28. I'd like to think I'm pretty good on paperwork side of things compared to most so the insinuation I'm not doing my job properly I find quite insulting.

I've only just heard about this from someone on TMT who was told it's a new requirement

 

[Late & Tired]

Seduce my ancient footwear:

JAP 100A-02 Ch4.2.3.3 within sub-para(2)

It just rolls off the tongue doesn't it?...

 

[Max Reheat]

Surely with most MP's and Job Guides being electronic when I enter the date I'm signing for doing the job then that is the correct AL state.

I don't carry a copy of the JAP with me on leave, I'm not quite that sad yet but I'm sure the para you quoted is a fascinating read.

 

[Max Reheat]

What this thread needs is the arrival of Capt SlogDT_Xtremez_14:.

DT_Xtremez_30:Max what you need to do is get together all the p or p* MP's and associated paperwork then climb into a landrover with your lads, take some sharp pens, find a quiet spot on the airfield and somewhere to have a brew, and once there you can quickly "catch up" with the admin you know it makes sense.DT_Xtremez_30:

I wonder who taught me that!!!

 

[MrMasher]

I don't carry a copy of the JAP with me on leave, I'm not quite that sad yet but I'm sure the para you quoted is a fascinating read.

What rank are you out of interest?

 

[feckinG RANT]

I have to agree with Max, this serves no purpose.

When signing for an MP/Ch etc you give the date and that should be suffcient to find the Al state should it be needed to in the future. Ok, so sometimes someone uses an older copy or even from trade knowledge, making them add the Al state doesn't change this, they simply go to said AP, find date and add, do they read the procedure? Don't think so.

Ah, I hear you say, but they are signing to say they've used Al state ... Well, of course, but aren't you saying the same by signing with a date?

Only way to avoid this is to mandate all MP's etc.

Yet more petty rubbish thrust down to over-burdened engineers!

 

[Teh Wal]

...If you sign a job off IAW an MP that gets amended, and subsequently has a problem in that area.... How would they know if you carried out the original or amended procedure?

By comparing the date when the job was signed up with the date annotated on the Amendment List page in the front of the AP or in the local AP Register.

However it's in our own interests to put down as much information as is possible/practical in the the job card. When the jet crashes or incident occurs and it transpires that you were the last person to work in a certain area if all you've written is "Work done, satis" how do you go about defending yourself? If you put down lots of information it provides you with a reminder and also provides clarity to the subsequent Board of Inquiry - you may well have done the job no end of times and feel that you will remember what you did but 7 months and numerous aircraft along how will you remember that you couldn't do Para 2.4(b) because at the time the Fleagal-Womph wasn't fitted?

Self preservation is the key phrase and anyone signing for aircraft related work should be aware of the reference quoted by Late & Tired. (Available on Civvy net too --> http://www.jap100a-01.mod.uk/Jap(d)/JAP 100A 02 Chap 4.2.htm#_Toc234740225 )

At the end of the day paperwork is part of the job and if you consider yourself a professional, if you carry out the actual physical hands-on work professionally then you should complete the paperwork in a professional manner too.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

Just heard that as well as putting IAW on all job cards they also now want an AL state putting in to make the job card legal.

As well as batch numbers of consumables used, serial numbers and calibration dates of any TME used during checks and tests. Its all part of the increasingly litigious world in which we operate I'm afraid; if a (sub)contractor has screwed up their processes leading to a techie screwing up their, then this needs to be flagged up.

 

[Max Reheat]

However it's in our own interests to put down as much information as is possible/practical in the the job card. When the jet crashes or incident occurs and it transpires that you were the last person to work in a certain area if all you've written is "Work done, satis" how do you go about defending yourself? If you put down lots of information it provides you with a reminder and also provides clarity to the subsequent Board of Inquiry - you may well have done the job no end of times and feel that you will remember what you did but 7 months and numerous aircraft along how will you remember that you couldn't do Para 2.4(b) because at the time the Fleagal-Womph wasn't fitted?

Self preservation is the key phrase and anyone signing for aircraft related work should be aware of the reference quoted by Late & Tired.
At the end of the day paperwork is part of the job and if you consider yourself a professional, if you carry out the actual physical hands-on work professionally then you should complete the paperwork in a professional manner too.

