Centralised Engineering At Lyneham
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Management in Confidence
From fairly near the begginning of this mess, we discover that the changes were based on losing 150 engineers. But this information was 'Management in Confidence'
Note to the grown ups:-
We are not idiots. You give us a long brief with lots of wankwords that no-one can understand, followed by 'Any questions?'
The very first question - Are these changes being made because we are going to lose more people?'
Do you answer
a) Fair cop, we are going to lose people and this is our plan to cope with our primary task
(You have betrayed an 'Management in Confidence' instruction)
b) Denial followed by more wankwords
(You are telling a bare-faced lie, have betrayed your troops and have lost your credibility)
You chose b)
From fairly near the begginning of this mess, we discover that the changes were based on losing 150 engineers. But this information was 'Management in Confidence'
Note to the grown ups:-
We are not idiots. You give us a long brief with lots of wankwords that no-one can understand, followed by 'Any questions?'
The very first question - Are these changes being made because we are going to lose more people?'
Do you answer
a) Fair cop, we are going to lose people and this is our plan to cope with our primary task
(You have betrayed an 'Management in Confidence' instruction)
b) Denial followed by more wankwords
(You are telling a bare-faced lie, have betrayed your troops and have lost your credibility)
You chose b)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Obe One
Can I clarify
1. An irreversible change has been put in place by those who are upon high – due to those in the know having the foresight of mass manpower cuts.
2. These cuts will take the manning down to a point where by we will have just about enough manpower to cover the line side of things - but barely rectifications?
3. SDR and Contractors will take up every thing else.
4. We the over ruled have been handed the smoking gun with one round left in the chamber (pointing in the direction of our feet) and no chance of carrying out NSPs.
5. You require credible solutions
So will there be a reduction in the number of deployments/duties…etc or will this be taken on by some contractor? I can’t see anyone staying in the country for more than about six months if that is the case.
We are now facing a massive drawdown in the knowledge and experience not just manpower – what will happen if this in depth knowledge and practical ability is required in theatre? – I suggest we get pushed up the multi-skilling ladder pretty dam fast if that is the case and above the Fast Jet Techies (the internal workings of the J are a lot more advanced than that of the Harrier or Tornado)
The line looks after Approximately 50 aircraft with fewer people per shift than a fast jet squadron (that’s about 3-4 times more aircraft than a fast jet squadron) and we are reducing further - All those about to remain should be put through both Q-courses (as it was put to me…if you went to civie street then you would be expected to work 747-100s next to 747-400s)
Give the line the autonomy to Engineers (put the trade desks back in with line teams) keep the trade Knowledge.
Reduce the size of the planning teams (going from 2 - 20 can not be an efficiency).
Is this the new name for the lean-team? How do we go about this anonymously or not?
I was told that this LEAN thing was “unzippabel” does that mean it comes to pieces as well as it went together so we can take it to Brize or is it Un- Zippable as in it wouldn’t go together in the first place?
(The last para is humour the rest not so)
S
Can I clarify
1. An irreversible change has been put in place by those who are upon high – due to those in the know having the foresight of mass manpower cuts.
2. These cuts will take the manning down to a point where by we will have just about enough manpower to cover the line side of things - but barely rectifications?
3. SDR and Contractors will take up every thing else.
4. We the over ruled have been handed the smoking gun with one round left in the chamber (pointing in the direction of our feet) and no chance of carrying out NSPs.
5. You require credible solutions
So will there be a reduction in the number of deployments/duties…etc or will this be taken on by some contractor? I can’t see anyone staying in the country for more than about six months if that is the case.
We are now facing a massive drawdown in the knowledge and experience not just manpower – what will happen if this in depth knowledge and practical ability is required in theatre? – I suggest we get pushed up the multi-skilling ladder pretty dam fast if that is the case and above the Fast Jet Techies (the internal workings of the J are a lot more advanced than that of the Harrier or Tornado)
The line looks after Approximately 50 aircraft with fewer people per shift than a fast jet squadron (that’s about 3-4 times more aircraft than a fast jet squadron) and we are reducing further - All those about to remain should be put through both Q-courses (as it was put to me…if you went to civie street then you would be expected to work 747-100s next to 747-400s)
Give the line the autonomy to Engineers (put the trade desks back in with line teams) keep the trade Knowledge.
