Shortage of Maintenance Technicians

[HTB]

This from Today's Torygraph:

The RAF is missing hundreds of technicians for aircraft maintenance, according to new figures that heighten concern manning shortages now threaten air safety.

One-in-nine RAF aircraft tradesmen posts are empty the new statistics disclose, just weeks after an air safety watchdog warned defence cuts and adangerous shortage of engineers are increasing the chances of military air accidents.

The RAF is missing 411 tradesmen for aircraft maintenance the Ministryof Defence admitted, leaving it 12 per cent short of the vital technicians.

The gap was last night described as “shocking” and former officers warned the shortages could undermine routine maintenance work as overstretched mechanics prioritise work to keep operations underway.

A lack of qualified technical personnel is“restricting progress at every level” and is a “strategic risk” for air safety the Military Aviation Authority (MAA) warned last month in its annual report.

Air Marshal Richard Garwood, director general, said while the shortages continued, safety was being harmed by unfinished work, poor supervision and falling standards.

The latest figures disclosed by Anna Soubry,defence minister, in response to a Parliamentary question show the shortages are getting worse. The gap was only five per cent in 2011.

Some air bases are now nearly short of a quarter of their technicians.RAF Lossiemouth should have 252 tradesmen, but has 59 posts unfilled and RAF Benson should have 295, but has 68 vacancies.

Angus Robertson MP, said: “These figures are shocking. The recent MAA annual report said there were ‘chronic shortages’ and that safety is being undermined .

“It is bad enough that Westminster is making huge cuts in the numbers of these posts – leading to the position that shortages are at an historic all time high.

"It would be hoped that even with the savage defence cuts the MoD would at least retain a bare minimum of staff – but now more than one in ten posts are unfilled.”

RAF chiefs blames shortages on defence cuts, but they are also struggling to keep highly qualified engineers and technicians from being headhunted for highly paid jobs in industry.

An RAF spokeswoman said: “These figures represent a brief snapshot during which new aircraft entered service, fleets increased in size with posts being created ahead of needing to be filled and while we reduced our overall number of RAF personnel.

"It is inevitable this would temporarily affect our overall figures but we still have all the people we need to carry out all operational taskings safety.”


If this is accurate, it could lead to a slow spiral downward with increasing numbers, across the board - from maintenance to aircrew - seeking better paid employment with more attractive terms of engagement.

Mister B:(

[NutLoose]

Ahh the self feeding maelstrom, you treat them like dirt, cut their pay differential to the level of burger flippers and treat them accordingly by heaping more and more work upon them, in turn fed up with being treated as such they then leave for a better paid job on the outside, that leaves less staff to cover the jobs and tasking that still remain which puts even more stress and workload on the staffing still struggling to keep their heads above water, more folks give up upon hearing of the advantages of working outside from mates who had left and join the exodus, this then puts further strain on the remaining engineers as the system creaks and strains and attempts plaster over the ever growing cracks.... and so it goes on until the house of cards comes tumbling down, a downward spiral that is very difficult to reverse without incentives to stop them leaving and a proper rectification of the situation.

And in amongst all of this I bet they are still required to do the likes of Gate guards, Swo's working party or a hundred other menial and self defeating tasks.

..

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02760/chart2_2760513c.jpg

Very interesting graphic. Makes a point about following a corporate model.

[Doobry Firkin]

It's been coming for a while.
I applied for and got redundancy in Tranche 1, after 23 years i'd had more than enough of being treat like crap.
I had an interview with some 'Whitehall' persons (in 2008/9 i think) who wanted to know what attitudes, thoughts on the future, etc were.
I said at the time that alot of people were waiting to jump as they can see no future in the RAF as a Techie - It doesn't paint a good picture when the junior ranks are in the lower pay band and those in the higher pay band are paid the same as an Admin Clerk, chef or Driver. Money isn't everything but if you want to recruit and retain people it helps to be fairly paid.
Before we get the usual arguments about money - going from the big multi-national Oil/Gas Coampany i work for Engineers get paid well, HR pesonnel get mid £20,000 for an HR Administrator, Drivers, chefs, and store people are on a per with the HR folks. Incidentally the bunch i work for recently had a job opening in HR for an HR Adviser post - an RAF HR person (who was due to leave)applied and expected 'around £40,000' a year for a job that paid £27,000 maximum and started at about £19,000. They didn't even get an interview even though they were well qualified for the job, the company didn't even see the point of interviewing them.

