Apache - The Scotsman Strikes Again

[LXGB]

Source: http://news.scotsman.com/uk.cfm?id=732642005

Cut & Paste from above link:

Fifth of Apaches not fit for active service

JAMES KIRKUP
POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT


ALMOST a fifth of the British Army's new £2 billion Apache attack helicopter fleet was grounded for repairs within days of entering active service, The Scotsman can reveal.

The fact that 11 of the 67 Apache gunships - costing an estimated £30 million each - are out of use for repair came as it emerged that large sections of the British military's helicopters are not available for active service due to technical problems.


More than a third of the army's Lynx helicopters are either out of service for maintenance or entirely beyond repair. And a quarter of Chinook transport helicopters are undergoing repairs.

But it is the revelation of what one army insider describes as "a serious problem" with the Apache force that will most concern defence chiefs. Military chiefs consider the Apache to be at the centrepiece of the army of the future. Laden with weapons and carrying the most sophisticated target-tracking radar of its type, the helicopter was formally unveiled amid much fanfare only last month after a final training exercise by the Army Air Corps.

Following Operation Eagles Strike, the Ministry of Defence announced that 16 Air Assault Brigade had been fully trained, tested and exercised as the lead Apache Helicopter Regiment and was now "available for operations".

Making the announcement, Adam Ingram, the Armed Forces Minister, described the Apache as "a formidable fighting platform that will improve the army's ability to conduct the hard-hitting land operations of the future".

That was on 24 May. But as of 1 June, Ministry of Defence figures show that 11 Apaches were "under repair" and not available for use. The figures came to light after military insiders angered by what they saw as the MoD's "glossing over" of the facts of the Apache squadron raised the issue. While some gunships are grounded for scheduled upgrade work, it is understood that some are unavailable for less desirable reasons, including a lack of routine spare parts.

The National Audit Office this month warned that "Joint Helicopter Command is experiencing difficulties with the availability of spares for helicopters which have affected the readiness of some helicopter types".

And according to one Royal Air Force source, the army's maintenance crews are struggling to deal with the Apache, described as "technically light years ahead" of any previous army helicopter.

"The army just aren't used to looking after something of that level of sophistication - they've got a fairly steep learning curve," said the RAF source.

Nor are the problems confined to mechanical work. According to army sources, a senior Army Air Corps pilot this month left an Apache grounded when one its landing wheels became stuck in earth at Wattisham Airfield in Suffolk. The stricken aircraft did not sustain serious damage, but had to be pulled free by a heavy lorry.

The helicopter repair figures came to light after Mike Hancock, a Liberal Democrat MP who sat on the Commons defence committee in the last parliament, was contacted by a member of the Army Air Corps about the Apache. Prompted by the insiders' reports of mechanical failure and technical problems, Mr Hancock tabled parliamentary questions on helicopter readiness.

"The uncomfortable reality is that the Apache is not easy to maintain - they need expensive and intensive mechanical and technical support," he said.

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Whoever write this slow-news-day space filler clearly has no idea about operating aircraft and the fact that they need very regular servicing. To have only one quarter of the fleet off line for maintenance actually represents quite good availability. Maybe this chap thinks that running Apaches and Wokkas is like running a 1982 Cortina - do nothing all year, then pour the oil down a drain and give it a spot of welding the day before the MOT. Chimp.

[What Limits]

Funny how there is always an "RAF source" available to whinge about not getting the Apache. Of course the Typhoon will be in service on time and on budget and will enjoy 100% availability.

Modern aircraft should not need regular servicing. In fact I suggect regular servicing creates more problems than servicing when unserviceable. NB the Eurocopter EC135, at one stage the manufacturer suggested an 800 hour service interval, but the customer could not face that prospect so settled on a mini service at 100 hours as well.

[ORAC]

Modern aircraft should not need regular servicing

First Flight (AH-64A) 30 September 1975 :hmm:

[engineer(retard)]

Perhaps the RAF were not whinging about not getting Apache, but the amount of attempts to poach technicans to transfer across to TWA.

