om15

[Realist78]

You mean responsible for the incedents or those who changed the can? I was under the impression you meant the latter...

Apologies for it being unclear, I meant the people actually fecking up because, playing Devil's Advocate, there has been posters, procedural changes etc and people are still fcuking up so presuming the can design remains the same, fizzers remain a lone solution to wake people up and get them to take more responsibility for their actions!

 

[Almost_done]

Okay looking at all the post saying this saying that, there is a design principle, that was employed when when we had the square tins.

No fail.......Just like a 3.5 floppy it can only be fitted the one way, or a CS card in a camera, it takes a complete utter buffon to make it fit anyother way, we have moved away from a safe condtion to an Unsafe condition all for the cost of a few pounds here and now.

You can all shout about taking torchesetc... read the label... etc the fundamental truth is the square tin worked because it was different. Now we are forced to go back a safe step. It will force culture change but until there is a major incident and the BoI decides that the fundamental fault was the type of Tin not the ineptitude of the Techies. Nothing will change due to the forces being beancounter driven.

When will they learn we are a COST CENTER NOT A PROFIT CENTER, still never mind I have tried to say this up the chain of command, stonwalled!!

I don't look forward to the day something serious happens because of this failure in design for safety due to some beancounter, can we hold them accountable? I Hope so.

 

[Tashy_Man]

can we hold them accountable? I Hope so.

I doubt it......

All that i can see happening is the techie (or AMM) that eventually gets court martialed will get told he/she should have read the fecking tin.....just before they throw the book at him/her.

Crack on...................DT_Xtremez_09:

 

[propersplitbrainme]

If someone screws up through negligence, laziness, or ineptitude then fizz 'em good I say, but do those of you who advocate fizzing as the way forward actually want to prevent future occurences, or are you more interested in meting out punishment to those who screw up?
Because, make no mistake, the threat of a fizzer won't prevent future occurences. If it did, and I could prove it did, then I'd not be sat here banging on about it, i'd be off making my fortune because I'd have discovered a completely unknown method of controlling human behaviour through the threat of punishment.

 

[Realist78]

If someone screws up through negligence, laziness, or ineptitude then fizz 'em good I say, but do those of you who advocate fizzing as the way forward actually want to prevent future occurences, or are you more interested in meting out punishment to those who screw up?
Because, make no mistake, the threat of a fizzer won't prevent future occurences. If it did, and I could prove it did, then I'd not be sat here banging on about it, i'd be off making my fortune because I'd have discovered a completely unknown method of controlling human behaviour through the threat of punishment.

Nobody's advocating fizzing as as the way forward to prevent cross contamination but a solution needs to be found. The tin design/ murphy proof system was put to our lords and masters when the contract changed to both oils being supplied in the same tins. It even got as far as the body responsible for flight safety. Did they listen to any suggestions? Did they fcuk because as always, some cnut in a flashier suit gets their own way, even if they couldn't find their @rses with both hands!DT_Xtremez_17:

 

[airframe doctor]

Sorry to say but it might have to be the way forward.........

Sorry to say but it might have to be the way forward.........

Because, make no mistake, the threat of a fizzer won't prevent future occurences.

I beg to differ with you on that point. If an individual were to get bounced for carrying out his duties in a negligent or unprofessional manner(because putting the wrong type of oil in the wrong system is just that), word would certainly spread to the rest of the AMM's etc, with the outcome being everyone would double check before carrying out replenishments.
During the line training phase instructors would certainly inform any new tradesmen of the fizzer & therefore pre-warn them that in no uncertain terms it would happen to them if they were to cross contaminate oils.

Lets face it the average AMM of today falls into 2 categories.
1.The I don't give a **** gang.
2.The type that look like they are going to burst into tears when you point out the error of their ways to them.
The 1st AMM to get fizzed for negligence would certainly be an eyeopener to whichever category previously stated & have a positive knock-on effect to the prevention of future cross contamination.

I'm not in favour of the new style OM-15 tins myself, during my mech's course the emphasis placed on the difference in tin shape by the instructors & the reasons why were clearly evident, but unfortunately mistakes do happen coupled with pure laziness by some individuals.

Until a more serious incident takes place (fingers X'd it doesn't come to that) or somebody in the position to highlight the problems we face forces the manufacturers to revert back to the old system grows a set of balls we seem to be stuck with the same tin style/different contents scenario.

I'm not in favour of fizzing people at the drop of a hat, or indeed an AMM hater (I just used AMM's as an example as they are placed in this situation on a more regular basis than some), but it might only take a couple of fizzers for individuals showing gross negligence for the message to finally hit home until a alternative method is found.

 

[snowball1]

Speaking of OM15 (not for the squeamish!)http://www.dennismac.co.uk/hands/hydra/index.html

 

[MrMasher]

Quite often people are put under unneccesary pressure, be it from inept management, poor planning, lack of manpower, etc etc. Sometimes this can lead to mistakes. Its no excuse I know, but it can be classed as a contributing factor. Having said that, some people are just not aware enough of what they are doing and unfortunately it would be their actions which can lead to someone else making the potential error.
Our OM15 risbridgers have different end caps and a different coloured hose when compared to our OX38 and OX27 risbridgers, but this doesnt mean that the right can is always fitted.
You have to check, its day 1 schoolboy stuff! Especially since they've been messing around with the shapes of the tins.
We had Leklene on GR7s which got fed into the engine oil because of a similar tin shape problem. This was back in 2000/2001. Education and observance is the key and if a fault occurs a good fecking shoeing!!!!!

Why not write it into t-bar duty orders or have a duty POL bod whose job is to ensure that at least at shift start the cans are all full and on the correct risbridgers? Make someone responsible for some of it at least.

 

[propersplitbrainme]

I beg to differ with you on that point. If an individual were to get bounced for carrying out his duties in a negligent or unprofessional manner(because putting the wrong type of oil in the wrong system is just that), word would certainly spread to the rest of the AMM's etc, with the outcome being everyone would double check before carrying out replenishments.

I think most are in agreement that a different shaped can would help allevaite some of the screwups, but where we differ is what to do about the situation as we are stuck with the rectangular OM15 cans.
If the reason the guys are screwing up is pure laziness and negligence, AND the threat of a charge is never enacted then yes, a sudden spate of disciplinary action might act as a wakeup call to the feckless ones.
But if people are trying to do their best but are screwing up for other reasons then no amount of fizzer threats will put an end to it, its a simple fact of human psychology. Most people don't mean to fcuk up so you can't threaten out of their behaviour something they don't mean to do in the first place.
If (for example)someone's brain is working to maximum trying to keep up with the requirements of the job in a fast moving environment then its been proven that even an additonal simple task, in this case recognising the contents of an oil container, can prove too much for them. They don't know that this is the case and so don't realise they are about to make an error.
I'm not trying to excuse lazy or incompetent behvaiour here, far from it. I'm just trying to demonstrate that simple solutions won't fix what can be inherently deep rooted psychological issues.

 

[Hammer and stillson]

We had a bod fill a chinny rotorhead with OM15, the bod had previous time on type and was on days at about midday so should have been fairly awake and he and others blamed the tins which is a bit weak if you ask me.