Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

MIL SPEC spoof

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

jgamtmann2(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:16 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

Bob, I thought for sure that the Brownie Spec was a spoof, considering the misspelling of the title.  But to no one's surprise, it was real according to the gov. web site.  And we are paying for this? 



Do not archive.

Jürgen Amtmann RV6A



  [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sat Aug 03, 2013 8:47 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

At 11:16 AM 8/3/2013, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Bob, I thought for sure that the Brownie Spec was a spoof, considering

the misspelling of the title.  But to no one's surprise, it was real

according to the gov. web site.  And we are paying for this?


	


   Yes. Again, it has nothing to do with politics

   and everything to do with how our constitution

   was written. The administrative state is doomed

   to self destruct because it grows without boundaries

   and eventually becomes more powerful than those

   with a charter to watch over it.



   It's a classic study in the power of governors

   over the governed. USofA were founded on honorable

   principals and force of just law that gave the majority

   governed power over a minority of governors. Socrates

   hypothesized a time where guardians are manipulated to

   guard themselves against themselves by means of deception

   he called the "Noble Lie".



   Strength of purpose in OBAM aviation lies with us. But

   external forces may prevent us from passing that on to

   those who follow.   Mil-Spec brownies and vague, erroneous

   advisory circulars are but pebbles in the noble lies mountain

   which is at risk of washing out from under us.



   do not archive

   Bob . . .

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 5:13 am Post subject: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

I don't find any reason to get excited about this. A chocolate chip cookie or a brownie is no different from any other military supply when you consider that someone has to order ingredients and ultimately produce products for feeding  millions of troops.



The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment. 



I have written specs for medical devices that demanded similar attention to details. My only criticism is that the units specify inch-pounds but they say grams and millimeters too rather interchangeably. Go metric.



do not archive

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

rickofudall

Joined: 19 Sep 2009
Posts: 1392
Location: Udall, KS, USA

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:02 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

Eric, Good on you! If you've ever been in the business of ordering any sort of assembly you learn PDQ that without an exacting specification to detail what parameters the vendor must produce and perform to, you are just as likely to get unusable junk as you are what you want. It may seem silly to spec something like the number of chocolate chips in a chocolate chip cookie but dollars to donuts if you do not you will get a vendor who will scream and holler that one chocolate chip in a cookie is acceptable because you didn't call them chocolate chips cookies.

 Been there, done that, did not enjoy it one bit.

Rick Girard

do not archive



On Sun, Aug 4, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Eric M. Jones <emjones(at)charter.net (emjones(at)charter.net)> wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  --> AeroElectric-List message posted by: "Eric M. Jones" <emjones(at)charter.net (emjones(at)charter.net)>

  

 I don't find any reason to get excited about this. A chocolate chip cookie or a brownie is no different from any other military supply when you consider that someone has to order ingredients and ultimately produce products for feeding  millions of troops.

  

 The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment.

  

 I have written specs for medical devices that demanded similar attention to details. My only criticism is that the units specify inch-pounds but they say grams and millimeters too rather interchangeably. Go metric.

 

 do not archive

 

 --------

 Eric M. Jones

 www.PerihelionDesign.com

 113 Brentwood Drive

 Southbridge, MA 01550

 [url=tel:%28508%29%20764-2072](508) 764-2072[/url]

 emjones(at)charter.net

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=405895#405895

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 ===========

 -List" target="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List

 ===========

 http://forums.matronics.com

 ===========

 le, List Admin.

 ="_blank">http://www.matronics.com/contribution

 ===========

 

 

 

 	




-- 

Zulu Delta

Mk IIIC

Thanks, Homer GBYM

It isn't necessary to have relatives in Kansas City in order to be unhappy.

   - Groucho Marx

 

  [quote][b]

_________________
The smallest miracle right in front of you is enough to make you happy....

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:52 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		  



 The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment. 	




     Okay, let's examine the 'safeguards' . . .



     Assume Joe Blow's Baked Goods Emporium wants

     to supply brownies to the government . . . with

     some exciting prospects for a jump in sales,

     expansion of capital equipment, hiring of more

     employees, greater contributions to his 401K.



     When you sign on the dotted line for intent to

     deliver, you are pledging faithfulness not only

     to the fine print but the details of EVERY referenced

     document in the requirements . . . not only for

     performance of YOUR company but that of every

     OTHER company that delivers goods/services to

     your efforts. It's the ISO way . . .



     When I wrote procurement specs for my bosses, my

     teachers admonished me to consider every word

     I wrote with three things in mind:



     (1) Do not imposed the requirements of another spec

     without stating the scope of applicability. Good

     case in point is Mil-STD-810 which is hundreds of

     pages of really good test procedures. I was obliged

     to state exactly which paragraphs out of that

     document were applicable. I was also obliged to

     review the referenced documents in 810 to make sure

     that requirements levied down the paper chain were

     not left dangling. 



     (2) I was obliged to state a series of performance

     requirements as one-liners in the Requirements

     section to be paired with another paragraph in

     the Test and Inspections section describing how

     compliance was to be verified (test, demonstration,

     or certification).



     (3) Leave no openings subject to interpretation.



     If you consider 44072 spec from the perspective

     of selling brownies to the government, how

     would you write your offer to sell? You can't

     just salute with, "Sir, yes sir!". You are obligated

     to go through each paragraph of the spec and tell the

     purchasing agent how you intend to show compliance.

     After all, it's implied/presumed that failure to observe

     the spec to the letter poses some risk to the

     consumer of your brownies. Oh yeah, if you've

     achieved 'certification' under ISO, then you're

     perhaps relieved of a duty to go beyond the "Sir,

     yes sir!" support of your supplication for purchase

     order. But that's a whole new topic.



     I submit that it cannot be done . . . at least

     not for the kinds of dollars that a bag of brownies

     should sell for. The $600 hammers and toilet

     seats that frenetic blowhards are fond of

     citing probably do not represent any nefarious

     activity on the part of a supplier to push $10 

     Home Depot toilet seats off onto the taxpayer

     for $600.

    

     I confidently suggest that the supplier probably

     doubled his money on the hardware but only

     after making a practical attempt to comply with

     every sentence of a host of requirements. An attempt

 ]   fraught with great $risk$. The aviation and health

     care industries are rife with examples of fines

     levied in the $millsions$ for failure to comply

     with the details of some spec or regulation.



     Every no-value-added participant in the 'investigations'

     will walk away with a bucket of somebody else's money

     patting themselves on the back for having stuck

     a mighty blow in the defense of 'safeguards' . . .

     when in fact, nothing materially useful will have

     changed. The same investigators will come back

     after a time and extract another bucket of tribute

     on some other issue. I'm still waiting to see some

     encouraging trends for the numbers of accidental

     death in hospitals which has remained essentially

     unchanged for decades.



     Bottom line is that Joe Blow would be assuming

     huge risks to his future and that of his employees

     to sign on to Mil-C-44072 no matter how great the

     potential for honorable gain . . . the risks lie

     in a potential for some energetic no-value-added

     bureaucrat to find that he (or one of his suppliers)

     has failed to observe a requirement in



 "U.S. Standard for Grades of Shelled Pecans"



      . . . or perhaps for failure to comply with . . .



 " . . . each ingredient shall be examined organoleptically or inspected according to generally recognized test methods such as the standard methods described in  Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists and in the Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists, to determine conformance to the requirements. Any nonconformance to an identity, condition, or other requirement shall be cause for rejection of the ingredient or component lot or of any involved product."



     If the investigator finds that the offending practice

     has persisted over some series of shipments, well, Joe

     Blow's fanny may be toast.



     I'm pleased to note that no supplier for Beech who

     delivered to a specification I wrote was ever faced

     a potential for 'gotchas' or was not well informed

     going in as to what we expected. This was because our

     own customer (usually US Navy) was equally circumspect

     with the levying of requirements on us as well.



     I suggest this is not so for most of the honorable, hopeful

     but naive suppliers to the federal government. This is not

     intended to be an indictment of all federal specifications.

     I have found many to be practical and useful tools. However

     too many, like Mil-C-44072 are fraught with foggy logic

     and regulatory tar-pits. Similarly, AC23-17 should be consulted

     with a critical analysis as to the value added by adoption

     of ideas contained therein. Safeguards lie with the honorable

     productive, not the plunderers of the productive.



     do not archive



 

   Bob . . .    [quote][b]

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 8:23 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

At 10:01 AM 8/4/2013, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Eric, Good on you! If you've ever been in the business of ordering 

any sort of assembly you learn PDQ that without an exacting 

specification to detail what parameters the vendor must produce and 

perform to, you are just as likely to get unusable junk as you are 

what you want.


