PPRuNe Forums - View Single Post - UK MFTS on or off the rails?
View Single Post
Old 20th Jan 2023, 12:55
  #475 (permalink)  
tucumseh
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 3,225
Received 172 Likes on 65 Posts
Originally Posted by dervish
tuc

Could you clarify 2 points?


"repair pool will never be more than 13% of the fleet."

Is this figure just an example or actual? Seems low!


"automatically flagged by the computer programme. (In use since LTC 87, when it was run on a Commodore 64!)"

Is this related to the new software for working out pilot trainee numbers, mentioned by lima juliet in another thread? Is there duplication?

Ta.


Dervish

1. 13% is the actual figure laid down, and related to Availability, Reliability and Maintainability, and ultimately what the Services are required to be able to do, and with what. Terms have changed, but I know this figure didn’t, at least until I retired. Low? Challenging, but I know what you mean. You didn’t always achieve 13%, but at least you had an identifiable individual who knew the solution, and answerable directly to a 2 Star who would then prioritise. I see mention nowadays of >50% aircraft unavailable.

All support funding and manning was based on this vicious circle and related assumptions, so you can see the link to….

2. The software is loosely related as some of the same data would be used in the manning equivalent. But no, not the same programme. The main difference is that the aircraft/equipment one had infinitely more variables and constantly changing parameters. It was more useful in briefings, to present trends and where the Assumptions were not being met. The final output to Resources & Programmes in MB was not allowed to be that spewed out by the computer. Those who managed this were, uniquely, permitted to override LTC Instructions using ‘engineering judgment’. In my opinion, the programme was developed (in house) because it could be, not because it added any value - the work still had to be done by hand, and you needed trained engineers to assess it, not data input operators.

Lacking this, funding WILL be horribly wrong, and seldom too high. OR/DEC can never get their quantitative requirement and hence costings right. It follows the procurers will be short of funding and/or unwittingly contract the wrong thing. (BOWMAN anyone?)

Hope that helps. Trying to condense the 30-odd pages of the Instructions.
tucumseh is offline