Proposed change to 00-20-14

[mdbuike]

It would appear, from what I have read, that it is being proposed that all QRs and SRs will be performed by the certifying technician while the QPE performs a PR.

While I feel this may be fine for a blue suit lab (they tend to be over manned, with multiple QPEs), as a contractor, this may cut into production a tad.

Comments?

Mike

[OlDave]

OK, so it's been a number of years since I was covered by the AF system so I'm not 100% familiar with it, so anyone, feel free to enlighten me on any misconceptions I may have about its current operation.

I have a couple of questions about the normal staffing levels at the typical PMELs. Active duty labs, contractor run labs and, if there are any left, Civil Service labs.

My guess is that there is probably an overall sampling rate of somewhere in the 7 to 8% range at most labs. Using that number and a typical workplace efficiency value of 80% for the QPE, it would seem to me that there needs to be a minimum ratio of at least 1 QPE for every 10 technicians just to keep up with the expected level of PRs. I'm sure there is also a considerable amount of paperwork involved after the completion of the PR so that increases the ratio further. Now assuming there are other duties assigned to the QPE, my guess is that there are multiple extra duties and responsibilities since the QPE would typically be expected to be highly trained and experienced, that ratio would decrease even further. Probably somewhere in the 1 to 6 or maybe at the most, 1 to 8 just to keep up with the expected workload imposed by Chapter 9.

Are current labs staffed like that? What is a typical ratio of QPEs to technicians? If it is much different than the examples above can you tell me where my guesstimations are incorrect? How could anyone expect to comply with the program, as written, with fewer than 1 QPE per 6 to 8 technicians?

As a private sector employer I could not make that level of overhead work financially. Has the AF program grown so unwieldy and top heavy that efficiency is now something of the past and the majority of the work and effort is spent of layers of paperwork and duplicate inspections? Why?

[mdbuike]

For contract labs, manning is based on SLIN..what is SLIN?

Contract Line Item Number (CLIN), Subline Item Number (SLIN) and Accounting Classification Reference Number (ACRN)



When we speak of the SLIN on our contract we are most often referring to the production (actions taken in a fiscal year) bands on this contract; i.e. 2000-4000, 4001-6000, 6001-8000, and 8001-10000 for the hard actions (A, B, F, G, J, K).  The other SLIN bands are for <5000 and >5000 easy actions (all other action takens other than A, B, F, G, J, K)



Clear as mud, eh?

Blue suit labs, well it's been a long while since I knew thier manning strategies..some days I figure the wing commander needs 20 extra bodies for litter pick-up, and it gets added to PMEL..contracting has really cut into thier manpower pool

Mike

[OlDave]

OK, so in a nutshell. What is a typical ratio of techs to QA to management any more?

[LarryH]

The ratio of QPE's to technicians depends largely on the past and present quality of the QA program.  With a properly developed program and highly experienced and high integrity technicians in a lab, the QAE can probably cover 8-12 technicians.  These are ideal conditions.  Every change of 00-20-14, every problem technician, every additional external quality audit, and old QA programs in need of complete overhaul can lower this ratio down to a QAE for every 4 techs.

As for the original post, as the QAE, I would ONLY look for an accuracy being stated in Table 2 for any standard.  If the DMM was listed for 600 Ohm, +/- 0.25% and the resistor as 600 Ohm, accuracy NA and the procedure called for using the DMM to verify the resistor then the METER is a STANDARD and needs listed.  The resistor is NOT a standard.  If neither is listed on table 2, Under a PR, I may inquire of the technicians viewpoint about whether an AFTO 22 would be required to move the resistor or DMM from the prelims to the TABLE 2 standards.   My basic CHECK would be: what effect on the instrument accuracy would the 600 ohms have IF it were 1 kOhm or 525 Ohms, for example?  If it does legitimately affect the calibration, either the resistor or the DMM needs to be moved to table 2 and the tech should have submitted an AFTO 22.

As for 33-1-32, it is NOT a traceble measurement and has NO standards that need listed.

Of course, you local Quality Manual can completely screw you over and require all the above - look at changing it.

my $0.02...

[jimmyc]

this change was obviously submitted by QA's who already pay no price to calibration, not so much in AF labs, but for sure in contract labs.   as the lab experts, or so they say, they should be very efficient at calibrating the same item and verifying parameters and stds used.   the current policy of PR's for for failed SRs and  QRs is satisfactory to show technician competency.   also annual/semiannual QPR's are required.   besides, what is wrong with QA's remaining proficient on equipment, you never know when the next contract change is coming  lol