	




    ABSOLUTELY . . .



    If you're going to buy a boat load of brownies . . .

    especially with somebody else's money, a spec

    for brownies is a really good idea. But I'll

    bet you that a brownie spec written by individuals

    with practical knowledge of baking, selection

    of ingredients, packaging and distribution would

    produce a clear and achievable set of requirements

    based on honorable free-market economics.



    Just as AC23-13 could not have been produced by

    individuals skilled in aviation arts and

    sciences, so too was the brownie spec produced

    by folks throwing requirements against a reviewing

    committee's walls to see what sticks. Free-market

    and economics are ignored. The end product is

    all but guaranteed to be more expensive and less

    merchantable than a similar product by Little

    Debbie or Hostess.



    Let's make this exercise more germane to the arts

    and sciences of building practical and low risk

    airplanes. If anyone has an example of specifications

    disseminated from on high that offer demonstrably

    useful guidance for the crafting of airplanes, I'd be

    pleased to know of them  . . . and discuss them

   here on the List.



    I will suggest that the most valuable tools I've

    acquired over the years were from a mentoring

    by my teachers, consideration of lessons-learned

    and the quest for elegant assemblages of simple-ideas

    into recipes for success. NONE of those activities

    are particularly promoted by the contents of

    specifications or regulations from any source.



    At the risk of being repetitious, I'll suggest that

    you will find no ideas more useful or less restricting

    than those offered by the sum total of skill sets

    and experience of the List membership.

    do not archive



   Bob . . .

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 11:13 am Post subject: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

Right.



When you hear them chuckle "This spaceship/airplane/cookie/brownie" was built by the lowest-price bidder, remember that the specification was written to prevent the lowest-price bidder from screwing up the deal by using inferior materials, techniques, cheap imports, or shoddy manufacturing methods to obtain the finished product.



Sometimes that takes loads of words on paper to get things right. I am pretty certain that government requirements for toilet paper, cotton-balls and toothpicks would get a chuckle as well.



Since the government often has no experts on these particular things, the manufacturing companies are usually consulted to write the specifications. Sometimes there is a little hanky-panky, but usually the Mil-Spec gets hammered out and becomes a standard for many products. 



If there was a better way to do it, someone would have found it.



do not archive.

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

nuckollsr

Joined: 24 Mar 2009
Posts: 95
Location: Medicine Lodge, KS

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:21 pm Post subject: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

"Right. Sometimes that takes loads of words on paper to get things right. I am pretty certain that government requirements for toilet paper, cotton-balls and toothpicks would get a chuckle as well."



Never said there should not be a clear and compelling purchasing specification. At the same time, boat-load purchasing packages that throw a lot of "good specs" at the potential supplier is an invitation for 'hanky-panky' or despotic slap-downs because no two reviewers of requirements will come to the same conclusion. It's like 70K pages of IRS code, gazillions of EPA code where no two enforcers of such code interpret their duties and the citizen's obligations the same way. 



"If there was a better way to do it, someone would have found it."



There is. It's called the honorable exchange of value in a free-market where force and fraud is punished as a violation of liberty; poor workmanship is punished by loss of customer base and injury is punished as civil or criminal negligence.



The notion that individuals predisposed to dishonorable behavior will cease such behaviors when threatened by state sanction is demonstrably false.  Trillions of rules will not reduce dishonorable behavior. They WILL increase operating overhead for the honorable citizen. There are probably numerous capable suppliers of brownies who would decline to bid because the spec pollutes their business model, perhaps even alters a successful product and/or raises risk.



A rise of legislative/administrative regulation in the hands of no-value-added, career enforcers has done nothing to improve on the quality of things.  On the other hand,  transfer of wealth from producers to plunderers has increased greatly. Another of several root causes for the greater-than-inflation rate pf rise in the cost of certified airplanes and health care.



It's axiomatic and historically accurate to assert that OBAM aviation is at no lesser risk for the effects of those guys who offer, "I'm from the government, I'm here to help."



It would be interesting to walk up to the FAA booth at OSH with a copy of AC23-17, pick an 'advisory assertion' about 'critical electrics' and inquire as to the significance in a LA-IVP project. Then make the assertion, "my airplane has no systems essential to continued flight that are not backed up; therefor I have no critical systems". and see what reaction you get.

rob(at)hyperion-ef.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 3:48 pm Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

This discussion reminds me of how my previous boss described selling stuff to the government.  He said, only partly in jest, “Any time you sell to the government you are doing something illegal.  You just don’t know what it is.”

 

Do not archive

 

 

Best regards,

 

Rob Housman

 

Irvine, California

Europa XS

Rotax 914

S/N A070

Airframe complete

Avionics soon



 

From: owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-aeroelectric-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Robert L. Nuckolls, III

Sent: Sunday, August 04, 2013 8:51 AM

To: aeroelectric-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: Re: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

  	  Quote: 	
		  

The length of a specification is proportional to the risk of screw-ups when purchasing large quantities from a number of vendors over many years. I don't worry that "our tax dollars" are being wasted. In fact, exacting specifications safeguard the taxpayers investment. 	


    Okay, let's examine the 'safeguards' . . .



    Assume Joe Blow's Baked Goods Emporium wants

    to supply brownies to the government . . . with

    some exciting prospects for a jump in sales,

    expansion of capital equipment, hiring of more

    employees, greater contributions to his 401K.



    When you sign on the dotted line for intent to

    deliver, you are pledging faithfulness not only

    to the fine print but the details of EVERY referenced

    document in the requirements . . . not only for

    performance of YOUR company but that of every

    OTHER company that delivers goods/services to

    your efforts. It's the ISO way . . .



    When I wrote procurement specs for my bosses, my

    teachers admonished me to consider every word

    I wrote with three things in mind:



    (1) Do not imposed the requirements of another spec

    without stating the scope of applicability. Good

    case in point is Mil-STD-810 which is hundreds of

    pages of really good test procedures. I was obliged

    to state exactly which paragraphs out of that

    document were applicable. I was also obliged to

    review the referenced documents in 810 to make sure

    that requirements levied down the paper chain were

    not left dangling. 



    (2) I was obliged to state a series of performance

    requirements as one-liners in the Requirements

    section to be paired with another paragraph in

    the Test and Inspections section describing how

    compliance was to be verified (test, demonstration,

    or certification).



    (3) Leave no openings subject to interpretation.



    If you consider 44072 spec from the perspective

    of selling brownies to the government, how

    would you write your offer to sell? You can't

    just salute with, "Sir, yes sir!". You are obligated

    to go through each paragraph of the spec and tell the

    purchasing agent how you intend to show compliance.

    After all, it's implied/presumed that failure to observe

    the spec to the letter poses some risk to the

    consumer of your brownies. Oh yeah, if you've

    achieved 'certification' under ISO, then you're

    perhaps relieved of a duty to go beyond the "Sir,

    yes sir!" support of your supplication for purchase

    order. But that's a whole new topic.



    I submit that it cannot be done . . . at least

    not for the kinds of dollars that a bag of brownies

    should sell for. The $600 hammers and toilet

    seats that frenetic blowhards are fond of

    citing probably do not represent any nefarious

    activity on the part of a supplier to push $10 

    Home Depot toilet seats off onto the taxpayer

    for $600.

   

    I confidently suggest that the supplier probably

    doubled his money on the hardware but only

    after making a practical attempt to comply with

    every sentence of a host of requirements. An attempt

]   fraught with great $risk$. The aviation and health

    care industries are rife with examples of fines

    levied in the $millsions$ for failure to comply

    with the details of some spec or regulation.



    Every no-value-added participant in the 'investigations'

    will walk away with a bucket of somebody else's money

    patting themselves on the back for having stuck

    a mighty blow in the defense of 'safeguards' . . .

    when in fact, nothing materially useful will have

    changed. The same investigators will come back

    after a time and extract another bucket of tribute

    on some other issue. I'm still waiting to see some

    encouraging trends for the numbers of accidental

    death in hospitals which has remained essentially

    unchanged for decades.



    Bottom line is that Joe Blow would be assuming

    huge risks to his future and that of his employees

    to sign on to Mil-C-44072 no matter how great the

    potential for honorable gain . . . the risks lie

    in a potential for some energetic no-value-added

    bureaucrat to find that he (or one of his suppliers)

    has failed to observe a requirement in



"U.S. Standard for Grades of Shelled Pecans"



     . . . or perhaps for failure to comply with . . .



" . . . each ingredient shall be examined organoleptically or inspected according to generally recognized test methods such as the standard methods described in  Official Methods of Analysis of the Association of Analytical Chemists and in the Approved Methods of the American Association of Cereal Chemists, to determine conformance to the requirements. Any nonconformance to an identity, condition, or other requirement shall be cause for rejection of the ingredient or component lot or of any involved product."



    If the investigator finds that the offending practice

    has persisted over some series of shipments, well, Joe

    Blow's fanny may be toast.



    I'm pleased to note that no supplier for Beech who

    delivered to a specification I wrote was ever faced

    a potential for 'gotchas' or was not well informed

    going in as to what we expected. This was because our

    own customer (usually US Navy) was equally circumspect

    with the levying of requirements on us as well.



    I suggest this is not so for most of the honorable, hopeful

    but naive suppliers to the federal government. This is not

    intended to be an indictment of all federal specifications.

    I have found many to be practical and useful tools. However

    too many, like Mil-C-44072 are fraught with foggy logic

    and regulatory tar-pits. Similarly, AC23-17 should be consulted

    with a critical analysis as to the value added by adoption

    of ideas contained therein. Safeguards lie with the honorable

    productive, not the plunderers of the productive.



    do not archive



  Bob . . .  	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?AeroElectric-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4 	  Quote: 	
		   	
5 	  Quote: 	
		   	
6 	  Quote: 	
		   	
7

  [quote][b]

uuccio(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Sun Aug 04, 2013 10:02 pm Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		   There is. It's called the honorable exchange of value in a free-market where force and fraud is punished as a violation of liberty; poor workmanship is punished by loss of customer base and injury is punished as civil or criminal negligence.


	


I find this discussion very interesting... Aviation is really an interesting microcosm in which to observe the (non-)workings and meddling of government in stuff which should not concern it. 



I'm curious though as to how one would begin to write a spec which took into account "economics and the free market".  If you want companies to bid, you need spec which is factual, you couldn't just say "brownies such as those commonly available in US supermarkets".

mrspudandcompany(at)veriz
Guest

Posted: Mon Aug 05, 2013 3:56 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		   I'm curious though as to how one would begin to write a spec which took 

 into account "economics and the free market".  If you want companies to 

 bid, you need spec which is factual, you couldn't just say "brownies such 

 as those commonly available in US supermarkets".


	


        This is true, but on the other hand, who needs a 100 page Brownie 

spec

        generously sprinkled with references to other regulations on every 

page,

        to the point that a "Philadelphia Lawyer" has a problem with 

interpritation.



        The proliferation of rules and regulations only speeds the growth of

        government and encourages the decline of personal honesty and 

integrity.



        Roger



        do not archive



--



Do you have a slow PC? Try a Free scan http://www.spamfighter.com/SLOW-PCfighter?cid=sigen

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 2:53 am Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		  I'm curious though as to how one would begin to write a spec which 

took into account "economics and the free market".  If you want 

companies to bid, you need spec which is factual, you couldn't just 

say "brownies such as those commonly available in US supermarkets".


	


    Not far wrong I think. In fact, a great many purchases

    of repackaged commercial off the shelf products have

    been made over the years by government.



    The purchase document would call for a quantity of

    your commercial product repackaged for needs unique

    to the military. Then ask for samples along with

    certification that these are the same brownies you

    can buy on isle 6 at Piggly Wiggly. There is no

    justification for the creation of a cadre' of

    micro-czars to craft a specification for a successfully

    marketed commodity whether it's a box of bolts or

    a bag of brownies.



    New development programs have a rich history in

    entrepreneurial exercise of off-the-shelf

    talents. Lockheed's Skunk Works is only one of

    many operations who's successes were achieved

    not because but in spite of micro-management

    in by bureaucratic specification.



    The freedom to operate in a state of "spontaneous

    order" which allowed talented folks to make day-by-day

    analysis of progress toward a design goal . . .

    and turn on a dime if necessary.



http://tinyurl.com/l8yyg3m



http://tinyurl.com/m3zn7wv

    I worked in a similar atmosphere at Beech where

    we designed and built supersonic and subsonic

    targets. Engineering was right above the factory

    floor. The division VP was a few steps from my

    desk. We had "the book" . . . a set of design

    goals from the customer . . . but how were got

    there was largely up to the closely cooperative

    broadly based collection of talents that made

    up our manufacturing, engineering and management staff.



    If somebody on the factory floor discovered a

    problem or had a idea for making a thing better.

    Consideration, decision and implementation of

    a useful change was not months or years away but

    mere days or weeks based on cooperation and agreement

    of the cognizant talents.



    I think our engineering meetings were modeled

    after Kelly Johnson's frequent "how goes it"

    meetings with his engineers and craftsmen.



    The point is that an honorable free-market exchange

    of value conducted in an atmosphere of spontaneous

    order existed all the way from the day the customer

    handed us 'the book' to the day the product was

    launched with goals that it prove/disprove/improve

    the value weapons systems used against them.



    The things discussed here on the List are similarly

    motivated and organized. We exploit the experience and

    talents of many individuals striving for the elegant

    solution to design goals. Each of you operates your

    own skunk works. The success of your efforts is

    bounded by how well you can sift through ideas and

    make changes, not by marching in lock-step to artificially

    generated and mandated specification by individuals

    who couldn't begin to do what it is that you do

    best.



   Bob . . .

racerjerry

Joined: 15 Dec 2009
Posts: 202
Location: Deer Park, NY

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 3:25 am Post subject: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		  There is no 

justification for the creation of a cadre' of 

micro-czars to craft a specification for a successfully 

marketed commodity whether it's a box of bolts or 

a bag of brownies. 	




Agreed â€“ Unless, of course, you are a bureaucrat trying to build your empire at hideous taxpayer expense.  We donâ€™t have any of those, do we?

_________________
Jerry King

Eric M. Jones

Joined: 10 Jan 2006
Posts: 565
Location: Massachusetts

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 6:14 am Post subject: Re: MIL SPEC spoof

 	  Quote: 	
		  This is true, but on the other hand, who needs a 100 page Brownie 

spec generously sprinkled with references to other regulations on every 

page, to the point that a "Philadelphia Lawyer" has a problem with 

interpretation.



The proliferation of rules and regulations only speeds the growth of government and encourages the decline of personal honesty and integrity. Roger 	




        do not archive



The entire document is only 23 pages, not 100,  which includes the specification for the packaging and a page which you can submit to improve  the specification. A jewel of brevity and conciseness. You can't include the accessory documents in your condemnation unless you plan to go into those other businesses too.



People who think this spells the end of civilization need to get a life! If I were ordering fifty-million brownies for the troops, I would damned sure refer to this document and use it. For those of you who think a promise, a handshake, a smile, and a salute to the flag would get the job done...Let us know how that works out for you.



Most engineers and business people understand that a blueprint or an order comprises a legal document; That's why there's a signature on it.



Hey! I'd love to live in a world where "personal honesty and integrity" rule and everyone delivers precisely what I want, but even without guile, a description of exactly what I require can be longer than you might like.



I don't do so much paperwork now, and a lot of that is in cyberspace, but in my working career I delivered 90-page change orders, and electrical approval documents that had to be wheeled in. 



We live in a complicated world. Don't get so upset. In WWII when GM took over the production of Wright-Cyclone motors, the GM engineers made over 10,000 changes in one month...all done by hand.

_________________
Eric M. Jones
www.PerihelionDesign.com
113 Brentwood Drive
Southbridge, MA 01550
(508) 764-2072
emjones(at)charter.net

nuckolls.bob(at)aeroelect
Guest

Posted: Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:39 pm Post subject: MIL SPEC spoof

The entire document is only 23 pages, not 100,  which includes the 

specification for the packaging and a page which you can submit to 

improve  the specification. A jewel of brevity and conciseness. You 

can't include the accessory documents in your condemnation unless you 

plan to go into those other businesses too.