I joined up in 88 and they did this all back in early 89 / 90 and we ended up understaffed in certain trades ''we'll not do this again, we will learn from our mistakes'' said the Airships at the time. Not only did they not learn from their mistakes they've made things worse.

It used to be you waited till your 22 year point and take the pension and run... not now, there are guys and gals doing 5-6 years and leaving because they can get better pay and conditions outside that outweigh the benefits of serving for 22 years and the pension.
Once we pull out of afghan chances are there's going to be more redundancy's and cut backs, they'll probably just chop a squadron or 2 and the manpower numbers will be right!

My son wanted to join up like me and i talked to him about it and he changed his mind, neither of us could see a future for him as an engineer in the RAF, i didn't like doing it but unfortunately it's the way it's is. If he wants to be an engineer there's alot better options out there than the RAF now.

If serving or ex-serving personnel aren't encouraging their own kids to join you know things are messed up.

[Mr C Hinecap]

I'd be interested to see these figures in context ie gaps over the years. I think I saw 100% manning once and that was only to Flight level. I can't remember ever working on a Sqn or a Wg that was close to fully manned.

[High_Expect]

Nutloose.... Some sound comments there. You could say the same also applies to the majority of the Flying Training system as well! Rats and sinking ships.... I'm just saying.

[gr4techie]

The biggest problem is how the airships see the manning levels.

Recently I've seen a sqn overborne with SAC's but desperately short on qualified NCO's. I don't think the airships see the difference in who can do what (and thats legally too!), they just see the total amount of manpower and say no problem.

[Alpha Whiskey]

From what I understand, this isn't a problem confined to the light blue. I understand the RN is having equally challenging problems with technical senior rates. I also gather from reliable sources many other branches and ranks/rates are seeing an outflow way above what the 'sustainable model' is predicated on.

[Vendee]

And in amongst all of this I bet they are still required to do the likes of Gate guards, Swo's working party or a hundred other menial and self defeating tasks.When I was serving (70s, 80, and early 90's) we all hated guard duty/SRF/Aug force etc. When I was back at Marham a couple of years ago as a civvy, the RAF lads loved guard duty because it got them away from their normal work. Tells a story, doesn't it? :sad:

[TomJoad]

Tells a story, doesn't it?
Yep - servicemen are never happy:ok:

hat- coat etc etc

Tom

[smujsmith]

Just getting back to basics, when I joined as an apprentice Aircraft Fitter Airframe in January 69, I understood the deal was, do well in training, we will give you a career pattern. Meet the targets and your career will progress to a point where you can eventually retire at a good rank level, with a decent pension and the thanks of a grateful nation for your service. I never got to experience the back end of that promise due to a medical discharge before reaching age 55. I have many friends in the "techie" world who dream of finding a good offer from civilian industry, they can see how modern policy tends to denigrate the career serviceman, on the basis of cost to the treasury coffers. It's all well and good knowing the cost of everything but the value of nothing. And let's face it, there's little sign of loyalty to the modern serviceman from our government. Like many other parts of "public service" (I always remember the notebooks at Halton had "supplied for the public service" stamped in them) it seems that austerity is the only answer to maintain spending on Foreign Aid and EU subs. The last century showed the peril of leaving Britain short of capability, and ended in war, lets hope that those who would do our country harm don't try to take advantage at this time. I really don't need to see footage of ritual slaughter of British people, on our streets, taken from an advanced autonomous drone, whose video might be used in the resulting court case.

I'm biased to hell blokes, but to lose all of the trained capability in this way seems a bit bloody stupid.

Smudge

[PapaDolmio]

The RAF is not short of technicians- it is short of technicians doing a technicians job i.e working on aeroplanes. Too many in non-jobs like lean/ci/eng records/instructing etc... etc...

[VinRouge]

Question to the regulator. How many unit risk registers have manpower and experience dilution listed under RtL at medium or above?

Not many? Here's a clue. You don't get promoted these days by complaining about your manpower balance against your task.

[Blacksheep]

A Royal Air Force aircraft technician in the rank of corporal could be licenced and type rated within 18 months of leaving. He might then expect to earn in excess of £30,000 basic - which seems to be roughly what they'd make in service. The difference comes with shift pay and overtime that, while unpaid in the RAF, could take him/her to around £50,000 a year, working less hours than they do in the service. You take a chance . . .

