Something else stinks in Denmark

[Dan Reno]

Denmark May Seek Compensation for Copters

BY GERARD O’DWYER


http://www.defensenews.com/images/adtab_h.gif
http://gcirm.mconetwork.gcion.com/RealMedia/.ads/adstream_lx.ads/www.defensenews.com/story.php/1998507086/300x250_1/OasDefault/HA_DefenseNews_Homepage/singapore-poster-updated.jpg/34373332616530633436633538336430?_RM_EMPTY_
HELSINKI — The government of Denmark is considering a Ministry of Defense (MoD) proposal to seek compensation from AgustaWestland regarding the 14 EH-101 transport and rescue helicopters delivered by the company to the Royal Danish Air Force in 2001.
Denmark paid $586 million for the helicopters, eight of which were earmarked for search-and-rescue duties and six earmarked for tactical troop transport purposes. The last of the 14 EH-101s were delivered in March 2007.
The MoD claims the EH-101s have delivered a lower-than-promised level of operational efficiency and due to technical problems have been available to the Air Force just 30 percent of the time. This is much lower than the 80 percent operational availability promised when the EH-101s were delivered, Defense Minister Soren Gade said.
“The EH-101’s mechanical shortcomings and associated operational problems are outlined in an internal Defense Ministry report,” Gade said. “On Jan. 28, an EH-101 suffered a cracked crankshaft in one of its three engines, which forced it to make an emergency landing at Billund Airport. Following this incident, the Danish fleet was grounded as a security precaution.”
The MoD’s Technical Investigation Unit concluded that the crack was caused by “improper welding by the manufacturer,” Gade said. The grounding meant the Air Force was left to rely on its Sikorsky S-61 helicopters, bought in the 1960s, for search-and-rescue and troop transport duties.
AgustaWestland has indicated that the 80 percent availability estimate was linked to a high level of maintenance and Denmark purchasing a technical service contract from the company.
“A service contract would have ensured the expected flight readiness of the military’s search-and-rescue helicopters,” AgustaWestland spokesman Geoff Russel said. “Denmark did not opt for such a contract. The 30 percent availability is quite a low figure and is caused by a lack of Danish manpower and a failure to order spare parts in time.”

[widgeon]

Wow great marketing strategy , blame the customer. Unless you sign up to a maintenance contract and / or purchase a mountain of spare parts you will only get 30% availabilty. One wonders what the people who signed up to these contracts are getting . ( if it is 80% then I will applaud AW support )

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonist/story.html?id=e379ea01-eccb-4c02-b594-d4ff534438d1&k=52131

I guess we did not buy support either .

[mylesdw]

“On Jan. 28, an EH-101 suffered a cracked crankshaft in one of its three engines, which forced it to make an emergency landing at Billund Airport"

So which of the EH-101's three engines comes with a crankshaft?

[Helikopter]

I believe they are experience 19 hrs maintenance/ flown hr :hmm:.

[widgeon]

80% availability , is that like your car won't start 1 day out of 5.

[Fly_For_Fun]

Why don't they do what the AAC did some years ago:

Lynx fleet 200
Serviceable 100
Rate of S AC 50%

Mothball 75
Lynx fleet now 125
Serviceable 100
Rate of S AC 80%

Simple really! :D

(figures for illustration only)

[ericferret]

When the Gazelle was first introduced to Germany the squadron I was on had an average serviceability of 35/37%. There was a major improvement when an ex D&T squadron sergeant mech was posted in (Alex Garty) who actually knew something about the aircraft..

When we went to Ireland in 1976 and spares suddenly became available, seviceability went into the 95%+ bracket.

Blaming the aircraft is akin to a poor workman blaming his tools.
Lack of expertise and poor spares procurement are major factors in this issue.

For comparison an Airline would aim for about 97%+ excluding C checks.

The civil operator I currently work for has had at least one aircraft grounded for spares issues more or less continually since late December. That would give us a maximum serviceability of 75% during the last three months and it is clearly less than that.
We are fortunate to have very experienced type engineers so this is purely down to spares.

[widgeon]

I am sure 99% of the problems are due to parts . My question is what level of spares should the operator be expected to have on hand ? I know that Eurocopter used to provide a recommended list of spares depending on the size of the fleet. I doubt that many operators believed or provisioned based on these lists How should the financial burden of spares support be split between the manufacturer and the operator? I feel it is the responsibility of the manufacturer to build and have available on the shelf sufficient spares to support the worldwide fleet . After all they have the data on MTBUR and hopefully are tracking total fleet hours. The operator should keep stock of frequently used parts. I am sure the sales man would love you to buy 50% of the value of tha aircraft in spares but I am sure that even government agencies have to justify how much money they have tied up in spares. Why is the large disparity between fixed wing and rotary in terms of fleet availablity. I don't think the mechanics , operators or pilots are smarter so what is the cause .

