Whose stupid idea was this Part 2
Here's a little story - make of it what you will:
Quite a few years back, an Airworthiness Directive was issued regarding a certain model of piston-engined Piper aircraft. The instruction was to remove the 'Turbo' sticker (or badge, I forget which) from the cowling. The reason: a fueller had filled the tanks with jetfuel, surmising that Turbo meant turbine instead of turbo-charged...
Re the hydraulic/engine oil can debate: In almost 30 years I've never made a mistake with the two but I have made other errors whilst dog-tired, so I'll hold on apportioning blame.
Quite a few years back, an Airworthiness Directive was issued regarding a certain model of piston-engined Piper aircraft. The instruction was to remove the 'Turbo' sticker (or badge, I forget which) from the cowling. The reason: a fueller had filled the tanks with jetfuel, surmising that Turbo meant turbine instead of turbo-charged...
Re the hydraulic/engine oil can debate: In almost 30 years I've never made a mistake with the two but I have made other errors whilst dog-tired, so I'll hold on apportioning blame.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Shrops
Posts: 209
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Totally agree.
On ALL the flying units I have worked (as opposed to operated
) on, it was the logistics specialist attached to that unit's task to ensure ALL POL was within date, of the correct type for type, and answering to all those nice quality standards.
It was up to the techi to pick up the right shaped tin. And they also managed to read read the labels, and surprisingly a number of logistic specialists were charged due to their oversights.....
so there you go.
On ALL the flying units I have worked (as opposed to operated
) on, it was the logistics specialist attached to that unit's task to ensure ALL POL was within date, of the correct type for type, and answering to all those nice quality standards.It was up to the techi to pick up the right shaped tin. And they also managed to read read the labels, and surprisingly a number of logistic specialists were charged due to their oversights.....
so there you go.