[Rigga]

"A Royal Air Force aircraft technician in the rank of corporal could be licenced and type rated within 18 months of leaving."...but only if they do 2 years of hard work while they're still in the mob.

Even so, service leavers don't even need to do that. There is work in many other fields waiting for someone with mech/elect maintenance experience and a strong work ethic to fill them - and all with a less demanding Boss.

The Myth about too many RAF techies in "support posts" is dwarfed by the amount of techies "not in Front Line service" - but still in essential positions (for the RAF) - unless of course you allocate those responsibilities to those overpaid Clerks or other techies such as MT or GEF (is there any of those left?) and creating another shortage there...

The truth is that, since the start of this 'accidental' over-reduction of maintenance personnel, there are just not enough techies for current tasking (that has not reduced in the same period) and responsibilites (which have increased in the same period).

In the meantime there is an increased risk of more cover-ups of incidents where mis-management of staff through staff shortages is likely to be a causal factor.

[PTR 175]

I am ex TG2 and now regularly go across to Honington to support the maintainers over there. From what I see I would not reccomend anybody to join up as a technician. I used to reccomend that people consider an engineering commision but the more I talk to people who work in that role my mind is changing now.

As others have said it is not only the pay but being paid the same as a clerk or equivelent rank is wholely inappropriate considering the risks. Working on any piece of machinery whether it be an aircraft, vehicle or a FEPS is still considerably more dangerous/hazardous than sitting behind a desk.

[Vendee]

I think a bigger problem is the increased use of civilians to service front line aircraft. I believe that this is decreasing the experience levels of service technicians. When I passed out from Halton, my first posting was to a MU where I did a few years doing Jaguar majors. When I was posted to a Jag sqn, I had a good knowledge of the big jobs as well as the easier line snags.

Now, most stuff apart from 1st line is done by civvies. Now I'm not moaning too much because I am one of those civvies and to be honest, we are much more efficient than service technicians because we are older, more experienced and we are there all the time. No guard duty/sports afternoons/secondary duties/expeditions/detachments/etc, not to mention the generous amount of leave the serviceman gets compared to the civvy.

The problem is that most of us civvies are not much good in theatre. I currently work on the Army's hovering death machine and all depth work is done by civvies like myself who are in their 50's and above (OK there are some younger guys too but not many under 35). The regiments seem to be staffed by young and inexperienced technicians and as has been mentioned above, a lot of them are leaving to pursue engineering work outside of aviation (power stations, wind turbines, incinerators etc).

I'm not sure what the answer is. Civvies are definitely cheaper but it does leave the front line exposed IMHO.

[The Nip]

Why is it that being paid the same as others is so wrong? If ac techies were paid more, which would be justified, what about the nurse, or the dental hygienist?

There is a lot of risk carrying out various tasks OOA for all trades including Int, Regt all carry risk.

There is a system, it may not be perfect but by all means pay techies more, but others may well argue their cause is also justified. The shortage in all trades is alarming.

[Onceapilot]

Sorry, I have completely lost track of non-commisioned pay. Surely, there should be pay-banding or, a pay structure that reflects Service-worth?!

OAP

[NutLoose]

They binned it OAP and now you get the same flipping burgers in the mess as you do servicing and signing off aircraft.

Service pay was always based on the civilian equivalent, hence why blanket stackers, burger flippers or dental nurses got less... I mean no offence to those jobs, but there is a major difference between the equivalent pay grades in Civi street, a lot has to do with responsibility and on an aircraft that can mean someone's life...

I realise the same can be said for nurses or dental techs, but they are not allowed if I'm right to prescribe drugs, simply administer them, that added responsibility and the larger wage packet is the regime of doctors and dentist...

I agree Regiment guys are at greater risk at the moment, but that does not carry through back into peacetime.

[Vendee]

I realise the same can be said for nurses or dental techs, but they are not allowed if I'm right to prescribe drugs, simply administer them, that added responsibility and the larger wage packet is the regime of doctors and dentist...Nurse practitioners can prescribe. Nurses now are educated to degree standard because they have taken on some of the doctors duties. I think we all have the vision of nurses making beds and emptying bedpans. Although that probably still happens, I think nursing assistants tend to do more of that sort of thing.

[NutLoose]

So are Licensed engineers these days. (Educated to degree standards). Are those nurses in RAF service not officers? I see nurses more along the lines of paramedics with a lot of autonomy, but I could be wrong.

