Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

C/o iaw **** satis

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    C/o iaw **** satis

    Or should that be Carried Out In Accordance With *Insert Reference and Amendment State here* Satisfactorily?

    Yes, that age old what is acceptable to write on legally binding engineering paperwork to declare the work has been carried out to the required standard.

    Surely I'm not the only one to see no issue with using shorthand as long as it can't be misconstrued as anything else? In my experience, it's generally the Navy and those who like their little bit of power to kick off over something so innocuous. Especially when those who oppose it can't support it with nothing more than a "Let's play Rank Bingo".....

    Thoughts? Is there an official list that can be used or is it down to whatever colour socks the management are wearing that week?
    Elitest B'stard.

    Show me a man who never fails and I'll show you a man who never tries.......

    sigpic

    #2
    It might down to personal preference, I have seen a list of abbreviations that shouldn't be used while digging around the APs for something else.

    My personal view is, if you have carried out the work In accordance with a reference which contains the Instructions to do that work, why do you even need satis.
    No trees were harmed in making this post, but several billion electrons were terribly inconvenienced.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by ScoobTech View Post
      It might down to personal preference, I have seen a list of abbreviations that shouldn't be used while digging around the APs for something else.

      My personal view is, if you have carried out the work In accordance with a reference which contains the Instructions to do that work, why do you even need satis.

      I seem to remember in my distant past that it was SI's and STI's that were signed for as 'satisfied'.

      Comment


        #4
        Delete "Satis"

        The statement is: "Carried out (or Embodied - for mods) in accordance with..." there is no need for fluffy embellishment.
        ...looked alright to me!

        Comment


          #5
          Originally posted by ScoobTech View Post

          My personal view is, if you have carried out the work In accordance with a reference which contains the Instructions to do that work, why do you even need satis.
          ^^^This.

          I could never imagine anybody signing for a job c/o "unsatis" so why bother stating "satis"?

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by rocket scientist View Post
            ^^^This.

            I could never imagine anybody signing for a job c/o "unsatis" so why bother stating "satis"?
            It's more a throwback to when filling out that small 'Work Done' box next to the 707A entry in the 700. Not a lot of room in there so C/O SATIS was often used.

            As legacy platforms are retired meaning electronic 700's being the norm, you have a lot more room to play with but it annoys the f*ck out of those useless Fish Heads so I'm all for it.
            Elitest B'stard.

            Show me a man who never fails and I'll show you a man who never tries.......

            sigpic

            Comment


              #7
              "Blaa Blaa Blaa replaced iaw XXXXX. Functional test c/o iaw XXXX. Satis."


              Blaa Blaa Blaa has been replaced iaw MP / AP XYZ. Functional test carried out in accordance with MP / AP XYZ. Outcome was Satisfactory.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by Spearmint View Post
                It's more a throwback to when filling out that small 'Work Done' box next to the 707A entry in the 700. Not a lot of room in there so C/O SATIS was often used.
                It's actually a throw-back to when there were no manuals available to follow. During WW2 and for some long time afterwards, not everyone had access to manuals (and probably didn't need them anyway) Tradesmen were allowed to sign off their work on their own satisfaction that it was complete = "Satis".

                Anyone that signs their work off like this nowadays is actually making a nonsensical comment as, if the work is 'carried out iaw..." it should satisfy the standards required...unless...
                ...looked alright to me!

                Comment


                  #9
                  Actually, thinking about it, I'm sure we were told on my Typh Q Course that we had to state on the MWO entry if a test had passed/failed, software had been loaded with no error messages etc.

                  But no "satis", that's just meaningless.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by rocket scientist View Post
                    Actually, thinking about it, I'm sure we were told on my Typh Q Course that we had to state on the MWO entry if a test had passed/failed, software had been loaded with no error messages etc.

                    But no "satis", that's just meaningless.
                    Still use Test Passed etc, but bolting on SATIS on the end seems to really rile the WAFU's up for some reason, especially when they can't justify why it's wrong......
                    Elitest B'stard.

                    Show me a man who never fails and I'll show you a man who never tries.......

                    sigpic

                    Comment


                      #11
                      I disagree Satis is a really useful term. I use it so that the jockey knows to be careful. After a while they get to know that if it doesn't say satis I've had a bad day or a blinding evening the night before and couldn't be arsed finishing the job. If this was the case then they knew to be on the look out for an incorrect fuel level or loose wheel. This is because if you write "Carried out Gashly" you leave yourself open to a bollocking😂😂😂😂
                      sigpic





                      Always read the small print. It usually starts "Your attestation date is....."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X