Reduce the size of the planning teams (going from 2 - 20 can not be an efficiency).
Why not send your ideas to the Station Change Team?
I was told that this LEAN thing was “unzippabel” does that mean it comes to pieces as well as it went together so we can take it to Brize or is it Un- Zippable as in it wouldn’t go together in the first place?
(The last para is humour the rest not so)
S
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay 9
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sumps
The changes that have been made are by no means irreversible, but going back to the old way of operating would only bring short respite. When the manpower cuts start to bite, as a result of the manpower drawdown, it would become increasingly more difficult to function, so a way has to be found that can cope with the future losses.
HLS has, I assume, a much larger shift of techy’s than 47/70 or 24/30 had before. The difference is that half are J qualified and half are K qualified. As far as I can see, the only way that Lyneham will be able to work in the future is by implementing a cross-platform work ethos. You don’t need a trade Q to work on an aircraft, but it would be advisable to have a supervisor that is qualified. Et voila! A solution; any tradesman can work on any aircraft type providing at least one of them is qualified on type. (Someway down the road, I assume that the schools will be offering a joint K/J Q course, but knowing that the speed that the cogs turn in the RAF, is inversely proportional to the speed that the goalposts move, I doubt I will see it in my lifetime). I believe most of our civilian brethren in the aviation world are not restricted to type, so this modus operandi is not too radical a step, I would suggest. This is just one way that Lyneham may consider to be the way ahead but there may be other ways that may be blindingly obvious to you but not yet contemplated by the management. Answers on a postcard……..
I assume your comment on the reduction of deployments and duties was made with tongue firmly in cheek. The guarding commitment will undoubtedly remain the same so duties will come round more often. Unless there is a massive shift in the way that the Government sees as the role of our Armed Forces, we will continue to be on standby to assume any role they see fit, fire fighters, cattle slaughterers etc. Can’t really see deployments decreasing either, so I think you may be right in saying that the length of time that you will spend at home will decrease. That said, when I was on FJ’s, we considered ourselves fortunate if we spent 6 months at home, and I’m sure some of our Tonka and Chopper brethren will agree with that. Anyway, my spies tell me that personnel are VOLUNTEERING to do a stint on guard rather than endure the mad house that HLS has become. Is that true??????
Multi-skilling; that’s not going to be the panacea that cures Lyneham’s problems either – 100 or so places between now and April 05. It’ll help, but not a lot.
It has yet to be explained to anybody’s satisfaction, let alone mine, how under the new system we could possibly unzip the J’s from the K’s and send them off to Brize. Take 150 blokes out of the equation and it becomes impossible as far as I can see. UNLESS, we imagine that the 25 aircraft at Brize are a detachment, so Lyneham then only has to send a handful of blokes and a couple of GE’s across to keep them running.
Hmmmmmm
Obe One
Doh - finger trouble. Read April 06 in para 4
The changes that have been made are by no means irreversible, but going back to the old way of operating would only bring short respite. When the manpower cuts start to bite, as a result of the manpower drawdown, it would become increasingly more difficult to function, so a way has to be found that can cope with the future losses.
HLS has, I assume, a much larger shift of techy’s than 47/70 or 24/30 had before. The difference is that half are J qualified and half are K qualified. As far as I can see, the only way that Lyneham will be able to work in the future is by implementing a cross-platform work ethos. You don’t need a trade Q to work on an aircraft, but it would be advisable to have a supervisor that is qualified. Et voila! A solution; any tradesman can work on any aircraft type providing at least one of them is qualified on type. (Someway down the road, I assume that the schools will be offering a joint K/J Q course, but knowing that the speed that the cogs turn in the RAF, is inversely proportional to the speed that the goalposts move, I doubt I will see it in my lifetime). I believe most of our civilian brethren in the aviation world are not restricted to type, so this modus operandi is not too radical a step, I would suggest. This is just one way that Lyneham may consider to be the way ahead but there may be other ways that may be blindingly obvious to you but not yet contemplated by the management. Answers on a postcard……..
I assume your comment on the reduction of deployments and duties was made with tongue firmly in cheek. The guarding commitment will undoubtedly remain the same so duties will come round more often. Unless there is a massive shift in the way that the Government sees as the role of our Armed Forces, we will continue to be on standby to assume any role they see fit, fire fighters, cattle slaughterers etc. Can’t really see deployments decreasing either, so I think you may be right in saying that the length of time that you will spend at home will decrease. That said, when I was on FJ’s, we considered ourselves fortunate if we spent 6 months at home, and I’m sure some of our Tonka and Chopper brethren will agree with that. Anyway, my spies tell me that personnel are VOLUNTEERING to do a stint on guard rather than endure the mad house that HLS has become. Is that true??????
Multi-skilling; that’s not going to be the panacea that cures Lyneham’s problems either – 100 or so places between now and April 05. It’ll help, but not a lot.
It has yet to be explained to anybody’s satisfaction, let alone mine, how under the new system we could possibly unzip the J’s from the K’s and send them off to Brize. Take 150 blokes out of the equation and it becomes impossible as far as I can see. UNLESS, we imagine that the 25 aircraft at Brize are a detachment, so Lyneham then only has to send a handful of blokes and a couple of GE’s across to keep them running.
Hmmmmmm
Obe One
Doh - finger trouble. Read April 06 in para 4
Last edited by Oberon 1; 11th Feb 2005 at 12:56.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Wilts
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oberon 1, I couldn't let this pass; you mentioned:
I'm sorry, but I've been maintaining military aircraft for approx 24 yrs, and whatever the pressure, there is NEVER any excuse to get a job 'Undersigned'. That is why we are allowed to self-supervise. By getting a job 'undersigned' you are clearly putting the Ac and crew at risk.
I'm not being flippant or naive, but the rules are there for good reason, IF there was a culture of this at Lyneham:
then your later use of the words:
sounds a bit suspect to me.
SC
It all started with a techy down at MPA fitting a spinner incorrectly. Having done the job himself, he persuaded a junior to undersign him (wrong, I know, but I don’t know the pressures they were under at the time – unwilling to speculate).
I'm not being flippant or naive, but the rules are there for good reason, IF there was a culture of this at Lyneham:
At the subsequent inquiry, less importance seemed to be placed on the fact that he had done the job incorrectly, what everyone latched onto was his statement that “the process of undersigning is common at Lyneham, it’s always been done like that”.
they are professional technicians who only want, at the end of the day, to do a good job
SC
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Bay 9
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SC,
I wholeheartedly agree with you, there is NEVER any excuse to get a job undersigned. The point I was trying to make was that the chap involved in the spinner incident WAS NOT Lyneham based. So there is this guy who blithely undertakes an unfamiliar task on a relatively unfamiliar aircraft (I assume he attended a Q Course at Lyneham before his det) and asks a junior to undersign. Was this philosophy taught him at his PARENT Unit?
As he was not Lyneham based, how was he in a position to state that the process of undersigning was common practice there?
To the best of my knowledge, the process of undersigning IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN practised at Lyneham but his comments were the catalyst for the changes that have been implemented there.
I have spent some time at Lyneham in my career and know the calibre of their technicians is of the highest order and I stand by my statement that “they are professional technicians who only want, at the end of the day, to do a good job”
Apologies if my earlier post was somewhat vague in this area.
Obe One
I wholeheartedly agree with you, there is NEVER any excuse to get a job undersigned. The point I was trying to make was that the chap involved in the spinner incident WAS NOT Lyneham based. So there is this guy who blithely undertakes an unfamiliar task on a relatively unfamiliar aircraft (I assume he attended a Q Course at Lyneham before his det) and asks a junior to undersign. Was this philosophy taught him at his PARENT Unit?
As he was not Lyneham based, how was he in a position to state that the process of undersigning was common practice there?
To the best of my knowledge, the process of undersigning IS NOT AND NEVER HAS BEEN practised at Lyneham but his comments were the catalyst for the changes that have been implemented there.
I have spent some time at Lyneham in my career and know the calibre of their technicians is of the highest order and I stand by my statement that “they are professional technicians who only want, at the end of the day, to do a good job”
Apologies if my earlier post was somewhat vague in this area.