[enginesuck]

A techie with a few years service can walk into the oil and gas industry and earn between 60-100k PA I work 14-16 days a month (a week here a week there) I can live wherever I want in Europe as all travel costs are met. Generous expenses etc. Beats grafting for 12 hours on a nightshift with the threat of a working weekend for no recompense. If I work a full weekend it's an extra £800. Don't get me wrong I enjoyed my RAF career but, it will not be able to retain personnel when technical trades are in demand in industry.

[gr4techie]

They binned it OAP and now you get the same flipping burgers in the mess as you do servicing and signing off aircraft.

Scandalously, the SAC who services your aircraft and checks to see if it is safe to fly without killing anyone is on the lower payband. A cpl cook reheating chips and beans gets paid more.

Educated to degree standard

A lot of aircraft technicians I've came across do higher education in their spare time. I've known a few SAC's to have joined with degrees.

An aircraft engineer NCO has the same level of responsibility as an licensed aircraft engineer, signing aircraft as serviceable. But do not get the accreditation (and therefore the pay) for it.

[NutLoose]

An aircraft engineer NCO has the same level of responsibility as an licensed aircraft engineer, signing aircraft as serviceable. But do not get the accreditation (and therefore the pay) for it.

I would say a Licensed Engineer is equivalent to an Engineering Officer to be honest. A NCO wouldn't ever be responsible for Issuing a Certificate of Airworthiness and overseeing the whole process from legislation through to trades involved. The other slight difference is where an NCO will cover one or possibly two types at a time, my licences cover me on hundreds of types of engines and airframes.


.

[Vendee]

A NCO wouldn't ever be responsible for Issuing a Certificate of Airworthiness.Neither would the licensed engineer. The CofA is issued by the regulatory authority (CAA in the UK). If you actually meant making certifying statements on aircraft documentation then the NCO does do this.

[NutLoose]

A Certificate of Airworthiness is issued by the CAA on the say of the nominated Engineer under a Section L licence under BCAR's.

Under EASA the Certificate of Airworthiness is none expiring and is backed up by the ARC that is filled out by the CAMO and a copy is forwarded to the CAA for their records, this re validates the CofA which is invalid without it.

Military terms for a CAMO

http://www.maa.mod.uk/approvals/camo_approvals.htm

Which I would seriously doubt is an NCO

BTW, I am one ;)

[turbroprop]

I know what Nutloose means. However you can not compare the roles. What is undermanning. I work alone at a line station covering all trades on several large aircraft types. I would hate to guess how many airforce personnel would be needed to cover the same role.

Main difference is my company does not differentiate between aircrew and engineers. We are given the same status.

My experience of the airforce was that there were two Wings on a station. Ops wing and Admin wing. Out of sight were some other people, but they were dirty and oily so can be ignored.

Until ENG WING is seen as equal to the other two then productivity will always be low.

[cornish-stormrider]

Gents, out here is not all wine and roses.
HOWEVER, when I saw the writing on the wall in '03 and binned it I had a great deal of guilt over abandonment. what I have seen since has totally changed my mind.

sadly all you who are left in - still trying to do more with less each year are the ones I now feel sorry for.

If you are still enjoying your time then stay - if not then find that magic button on JPA.

Any technical industry will interview ex TG 1&2. but make your experience relevant.

as a rule I, and the other people I recruit with dont give a monkeys about you being the treasurer of the hammond organ appreciation society, the employer want to know:

1. will this person fit in with my team
2. will this person "add value" to the business bottom line
3. will this person cause me extra stress or will they take workload away
4. will this person self motivate and crack on or will they skive.

if you do leave focus on what you can bring to a company, do your homework.

I always liked to hear somoene else share their slightly OCD way of organising theirr toolbox, and the fact they'd spend the last 15 mins tidying any mess up, theirs or not.

I wanted someone to tell me how they would bring me a permanent solution rather than XYZ is F****ed

Above all decide what route you want your career to take and what industry you want to be in.

then go for it. - oh and stuff like Using a computer on a CV is pretty pointless.

[woptb]

The other slight difference is where an NCO will cover one or possibly two types at a time, my licences cover me on hundreds of types of engines and airframes.

Only if you're talking GA,you're talking through your hat! !f you believe your basic licences covers you, on hundreds of types of engines and airframes.
Alone a basic EASA licence, whether A,B1 or B2 entitles you certify precisely 'nothing' !

[NutLoose]

True, I was probably being a bit too generic, yep I have the groups on my licences ( plural as I still hold a section L too ) A, B1 Piston and Turbine and C. But then an NCO would tend to do type courses as well, so I was trying to show the differences.

[The Oberon]

I was around in 1973 when the Military Salary was introduced. The main mantra for introducing pay banding was "consequence of error" says it all really. I remember at Scampton, O.C. Catering and O.C. PSF were particularly loud in their criticism of banding. It got to the stage where O.C. Eng. got all the doubters to spend a morning on the line, in the hangar and the NBS bay etc. They were heard to say that after a few hours first hand, it was obvious why TG1/2 were paid more than their guys.

[jayc530]

With the New Employment Model now only offering LoS 32 or 35, not service to age 55 for anyone promoted after Apr 15, what incentive is there to stay in?

[Rigga]

Gents,

The Civvy regulatory set up is almost entirely different from military. the only things that really link them are the disciplines (pilot, engineeer air trafficer) and how they physically work.

From an engineering PoV I knew how aeroplanes and helicopters worked when I left the RAF - but how they are Manned, Managed and Regulated is (unfortunately) still very different indeed - except for a few newer types.

One sign of "Officer Creep" and the proposed maintenance management differences was this:
Most Mil 145 personnel that I met in my last job tried to equate a Form 731 to a EASA Form 1.
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!

It would have required a F/L or S/L to sign something Serviceable because the levels of authority given to a EASA Part 66 Licenced, Type Rated and company approved engineer are in the main equivalent to S/L and in many cases to W/C.

Not many WC's that I knew could do a Check A!

A friend of mine noticed the difference in responsibility levels when he dropped in one night as his unit (RAFAT) were at my local airfield.
The last time he saw me I was a Sgt Rigga; This time I was a quality engineer on-call and I was very busy that evening discusssing a Lightning Strike on a 146 somewhere in europe and trying to get it back to UK for repairs while he eat his Dinner (and mine went cold).
As a QA Eng it was up to me to sort out the regulatory requirements, flight restrictions and get the required permissions in and notifications out, approve the OEM concessions for use and then brief the crew on the operational restrictions...aaannnd breeeethe.

[Vendee]

Most Mil 145 personnel that I met in my last job tried to equate a Form 731 to a EASA Form 1.
A revised '731', complete with a CRS Statement on it, was suggested in the first two or three issues of MAOS Mil145 (Def-Stan 05-130 etc.) but the Form was never issued because MOD wouldn't allow a mere NCO to sign it!Tell me about it :sad: I went from military aviation to civilian aviation and back to military (as a civvy) and the differences really hit you. The 731 is next to useless in its current form (no pun intended). The Form 1 is used by the civilian technician to verify the items serviceability and it is retained with the documentation to ensure full traceability. F731's can be raised by most Suprervisors/NCO's. There is no register and the 731 usually gets discarded when the item is fitted.

When a new item arrives from the manufacturer, the stick on label on the box is considered suitable documentation. I've noticed that a couple of manufactures/repairers, notably Fokker, still include a Form 1 with their products to the military. Good on them.

And don't start me on batch numbers/GRN's as the military stubbornly refuse to adopt them. In civilian aviation, every nut, bolt and o-ring can be traced back to manufacture. The military still chuck stuff like that into "C stores" bins. If the manufacturer identified a problem, there is no way to trace the defective items.

[NutLoose]

Vendee, I probably should have worded my above post 27 better to explain a Nominated Engineer and a CAMO more often than not are a Licensed Engineer.

I can totally understand your concerns over paperwork, though to be honest I wish EASA would finally settle down instead of chopping and changing everything.

[Vendee]

Vendee, I probably should have worded my above post 27 better to explain a Nominated Engineer and a CAMO more often than not are a Licensed Engineer.Nutloose, I'm fully aware of that but in a previous post, you were comparing an NCO to a licensed engineer but in fact one is a rank and the other is a qualification so there really is no comparison. As you well know, a 22 year old can be a LAME and so can the chief operating officer of a large 145 company. Its not the 22 year old that is going to be involved with continued airworthiness.

[NutLoose]

No, but he could be at about 24 yrs old.

I was using rank because that in the RAF use to be used to define responsibility, I cannot remember the figures, but an SAC could carry out something like 50% of task unsupervised, a JT 75% and a Corporal about 100% hence in theory equivalent to a licenced engineer, minus the legislation part, which as pointed out is about senior engineering officer equivalent or OC Eng Wing......... But that was when the highest rank on a Station used to be the Groupie Staish.