Edited for grammar.

[Agaricus bisporus]

I never cease to be astonished at the "serviceability" figures of military aircraft. If a civvy 40 yr old S61 fleet did not have a despatch reliability of, what, 95% the chief engineer would be sacked.

I had a friend who owned a gazelle which he flew for nearly 1000 hrs before selling it - and if it ever broke down I don't remember it. The red and white gazelles I trained on were pretty good too.

Clearly role equipment differences accounts for much of the trouble, but as Widgeon said, hoping for 80% (hoping, fer Chrissakes!!) is like your car won't start one day in 5. That is so appalling!

The big aluminium death-tubes I fly hardly ever go wrong, they are working 18 - 19hrs per day, and are very complex beasts. They receive barely an hour or so of attention every night, that's all.

If civvies can do it, why can't the military? The machines are, after all, all built by civvies and often by the same company as the airliners, Twin Squirrels and Pumas that haul holidaymakers, police and rig workers with clockwork reliability...

There is a huge disparity here. Any explanation?

[rudestuff]

Am I missing something here? Why would the Danish government be in Helsinki?

[hostile]

Good question rudestuff. Last time when I was leaving from Finland, Denmark doesn't belong to it.:} It maybe a vice versa also at the moment. Who knows.

[ShyTorque]

“On Jan. 28, an EH-101 suffered a cracked crankshaft in one of its three engines, which forced it to make an emergency landing at Billund Airport. Following this incident, the Danish fleet was grounded as a security precaution.”

I'm sure the only answer is remove all three piston engines and fit nice new turbines instead.

Must say, though; a very big "Well Done!" to the folk at Westlands who pulled off this amazing sales coup. Those old piston engines must have been sitting in a hangar for donkey's years, just waiting for a gullible customer to come along.

[Clever Richard]

When buying a service contract from AW do they also throw in a bit of proper welding as well?

[Sven Sixtoo]

Agaricus

There is a world of difference between serviceability (you can put it on the line and plan to fly it) and despatch reliability (when you actually do decide to fly it, it starts). This is particularly relevant in the SAR world, where availability counts for a great deal, but is not put to the test to the same proportion as a commercial aircraft.

Sven

[Mediahawk]

I hear things from the engineers/mechanics at the Danish Air Force... Due to years of cutbacks and an unfortunate work culture of "let's get a cup of coffee before we pick up the spanner", as well as an impeccable job security, the guys and girls at the engineer teams are in no rush to fix the aircraft. Scheduling of aircraft repairs are stupidly inflexible, nobody works outside their own team/dock despite e.g. that the neigbour dock has heaps of things to do and your own just needs an oil change.

This, combined with a spare parts shortage for especially the EH101, tends to leave the helicopters on the ground waiting for even routine checks.

Perhaps someone from the Danish Air Force can comment/confirm/deny? :bored:

[ericferret]

The point about serviceability and dispatch reliability is well made.

As I commented earlier I reckon our current serviceabilty is less than 75% however our despatch reliabilty is in excess of 98%.

In other words when they gave us the spares we fixed the aircraft. Those that made it to the ramp flew!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Dan Reno]

The military uses transient maintenace who treat aircraft like renal cars. The civilians are a "For Profit" outfit, whereas the military isn't. Add the socialist element to most militaries and there is little incentive to "Make Things Go". Only the very best leadership, a sense of deep pride, carrot and stick mentality, reliable aircraft and deep pockets can make military helos shine. In the "real world" (civvies) incompetance is usualy removed and prices increased to match aircraft ills.

[Mars]

Dan:

We really are separated by a common language; I see the words (apart from 'renal' with respect to cars) but not the meaning.

Translation anyone? I would love to put this though Babel Fish to see what it makes of it but alas it has no facility for tranlation from 'American' to 'English'.

Mars

[Dan Reno]

Seems perfectly earthlike language to me Mars. Please be specific. This is an information thread not a "Guess what I realy want to say " thread.

[tottigol]

Dan Reno, we are all trying to figure out what your last post meant.
Something about socialist armed forces and civilian ill factor?!

Are you implying that "some" Country (other than this of course, how could they otherwise produce a fine element such as you) are tendentially "socialist" and as such do not wish to work?
Or are you implying that involving a civilian manufacturer/service company in the maintenance of a military product automatically increases costs?
Or is this yet another one of your "between the lines" attacks to the US-101/VH-71 manufacturer?

[ericferret]

The first paragraph refers to the American method of having spare aircraft available so that when an aircraft goes u/s they just dump it on maintenance and collect a serviceable one.

This is not relevent in europe as we can't afford this system.