   You missed/ignored points offered that spoke to

   the necessity for citing the applicable paragraphs

   for a referenced document. It's lazy and economically

   hazardous writing to simply throw a bevy of reference

   specs into a purchase requirement. You end up with a

   package that nobody can hope to comply with . . . and

   if they did, the cost of your brownies would have a

   multiplier for the support of useless labor.



People who think this spells the end of civilization need to get a 

life! If I were ordering fifty-million brownies for the troops, I 

would damned sure refer to this document and use it. For those of you 

who think a promise, a handshake, a smile, and a salute to the flag 

would get the job done...Let us know how that works out for you.



   What evidence have you seen demonstrating that the honorable

   supplier to a purchase requirement performs any better

   when every detail of the task is listed in black and white?



   The flip side of the coin asks, what evidence supports

   the notion that a dishonorable supplier's behaviors

   will become golden for having pledged to deliver

   to a constellation of micro-managing documents?



   Compare the Eggenfellner engine experience and

   Bede airplanes with say Van's, Zodiac, and other honorable

   contemporaries. I submit that Jan and Jim would

   have been no more successful had they been marching

   to a "brownie spec" nor did the efforts of Dick

   and Chris suffer for lack of such documents.



Most engineers and business people understand that a blueprint or an 

order comprises a legal document; That's why there's a signature on it.



Hey! I'd love to live in a world where "personal honesty and 

integrity" rule and everyone delivers precisely what I want, but even 

without guile, a description of exactly what I require can be longer 

than you might like.



   There's a difference between a "guide" (what I've

   called design goals) and the vague, intrusive,

   constricting imperatives administrated by individuals

   who haven't got a clue. Yes, your design goals

   should describe the intended purchase to the

   extent that it defines outcome.



   Would you dump "brownie spec" style requirements

   on your neurosurgeon . . . or does it suffice

   to compare his demonstrated track record with your

   desired outcome and shake hands over an agreement

   to accept the best he knows how to do for the

   purposes of mitigating your problem?



I don't do so much paperwork now, and a lot of that is in cyberspace, 

but in my working career I delivered 90-page change orders, and 

electrical approval documents that had to be wheeled in.



We live in a complicated world. Don't get so upset.



   Who's upset? I think most of this discussion

   has been a cooly calculated, simple recitation of facts

   and observable cause-effect pairs.



In WWII when GM took over the production of Wright-Cyclone motors, 

the GM engineers made over 10,000 changes in one month...all done by hand.



   I think it was Chrysler-Dodge that took on the

   task but you've made my point. Were any company

   charged with sorting out the same problems with that

   engine design today, the spontaneous order

   successes of competent individuals would not be

   allowed to do what they do best. The war would

   be over before the engine became weapon-worthy.

   We would flog ourselves to defeat with our own

   specs.



   150 years ago de Tocqueville wrote:



"After having thus taken each individual one by one into its powerful 

hands, and having molded him as it pleases, the sovereign power 

extends its arms over the entire society; it covers the surface of 

society with a network of small, complicated, minute, and uniform 

rules, which the most original minds and the most vigorous souls 

cannot break through to go beyond the crowd; it does not break wills, 

but it softens them, bends them and directs them; it rarely forces 

action, but it constantly opposes your acting; it does not destroy, 

it prevents birth; it does not tyrannize, it hinders, it represses, 

it enervates, it extinguishes, it stupifies, and finally it reduces 

each nation to being nothing more than a flock of timid and 

industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."



   We've watched it happen in aviation. The phenomenon

   now touches everything we buy with ever increasing

   weight. The only sector of the labor market that

   has zero unemployment in the United States is

   civil service and that job market grows daily.



   Millions of no-value-added administrative-state

   public-servants (there's an oxymoron!) preside

   over brownie specs and hundreds of thousands of

   documents like it. It's de Tocqueville's hypothesis

   in action.



   All it will take ia a high profile 'incident' in

   OBAM aviation to bring de Tocqueville's hypothesis

   to our workshops, hangars and airplanes orchestrated

   by FAA, DEA, DHS, ATF, EPA . . . or probably all

   of them. I see no trends that argue with that hypothesis.

   Perhaps you can enlighten me?



   do not archive

   Bob . . .

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> AeroElectric-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum