Oh really

[insty66]

I'd love to know how they came up with these figures!
Especially amount of time for servicings:suspect:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/6902214.stm
Must be all true though it's on the BBC:rolleyes:

[Mr C Hinecap]

The MoD is also working closely with industry to ensure the supply chain works satisfactorily.

Should read:
The MoD is getting stuffed up the hoop to ensure the supply chain works satisfactorily to paper over the shortcomings of industry.

:ugh:

[dirtygc]

'Since the end of last year the number of Harrier aircraft fit for action has met the RAF's targets' - RAF target = 18 ac

'Operational maintenance and minor repairs are carried out at squadrons' home bases' - Harrier home base = Kandahar

'The time taken to perform minor maintenance has reduced by 37% for Tornados and 19% for Harriers'. - Because the ac come out post maint with the same reds and greens they went in with. :}

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

Sorry to be so pessimistic....


The time taken to perform minor maintenance has reduced by 37% for Tornados and 19% for Harriers.


Almost mirroring the PVR rate within the Blue Suits. Cut me down for my cynisism, but shouldn't we be concentrating on getting the maintenance right, rather than cutting the times down?, or have we managed miraculously to achieve both?

CRpxGood

[N Joe]

It's much easier than you would think as dirtygc points out. Much of the "Minor" time is often taken up with mods or rectifying Lims/ADFs. Simply re-jig your accounting to show that the maintenance only takes, say, 70% of the period, and announce it as a 30% saving!

Also, get rid of OC Eng, and bring in OC Fwd who can't Extend/Defer work to the Minor as it is outside his scope of responsibilty (now belonging to OC Depth). Results in more work at 1st line (old speak I know) but has anyone seen limits on SEngO's overtime budget?

N Joe

[Clear Right,Px Good!]

I'm sorry,
Massaging figures with manning is one thing....money safely saved?, but massaging figures where maintenance is concerned worries me significantly ! Not Right!
CRPxGood

[Blacksheep]

In criticising maintenance (not unjustly, I might add) I feel you are missing an important point - the shortage of skilled labour to perform the work. I refer not just to the military, but across the board. As an industry we simply aren't attracting enough recruits - civil or military - and the numbers joining are less than the numbers leaving. The aviation industry in general is suffering because downwards pressure on costs from our accountant masters has reduced salaries, benefits and working conditions. Why, for example would anyone wish to be an avionics technician when they could work less hours in better conditions and for more pay in IT?

For that matter why would anyone wish to be in engineering management? I only stay because I'm too old and set in my ways to change now, but the next time I face the Capital Sanction Committee only to hear the words "No Budget" I'm going to strangle someone.

[Pontius Navigator]

- the shortage of skilled labour to perform the work. I refer not just to the military, but across the board. As an industry we simply aren't attracting enough recruits - civil or military - and the numbers joining are less than the numbers leaving. The aviation industry in general is suffering because downwards pressure on costs from our accountant masters has reduced salaries, benefits and working conditions.

A nephew, not the one who wouldn't go to Khandahar, got a job as a baggage handler on helicopters. Now he is doing so well they are training him up to be an 'engineer'. He is doing so well, his brother, the one who wouldn't go to Khandahar, was asked if he would like to join them.

The latter is now anticipating going to Canada for a technical course.

The RAF offered the former a job as a steward and the RAF Regt turned the other one down. So next time you fly out in a civi helicopter just think who might have serviced your aircraft.

[stiknruda]

Absolutely no danger of nepotism in your family, eh, PN? (can't get the blue Evil smiley to work!)

[JagRigger]

Hmmmmm - if "the shortage of skilled labour to perform the work" means that you only look at the workforce with a Tornado / Harrier 'Q' and ignore anyone else, who despite 22 yrs as a b***dy good rigger, hapens to have a pussy cat background, seves you right.

Didn't even get a response from their agency. Some of the guys who are there have worked for me in the past, and are certainly no better ( if I am feeling generous ) than me. Having had to do indies on their work maybe I'm being very generous.

Still - I'm not bitter - no really! I just think they should look at the bigger picture.

[Pontius Navigator]

stiknrudder, did offer to give them a reference :}

[Exrigger]

All platforms carry out servicings/maintenance in IAW the Master Maintenance Manual (5A1), the Design Authorities carry out reviews on a regular basis using historical data to change item servicing/maintenance frequencies, remove items that had an overhaul life and make them 'on condition', remove items completely, these all reduce the length of the servicings/maintenance. Equally some items that have shown to fail before their Mean Time Before Failure(MTBF) rate, or more frequently than tests showed when manufactured, then these are added to the 5A1. These reductions happen over the life of an aircraft and are not dictated by the customer to make up for manpower shortages. I accept that at a local level if this drop is because local RAF management/IPTs have agreed to extend items of the servicings/maintenance on a regular basis and Lim/ADF them, then this amount of reduction should not be allowed, additionally the civvies have no say over what is, or is not, added to the LIMs/ADFs, this is down to the applicable IPT (civvie contractor can request, but cannot just do it).