Obe One
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: various bits of UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is what the electronic highway has to offer…
The LeanTeam
These are the people implementing this system – Some observations are…
1, There’s that phrase “poor communication” again.
2, Tools…. Tools…. Tools…? What about the supply of components? Not the stacker system but the attributing of cash to spares
3, “Lyneham does not have an appointed ‘Change Officer’. It’s the line management responsibility to roll out lean and the change teams and line personnel are empowered to identify innovative solutions and make change happen” As per other posts: A Disclaimer for the implementers and the smoking gun the hands of the innocent. AND a statement that has never been banded about either!
4, If OC 24 meant these words how come the aircrew are setting up a thread like this?
5, With OC Eng’s comments …the rest of the RAF take note: ITS OBVIOUSLY COMING TO AN AIR BASE NEAR YOU!
PS…”if you want to know more” then you know who to talk to!!!
More Simpler
This above document makes us look V’ incompetent.
However there may have been a reduction of 2550 moves to carry out a minor/minor * but there is generally an increase in the time to get the aircraft through the process due to the whole process being AF lead. The first of the lean minor/minor* had Approx 20 AF techies per day thus this set the manpower president equation. E.g. Say it takes 40 days to go through a minor and during this servicing there will be an average of 15 AF Techies. That’s a reduction of ¼ of the man power = 10 days, then 5 day are removed for the lean principles. Hence the final solution is thus:
40(days) – 5 (lean days) = 35, + 10(manpower reduction days) = 45 days? (Total)
Now that’s lean for you! And that will be why you have 20 planers.
Talk Time
This is a conference I would like be a fly on the wall at…
1, What will the Wing Co (Depth Support) have to say? @ 15:50
2, Why not tell us first?
3, Does the audience know of the concern e.g. this thread?
Discounted rates anyone? (See end).
Our Press
As said reduction…but who takes over MAe, BAE, RAF?…Place your bets, pick an acronym!
My thoughts. Without knowing the final manpower figure and the expected task ahead how can you change the system to fit...Knowledge is power and doesn’t it say TEAM LYNEHAM somewhere?
The LeanTeam
These are the people implementing this system – Some observations are…
1, There’s that phrase “poor communication” again.
2, Tools…. Tools…. Tools…? What about the supply of components? Not the stacker system but the attributing of cash to spares
3, “Lyneham does not have an appointed ‘Change Officer’. It’s the line management responsibility to roll out lean and the change teams and line personnel are empowered to identify innovative solutions and make change happen” As per other posts: A Disclaimer for the implementers and the smoking gun the hands of the innocent. AND a statement that has never been banded about either!
4, If OC 24 meant these words how come the aircrew are setting up a thread like this?
5, With OC Eng’s comments …the rest of the RAF take note: ITS OBVIOUSLY COMING TO AN AIR BASE NEAR YOU!
PS…”if you want to know more” then you know who to talk to!!!
More Simpler
This above document makes us look V’ incompetent.
However there may have been a reduction of 2550 moves to carry out a minor/minor * but there is generally an increase in the time to get the aircraft through the process due to the whole process being AF lead. The first of the lean minor/minor* had Approx 20 AF techies per day thus this set the manpower president equation. E.g. Say it takes 40 days to go through a minor and during this servicing there will be an average of 15 AF Techies. That’s a reduction of ¼ of the man power = 10 days, then 5 day are removed for the lean principles. Hence the final solution is thus:
40(days) – 5 (lean days) = 35, + 10(manpower reduction days) = 45 days? (Total)
Now that’s lean for you! And that will be why you have 20 planers.
Talk Time
This is a conference I would like be a fly on the wall at…
1, What will the Wing Co (Depth Support) have to say? @ 15:50
2, Why not tell us first?
3, Does the audience know of the concern e.g. this thread?
Discounted rates anyone? (See end).
Our Press
As said reduction…but who takes over MAe, BAE, RAF?…Place your bets, pick an acronym!
My thoughts. Without knowing the final manpower figure and the expected task ahead how can you change the system to fit...Knowledge is power and doesn’t it say TEAM LYNEHAM somewhere?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Oxfordshire
Age: 54
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Spinner incident:
The guy is Lyneham based, and Lyneham trained.
Over/Undersigning without seeing the job, is practiced, and that's not the worst of it.
