Whose stupid idea was this Part 2
 

Whose Stupid Idea Was this??
From May 2006 there was a three page sprited discussion about OX 26 and OM 15 in the same shaped can. The solution of course was red the label but . . .

The Summer 2007 of Aviate, p17 "Subsequently 1/2 litre of OM15 was put into each engine of a Tornado GR4."

A further 2.5 litres was unaccounted for.

Murphy is alive and well and living near you.

Some Genius obviously came up with that bright idea, om-15 used to be in a nice round tin and impossible to mix up. I did read somewhere that the world is expected to run out of om-15 in 3 or 4 years, there's only one refinery in Venezuela that produces the stuff and we're rapidly running out.

I can see a GEMS here, lets put the replacement oil in Pot Noodle tins or something, that way lineys can get it mixed up with their staple diet!

£25 please.....

Venezuela?? Can't see that being a problem, why don't we just ask them to churn out a bit more seeing as we are on such good terms with them.

So why do we bother incurring the cost of training technicians, if that training doesn't stretch to reading labels and verifying contents (the only thing that smells and looks like OM-15 is more OM-15) before replenishment actions? Murphy's all well and good, but basic engineering skills are paramount.

I seem to recall from my younger days there was a lot of fuss about OM15 and OX38 being in the same size, shaped and coloured tins and that the same risbridger(sp?) could be used for both products. The saga caused the chopping down of several pine forests to fuel the amount of paperwork the situation generated when the simplest solution was to have different shaped and coloured containers. It sounds like the trip round the great circle has been completed. Perhaps Chavez knows about OM15 and that's why he's kicking off about the Falklands.... the man has a cunning plan.

Long discussion about this on the Goat.
The baseline reason for the change was that the supplier decided that they would switch the shape of the tin, its as simple as that. This obviously keeps their costs down as producing/purchasing two different shaped tins is more expensive than one.
The technician training comment is valid up to a point. People make mistakes that they didn't intend to commit; you cannot train/order/threaten human nature out of humans, its been tried and it doesn't work. Anything that can make the liklihood of mistakes happening must be for the better; having two regularly used fluids in different shaped tins is one way of so doing.

1.4G, it is called crewroom gossip and learning. Even though it was aired last year the lesson was clearly not learnt.

Now as mere aircrew I have no idea what the two are or do or the consequences but it is clearly something that you can ask the engineers. This is of course if you have any engineers in central London to ask.

Agreed. If this thread prompts one person to make sure that the engineers are well aware of the dangers of pumping, say, a helo reservoir full of OM38, and the consequences of not taking 5 seconds to read that can, then it can only be a good thing. I fancy a few copies of the poster that appeared in Aviate may just find themselves stuck to the trap doors of the hangar dunnies pretty soon.

Wow, Even I can remember the first circle!!!!!
 

Absolutely, amazing the number of intelligent people who read about an incident such as this and say "I'd never do that"

Perhaps more like

"there for the grace........"

So the flyboys amongst us have never made a switch pigs or missed a call ??????????:ooh::ooh::ooh::ooh:

No one is infallible, however a good sized EGO helps you on the way.:E:E



aaaaagh shiplling

Savings were less than 40p a tin but they still changed 'em. So we have the costs of draining, flushing, EGRs, disposal and sampling costs to balance the equation.

Fortunately no short or long terms effects on engines - so far!

Actually current of not I was airframes not engines as the saying goes. As airframes I would certainly read the label and double check if I was doing a sooty job but it is self-evident that someone didn't. (Several times),:eek:

Is it the blind or the stupid engineers/mechanics that should be catered for?

TB,

It's my guess that it's probably the really really over worked, heavily undermanned, constantly deployed, totally disillusioned and bitterly disappointed with no real leadership or light at the end of the tunnel engineers/mechanics that should be catered for :rolleyes:

But they should still be able to read surely?
As should their supervisors. No level of overload/overtasking can be allowed to become a global excuse for incompetence - can it?

Silly question...

If one is _engine oil_ and the other is _hydraulic oil_, couldn't someone have decided that we'll call them... let's say:-

HFX. (X being whatever number you want), for the hydraulic fluid.

EOX, (See above for the value of X), for the engine oil...

Then, with the benefit of experience and the understanding that when a person is under pressure, (intentional pun), he doesn't need to know that OMX is hydraulic and OMY is engine... It'll be self explanatory... Despite the alarming similarity in the shape of the container - because there's a limited number of shapes...

Sorry... my mistake, that would be too easy, wouldn't it????

The designation of OM15/OX26 comes about though what they are ( O for oil) and what its base is (M stands for mineral oil, X meaning synthetic). Its all covered by the relevant Def-Stan regulations.

The strangest part about this whole "oh its was easier when the tins were different" is that lowly stackers manage to read the tins well enough to issue the correct stuff so surely the Cosford master race should be able to manage it.

"lowly stackers manage to read the tins well enough to issue the correct stuff"

Actually, they didn't.

They entered the stock number into their inventory computer (if it wasn't an electronically-generated request in the first place), went to the location shown, zapped the can with a bar-codereader to verify it (something the line hogs don't have) and sent it out if the light turned green.

That is, if their warehouse wasn't one of the fancy ones like the USAF has where punching the number in results in a robot getting the tin and dropping it into the shipping box without the supply puke even getting out of his chair.

Bar code readers in POL? Oh Sir you jest.

I have recently left her Britannic Majesties Royal Air Force and whilst such modern technology as bar code readers was trialled on a limited basis it has yet to enter wide-scale use.

As for being able to perform an issue without having to leave the office, such a thing is but a mere flight of fancy for an Air Force that strives to be person for person the best in the world.:rolleyes:

Nope, in Liz's Flying Club all POL issues are done the old fashioned way. Stacker with voucher puts down tea, jumps in vehicle and drives to relevant inflam store, drags boxes off the shelf and onto the vehicle, pops back for another cup of tea then delivers the required item some time after lunch.

Suppliers delivering.................any small amount of "Cred" you may have had swirled down the plug hole with that blatant untruth :rolleyes:

Well it all depends on which particular brand of LEANing you've had on your unit SFFP.

At Odious it was the "take everyones vehicles off them and put the onus on supply sections to move everything on unit", which doesn't really work as you end up with suppliers doing more driving then supplying which is odd as we actually have a trade set-up specifically for driving duties and you also have the situation whereby if a section needs something in a hurry they have to use their own private vehicles to go and get it.:ugh: