it still sounds like a job creation scheme to me.
Welcome to E-Goat :: The Totally Unofficial Royal Air Force Rumour Network
Join our free community to unlock a range of benefits like:
- Post and participate in discussions.
- Send and receive private messages with other members.
- Respond to polls and surveys.
- Upload and share content.
- Gain access to exclusive features and tools.
Trending
This Week
View More Trending
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
And it will be for FSTA because the PART 145 Organisation running them will do so to hold its approval.. The RAF element will be in that loop I can assure you.
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
WGAF
“Not quite but not far off.
Being a Human factors facilitator and having read up on MEMs and other human factors reporting systems it is MY belief that it is just a b@stardisation of several systems combined. You’re right – it is!Please don't expect anything other than the usual civvy companies 'providing' the RAF with contracts, costing god alone knows how much, then in a few years time changing the titles and reselling the same systems in a new box.
A lot of the problems occur because the RAF cannot and will not invest the money to operate these systems correctly. You’re wrong – a mate says “ASIMS” & “DFSORS” is a version of MEMS. A perfect civilian system cannot be operated in the heat and pressure of Afghanistan or many of the other operations we conduct worldwide. You’re right – it can’t! Even in civvystrasse there are areas of operational “Non-Conformity” and they have plans to re-admit an aircraft that has been flown “out of controlled maintenance” back into “Controlled Maintenance.” - Its not just a military issue, you know. Many more problems are induced by civilians and ex RAF types thinking they must change the way we operate. Whilst I am not against change I firmly believe it must be for the good of the service and the way we operate. You’re right – it should be! Not for the benefit of a few civvy companies with ex air staff on their boards. You’re right – it shouldn’t be!Many ex service personnel working for these companies worked in the RAF of yesteryear and have no experience of live ops and all that it entails. You’re wrong – many do! You just weren’t in those theatres when they/we were. Herc’s, Chinooks and Pumas have many, many more years of combat ops than one and two-seat plank jobs. In fact we now have many SACs who will have done more live ops and lived a damn site more 'exciting' (used for want of a better word) life in a single year than many ex commisioned/sncos could possibly have imagined in their entire careers. You’re wrong there too – but you obviously didn’t do heli’s or herc’s!Safely ensconced within their safe civilian domains they pontificate from on high, presuming to tell us how best we should run our aircraft with little or no idea of the conditions we operate under. You’re wrong – many do!I care not one jot for their 'rules' or 'systems' and if they honestly think that the people who actually count, i.e. those on the shop floor, will pay credence to them then they are sadly deluded and have given themselves over to the corporate culture that our modern society seems obsessed by. They have forgotten that the most important rule we think of in the forces is to look after our own. We are not, at grass roots level, a corporate society. You’re wrong – you’re just another corporation!These systems are not put into place for the benefit of the man/woman on the shop floor. They are merely there to cover the backs and consciences of the people who are supposed to be there to protect us if the sh1t hits the fan. You’re right – that is the case and it happens to protect the bosses too. (and I never said it didn’t)I have to stand before people of all ranks, week after week, trying to sell this and each time it demeans me a little bit more. – That’s because you don’t appear to understand the way it works. I just wish I had the balls to stand there and say what a load of hypocritical toss it really is! In fact fukk it I will. If any of you would care to be in the audience I would welcome you with open arms and an open mind!“
You’re wrong – it is apparent that your mind is now hermetically sealed!
Your published interpretation of MEMS as a HF system shows your poor understanding of HF and MEMS. I believe that you have been given the ammunition but you have no idea of the how the bullet is made.
MEMS is a management system and reporting media that enables a technical investigation. If the investigation comes to an area of Human Factors dead ground, a MEDA can help to point the way.
MEDA is the only bit that does HF – if you choose to use it.
For your information I don’t provide the RAF with anything but advice.
DUFFMAN
“Good post wgaf, there are so many HF sheets/briefs/processes, that people now just switch off. HF briefing just turn into yawnfests, people just aren't interested. It's coming in at my unit and so far all people see is filling in more paperwork in to confirm that you've done the paperwork. Plus a redesign of the issue/QA/lean paperwork that you could flag problems up on. Regardless of the name of the system, if problems aren't followed up properly and solved it undermines the system. Too many problem come back with half hearted answers, such as 'better co-ordination of manpower needed' read as undermanded. Or issues that take months to come back with an answer. Too many mixed messages that it should be done right to the book first time, then in the same brief/messege remember we in the military and we need to get things done and a/c airborne. Bringing in mems or any system isn't the answer. We need to decide how we want to operate in a clear message our a/c then bring in a system which best meets that, not the other way around.”
I seem to remember MEMS and MEDA being introduced to the UK civil world as an optional system recommendation via CAA Airworthiness Notices in 2000/2001. It is a system that was taken up with enthusiasm by all UK commercial operators when its results were first seen.
In my first post on this thread I stated that the best way to implement MEMS is to replace some other systems with MEMS.
Your MEMS system seems to have been ADDED to your list of things to do (no doubt by some idiot Squabbling Bleeder, aiming at Wing Coblunder, who only got brownie points for getting the “new” system in) but without thinking of the effects of mashing it up in other systems and forms.
It is my belief that mixing QA Occurrence Reports and MEMS is a route to failure for MEMS. Everything reported in a mixed system will end up on the “familiar route” for QA and little will get a proper investigation through MEMS. In normal QA systems, only ISO stuff is recorded and no meaningful info will be produced for analysis – except the odd quick fix for some menial process. A lot of meaningful info is being lost in this way.
As I said before, QA is aimed at process fixes (and the RAF hasn’t yet learned that Processes can’t fix everything) MEMS is aimed at fixing Shop Floor issues and improving efficiency.
As a point of Order, I am informed that QA is a voluntary system – HF and MEMS are mandated for their use in the RAF. So get used to it - it’s not going away!
Finally, the RAF gives the impression that it does not actually know what it wants yet and I am told that IPT’s don’t want to do anything new at this time. I think we should all wait for that nice Mr Haddon-Cave to offer his recommendations first.
I should just add that, in times of great changes there will always be even greater workloads and those same changes will cause confusion to many and clarity only to some until completion.
“Not quite but not far off.
Being a Human factors facilitator and having read up on MEMs and other human factors reporting systems it is MY belief that it is just a b@stardisation of several systems combined. You’re right – it is!Please don't expect anything other than the usual civvy companies 'providing' the RAF with contracts, costing god alone knows how much, then in a few years time changing the titles and reselling the same systems in a new box.
A lot of the problems occur because the RAF cannot and will not invest the money to operate these systems correctly. You’re wrong – a mate says “ASIMS” & “DFSORS” is a version of MEMS. A perfect civilian system cannot be operated in the heat and pressure of Afghanistan or many of the other operations we conduct worldwide. You’re right – it can’t! Even in civvystrasse there are areas of operational “Non-Conformity” and they have plans to re-admit an aircraft that has been flown “out of controlled maintenance” back into “Controlled Maintenance.” - Its not just a military issue, you know. Many more problems are induced by civilians and ex RAF types thinking they must change the way we operate. Whilst I am not against change I firmly believe it must be for the good of the service and the way we operate. You’re right – it should be! Not for the benefit of a few civvy companies with ex air staff on their boards. You’re right – it shouldn’t be!Many ex service personnel working for these companies worked in the RAF of yesteryear and have no experience of live ops and all that it entails. You’re wrong – many do! You just weren’t in those theatres when they/we were. Herc’s, Chinooks and Pumas have many, many more years of combat ops than one and two-seat plank jobs. In fact we now have many SACs who will have done more live ops and lived a damn site more 'exciting' (used for want of a better word) life in a single year than many ex commisioned/sncos could possibly have imagined in their entire careers. You’re wrong there too – but you obviously didn’t do heli’s or herc’s!Safely ensconced within their safe civilian domains they pontificate from on high, presuming to tell us how best we should run our aircraft with little or no idea of the conditions we operate under. You’re wrong – many do!I care not one jot for their 'rules' or 'systems' and if they honestly think that the people who actually count, i.e. those on the shop floor, will pay credence to them then they are sadly deluded and have given themselves over to the corporate culture that our modern society seems obsessed by. They have forgotten that the most important rule we think of in the forces is to look after our own. We are not, at grass roots level, a corporate society. You’re wrong – you’re just another corporation!These systems are not put into place for the benefit of the man/woman on the shop floor. They are merely there to cover the backs and consciences of the people who are supposed to be there to protect us if the sh1t hits the fan. You’re right – that is the case and it happens to protect the bosses too. (and I never said it didn’t)I have to stand before people of all ranks, week after week, trying to sell this and each time it demeans me a little bit more. – That’s because you don’t appear to understand the way it works. I just wish I had the balls to stand there and say what a load of hypocritical toss it really is! In fact fukk it I will. If any of you would care to be in the audience I would welcome you with open arms and an open mind!“
You’re wrong – it is apparent that your mind is now hermetically sealed!
Your published interpretation of MEMS as a HF system shows your poor understanding of HF and MEMS. I believe that you have been given the ammunition but you have no idea of the how the bullet is made.
MEMS is a management system and reporting media that enables a technical investigation. If the investigation comes to an area of Human Factors dead ground, a MEDA can help to point the way.
MEDA is the only bit that does HF – if you choose to use it.
For your information I don’t provide the RAF with anything but advice.
DUFFMAN
“Good post wgaf, there are so many HF sheets/briefs/processes, that people now just switch off. HF briefing just turn into yawnfests, people just aren't interested. It's coming in at my unit and so far all people see is filling in more paperwork in to confirm that you've done the paperwork. Plus a redesign of the issue/QA/lean paperwork that you could flag problems up on. Regardless of the name of the system, if problems aren't followed up properly and solved it undermines the system. Too many problem come back with half hearted answers, such as 'better co-ordination of manpower needed' read as undermanded. Or issues that take months to come back with an answer. Too many mixed messages that it should be done right to the book first time, then in the same brief/messege remember we in the military and we need to get things done and a/c airborne. Bringing in mems or any system isn't the answer. We need to decide how we want to operate in a clear message our a/c then bring in a system which best meets that, not the other way around.”
I seem to remember MEMS and MEDA being introduced to the UK civil world as an optional system recommendation via CAA Airworthiness Notices in 2000/2001. It is a system that was taken up with enthusiasm by all UK commercial operators when its results were first seen.
In my first post on this thread I stated that the best way to implement MEMS is to replace some other systems with MEMS.
Your MEMS system seems to have been ADDED to your list of things to do (no doubt by some idiot Squabbling Bleeder, aiming at Wing Coblunder, who only got brownie points for getting the “new” system in) but without thinking of the effects of mashing it up in other systems and forms.
It is my belief that mixing QA Occurrence Reports and MEMS is a route to failure for MEMS. Everything reported in a mixed system will end up on the “familiar route” for QA and little will get a proper investigation through MEMS. In normal QA systems, only ISO stuff is recorded and no meaningful info will be produced for analysis – except the odd quick fix for some menial process. A lot of meaningful info is being lost in this way.
As I said before, QA is aimed at process fixes (and the RAF hasn’t yet learned that Processes can’t fix everything) MEMS is aimed at fixing Shop Floor issues and improving efficiency.
As a point of Order, I am informed that QA is a voluntary system – HF and MEMS are mandated for their use in the RAF. So get used to it - it’s not going away!
Finally, the RAF gives the impression that it does not actually know what it wants yet and I am told that IPT’s don’t want to do anything new at this time. I think we should all wait for that nice Mr Haddon-Cave to offer his recommendations first.
I should just add that, in times of great changes there will always be even greater workloads and those same changes will cause confusion to many and clarity only to some until completion.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
You are doing WGAF a disservice there Rigga, he is a Herc man that has done many deployments. However the rest of your counter arguements are valid IMHO. MEMS are there to deal with maintenance issues that have implications on Flight Safety (that is a major concern in the civil sector where 100's of lives are at risk, but also true of military aviation as well).
Last edited:
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
WGAF, My appologies if this is true - I'm sure you saw loads of heli's from your hotels.
Rigga
B
BigVern
Guest
Half Assed
Half Assed
In my opinion, the MEMS concept is sound. What is flawed, is; the half assed manner in which the RAF (at least at my base) is introducing the scheme:
Half Assed
In my opinion, the MEMS concept is sound. What is flawed, is; the half assed manner in which the RAF (at least at my base) is introducing the scheme:
1. Insufficient training - Training was carried out during the summer, when lots of people were on leave and our Sqn was on block leave, consequently; I am now a SEMSCO after receiving no training.
2. Despite the lack of training, if I had a comprehensive set of orders or work instructions I might be able to work out what I'm supposed to do. No orders exist.
3. No extra manpower has been allocated, therefore; the investigators come from around station. By the nature of the role, these people are co-opted at short notice, leaving their section/Sqn with an un-established, unplanned gap for a week or two.
- 3,475
- 38
- 15
Oh how I wish QA was voluntary...lol.
So back to the question is MEMS the bees knees? Has any of you civvystrasse boys an example of this system making life better? You know that example is the best way to sell it to the troops. Locally we've had our first oversight when somebody briefed all the troops about the system but overlooked that no one below Cpl had been at the briefs, so I spent the rest of the day actually explaining what MEMS was.
I do think that it's launch date should have been put back until the new year as the Haddon Cave report has the possibility of making our world very uncomfortable for a while.
I'm sure there are, whether they are used properly with the correct processes is another matter entirely. As I said we haven't seen the full story of MEMS, we has a 5 min brief at the end of another brief and a poster stuck up in the crew room. Like another poster said any chance of some examples of issues that were sorted in civvy street using this system and why it's the dog's doo dahs. For something that you guys in civvystreet use and it's seems to me you think it good and important, it has raised close to zero interest, attention and focus in my place of work. IMO it's because the shop floor know nothing will come of it, total apathy and lack of information reigns.
The Nimrod crash in afghan.
For the benefit of those on the outside, having heard and chatted about what people's ideas of what MEMS is where I work, they seem to be;
A) Something to do with changing the tool tag system.
B) Making sure there are no open job cards.
C) Some more lean rubbish.
D) No idea/no interest.
Totally unscientific of course
DT_Xtremez_30:
A) Something to do with changing the tool tag system.
B) Making sure there are no open job cards.
C) Some more lean rubbish.
D) No idea/no interest.
Totally unscientific of course
DT_Xtremez_30:
Last edited:
W
wgaf
Guest
In 20+ years of RAF service I've stayed in some fine hotels thank you. I've also stayed in some proper sh1tholes including deserts and boats the world over so don't get all high and mighty about you may have done when you where in. You have come across to me as one of the ex RAF jobs that I was talking about. You are trying to bring civilian working practices into an environment where many, not all, of them do not work and have no place,I include MEMs in this! You and your ilk believe they can railroad these supposedly 'new' ideas through without approaching the man/woman on the ground, who are the actual people in the know!
In short I believe you are exactly the sort of civilian who should be allowed to have nothing to do with the RAF as you have nothing more to give apart from your gullibility in believing whatever you are told from people on high.
The RAF is full of knowledgeable people who are still in the loop and can do the 'aircraft safety' issue to the very highest of standards without the interference of civilians who presume to know best.
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!
Thanks Duffman.
Hmm, I was just going to go with 'C0ck' but I think your explanation is better.
- 3,475
- 38
- 15
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
For the benefit of those on the outside, having heard and chatted about what people's ideas of what MEMS is where I work, they seem to be;
A) Something to do with changing the tool tag system.
B) Making sure there are no open job cards.
C) Some more lean rubbish.
D) No idea/no interest.
Totally unscientific of course
And MEMS has absolutely nothing to do with A), B), C) and D).
MEMS is about highlighting (including possible) incidents and accidents that happened by reporting them from the shop floor and the investigation taking account of the pressures/mistakes/violations that allowed the maintenance errors to occcur. The result is fed back down to the shop floor in a format that people can read and hopefully understand!! It is a means of educating people to try and avoid similar incidents etc from happening again. If someone as made a fcuk up because he couldn't be bothered, well justice takes its course.. However if other pressures have been identified....
Air Clues used to be the best way that info was disemminated, with the results of murpheys being included, but that seem to disappear in the purple revolution (and the mags only being issued to JEngO, WO etc!)
It unfortunately is a dry subject (I had to try an keep the matchsticks in my eyes for a recent SFAR 88 fuel tank safety company brief.. It was the worst made presentation I have seen without doubt!), but anything that educates people of the things that can cause incidents / accidents and how to spot the dangers is surely no bad thing..
L
Little Tronk
Guest
Rumblings here are that it will rip us to pieces!!!
- 3,475
- 38
- 15
I suspect that if it does it will be because it will compare us to civvy street.
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
There ain't any problems with RAF maintenance engineering and the knowledge base at the senior level is very good (however when you compare it against some of the best LAE's, you do notice the shortfalls in RAF training..) Personally I feel some ways the RAF records work is much better that the civvy way (Indy scoping and the requirement to record work continuation between shifts is not almost non existant at some places in the civvy work and does lead to work being done twice..)
However I never had HF training until I got to Marham and the ways available to report (while known of) where never explained in my prior RAF touirs. HF is part and parcel of all Aircraft Maintenance and we have all been in situation where something has happened because of it I bet.
However I never had HF training until I got to Marham and the ways available to report (while known of) where never explained in my prior RAF touirs. HF is part and parcel of all Aircraft Maintenance and we have all been in situation where something has happened because of it I bet.
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
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
"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