[Rigga]

VENDEE:
"And don't start me on batch numbers/GRN's as the military stubbornly refuse to adopt them. In civilian aviation, every nut, bolt and o-ring can be traced back to manufacture. The military still chuck stuff like that into "C stores" bins. If the manufacturer identified a problem, there is no way to trace the defective items"

Do we know each other? I was having that struggle as I left a secret Norfolk base.

[Wander00]

Batch no/GRN - bane of my life for the year I was in Production Control at Marshalls, especially due to wastage on the capstan lathes, and trying to get matching replacement material from Rolls Royce.

[NutLoose]

Re traceability, it has gone a bit OTT with each individual nut packaged and labelled, it's fine in its self, but when you have to unwrap 300 individual odd nuts and 300 individual odd bolts simply to do a job and the wastage in packaging is huge.

Though saying that, I was able to assure myself through my suppliers that we had none of the AN 5 bolts ? That were recalled a few years back.

[Rigga]

...and that is the whole point!

About 2 years ago I was trying to convince the MOD/RAF to follow their own regulations and I used the example of a recently issued EASA AD which was issued to replace 6 (yes, 6) defective fasteners fitted to each A380 released at that time.

By their reactions you would've thought that I'd just smacked all the hangar managers in the face with a large wet Fish!

All I got was a flat refusal to comply with their own regulations...I assume that 'they' have now removed that particularly annoying obstacle from their regulations? It will still be 'being ignored' if they didn't.

I believe that the UK Armed Forces still can't trace any sheet metal, fabric, C Store or consumable item used/installed by them to any task, job reference or aircraft - just a Station or (at best) a Hangar on a Station.

...Torque Wrenches and Torque Loadings...same again.

[NutLoose]

Surely you have a register for all torque wrenches etc and have them calibrated accordingly? And either have the correct loadings or a generic table in the manuals for those without specific torques?

[cornish-stormrider]

Well we used to have that. I fondly remember the dickdancing around as we didnt carry sufficient torque wrenches to have them being off at cal.

then there was the issue of when to do it - spread the pain so it all rolls around or have a dead week where no torqueing can be done?

this is one advantage of being out and working where you get factory fortnight......

[NutLoose]

Well the later digital ones self calibrate, but it does seem a bit farcical not to have sufficient torque wrenches to allow one or two to be away getting calibrated, or sufficient acratorque rigs.

[smujsmith]

Nutty, Rigga,

No disrespect, but what happens to all of these fine aspirations for compliance with PC demands when the guano hits the propellor ? It's all well and good enforcing compliance on civilian ground support, but a military environment often requires more "creative" thinking. In my own experience as a Herk GE, a combination of a crew who are sufficiently educated on the mechanics of the aircraft, and a trust in their travelling ground support often got Albert back to the nest. Strict adherence to rules and regulations would have precluded any chance of that outcome. To my mind, its a real shame that the MOD has gone down the PC compliance route, and not allowed the military tradesman more "licence" in conjunction with the Aircrew fraternity. As always, both of you post good arguments though.

Smudge:ok:

[NutLoose]

I can understand that, but not at base

[smujsmith]

Extremely good point Nutty,

But when was the last conflict that operated from a main base? AFAIK Libya was conducted from FOBS in Italy, and Malta for the C130s. The recent search for the missing sailing ship involved an RAF C130 operating from Portuguese territory. A dwindling number of assets requires ever higher reliability/serviceability, and squeezing that out of aircraft sometimes requires more than "compliance". I left the service, and my career many years ago and defer to your more recent experience, but I wonder, are our modern "Techies" still allowed to think about getting the job done, or is it all compliance with regulations these days.

Smudge

[Rigga]

Smudge:
"...allowed the military tradesman more "licence" in conjunction with the Aircrew fraternity"

But you don't have any 'licence' to do any such jobs in the military!

What do aircrew know about aircraft safety? Diddly-Squat.

Engineers haven't had any lea-way in what you say you've done for nearly 30 years - since Section 10 of the Crown Immunity Act was repealed - AND YOU STILL DONT GET IT!

Aircraft nowadays (i.e. J-Herk. A400, C17) are designed to be more reliable and serviceable than their predecessors...and most will make it to their target Hours/Cycles IF they are serviced CORRECTLY.

PM me for a story on how the RAF gets a quick sortie but loses hundreds of hours of reliability...and produces the wrong spares chain to support bad first line practices.