As for not carrying out any servicing, that's fine as long as all of your safety critical parts come with a lifetime guarantee. Mind you, if it is a safety critical failure then your lifetime guarantee might stop with your life. One for the lawyers to unravel (Pr00ne?) :D

[What Limits]

But even safety critical parts have a service interval and there are no guarantees that they would not give up at anytime. Ask anyone who has had a camshaft drivebelt fail on their car (replaced every 60,000 miles or so) just prior or just after replacement.

[engineer(retard)]

Agreed, but a cambelt is not safety critical, more wallet critical.

There is also a difference between systematic failures (wearing out etc that is predictible, repeatable and can be tested to get a median) and random failures. With safety critical lifing you are in a statistical game and will apply a safety factor to replace the item before it systematically fails. Random failures are extremely difficult to predict, which is why the system is not foolproof.

regards

Retard

[SirPercyWare-Armitag]

The Apache was chosen by the British Army with all the logic of a small boy in a toy shop with a big fat wedge of pocket money. Noone doubts the need for an attack heli for the army, flown by the army, but not the biggest shinest most complicated model with tiny fiddly bits needing extra glue and a smeared windscreen

[engineer(retard)]

Jungly

The big difference between the 2 procurements was that the army got to choose their own toy, not the government. When the answer is 232, the question is who gets the workshare.

regards

Retard

[Two's in]

The Army may well have got to "choose their own toy", but it was the DPA* (*or insert current procurement acronym here) that cut the training element out and sent it on the hugely successful PFI track (hugely successsful for the shareholders that is); then allowed the Somerset based defence industry to dictate the support policy for the first 5 years, hence the two and eight over critical spares right now. Oh wait a minute - those would all be Government led decisions...

[Safeware]

eng(ret'd)

A systematic failure is one caused by an element in the design process and, being systemeatic will occur the same way, caused by the same conditions every time (predictable and repeatable). Therefore, there is no 'median'. Random (wearout) failures are those that will vary with time and for which a median can be established for lifing.

Reminds me of the software guarantee which stated 18 months from date of delivery. Not worth the paper it was written on.

sw

[tucumseh]

Jungly

Good shout on ALDS. Designed for project managers who didn’t have to learn the basics in 5 or more previous grades. Trouble is, when they come out there are too few project jobs at their (artificially elevated) grade, so it’s onwards and upwards in DPA without ever having managed a project.


Mr Hancock, the MP mentioned, is one of the better scrutineers of the MoD, but he is poorly briefed as too often his questions are frustratingly near to the mark, but not near enough. A bit like the NAO, who quite often get close to the truth but never follow up their reports to make sure they haven’t been told porkies.


Two’s In – You are right about the PFI / simulator issue being Government led. However, it is important to realise that the same Directorate was, at exactly the same time, charged with delivering two simulators, and AH was the lesser in terms of difficulty and risk. The other was delivered to time, cost and performance with effortless ease and fewer resources (and non-PFI), much to the chagrin of the Gods, who did their best to scupper it. One should ask (a) How?, and (b) Why were PE’s specialist simulator Directorate not involved? But the wider problem is that dogma dictates training is part of ILS. ILSMs think in terms of their LSD, usually 3 months before ISD. That’s sod all use when you’ve a raft of pilots to train before ISD – and you all know how long that takes. By the time an inexperienced PM (the majority nowadays) susses this, it’s too late to make his case to avoid PFI. Whereas, the PM who has worked his way backwards through the procurement cycle knows this without thinking, and takes action up front. You can always predict the problems on a project by studying the PM’s c.v. Always.

[engineer(retard)]

Safeware

You've got your 1s and 0s head on again me old mucker. With mechanics you will get variance due to machining and material tolerances. Different items even from the same production run will fail within a tolerance band, not exactly the same way every time. Random failures can occur throughout the lifecycle.

Regards

Retard

[Safeware]

Ret'd

Is isn't just a 1's and 0's thing; from IEC 61508:

random hardware failure

failure, occurring at a random time, which results from one or more of the possible degradation mechanisms in the hardware

NOTE 1 - There are many degradation mechanisms occurring at different rates in different components and, since

manufacturing tolerances cause components to fail due to these mechanisms after different times in operation,

failures of equipment comprising many components occur at predictable rates but at unpredictable (i.e. random)

times.