Being new to my aircraft type I have to use job guides and MP's which are electronically downloaded and I always use an IAW where relevant. My point is what is the point of more searching for and writing down of AL states when the date on which I sign the job should be sufficient. And if its so well known why haven't I seen a single job card rejected for it in the last several years on the 4 camps I've been at, and I've worked for some really anal docs guys.

I'd be interested to see how many people actually knew about this before I brought it up apart from instructor types at Cosford. Its easy to pick up a JAP and lecture somebody on how they should be doing their job, happens too often on here. Makes me wonder if half of you knew yourselves without looking it up 1st.

And for Mr Mashers benefit I'm a Sgt

 

[Teh Wal]

..I'd be interested to see how many people actually knew about this before I brought it up apart from instructor types at Cosford. ... Makes me wonder if half of you knew yourselves without looking it up 1st....

It's something that's taught (or was taught) in training. The old AP 100C-02, which I still have at work (whether it's still a vaild publication is open to discussion), dictates the same kind of entry requirements for job card entries. I had an awareness of AP 100C-02 all through my 28 year RAF career (now a civvy but still working RAF aircraft).

It's up to local management to decide which publications personnel should "read, understand and sign for" on their F4820As annually (or when said publications are amended). If your peers, subordinates and even superiors are not aware of that particular order in the JAP then it might be a good idea to have it added to the list. (AP 100B-01 Order 2.2.1 refers)

I understand that it's impossible to know every word in every publication but there are certain orders that everyone should have a thorough awareness of - as I said above it's in the interests of self preservation, "Ignorance" is not a defence.

 

[Max Reheat]

Whether its taught or not, we've read the JAP recently or if we remember it (and I remember what I was taught pretty well on TMT 3 years ago) it doesn't detract from the fact that paperwork is now becoming a joke. I spent half a shift doing paperwork, book updates etc for one job the other week, 6 hours of paperwork for a 3 hour job. If what propersplitbrain says is true then we're in for a world of hurt in the future if its rigidly enforced. At the moment we only staple 731's to job cards for tracability of items supplied

 

[propersplitbrainme]

If what propersplitbrain says is true then we're in for a world of hurt in the future if its rigidly enforced.

If you mean the bit about quoting batch numbers of consumables and serial numbers of TME, yep its there in the JAP. Like you we've only just found out about this ourselves here at Cosford so we're now having to bring all instructors up to speed to make sure we're all singing from the same songsheet. And we're getting our studes into the habit of doing it when they sign up for their training exercises.
But as you say, how many MWO's have been rejected because they don't contain said information? How many people in the checking chain actually know about it themselves? Where is the consistency and continuity across the service that is supposed to make sure everyone is acting on the instructions they are given.

 

[Ex-Splitter and Proud]

Being new to my aircraft type I have to use job guides and MP's which are electronically downloaded and I always use an IAW where relevant. My point is what is the point of more searching for and writing down of AL states when the date on which I sign the job should be sufficient.

If you have to download the documents anyway it shouldn't be that difficult to identify the Al state, should it? You'd hardly have to search high and low...
DT_Xtremez_42:

I'd be interested to see how many people actually knew about this before I brought it up apart from instructor types at Cosford.

It's hardly a new change to process (AL state anyway), so I'd hope that most (all) SNCOs, and JNCOs for that matter, would be aware - at that level, you've been round the block a bit and are hardly wet behind the ears.

Let's try to remember - Crown immunity was removed a long long while ago (1987?). Also, we're now in the glorious post Haddon-Cave era, and let's face it, with the advent of the new MAA we can all expect more scrutiny to be exercised. As an earlier poster remarked, this isn't new in the 145 environment either.

As Teh Wal says "it's in our own interests to put down as much information as is possible/practical in the the job card" - notwithstanding the minimum requirements detailed in AP100C, etc identified by Late & Tired and psbm.

If I recall, a certain ex Project Team Leader is still under Police investigation (that one's gone quiet though) as a result of Haddon-Cave's report; and quite rightly in my humble opinion, at least the higher paid help are being treated equally here (so far anyway), it doesn't just hit the guys on the spanners.

And if its so well known why haven't I seen a single job card rejected for it in the last several years on the 4 camps I've been at, and I've worked for some really anal docs guys.

I guess they're not really THAT anally retentive then...
DT_Xtremez_42: