Originally Posted by The Helpful Stacker
I'm obviously of the opinion that highly trained and well paid personnel should be able to read a simple label (which contains information important to flight safety other than just what the product is) whereas you seem to believe that shape saves all and bugger the age of the product within because that'd involve reading something, a task far beneath someone who is busy and they should be excused for not doing it.
Without wishing to kick the pants out of this topic...
THS, you appear to be taking this personally (in the trade sense) but it is not a techie attack on the supplier trade, I am sure that the switch in oil can shape was delivered as a fait accomplis by the manufacturer, i.e. take it or leave it.
Nonetheless, the comments I have cited above are made in the face of clear statements to the contrary, i.e. you seem insistent that we are looking for excuses for screw ups borne for negligence - nothing could be further from the truth. I certainly made it pretty plain in my previous post that nobody would ever condone using the shape of a can as a
substitute for reading the label and properly verifying its contents. Or that lazy, slovenly practice could be
excused because of the shape of a tin.
Oil can shape simply represented another safety net in the prevention of flight safety incidents that has now been taken away, that is
ALL I (and I'm sure 130K Eng) am saying.
You appear to believe that simply telling people to read the label on the cans will achieve a 100% success rate under all working conditions and in all environments. Can I have the secret to your technique please, because there are millions of pounds to be made in the field of accident and error prevention in all fields not just aircraft engineering.