NOTE 2 - A major distinguishing feature between random hardware failures and systematic failures (see 3.6.6), is

that system failure rates (or other appropriate measures), arising from random hardware failures, can be predicted

with reasonable accuracy but systematic failures, by their very nature, cannot be accurately predicted. That is,

system failure rates arising from random hardware failures can be quantified with reasonable accuracy but those

arising from systematic failures cannot be accurately statistically quantified because the events leading to them

cannot easily be predicted.

So, the 'fault' may be a systematic feature of the process, but the 'failures' are still randomly distributed, even in a narrow band. eg the composition of an alloy is incorrect because of a systematic 'fault' in the process. The resulting batch of products will probably exhibit a random failure pattern similar to that of a 'perfect' batch but shifted to some extent.

Anyway, we creep somewhat and can take this elsewhere. Hope your hols were good.

cheers

sw

[engineer(retard)]

Safeware

IEC 61508 relates to functional safety of electrical/electronic programmable safety related systems, not mechanical failures.

Outside of this well defined area a common classification used during chip manufacturing is: Random particle defects (which are usually called extra/missing material random defects or short/open random defects), happen because of contamination. Systematic defects are conditioned by the specifics of the design layout or the equipment. Def Stan 00-41 covers environmental and usage testing methods that shake this down further.

An error in manufacture or design is legally defined as a defect not a fault, that's why the F760 et al became narrative fault reporting instead of defect reporting as it was up to the 80s. There was a legal construct to do with this (cannot remember the details) but I believe the MOD lost on a technicality because it used incorrect terminology. Unfortunatley, we have still not got industry wide consensus.

Perhaps we should go offline before everyone else loses the will to live.

Holiday was top, but my french is still crap.

Regards

Retard

[Splash Coxswain]

JunglyAEO,

You have brought shame and the curse on your Service; I trust that you are not currently at sea! The term '232' I was told by a very high ranking officer (BN), whilst I was 'crabbing' on his large boat, should never be uttered or written by anybody in the RN as it is the Naval Form required following the crashing of one of Her Majesty's finest warships! It is an omen!

You better start praying, buddy, or don your life vest now!

[flygunz]

Sir P
I for one am extremely grateful for that day in the toy shop when it was decided to buy the biggest, shiniest and most expensive model on the shelf. I have had so much fun with those fiddlley complicated bits, in fact so much so that I never noticed how smeary the windscreen had become, but then at night who cares?
Now who told you about the glue thing? I've always got by with duck tape. :ok:

Just a point, there seems to be a lot of engineers posting geeky stuff here, can't they go away so us Aircrew types can do what we do best..........

[engineer(retard)]

"Just a point, there seems to be a lot of engineers posting geeky stuff here, can't they go away so us Aircrew types can do what we do best.........."

What moan that the engineers are screwing their lives up :)

Regards

Retard

[PoorPongo]

Disapointing to see the news filled with such utter cobblers.

While it is true that there are some IPT driven issues over spares ordering (under RN management at the time, BTW) AH serviceability from where I sit (frontseat, finger on trigger:ok: ) allows 2 cabs out of 8 every day without fail, routinely 4, planned surge to 6 and on blue moons 8. My boss has a standing deal with our techs that whenever they push a full house (serviceable and mission capable) out of the door then he'll buy the beer and has had to pay up several time in 6 months. Anyone who thinks that Army techs can't manage maintaining AH is simply misinformed; this is a slur on the REME that deserves to be rubbished. During Ex ES we deployed 16 aircraft and on 3 missions out of 3 launched all 16 as fragged. Twice all 16 aircraft flew around 6-8 hrs in 24 without one going U/s for long enough to miss a launch time. And all from field locations without facilities.

Servicability rates will inevitably suffer initially at a new location like Wattisham while people become more accustomed to the new aircraft and procedures but what do you expect? As far as I'm concerned the REME are tops and can more than hack supporting AH.

[tucumseh]

"Just a point, there seems to be a lot of engineers posting geeky stuff here, can't they go away so us Aircrew types can do what we do best.........."


I’m an engineer. Engineers design and maintain your aeroplanes and, if competent, may then be delegated responsibility for declaring them, and their equipment, safe - before you ever see them. I‘d say you rely a lot on engineers.

I read this forum avidly but do not get involved in aircrew matters. However, what I find interesting is the general attitude toward procurement issues which, almost by definition, is pilots commenting on engineering matters! (And yes, I know some very good people who are both). I contribute when I think I can add something useful, or explain the reasoning behind what, in hindsight, users may think were poor decisions. Quite often I agree with your caustic comments – and the common denominator is usually that the project in question was not managed by an experienced engineer.

I suppose we could go away, but the last time CDP tried to rid MoD(PE) / DPA of engineers was in 1997. He quickly discovered that his non-technical blue-eyed managers had lots of authority, but because they were unqualified lacked the responsibility to sign off things like safety or any sort of technical/financial approval. (Bit of a show stopper in procurement). Authority without responsibility – now that sums up the MoD’s problems nicely.

Fly safely.

[flygunz]

tucumseh
After more than 20 years of techie baiting I couldn't resist the opportunity, sadly only a few bites!:)
I refer you to Poorpongo who says it all.
Even safer engineering!

[engineer(retard)]

Flygunz

Anybody that operates out of Wattisham has my deepest sympathy and I would not endeavour to upset them. Having been posted there on my 1st tour at the end of the 70s and originating from London, I thought I was on the set of Deliverance.

Regards

retard

[owe ver chute]

It's been a while since the last post was on here bashing the Apache.
I wonder, Poor Pongo why you think that 2 from 8 Apache is a good return? I bet you think that ten hours a month is a good flying rate! One more thing, why should your boss buy a beer for the tech's to get aircraft online? Surely thats why the Army pay them. Great concept, get the Army to give your boss the wages for all the Sqn Tech's and only pay them if they produce the goods. That could catch on.
Flygunz, if you were in the sweet shop when the sweets were bought I wish you'd have asked the shopkeeper just how hungry you get eating these sweets! She's very needy! Great fun though, I bet!

[vecvechookattack]

It is perfectly acceptable to utter, mention or write the numbers 232 in the Senior Service. But you MUST avoid placing the Letter which is in between the letters E and G in front of the said numbers.

Was is HMS Lancaster who had her Pennant number changed? somebody correct me please

[Circuit Basher]

VVA - just checked in Jane's Fighting Ships and you're right - HMS LANCASTER is shown as pennant number F229 (ex-F232).

Bucket of Smarties to the winner! :D

[Low Ball]

There are some well off target comments in this thread which pass beyond banter, baiting and mischievousness into unhelpful, ignorant and downright porkies.

So some Apache are unserviceable and I wont gloss over a spares procurement SNAFU at a fairly high level but I have to ask the question why do you want all the Apache serviceable all the time if you don’t need to fly them? Two out of eight on any particular training day will give all your pilots a flight each day – why make the engineers work on aircraft that are not required? I know of no service aircraft engineers that would prefer to see one hour flown off all eight aircraft rather than four or five hours off each of the two.

After a tough and testing exercise taking the full complement of aircraft into the field and using some all of the time and high serviceability levels for the balance it would not be unusual for some aircraft to be carrying faults, which will be rectified on return to base. Here we are touching on the difference between serviceable and battle worthy. Serviceable is everything’s working and generally your engineers will advise you on that. Battle worthy means that some things are not working. The decision to take that aircraft on operations will be a commander’s decision. He may seek engineering advice but it’s a commander’s decision. Now the Apache is classic in this regard, there are so may toys that may not work fully but teamed up with another fully serviceable Apache it can play a full complementary part in battle.

