- 2,179
- 63
- 128
Shunko,
I live in the commercial world and, as the Part 145 QAM, this is MY system! (and it works)
MEMS is the most simple system in the world! - how can the RAF screw it up so much?
Oh! I forgot; you have "qualified" Leaders!!
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
Shunko,
I live in the commercial world and, as the Part 145 QAM, this is MY system! (and it works)
MEMS is the most simple system in the world! - how can the RAF screw it up so much?
Oh! I forgot; you have "qualified" Leaders!!
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
I've just re-read this thread and I'd like to put the question of "cost" out of the way....
Lets face it, NO-ONE walks through the gates of ANY station without the thought of reward - We all want paying for what we do.
"MOD" approached several companies to bid for the provision of maintenance services, and they did.
Those companies made bids for contracts on which the companies expected to make PROFIT. If they thought there would be no profit they didn't bid for those tasks.
"MOD" accepted selected bids - and so did the companies. (it takes two...)
When those companies found whatever it was they found that needed to be changed - those changes would need to be subject to a contract change, or review, to add those changes and additional costs. The companies need to give the best service they can but, like RAF budgets, can't do it without money from the customer.
Whilst you may be on a fixed daily amount that pays for everything that you do in a working day, others don't work that way.
Most company staff are paid on an hourly rate. More hours = more pay (and who pays for that? - the customer)
Most companies are paid by the contract KPI's or whatever. More KPI's = more pay from the customer.
Dont forget - These contracts are just like taking your aeroplanes to a local garage to get the 2000-hour servicing done.
If you don't believe this way of working - just try to get new tyres on your car without paying for them!
I hope this helps to stop this pathetic bickering...
Rigga
...and stands back waiting....
Lets face it, NO-ONE walks through the gates of ANY station without the thought of reward - We all want paying for what we do.
"MOD" approached several companies to bid for the provision of maintenance services, and they did.
Those companies made bids for contracts on which the companies expected to make PROFIT. If they thought there would be no profit they didn't bid for those tasks.
"MOD" accepted selected bids - and so did the companies. (it takes two...)
When those companies found whatever it was they found that needed to be changed - those changes would need to be subject to a contract change, or review, to add those changes and additional costs. The companies need to give the best service they can but, like RAF budgets, can't do it without money from the customer.
Whilst you may be on a fixed daily amount that pays for everything that you do in a working day, others don't work that way.
Most company staff are paid on an hourly rate. More hours = more pay (and who pays for that? - the customer)
Most companies are paid by the contract KPI's or whatever. More KPI's = more pay from the customer.
Dont forget - These contracts are just like taking your aeroplanes to a local garage to get the 2000-hour servicing done.
If you don't believe this way of working - just try to get new tyres on your car without paying for them!
I hope this helps to stop this pathetic bickering...
Rigga
...and stands back waiting....
W
wgaf
Guest
No ones bickering is any more pathetic than anyones elses. Just because others don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong, their points any more/less valid or for that matter any less informed than you.
MEMS doesn't offer us (the RAF) any more than previous systems, hence I believe it to be a waste of the taxpayers money and my time trying to get it across. In my opinion.
S
shunko
Guest
Like you say everyones entitled to their opinons I believe your wrong about MEMS. Not just based on my opinion of MEMS but also the 'coming' climate in which it will operate.
I mean by this is that the outcome of the Haddon-Cave enquiry will see a massive change to the way the RAF operates aircraft.There will be no place to hide for the people who have allowed the RAF to operate in the way it does/hast.There are going to be lots of heads on spkes come the end of October.
I won't give you a big spiel about why I think MEMS is good apart from one thing,which is it will shift risk from the shop floor (Lines,sqdns & hangars) up to where it belongs, BUT only if issues are documented.
The individual MEMS forms 'have' to be addressed,if 5hit goes down, it wil be the person who did not address the issue who gets hung out to dry & not the guy trying to work round,no spares,proper tooling or manuals to get aircraft flying.
You don't have to take all the problems on your shoulders, pass the buck!!
S
shunko
Guest
The RAF has a rebuttal in place to respond to the enquiries findings.
The report is already out in draft form,meaning it cannot yet be released to the press. I would lay money on it that if there are any hold ups it will be leaked.
The RAF's response has already started MEMS is part of it. I believe its impossible to keep the cat in the bag,all those who have received Salmon letters are bricking it.
The report is already out in draft form,meaning it cannot yet be released to the press. I would lay money on it that if there are any hold ups it will be leaked.
The RAF's response has already started MEMS is part of it. I believe its impossible to keep the cat in the bag,all those who have received Salmon letters are bricking it.
- 3,475
- 38
- 15
That's quite an inside informed assumption Shunko and I agree the RAF will have some sort of an answer. My answer is un publishable even by internet standards. BUT the question was where's an example of MEMS making a bees knees difference in a shop floor tangible way?
I Look Like Kevin Costner
Grand Prix fanatic..
- 3,836
- 48
- 44
I had my formal MEMS refresher from the company QAM yesterday. As briefings went it was very informative on the reasons why MEMS were introducted, the underlying factors that underpin the system and the processes that the company have put in place and the routes that an investigation goes and our part in that process. It also gave feedback on the investigations that the company had undertaken in response to maintenance error incidents in the last two year period, including one that did make media headlines due to the seriousness of the incident..
I'm currently in deepest darkest Norfolk, I missed the lectures on base as I was on leave at the time. Still haven't been caught (although as SEngO and MEMSCO both read the Goat I guess I'll be caught). I like the idea that things will get looked at properly and at least there will be a record of occurrences. From what I understand, if you cut a corner (e.g. deviate from an MP) as long as there's no malice then it's classed differently and will flag up a failure in the system somewhere - lack of tools, manpower etc which will hopefully be addressed (won't hold my breath). The downside will be for all the folks who "penned up" a test when the one piece of test kit on the Stn was away on cal or u/s as they should have flagged it up in the first place.
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
Roobsta,
If you cut a corner - even without malice - you've still cut a corrner.
In civvy street that means that work has to be re-certified (re-done - not necessarily re-checked) to make sure it's properly completed - that means added cost and less profit for someone.
Repeated violations by a single individual (as may be recorded in these reports) may lead to re-training, or even dismissal, if you forget to do the right thing too many times.
If there were conditions that made you do the wrong thing with the right intentions, that will be taken into account - but don't rely on someone to "...flag up a failure in the system somewhere... "
You may still be held responsible for the occurence as your actions, or inactions, may have caused the sequence of events leading to the occurence.
Culpability will be assessed from the root causes, actions and results - but any punitive action, if required, will fit the error found.
If you cut a corner - even without malice - you've still cut a corrner.
In civvy street that means that work has to be re-certified (re-done - not necessarily re-checked) to make sure it's properly completed - that means added cost and less profit for someone.
Repeated violations by a single individual (as may be recorded in these reports) may lead to re-training, or even dismissal, if you forget to do the right thing too many times.
If there were conditions that made you do the wrong thing with the right intentions, that will be taken into account - but don't rely on someone to "...flag up a failure in the system somewhere... "
You may still be held responsible for the occurence as your actions, or inactions, may have caused the sequence of events leading to the occurence.
Culpability will be assessed from the root causes, actions and results - but any punitive action, if required, will fit the error found.
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
Occurence:
A helicopter is parked outside on a 5-minute readiness duty.
In cooler weather the screens and windows mist up reducing the readiness times significantly as the crews now need to demist for five minutes before launching.
The Crews decide to place an electric fan heater into the cabin to keep the temperature up and the Misting at bay. (No, that is not considered a hazard)
It works - but they have to trail a cable out through the hangar doors. An Occurence Report is raised to highlight the H&S risk aspect of the cable being crushed as the door closes.
The investigation reveals the lack of an external power socket and re-routes the cable to a safer route until the required socket is installed.
Results:
1. H&S is satisfied with the safer route for the cable.
2. Crew gets to keep its heated cabin
3. The External Socket is installed quickly because it has been highlighted as having an operational and airworthiness effect.
To bring back up this thread, having used the quality/MEMS form and plenty of others have the general consense is now 'why bother'. I looked at this system with a reasonable open mind. With HC report I thought things might actually change, how wrong was I? A shortage of tools created an issue of tool control, this issue has been raised I think three maybe four times, and each time after the investigation. You get a nondescript answer such as 'SNCO ic is to ensure....' or 'Better co-ordin. is required between....' We wouldn't have these issues if we got the extra tools kits. We can't raise a form against the system itself (one way chat) anything that does seem to be done involves a 'process' generally involving more forms and/or working longer. Some small things do get sorted but they are fairly easy and would be sorted by anyone (just) above retard level.
How do those outside the RAF raise a specific MEMS issue, we have ours on the quality form now those investigating can choose what sort of problem it is ie MEMS or quality. Does anyone else have these problems inside the RAF or outside does the system provide solutions and decent answers?
How do those outside the RAF raise a specific MEMS issue, we have ours on the quality form now those investigating can choose what sort of problem it is ie MEMS or quality. Does anyone else have these problems inside the RAF or outside does the system provide solutions and decent answers?
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
The H-C Review will take some time to sink in to the Top Brass and percolate down - It may be some time before you see any real changes as they have to get their new 'rules' right first.
There will be an MOD reply to the H-C Review on the 16th December - In Parliament, I believe. I would hope that it would be published in Stn Orders for you all to read, as it should point the way forward for military aircraft maintenance.
To answer your other points:
Outside the military (in UK anyway) there is no Tool "control" as you describe it - so there isnt quite that sort of problem.
However, specialist tools are normally owned by the MRO and are controlled in ways similar to that described by your dilema.
If a shortage of specialist tooling became an issue it is likely to be raised as a QA issue - not MEMS. The Form would be sent to (normally) QA who would in turn send it to the maintenance manager for investigation. He would assess the situation and get more if needed/possible or better manage the ones he has!
Were it raised as a MEMS the likelihood is that a similar route would be followed.
The fact that you have a combined Quality/MEMS form is a strange mix to me. Can you choose not to put a name to it? To make a confidential or anonymous complaint?
The completed Form obviously goes to the same place for someone to decide on what is MEMS and what is quality - I would hazard a guess that it nearly all goes to QA, for a quieter life...
In my system there is only one form for QA/NCR/MEMS/SHE/MOR/Ocurrances and all come to QA to sort and distribute as laid down in a single process. This is done to maintain one register of all abnormal occurances and control the investigations and data it generates.
All investigations have to be closed by me (the QAM) and the targetted managers - not the investigators.
There will be an MOD reply to the H-C Review on the 16th December - In Parliament, I believe. I would hope that it would be published in Stn Orders for you all to read, as it should point the way forward for military aircraft maintenance.
To answer your other points:
Outside the military (in UK anyway) there is no Tool "control" as you describe it - so there isnt quite that sort of problem.
However, specialist tools are normally owned by the MRO and are controlled in ways similar to that described by your dilema.
If a shortage of specialist tooling became an issue it is likely to be raised as a QA issue - not MEMS. The Form would be sent to (normally) QA who would in turn send it to the maintenance manager for investigation. He would assess the situation and get more if needed/possible or better manage the ones he has!
Were it raised as a MEMS the likelihood is that a similar route would be followed.
The fact that you have a combined Quality/MEMS form is a strange mix to me. Can you choose not to put a name to it? To make a confidential or anonymous complaint?
The completed Form obviously goes to the same place for someone to decide on what is MEMS and what is quality - I would hazard a guess that it nearly all goes to QA, for a quieter life...