The facts are that all the 'good' short-cuts and work-arounds you did were/are illegal. If anything happened (and you survived) you were responsible for conducting illegal tasks and were open to maximum JAIL SENTENCES.

Having an officer mate won't save you in the future. Who will stand up in court and support your self-determined practices? Today's Blind Eye attitude won't last much longer.

[ExAscoteer]

What do aircrew know about aircraft safety? Diddly-Squat.



That's a pretty Effing insulting statement given that we have/had to fly the bloody things!

[Ogre]

Was the whole issue of airworthiness (the way the civillian regulators do it) against the way the military deal with airworthiness one of the big things that came out of Haddon Cave?

Without going into too many low level details, are the two scenarios mutually exclusive? How many civillian airlines operate out of the type of environment the military do? How many civilian aircraft have the same pressures of operations?

It would seem that if the military were running an airline they would have been shut down and their authority to operate removed, but can you run a military that way? Can you seriously expect to regulate a military force with a set of rules designed to keep civilian operators from jeapordising the safety of their passengers?

[dervish]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigga View Post
What do aircrew know about aircraft safety? Diddly-Squat.


That's a pretty Effing insulting statement given that we have/had to fly the bloody things!


Based on some of the threads here it's pretty accurate. Although not meant as an insult. The average maintainer probably knows didly squat about flying an aircraft, but that doesn't make him a poor maintainer.

[Vendee]

Do we know each other? I was having that struggle as I left a secret Norfolk base.I don't think so Rigga, although I have served at Marham both as a serviceman (early 90's) and as a civvy more recently.

[Rigga]

No insult intended, but most aircrew know a great deal about flying safely but not about mechanical safety...and neither do Ground Eng's.

Those who read operating manuals and believe they know how their ride works are simply wrong! Aircraft operating manuals are written to give pilots an appreciation of how systems work - not how they actually work. How they actually work is in design specifications; how to maintain them and fix them is the maintenance manuals.

Anything not in the maintenance manuals or as approved data is, quite simply, illegal.

How many jockeys do you know that regularly fly without regard to flight envelopes? Why would you expect a good engineer to do the same?

[Vendee]

Surely you have a register for all torque wrenches etc and have them calibrated accordingly?Torque wrenches not calibrated at AAC facility where I currently work but are set before every use on calibrated torque rig.

[NutLoose]

Anything not in the maintenance manuals or as approved data is, quite simply, illegal

The worrying part in that statement is in no longer holds water in a civilian environment.
You are no longer legally obligated to follow the manual per se, I've had this argument with the CAA and it's the most stupid ruling I've ever heard....
Once you say you do not have to follow and do everything in the maintenance manual it opens it up to individual interpretations, and that is where the system now fails in my eyes...
Pure and utter stupidity.

[Rigga]

Using torque wrenches is not the issue.

The issue is what is (or isn't) recorded.

[NutLoose]

I've often looked on it as you can write as many rules and regulations as you want until the world is swamped by them, but no matter how many you write in a vain attempt to make things safer, there will always be those sadly that simply ignore them and lie, while those that do the job legally will find themselves struggling under a mountain of beurocracy that impedes their ability to do the job.
Over burdensome rules, regulations and the MAA don't make the world a safer place, sound engineering, sufficient manning, and proper skills do.

[VinRouge]

but a military environment often requires more "creative" thinking. In

smuj. fully agree, problem we have is that creative thinking became routine behaviour for many on the herc force pre haddon cave, thats not to underestimate the exceptional skill of the herc community to get the job done; particularly amongst the GEs who are still the most highly regarded aircraft engineers in my book.... BUT, accepting lack of engineering support, overwork, lack of spares and an acceptance that pretty serious snags could be deferred to fly bog rolls from kaf to bastion was not right imho. flying with the guy who made these calls however made all the difference.

createive thinking, fine, fully agree, as long as deviations from approved procedures are documented post event as to the reasons why. routinely flying with bin bags over outflow valves (a historic example) to avoid a "D" state for routine trash hauling? leave that to personal opinion!

[tucumseh]

Once you say you do not have to follow and do everything in the maintenance manual it opens it up to individual interpretations, and that is where the system now fails in my eyes...
Pure and utter stupidity.

Resulting in the RAF using captured Argentine pubs to maintain our different standard Chinooks.... :(


but there will always be those that simply ignore them and lie

Not unlike the Chief Engineer and ACAS when condoning the above :mad:



Original thread subject. Shortage of maintainers.

In 1990 AMSO issued a ruling that, henceforth, all supply, finance and commercial staff would be regarded as senior to all engineers, regardless of grade. And in 1996 CDP ruled he did not want engineers managing engineering projects. And we sold off our workshops, which is where most of our good middle/senior management were trained. The cumulative effect is what we've known for decades, but MoD are only now admitting it. It has taken them 24 years to acknowledge the truth. How long will the fix take, given most of our senior management simply don't understand the question?

Look at our "Suitably Qualified and Experienced Person" (SQEP) system. The "qualified" bit doesn't mandate any practical training. The "experienced" bit equates seniority with experience with competence, while excluding hands-on. It is pot luck if the person is actually "SQEP" in a true sense. Ask the MAA to define "SQEP" in an airworthiness delegation context. There are perhaps half a dozen in DE&S who have the experience and proven competence required of the most junior MoD(PE) civilian Technical Agency (named individual with responsibility) in the mid-80s (i.e. PTO2/HPTO). Today, that's a direct entrant grade (C2), instead of the one you reach after 15 years extensive training and 5 promotions. We've dumbed down too much and the situation is largely irreversible. That's a huge elephant in the room. And it adds weight to Bernard Gray's argument, for all the wrong reasons.

[Easy Street]

On the subject of 'unofficial' in-the-field repairs, while I agree that such things are inappropriate for "flying bog rolls from KAF to Bastion", there would surely be a place for them in more extreme circumstances. The trouble is, how do people learn these things if all they ever do is follow the book? We accept certain compromises in standards for airframe battle damage repair, but AFAIK no equivalent process exists for 'combat repair' of systems.

Is there now a process by which the SME at the PT can offer no-strings advice to the duty holder chain as to how a strictly unserviceable aircraft could be flown at the least risk, pending DH risk acceptance? How do those SMEs get to know the fixes? The few PT people I know state that they would refuse to offer any such advice as a matter of principle; while this is admirably "airworthy" I do wonder what would happen when the chips are down.

What do we think is going to happen when the last C130 out of Bastion, the one taking the final force protection troops out with it, develops a snag requiring a multi-day D-state? Here's a clue - they're going to bodge any repairs needed to get airborne and press. If they've got any sense, they'll take the crustiest team of GEs they can find. I'm not sure our airworthiness system is able to cope with the speed or degree of risk involved in such legitimate military command decisions. Unless there is a hidden get-out clause somewhere....

[Rigga]

Vin Rouge:
"createive (!) thinking, fine, fully agree, as long as deviations from approved procedures are documented post event as to the reasons why."


Bravo! Exactly where I was going, thank you!

If you are going to do something out of the required actions write it down or better still, tell someone. Register what you're doing with your ops controllers and make sure they know and record why you're doing it. This register could then provide evidence to make this 'deviation' into:
1st. Perhaps a local operating procedure
2nd. Perhaps a new and official task.

Widening the maintenance envelope to suit the operators requirements is what many civil operators do.

[NutLoose]

What do we think is going to happen when the last C130 out of Bastion, the one taking the final force protection troops out with it, develops a snag requiring a multi-day D-state? Here's a clue - they're going to bodge any repairs needed to get airborne and press. If they've got any sense, they'll take the crustiest team of GEs they can find. I'm not sure our airworthiness system is able to cope with the speed or degree of risk involved in such legitimate military command decisions. Unless there is a hidden get-out clause somewhere....

But of course, that's fine, but only until they can divert to the nearest safe area where there is an excellent hotel and a beach, where they can relax safe and sound whilst the aircraft is repaired ;)

[turbroprop]

So....

Getting back to the shortage.........

[NutLoose]

Only way you will fix that is to reverse reductions in staff, and embark on improving training.. oddly enough civilian companies if they do not have the engineering staffing requirements can lose their approvals.

[gr4techie]

Deviating from the official maintenance procedures.

Ask yourself... If you haven't followed the correct procedures on purpose and the worst case scenario happens and there's a "smoking hole in the ground" will your chain of command back you up and fight your corner? Or will they turn their backs in denial to save themselves? Remember who's name is on the paperwork. Good luck.

[jayc530]

I think the situation will only get worse as the NEM now only allows anyone who joined on or before their 18th birthday service to age 53. LoS 32 for Chf Techs and LoS 35 for FS and WO.

Two years and then maybe a three year extension in your 50's isn't enough stability or a retaining factor.