Finally regarding sweetie shop procurement it is naive to think that the Army chose Apache over the other candidates all on its own. There was considerable war gaming involved using all candidate types with differing weapon and sighting system combinations and cost benefit analysis made of the results and a small fleet of all FCR equipped Apache produced the most cost effective solution over all the other types and mixes of types.

Well done 9 Regt AAC a great job done. A good thread too apart from the naval manure about 232?*? which defeats the mortals around here.

Remove Heineken crate and run for cover.

[Studefather]

Lowball,
I remember the detailed comparative evaluations. Mission profile to Bosnia was one for example. Pity they did all the comparisons and then changed to heavier, thirstier and much more expensive (including integration and validation cost) RR (actually mainly French) engines. I was with the competition T700/701-C team at the time. Still, no point being bitter. Just hope they are delivering reliable power for the already very busy crews.

[Front Seater]

Lowball,

Hmmh - I can see where you are coming from, but you obviously aint looking at it from our (I include Owe Ver Der Chooote in the Royal We) in that it is pretty depressing to turn up for work in the full knowledge that you are going to spend your day ground running and airtesting which prevents full mission planning, sortie development and use of the simulator for that all too important trigger action.

Come and spend some time here at Dishforth and you will get a gist of what we are talking about. Binge flying is great and we all know we can get our skills and drills back up to speed pretty quickly, but how come Wallop has an MTP for less aircraft and surely there is better use of our time!

Now take it back it to DAAvn that you want to Moth ball his other 6 aircraft in between major exercises and Ops- then watch the minimums, currency and comptency all go by the wayside (15 hours a month - your having a laugh aren't you)

Now where was your crate of beer?

[AHQHI656SQN]

Low Ball.

I have to agree with Front seater and OVC, life in an Attack Sqn ain't without its problems. At the moment when we are outside of "big pushes" Ex E-S etc 2 from 8 is a good day. The REME are tired and hacked off, for so long it's been a case of the tail wagging the dog, they don't really like it now that the dog is barking back. Don't get me wrong I've got some very good REME mates, but its above our pay band that the problems exist. Thank you for the pat on the back, I'll pass it round the lads on the Sqn

Poor Pongo, if your boss has got to resort to bribing your REME to give you aircraft on the line, that is pish poor, does he buy the aircrew a beer if the fly more than 15 hours in two month (cos you won't be getting it monthly!), or the AAC groundcrew for pumping 15,000 ltr's of AVTUR a day? Thought not!

This aircraft is the best thing that the MOD could have bought, but its demands are very excessive, both on manpower and spares. For everyday flying the mix ain't right yet.

[Low Ball]

Front Seater and AHQHI656SQN.

Thanks for your responses that encourage me to press on and offer you something that worked for me at a time of very poor serviceability. OK it was Lynx then but comparisons can be made.

In case you don’t know who I am my background is from Army flying training with several tours at Wallop, managing big fleets and centralized work practices, as well as regimental service.

OK for this you need to think outside the Sqn box, do not be parochial and make sure you have big cajunnas, stick to your guns it can work. It did for me.

Centralise the aircraft, give them to the REMEs, give them some norms or minimums, have tight central control over bidding.

So give the REMEs all the aircraft (biggest hurdle here will be Sqn Comds) and make sure someone, say Regt QHI or 2i/c is in charge of the tasking.

Some norms for consideration:
· Regt Ex max effort
· Sqn Ex (deployed) full compliment
· Training (daily use) 2 ac per day per Sqn
· Sqn surge trg from camp 6/8 once per month
· Have weekly, at least, planning/tasking meetings to resolve issues

You can fill in to suit your requirements. Do create norms which are achievable and which you as a Sqn can meet. Don’t have the REMEs working on and pushing out ac which you cannot use. Do handover slots that you cannot fill to the other Sqn or return the ac to the REMEs without delay. Make allowances for spare/reserve ac in your plans.

Comparison: Date 1985, location BAOR, I’ll let you guess where, Lynx pilots down to less than 10hrs per month and getting grumpy. Initiated the system and within 2 months all pilots in station were in the 20-30 hrs per month bracket. Pilots flew every day they could. 8-10 hrs per day required on the ac with hot running changes, Sqn/Flts Comds conducted full estb trg monthly and the REMEs were happy. Hell this is utopia!

If I can be of help call or PM me or visit me you know where I work. In real terms you don’t need my help you can do this it just need cajunnas.

To both of you and your pals its still a well done from us I think you are all doing a great job

LB

[Front Seater]

Low Ball,

You are surely not suggesting an Attack Helicopter Force (AHF) just like Joint Force Harrier, Support Helicopter Force, Commando Helicopter Force etc. Let all those with Direct Entry AAC careers raise their hands to the heavens!

I agree with you Low Ball-totally. I too was a victim in the Lynx debacle and am fed up with not achieving currency or comptency and to make matters worse I can't even keep skills going in the Sim as I am too busy doing ground runs and airtests.

I think it will happen anyway to be honest, a potential move of all AH to Wattisham will see the formation of an AH Force that will despatch AH where and when required (sorry 16 Air Asslt-you had a try, now hand over the toys to the rest of the military!). This will revolve in the pooling and central control of these assets to ensure that (for example) all the 300 hour servicing doesn't happen at the same time in the same Sqn or after 4 years of knowing that AH was going to sea all 4 of the embarked AH go in for anti corrosion mods at the same time - that kind of last minute . dom doesn't happen anymore-does it?

Still looking for your crate Low Ball - breakfast beers always the best. Personally Stellar rather than Heinekin!

Oh, and I haven't got a clue who you are - you are talking sense but remember you are protected at Wallop and why not come and spend some time with us (in barracks or on exercise) to get a feel of what life is like. Then you may be able to meld the expectations and reality of the trg environment with that of Regtl duty in the AH era.

[TBSG]

Lowball,
Don't entirely agree with your last post. QHIs are for sticks and poles. Regt 2IC has far too much on his plate with security, equipment care, H&S etc to deal with tasking. The "Someone" in charge of tasking is called the Ops Officer, who also worries about the other range of regimental amusements such as operations, exercises, training etc. And, surprise surprise, we have weekly planning meetings. So, thanks for your advice, it's already happening. The only area of debate remaining is that of centralised vs decentralised servicing. I have seen and experienced both, they both have their own merits. I remain on the fence on that one.

[PoorPongo]

AHQHI:

1. My boss certainly doesn't want to be buying the beers for every aircrew mate who makes 15 hrs a month. His - no doubt lofty - wages wouldn't stretch to buying for about 80% of them every month. (If you don't believe come and look at the flying rates on our currency computer).

2. Buying the beers occasionally for a good job done isn't pish poor - its leadership. Delivering a full house is hard work and an occasional pat on the back works wonders. And delivering 8 out of 8 every day isn't 'just their job' which is the point. Taking a 'them and us' attitude to supporting the REME in delivering us the aircraft we need certainly ain't gonna help. It's actively working together with them and letting them know that their efforts matter that consistently delivers us at least 2 and often more. (6 out of 6 two days this week with 4 and a spare from 6 the other 2 days).

I certainly wouldn't want to say that life in an Attack Sqn is without it's problems. But where I am - despite the hard work required by all - we are flying quite reasonable rates and doing some good value training. Generally much more focused and appropriate than on previous types.

By the way, good job on the boat. Clearly a very professional job from everyone concerned.

Sorry, just edited to say that although I'm not in the full loop on this, the outline put forward by Low Ball (I know who you are, LB, BTW ;) ) look pretty much like how our business is planned (in painful detail) a long way in advance.

[owe ver chute]

"The helicopter repair figures came to light after Mike Hancock, a Liberal Democrat MP who sat on the Commons defence committee in the last parliament, was contacted by a member of the Army Air Corps about the Apache. Prompted by the insiders' reports of mechanical failure and technical problems, Mr Hancock tabled parliamentary questions on helicopter readiness."

I wonder who it was who felt strongly enough to talk to an MP about the Apache issues. I bet Tommo was chuffed to bits about that one!
The customer satisfaction quote goes something like; "if you're unhappy then tell us, if you're happy then tell everyone".