In my system there is only one form for QA/NCR/MEMS/SHE/MOR/Ocurrances and all come to QA to sort and distribute as laid down in a single process. This is done to maintain one register of all abnormal occurances and control the investigations and data it generates.
All investigations have to be closed by me (the QAM) and the targetted managers - not the investigators.
It's still just going through the motions, with far too many people worrying about ticking boxes, moving offices around and creating forms for us to fill in. Is this the end product in your place do difficult/expensive problems get sorted?
- 2,179
- 63
- 128
There's the rub...Nothing works if you dont follow the proper way to do it! - a bit like trying to drive your car without ever going into gear.
And I love that there is still an atittude of pathetic reorganisation to cover the lack of preventive action! - Just how many extra officers do QA have now?
It sounds like your QA bunch has lost the will to fight (something I've experienced too) This may also be a sign of:
1. Too much work at the QA office, and they're looking for a reduction of incoming stuff.
2. No money to replace or source new tools/materiel, but they won't say that in the issue closures.
3. No will to fight the bigger badges. (Rank has been pulled)
4. The need to look good without actually doing anything productive (Ticking all the right Boxes - as you so rightly say)
Unfortunately, in the military, you don't have any higher independant authority who is willing to properly examine those practices and say that they're crap and need fixing before you can carry on! All the military's so-called "Authorities" just look at the ticked boxes and walk away satisfied with some stats (and probably without even checking those stats).
Haddon-Cave might fix that with the new MAR/MAEI/MARS system or whatever they think of next.
But you'll still have to wait for your extra tools - if there's no money!
Finally, you could try putting in a TYPED (not hand written) anonymous QA/MEMS for the un-satisfactory completion of complaints leading to a loss of faith in the new system - and drop an equally anonymous copy in the Gen Office mail box for the Groupie! IF H-C is going to work this should have some effect.
Hope this helps
Rigga
- 21
- 0
- 0
Will it make a difference?
Will it make a difference?
I have read the MEMS thread with interest - I've been out over 2 years now, and my experiences are 'historic' in comparison with most. However, I detect a familiar sense of desperation in some posts - it mirrors my own feelings when QA 'Adviser' on my last Sqn. Normal management and leadership went on through the chain of command - QA, SHE, etc, was outside that chain and passed to the 'advisor' for resolution. Receive a duff spare - send them an NCR! (this in 2007!) Documentation bad? Give them a QA brief. Send a rubbish job-card to a TM for his attention and find him/her trying to berate the docs office for not correcting it forhim in the first place - response from SEngO? 'Not the right answer, Chief!' before forgetting all about it. WO? Being used as a JEngO so never in the country, leaving an already overworked FS to try to keep up with the WO routine stuff as well as his.
My point? MEMS sounds brilliant - but I fear and suspect that it will be added as another additional paperwork trail, none of which will be allowed to impact on aircraft availability. Only when those at the bottom of the heap can stop an aeroplane until the concern is addressed will anyone believe that the system is kosher; instead it will be another 'perfect world' solution to be used when the demands of the flying programme allow.
I don't believe that anyone wants to do wrong, but the pressure to conform to the 'accepted' way often comes from on high, even if never openly stated - I'm sure we've all heard the phrase 'I know we strictly don't have time to do XXXX, but do your best'. I distinctly heard 'We don't have the time to do a proper job' once; yes, we all know we shouldn't have, but how many times did we have someone asking about the corners cut when all went well?
Will it make a difference?
I have read the MEMS thread with interest - I've been out over 2 years now, and my experiences are 'historic' in comparison with most. However, I detect a familiar sense of desperation in some posts - it mirrors my own feelings when QA 'Adviser' on my last Sqn. Normal management and leadership went on through the chain of command - QA, SHE, etc, was outside that chain and passed to the 'advisor' for resolution. Receive a duff spare - send them an NCR! (this in 2007!) Documentation bad? Give them a QA brief. Send a rubbish job-card to a TM for his attention and find him/her trying to berate the docs office for not correcting it forhim in the first place - response from SEngO? 'Not the right answer, Chief!' before forgetting all about it. WO? Being used as a JEngO so never in the country, leaving an already overworked FS to try to keep up with the WO routine stuff as well as his.
My point? MEMS sounds brilliant - but I fear and suspect that it will be added as another additional paperwork trail, none of which will be allowed to impact on aircraft availability. Only when those at the bottom of the heap can stop an aeroplane until the concern is addressed will anyone believe that the system is kosher; instead it will be another 'perfect world' solution to be used when the demands of the flying programme allow.
I don't believe that anyone wants to do wrong, but the pressure to conform to the 'accepted' way often comes from on high, even if never openly stated - I'm sure we've all heard the phrase 'I know we strictly don't have time to do XXXX, but do your best'. I distinctly heard 'We don't have the time to do a proper job' once; yes, we all know we shouldn't have, but how many times did we have someone asking about the corners cut when all went well?
- 4,519
- 38
- 4
This for me sums up the current QA situation in the RAF. I used to deride all things QA, now I'm outside and I work in QA, I can see the tangible benefits of a properly implemented and working QA system that has the backing of everyone from the shop floor upwards.
Unfrtunately, I don't believe this is the case in the RAF, and will continue to be so while ever QA cells are populated by sickies, the lazy and the terminally incompetent.
B
BigVern
Guest
- 759
- 28
- 34
Being ex service myself and now working within one of those civilian firms carrying out maintenance on a military aircraft and within the Quality department, next year the applicable IPT has told us we will be 145 compliant, we have now introduced the MEMS system where I work, and it is true that if it is used properly and the people who put them in see the fruits of their efforts and it removes the risk of an error then it will be good, but if the management (whoever they are) do not actually do anything then the whole system is a waste of time.
The other end of the scale is some just like to take the preverbial and ask for things they know are virtually impossible and try to swamp the system to prove it is no good, but that is down to the MEMS co-ordinator etc to remove these and place feedback on the notice board as to why these have been closed.
We have had some good results, some are now at contract/commercial level for funding and agreement, so will take a bit longer. The main thing though is where most fail is COMMUNICATION, if you do not keep the feedback going to the originators and the final solution put in place then again the system becomes a failure.
I have been doing MEDA Reports for some time now and it can be likened to what I did when something went wrong in the RAF, but without the form as guidance (did it in my head).
The MEDA findings however are as much use as t**s on a bull if the recommendations are not actioned, as has happened here and we have had repeats i.e. trends, but if the management don't want to see it, then again it is a waste of time.
The other end of the scale is some just like to take the preverbial and ask for things they know are virtually impossible and try to swamp the system to prove it is no good, but that is down to the MEMS co-ordinator etc to remove these and place feedback on the notice board as to why these have been closed.
We have had some good results, some are now at contract/commercial level for funding and agreement, so will take a bit longer. The main thing though is where most fail is COMMUNICATION, if you do not keep the feedback going to the originators and the final solution put in place then again the system becomes a failure.
I have been doing MEDA Reports for some time now and it can be likened to what I did when something went wrong in the RAF, but without the form as guidance (did it in my head).
The MEDA findings however are as much use as t**s on a bull if the recommendations are not actioned, as has happened here and we have had repeats i.e. trends, but if the management don't want to see it, then again it is a waste of time.
- 4,519
- 38
- 4
Another very good post mate. Its the same for us, if I spend a month doing SPC on a particular process and no one in senior management is prepared to do anything about it, then I've just wasted a months work.
I think this MEMS system sounds like a very good idea in principle, but if its adopted in the usual RAF way, I can see the lads on the frontline getting fcuked off with it quickly and another golden opportunity for the RAF to improve quality will have passed by.