Re: Parts lists in maintenance manuals

Subject: Re: Parts lists in maintenance manuals
From: George Mena <George -dot- Mena -at- ESSTECH -dot- COM>
Date: Fri, 8 May 1998 16:32:11 -0700

Roger Mallett's got it right, Richard. Don't give them any extra
information at the org level, especially with military stuff.

All major part assemblies should be listed, complete with the
identifying source maintenance and removal (SM&R) code. An SM&R code of
PAOZZ means that's the part the folks at the organizational level are
allowed to remove and replace. An SM&R code of PAOGD, however, means
that while the organization is allowed to remove it only, a higher level
organization is required to evaluate the part's condition and only the
top level organization -- the depot (read Pearl Harbor Naval Aviation
Depot or its equivalent) -- was allowed to do the actual maintenance and
repair work on the part. Once done, the depot folks return the part to
the removing organization.

If you don't tell the field organizations (people at the fighter
squadron level, for example) what they can't work on, they can't know
what parts have to be handled farther up the line. For org level parts
catalogs, the major assemblies that require higher level maintenance and
repair don't have to have detail breakdowns. The depot manuals will
have that.

The important thing the folks on the full disclosure camp need to
remember is that key support personnel and test equipment are going to
be located as far away from a battlefield as is possible and that the
depot and the people there will be rather heavily defended. The last
thing anyone on our side wants to see is a depot-level repair facility
or its technology in the enemy's hands. We don't feel like seeing
*our* hardware used to repair the enemy's combat equipment. That goes
against the Congress's successful waging of a shooting war, as mandated
by nothing less than the US Constitution.

George Mena

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard J. Collins [SMTP:writejob -at- DNAI -dot- COM]
> Sent: Friday, May 08, 1998 3:53 PM
> To: TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
> Subject: Parts lists in maintenance manuals
> Hello to hardware writers,
> What is your current practice regarding parts lists. If you are
> writing an
> organizational level maintenance manual, do you include just the parts
> that
> appear on the top level of the BOM? For example, PCBs, power supplies,
> and
> complete functional modules such as oscillators or frequency standards
> and
> the like. This question applies to both commercial manuals and manuals
> done
> for military organizations. If you do both -- detailed parts lists and
> upper
> level component parts lists, what percentage of each would you say you
> do?
> We have a discussion going now at work. One camp says limit the parts
> list
> to what the organization is authorized to remove and replace in the
> field.
> The other side says, what the hey, give them a listing of every bit
> and
> piece part in the device.
> This assumes that the using organization has not stipulated either
> choice
> and the job is not bid to write removal and replacement procedures for
> all
> the bit and piece parts nor do the troubleshooting procedures go to
> this
> level. The theory write-up is only down to the functional block level
> and
> circuit theory is not discussed.
> I'm interested in what the current practice is at this point.
> Cheers,
> Rich Collins
> &^~~~
> Send commands to listserv -at- listserv -dot- okstate -dot- edu (e.g., SIGNOFF

Previous by Author: Re: Write the User Guide First
Next by Author: Looking for an Excel document
Previous by Thread: Re: Parts lists in maintenance manuals
Next by Thread: Re: Parts lists in maintenance manuals

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads