Apache - The Scotsman Strikes Again
Thread Starter
Apache - The Scotsman Strikes Again
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.
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.
Last edited by LXGB; 4th Jul 2005 at 12:04.
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The front end and about 50ft up
Posts: 510
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?)
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?)
There are no limits
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Shrewsbury, England.
Age: 67
Posts: 505
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Oxford
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apache
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
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
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...
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Systematic vs random
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
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
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ret'd
Is isn't just a 1's and 0's thing; from IEC 61508:
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
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.
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.
Anyway, we creep somewhat and can take this elsewhere. Hope your hols were good.
cheers
sw
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Back of Beyond!
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Dansaff
Posts: 175
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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 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.
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..........
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Racedo blows goats
Posts: 677
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"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
What moan that the engineers are screwing their lives up
Regards
Retard
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cobblers...
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 ) 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.
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
) 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.
"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.
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.