For the servicings/maintenance being carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq, this will more likely be due to Contingency Servicing (CTY). Next to some items in the 5A1 there is appended CTY, these equate to the minimum servicing/maintenance requirements while in a war zone and these would, approximately, account for those sort of percentage drops in the times. If the guys are able to do more at any given time they can, like ADFs/Lims/mods/EIs, this reduction has not got anything to do with manpower availability it is all to do with maximising aircraft availablity.

[insty66]

anyone think there's any chance of moving work OUT of DARA?

Apart from fixed wing is that? DARA lost that with these new contracts.

I know how the servicings have been "reduced."

Any work not in the schedule is not counted as time spent servicing, under the old system the time for servicing was from in the door to delivery back to squadron. Now arising faults and ADFs/Lims are not counted as part of the servicing.

Also the level of servicing has been cut! (See exriggers post!) despite the clever maths and stats I find it sobering to think that on jets past their inital design life are now being serviced less than then when they were new!

As for money saving, it's not as if there was any choice when the entire platform's budget was cut by 45% is it.

To the best of my knowledge, not one jet has passed out serviceable on time from CMU from it's inception. I hope if I'm wrong someone can tell me which ones did.

[engoal]

To the best of my knowledge, not one jet has passed out serviceable on time from CMU from it's inception. I hope if I'm wrong someone can tell me which ones did.

Sure - ZA319! Oh no - sorry, I just pulled that number out of my a**e, just like the loser who suggested that they had reduced maintenance times on Tor by 37%

[Safeware]

Exrigger,For the servicings/maintenance being carried out in Afghanistan and Iraq, this will more likely be due to Contingency Servicing (CTY). Next to some items in the 5A1 there is appended CTY, these equate to the minimum servicing/maintenance requirements while in a war zone and these would, approximately, account for those sort of percentage drops in the times. If the guys are able to do more at any given time they can, like ADFs/Lims/mods/EIs, this reduction has not got anything to do with manpower availability it is all to do with maximising aircraft availablity.

Have things got that bad or are you surmising? My understanding is that such a "relaxation" wasn't even used in GW1 or 2?

sw

[vecvechookattack]

anyone think there's any chance of moving work OUT of DARA?


How many people work at DARA ?

[Exrigger]

Safeware:

Have things got that bad or are you surmising? My understanding is that such a "relaxation" wasn't even used in GW1 or 2?

Not surmising, CTY servicings/maintenance have been around for years, as I said it is in the 5A1 and yes they have been used in GW1 the Chinook detachment flight servicings and maintenance checks where reduced to CTY items shortly after the 17th Jan 91. Conversation with SENGO within days of the 91 Gulf War starting "why are will still doing full flight servicings/maintenance checks, should we not be doing the contingency servicings/maintenance", response "no that is for during war scenarios only", response to that "far be it for me to point out the obvious, but we have been at war since the 17th", reply "oh yes, I will ask advice" or words to that effect, a couple of days later we went to the contingency servicings/maintenance.

I am pretty sure the other deployed RAF aircraft also did the same, as that is its purpose, but others that deployed with those aircraft will have to confirm/deny that as we never came in contact with them.

[Tim Inder]

JagRigger wrote:
Some of the guys who are there have worked for me in the past, and are certainly no better ( if I am feeling generous ) than me. Having had to do indies on their work maybe I'm being very generous.
Blimey, how much CF rod do THEY get through before they cut two bits the same length? :ok:

[Once A Brat]

Exrigger: While you are totally correct about the existence of CTY servicings, you are totally wrong about their use in the 'stan by the leaping heaps - there has been no official relaxation of maintenance standards for the deployed ac. Incidentally, whilst chinook may have used CTY in GW1, Tornado certainly didn't in either GW1 or 2!

N Joe & dirty Gc have hit the nail on the head, the ac comes out with the same Lims/ADFs that it entered, the chance to rectify these faults is not taken lest it delay the pulse and thus cost the Service money......so the already stretched first line techies get the pain.