In my short time on the line, I was so horrified with just the paperwork, and the management's complete disinterest when I did point out anomalies, I left asap.
I've never seen such a bunch of un-proffesional engineers, and though there were notable exceptions, it seemed that most of the senior guys had been on Hercs since time began, and were so entrenched in the woodwork and their use of 'Lynehamisms'.
Personal standards were notably absent, with the general attitude was that 'They're freighters, and freight doesn't give a toss what you look like'.
Sorry to tell the truth, but if you believe otherwise, you're dreaming...
The guy is Lyneham based, and Lyneham trained.
Over/Undersigning without seeing the job, is practiced, and that's not the worst of it.
In my short time on the line, I was so horrified with just the paperwork, and the management's complete disinterest when I did point out anomalies, I left asap.
I've never seen such a bunch of un-proffesional engineers, and though there were notable exceptions, it seemed that most of the senior guys had been on Hercs since time began, and were so entrenched in the woodwork and their use of 'Lynehamisms'.
Personal standards were notably absent, with the general attitude was that 'They're freighters, and freight doesn't give a toss what you look like'.
Sorry to tell the truth, but if you believe otherwise, you're dreaming...
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: wilts
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Glum
I consider myself to be one of the exceptions. To this end I always do the job correctly according to the AP/Tech Order, no matter how long it takes, and actively encourage this. I have also been at Lyneham for longer than I care to mention and avoid the Lynehamisms, wherever possible. There are more like me about, we aren't that hard to find you just have to look.
I consider myself to be one of the exceptions. To this end I always do the job correctly according to the AP/Tech Order, no matter how long it takes, and actively encourage this. I have also been at Lyneham for longer than I care to mention and avoid the Lynehamisms, wherever possible. There are more like me about, we aren't that hard to find you just have to look.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: various bits of UK
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May I echo the sentiments of Limeslime – Glum cheer up bloke I know the JAP & other APs aren’t a thrilling read but stick with it! And tell the other doubting Thomas’s to 
off
There are loads of us (who do at least) try to get it right!
off There are loads of us (who do at least) try to get it right!
Am I right in thinking that Lyneham now has a Wing Commander OC Eng AND a Wing Commander OC Depth Support?
How lean is that?
How lean is that?
Most units have that set-up now pr00ne, or soon will have.
Forward and Depth I believe the terminology is.
Forward and Depth I believe the terminology is.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: england
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes a perfect solution in troubled times...yet another waste of space to add to the wage bill.Glad we are not a civvy outfit...would have gone bust years ago.At least the v expensive high powered help will leave with lots of experience in what 'not' to do.
Vote with your feet....
Vote with your feet....
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Am I right in thinking that Lyneham now has a Wing Commander OC Eng AND a Wing Commander OC Depth Support?
The way this will (purportedly) work will be front Line (STC) in C130 case HLS/FLECS. When an aircraft goes to Scheduled servicing/long term Maintenance it will go to Depth Support (by my understanding - Logs Wing). This will more than lightly be a civilian contractor for LYN = MAe, And probably BoWS for the majority of the rest of the fleets.
sumps,
FLECS?
FLECS?
sumps,
Not at all, just never heard of a thing called FLECS when I was in, that's all.
In my day it was a fairly straight forward case of first line on the Squadron led by a Sqn Ldr SENGO and 2 JO JENGO's, second line at Eng Wing level led by a Wg Cdr OC Eng and 2 x Sqn Ldr OC ME(A)S and ME(G)S.
After that it was an MU for third line.
Not at all, just never heard of a thing called FLECS when I was in, that's all.
In my day it was a fairly straight forward case of first line on the Squadron led by a Sqn Ldr SENGO and 2 JO JENGO's, second line at Eng Wing level led by a Wg Cdr OC Eng and 2 x Sqn Ldr OC ME(A)S and ME(G)S.
After that it was an MU for third line.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Amazing what you find when looking for something else.
Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) aka Partnered Support from Lockheed Martin
This might be of interest to those in the engineering fraternity at Lyneham
WRW
Hercules Integrated Operational Support (HIOS) aka Partnered Support from Lockheed Martin
This might be of interest to those in the engineering fraternity at Lyneham
WRW
