AS9110 - Paper/article by Sidney Vianna - Your comments?

Folks, as we get closer to have the first ANAB accredited AS9110 CRB's in the US, I developed the attached article/paper on how AS9110 could make a positive impact for most of the stakeholders involved in Aviation Maintenance, Repair & Overhaul activities.

Any constructive feedback about the article would be appreciated. If you prefer, you can email me your comments, using my hyperlinked signature.
Thanks in advance.

Very well put together with a good level of detail.

The only question not answered (at least to me the aircraft maintenance person (remember I am an A&P Mechanic) is WIIFM? (What's in it for me?) I think the average non-certified shop and shop owner will ask that question. The average Joe out there working as an unlicensed mechanic and the average owner/operator I've met are about 2 steps removed from "Sneaky Pete's Shade Tree Garage".

I'm all for it (AS9110), having been the victim of lets say less than satisfactory parts coming out of an "Aerospace" job shop. It's very un-nerving to hear the engine on an OH-58 unwind when you're taking off in a forest because of a less than well rebuilt fuel control, not to mention a couple of other instances of perfectly good days coming to an abrupt end.

Oh yeah, the -58 came down in a bunch of Oak and Pine trees. Moderate damage and the bird was bent too.

No time tonight to read entire document. Note, though, the typo on cover - "Airline's" should not have an apostrophe. It might be worthwhile to review the entire document for such typos. I'll get to the content later in the week.

Wes Bucey said:

No time tonight to read entire document. Note, though, the typo on cover - "Airline's" should not have an apostrophe.

Click to expand...

I think it belongs on the third page in the word "suppliers".

where their inspectors will have to assess the suppliers technical
and technological abilities

Click to expand...

BTW, thanks...........very informative.

I'm not looking to beat up on Sidney. I don't think English is his first language. I just think that the document should be proofread BEFORE publication so it won't reflect badly on the author or the organization he represents.

Note: "proofreading" is different from "copyreading" - one concerns itself with the mechanics of spelling, grammar, and typography; the other is concerned with the content accuracy, readability, and any possible legal infringements of copyright.

We here in the Cove are acting as a peer review group for the "copyreading" function, but not for the legal review of potential copyright infringement.

Sidney,

I did a cursory review of your article. Before publication there are some areas that could benefit from "tightening up" the verbage from a casual discussion to a more professional style. I am happy to help -- backchannel me if you're interested.

Ann

Article needs repair, maintenance & overhaul

I appreciate the feedback and the offer for assistance. I now (painfully) realize that the article is not ready for publication. I read it carefully and caught a few typos (9110 vs. 9100) and the underlying message is not clear.
I sent a DRAFT for internal review, expecting the reviewers to be more careful and they were not. I learned that the draft should have been much closer to a publishable grade before I release it for review.
Once again, thank you.

I sent a DRAFT for internal review, expecting the reviewers to be more careful and they were not.

Click to expand...

A good lesson for many of us - sometimes, even in organizations dedicated to Quality, subordinates and peers are loathe to raise questions about the work of peers and especially of superiors within the organization when performing reviews. Deming addressed this theme frequently. In fact, the entire raison d'etré for third party Registrars is to avoid that "blindness" when reviewing a Quality System.

I was fortunate in most of my career that I had one or two mentors or peers I could trust to give me a fair and honest appraisal of my plans, schemes, and documents. One was the Chair of an Engineering Department at a major university who sometimes had his grad students crawl through my work (I'm not sure, but I think he had some sort of 'reward system' when they caught typos or factual errors - he certainly took great pleasure in pointing them out to me in heavy red ink!) Another was a business partner who had an uncanny B.S. detector and he would brook no "bloviation." His assessment was crucial in making a document "readable" for the intended audience. - He's dead, now. I miss his counsel.

QualityPhD said:

Sidney,

I did a cursory review of your article. Before publication there are some areas that could benefit from "tightening up" the verbage from a casual discussion to a more professional style. I am happy to help -- backchannel me if you're interested.

Ann

Click to expand...

Your comment could benefit from a "tightening up" of the spelling of "verbiage."

When I worked on the school paper in high school, our faculty adviser was mortified by the number of typos generated between reporter, editor, typesetter, and printer in each issue. She railed at the staff unmercifully until our newest Editor-in-Chief came up with the idea of offering a weekly "gag prize" plus a modest gift certificate to one of our advertisers for the student who found and sent in the most typos from the previous issue. Amazingly, our circulation increased 10 per cent the second week the contest was in effect and it seemed that overnight the paper went from being a boring throwaway to a continual topic of coversation throughoout the 3,000 member student body. We went from a print run of 2,500 to a print run of 3,000 with 2,750 paid circulation and 250 free copies distributed to advertisers and exchanged with other schools for their paper. Newspaper staffs from other schools picked up the scheme for their own papers. Students no longer thought we were idiots, but accused of us of making purposeful errors to make the contest interesting.