[Exrigger]

Once A Brat, thanks for the clarification: My initial post was partly in answer to dirtygc when he mentioned Harriers home base = khandahar, I did make an assumption when I mentioned Afghanistan and Iraq, in my second post I did say that someone from the other platforms would have to confirm/deny the use of CTY on them. From your post it would seem that others did not utilise CTY servicings/maintenance in other war zones/platforms, I wonder why not as this is supposed to remove the over servicing/maintenance elements that we historically do in peace time.

[Safety_Helmut]

ExRigger

You're right, there are certainly documented procedures for contingency servicing, but have a long hard think about when they should be used. Do you seriously think that the present conflicts warrant their use, do you seriously believe that we should be reducing safety and airworthiness standards ? Have you read any of the threads on here about Nimrod, ESF etc ? What about recovering the aircraft after an extended period of contingency servicing and maintenance, what would that entail ? These contingency measures are in place for all out conflict, not a deployment of half a dozen Harriers out of a force of 60 odd !

Sounds like you've been a victim of some seriously tall stories in the old folks home (mess). Yes it might have happened on the odd occasion, but I would like to see the justification.

S_H

[dirtygc]

The bit about the dust bowl being the MOB for Harrier Sqns was partly tongue in cheek, although I do enjoy the odd detachment back to Rutland now and again. As confirmed up the thread, CTY ain’t the order of the day. It’s std maint frequency as per the Vol 5 and all across the board, although, with flying hours ticking over faster than a Paris Hilton prison sentence, it lends to non stop maintenance in the form of ‘Flexies’. Now, through various corporate propaganda and what I’ve read on the toilet door, it seems Flexies (or over-servicing in Layman’s terms) have decreased the time that ac spend on the pulse line, hence this magical figure of 19%. What they don’t mention is that the 19% is now being carried out by the FLS during Ops.
As for those money saving figures, I reckon they pulled them out of engoals butt along with ZA319:uhoh:

dirty

[Safeware]

Exrigger,

I know they have been around for years, my viewpoint was based on my FJ background. I know that someone tried to do it in Cyprus, but was soon corrected.

sw

[Exrigger]

Hi Safety_Helmut, thanks for your reply. I was taught about contigency servicing and the reasoning behind it many moons ago, I have only once been in a position to see it put into action and that was GW1 on the Chinook detachment, again I assumed that it would be standard practice on other platforms and war zones as they are certainly in the 5A1 for all aircraft platforms, including, if memory serves me correctly the Typhoon.

I have certainly never believed any seriously tall stories in the old folks home (mess), unless I had actually been there, done that and got the t-shirt (or know a man who has), by the way I did know where you were referring to.
Have I read the threads on Nimrod Yes, ESf yes, and if as you say that it is my believing tall stories, then the contingency servicings are not relevant to these problems, as no-one does them, but if they are being carried out, then it still would not be relevant as issues/parts of the 5A1 that are of safety/airworthiness would continue to be carried out.
Do you seriously think that the present conflicts warrant their use, do you seriously believe that we should be reducing safety and airworthiness standards Contingency servicings/maintenance were never designed to reduce the airworthiness or safety standards and what makes these conflicts any different to the ones envisaged by the 'experts' who worked out the reduced requirements, taking count of safety/airworthiness all those years ago and still do on current aircraft.

Of course I realise that as I am out now and obviously out of touch on what appears to be an emotive subject, that I seem to be defending something, when I only tried to put forward a suggestion as to a possible reason why the papers had got hold of the story of reduced maintenance bought about by reduced manpower.

[Red Line Entry]

To come back to the original question, according to the report, page 22 shows that the time taken at DARA for a Minor plus mods was, on average, in excess of 180 days. The average time taken at Marham has been less than 120. That's how the 37% reduction has been calculated. Clearly, there are arguments to be had about what mods and how many, and I don't want to turn this into (another!) DARA-bashing thread, but surely this is a good news story - especially coming from the NAO, the people whose job it is to dig up dirt on ministerial departments?

The Executive Summary states:

"...the Department's transformation of logistics support represents good value for money to date and although there are risks, the Department is working to manage them"

So maybe some of this Lean B@ll@cks is actually working?

[Blacksheep]

120 Days! :ooh:

Compare that with the typical 25 working days for a 12C (i.e. A Major) + Mods (pylon strengthening etc,) new IFE, new avionic systems, aging aircraft inspections etc. and some really, really serious corrosion repair work on a large civil transport. Admittedly, with big bits like the landing gear being sent out for overhaul, the aircraft would get whatever was currently in stock refitted, but LEAN or not, 120 days looks like an awful lot of slack... Especially when it appears from what is said above, they go out with incoming defects not rectified... :hmm:

If we tried keeping an aircraft in the shed for 4 months, the SVP (Maintenance)'s head would certainly roll.