the REAL cost of lean at Lyneham
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the REAL cost of lean at Lyneham
Firstly, I don't want this thread to be seen as a non-constructive whinge, as that is pointless, but I want people to see just how bad the situation at Lyneham has got 
The main point of concern I have is the basic lack morale and service ethos that has always got us through the bad times before. The manning levels at the moment are what I would decribe as DANGEROUS, as most trade desks in engineering mantainence are very short of manpower, and in a lot of cases unable to complete tasks due to fundamental problems such as not enough tradesmen, or not having the correct SAFE,SERVICEABLE equiptment to use.
Buy us serviceable aircraft staging, that does not fall over and is not covered in sharp edges and broken components
Buy us GOOD QUALITY tools, that don't break and fall apart,
but mainly GIVE US BACK OUR MANPOWER!!
As the shifts stand at the moment, each FLECS shift is lucky to see 5 tradesmen per desk, for K's and J's. This is compounded by leave, guard, courses etc, and leads to major undermanning and work getting carried over and carried over, ultimatly costing valuble aircraft time and sorties.
I have noticed a distinct lack of pride recently, which ultimatly leads to a major lapse in engineering standards. People will disagree and claim 100% avaliability etc, but the fact remains that people are simply sick of being messed about with ever more absurd ideas and systems, all being driven by people with NO CONCEPT of how aircraft enineering works. In my eyes, the solutions are simple and easily affected.
1) reform to 4 large shifts, K and J combined engineering. This will give a much needed rise in the number of relevant tradesmen per desk, per shift. This would allow corrective maintainance to be carried out alongside daily tasking such as AF/BF's , re-roles etc by utilizing the less busy trades to carry out routine servicing.
2) keep the K primary (sorry, continuity team) team, as it is a proven system that works well, along with a heavy rectifications flight for major work, ie fuel tanks/structures etc. This will provide a ongoing work element to the workforce which can oversee long term projects.
3) make the shifts 2 days 2 nights 4 off, as a major cause of lack of morale is the lack of a good social pattern, meaning there is very little team bonding or socializing.
I welcome any input to this, as I feel it is only a matter of time before serious safty hazards start to occour and no-one wants to see this
The main point of concern I have is the basic lack morale and service ethos that has always got us through the bad times before. The manning levels at the moment are what I would decribe as DANGEROUS, as most trade desks in engineering mantainence are very short of manpower, and in a lot of cases unable to complete tasks due to fundamental problems such as not enough tradesmen, or not having the correct SAFE,SERVICEABLE equiptment to use.
Buy us serviceable aircraft staging, that does not fall over and is not covered in sharp edges and broken components
Buy us GOOD QUALITY tools, that don't break and fall apart,
but mainly GIVE US BACK OUR MANPOWER!!
As the shifts stand at the moment, each FLECS shift is lucky to see 5 tradesmen per desk, for K's and J's. This is compounded by leave, guard, courses etc, and leads to major undermanning and work getting carried over and carried over, ultimatly costing valuble aircraft time and sorties.
I have noticed a distinct lack of pride recently, which ultimatly leads to a major lapse in engineering standards. People will disagree and claim 100% avaliability etc, but the fact remains that people are simply sick of being messed about with ever more absurd ideas and systems, all being driven by people with NO CONCEPT of how aircraft enineering works. In my eyes, the solutions are simple and easily affected.
1) reform to 4 large shifts, K and J combined engineering. This will give a much needed rise in the number of relevant tradesmen per desk, per shift. This would allow corrective maintainance to be carried out alongside daily tasking such as AF/BF's , re-roles etc by utilizing the less busy trades to carry out routine servicing.
2) keep the K primary (sorry, continuity team) team, as it is a proven system that works well, along with a heavy rectifications flight for major work, ie fuel tanks/structures etc. This will provide a ongoing work element to the workforce which can oversee long term projects.
3) make the shifts 2 days 2 nights 4 off, as a major cause of lack of morale is the lack of a good social pattern, meaning there is very little team bonding or socializing.
I welcome any input to this, as I feel it is only a matter of time before serious safty hazards start to occour and no-one wants to see this
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: South West
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not being an engineer myself I can't comment on the specifics of what you're saying but the EngOs I speak to seem to be in agreement.
Surely the most ideal short-term solution would be to take Techies off guard, a job for which their skill sets and pay grades are wasted!
Surely the most ideal short-term solution would be to take Techies off guard, a job for which their skill sets and pay grades are wasted!
Short Blunt Shock
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The REAL cost is hardly any serviceable airframes, despite what somebody's stats say. I cannot remember the last time I flew a sortie with a FULLY serviceable aircraft, and brought it back without something else having failed. I have seen the same airframe a number of times this month, each time having snags unresolved from the last time.
The spin merchants seem to chose their words carefully, since even if the claim of 100% "availablilty" were true, it does not mean 100% SERVICEABILITY.
LEAN does not work for us. When is SOMEBODY going to have the balls to stand up and say it publically?
16B
The spin merchants seem to chose their words carefully, since even if the claim of 100% "availablilty" were true, it does not mean 100% SERVICEABILITY.
LEAN does not work for us. When is SOMEBODY going to have the balls to stand up and say it publically?
16B
Ties in with 'centralised engineering at lyneham' thread. The SNCO's say that the constant changing of priorities with a lack of manpower is becoming unmanageable. They are told frame X is the priority, they start work and then 40 mins later are told the priorities have changed to another frame. This goes on for the whole shift leaving a line of 'half serviced' ac. The matter can only get so much worse in the near future when the redundancy people start leaving. What does the new OC Eng or whatever he is called think.
I think the DASC (Defence Aviation Safety Centre) pay little regard to PPRune, as it is not an RAF site however, they DO take note of Murphy's and Condors and Human Factors Open Reports.
There are some very valid points here and a cut and paste job of the aforementioned points onto the official form(s) would have an impact and may get a result. And, the old adage "The more the merrier" is especially the case here-the more folks who raise the same points-the more likely that your complaints will be taken notice of and rectified.
There are some very valid points here and a cut and paste job of the aforementioned points onto the official form(s) would have an impact and may get a result. And, the old adage "The more the merrier" is especially the case here-the more folks who raise the same points-the more likely that your complaints will be taken notice of and rectified.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: england
Posts: 385
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree completely with the serviceablity issues, and to be honest its downright embarrasing when crews are having to fly frames that have ADF's and Lims that are constantly there. One of the major flaws is only servicing and repairing programmed aircraft, which to me is absolute stupidity, as if a frame goes u/s for any reason, there are no immediate spares avaliable and thus most times the sortie is lost or delayed. If the frame is on the floor, make it 100% serviceable even if it sits on the pan for a week, at least then all it needs is a B/F!!!
Also, there have been a few instances recently of aircraft being worked on whilst the crew are doing thier walk-rounds, surley this cannot be a safe practice, as the ground crew feel pressurised to rush the job and get it flying, and the aircrew want to stay our of the way, and in doing so may miss vital checks.
As stated above, its time someone said Lean is getting to a silly point now, where the idea is costing more than it is saving. Someone in a position of authority needs to stand up and be counted, because as usual the guys who are in the know, (i.e, the engineers) are being ignored
I also urge the aircrew to snag EVERYTHING they are unhappy with, as it will highlight the fact that the completeness and quality of engineering is dropping off sharply.
Also, there have been a few instances recently of aircraft being worked on whilst the crew are doing thier walk-rounds, surley this cannot be a safe practice, as the ground crew feel pressurised to rush the job and get it flying, and the aircrew want to stay our of the way, and in doing so may miss vital checks.
As stated above, its time someone said Lean is getting to a silly point now, where the idea is costing more than it is saving. Someone in a position of authority needs to stand up and be counted, because as usual the guys who are in the know, (i.e, the engineers) are being ignored
I also urge the aircrew to snag EVERYTHING they are unhappy with, as it will highlight the fact that the completeness and quality of engineering is dropping off sharply.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
Surely the most ideal short-term solution would be to take Techies off guard, a job for which their skill sets and pay grades are wasted!
The easy answer would be to get more MPGS personnel for gates, leaving tradesmen (and women) of all trades to get on with their trades. (But then again MPGS is having a hard enough time filling slots on current Platoons let alone opening up more.)
Its no good having loads of techies sat in hangers waiting for parts that Supply (or LSW or LSS or whatever its called now days) can't supply because their staff are too busy filling in for said techies on the gate.
This sort of 'techie/non-techie' stuff is pure 1980's fodder, in the days when there were a few extra folk floating around in the system to do guards. Everyone on a unit is important, cuts have hit across all trades and as such all trades are suffering from manpower deficiencies. I know of at least 7 stackers from Lyneham who are currently playing silly buggers in the desert, 7 less stackers from a unit that is already understaffed in that (among many others) department.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Uranus
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So did you end up doing the moving production line thing in the end?
I don't think the problem is really lack of manpower as such, it's more the fact that everyone is always in the wrong place doing the wrong thing because of this STUPID organisational model which did a lot of good for one person only.
The guard thing is not really that big an issue, you don't really lose that many people at any one time. It doesn't make that much difference.
For the REAL cost of all this, why don't you count the number of people who have had their green cards withdrawn since this happened, then consider why.
I don't think the problem is really lack of manpower as such, it's more the fact that everyone is always in the wrong place doing the wrong thing because of this STUPID organisational model which did a lot of good for one person only.
The guard thing is not really that big an issue, you don't really lose that many people at any one time. It doesn't make that much difference.
For the REAL cost of all this, why don't you count the number of people who have had their green cards withdrawn since this happened, then consider why.
Keng,
As a fellow mender at a different unit, OKOC is right mate. Murphy the problems, repeatedly, until someone from DASC has to pay a visit. Take them somewhere where there's no EngOs and brief them thoroughly on the shambles that is Lyneham Eng. Safety in numbers though
Get a couple of aircrew you're on good terms with and share your safety concerns, to reinforce the point. Put together a presentation with facts and figures to give yourself more credibility, as you'll be dealing with senior officers. Stick a letter in the RAF News to rattle a few cages.
I would also urge you to keep a (personal) diary of events for use if it all goes horribly wrong one day, because if it does, the crap will definitely stick low down, not on the fool who created this mess nor on those who fall over themselves to embrace it.
This has gone too bloody far, I think it's past being "teething troubles", and something has got to be done before we lose people. Thankfully, most of us put still standards before deadlines, but that ethos is beginning to creak under the pressure, and that is so not fair on the aircrew who have to trust us, and to their credit give us great support with this problem
Keng, hang in there mate, don't give up on the battle, and try to keep the troops together on this one.
The time is nigh for a federation....
As a fellow mender at a different unit, OKOC is right mate. Murphy the problems, repeatedly, until someone from DASC has to pay a visit. Take them somewhere where there's no EngOs and brief them thoroughly on the shambles that is Lyneham Eng. Safety in numbers though
Get a couple of aircrew you're on good terms with and share your safety concerns, to reinforce the point. Put together a presentation with facts and figures to give yourself more credibility, as you'll be dealing with senior officers. Stick a letter in the RAF News to rattle a few cages.I would also urge you to keep a (personal) diary of events for use if it all goes horribly wrong one day, because if it does, the crap will definitely stick low down, not on the fool who created this mess nor on those who fall over themselves to embrace it.
This has gone too bloody far, I think it's past being "teething troubles", and something has got to be done before we lose people. Thankfully, most of us put still standards before deadlines, but that ethos is beginning to creak under the pressure, and that is so not fair on the aircrew who have to trust us, and to their credit give us great support with this problem
Keng, hang in there mate, don't give up on the battle, and try to keep the troops together on this one.
The time is nigh for a federation....
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: LYEKORR
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The time is nigh for a few senior officers to wake up and smell the coffee. Wasn't it a similar sort of situation with staff officers telling the AOC one thing and when he spoke to people on the shop floor, being told completely the opposite; that led to the CASWO being established?
What will it take for these people to sit up and take notice?
What will it take for these people to sit up and take notice?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: East Anglia
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Do what everyone else is doing....
Just take it on risk......and pray that something doesn't happen whilst you are in charge, supervising or authorising.....
Don't bother hanging on to the rope mate, everyone behind you on the rope has let go.....only when the politicians and airships realise that they have salami sliced so far that it has all stopped working will the something happen.
As I have forecast on numerous occasions, that just is not going to happen until something big draws public opinion into a very maliable, spin orientated Govt.
Examples include the NAO report on lack of Battlefield Helicopter lift (in some areas 38%). But no one is going to actually do anything about it until, say for example, a Katrina devastates a UK city and funny old thing 10000s of people that could have been winched to safety die.
The Lyneham issue will either end in a spate of high profile accidents or will just physically stop working as people vote with their feet.
Hence, weeks to do, and I voted with my feet - I do not want to be around an accident waiting to happen and the 'break that chain' buzz word of the 70's to 90's is replaced by the 'we'll take it on risk' jargon.
Think of family, your next job and best advice to those under you on how to avoid compromising their standards and professional ability. Saying no and fronting up to a senior officer that ultimately doesn't sign any supervision/authorisation paperwork is the only way.
Otherwise, you know where your 'buck will stop'!
Just take it on risk......and pray that something doesn't happen whilst you are in charge, supervising or authorising.....
Don't bother hanging on to the rope mate, everyone behind you on the rope has let go.....only when the politicians and airships realise that they have salami sliced so far that it has all stopped working will the something happen.
As I have forecast on numerous occasions, that just is not going to happen until something big draws public opinion into a very maliable, spin orientated Govt.
Examples include the NAO report on lack of Battlefield Helicopter lift (in some areas 38%). But no one is going to actually do anything about it until, say for example, a Katrina devastates a UK city and funny old thing 10000s of people that could have been winched to safety die.
The Lyneham issue will either end in a spate of high profile accidents or will just physically stop working as people vote with their feet.
Hence, weeks to do, and I voted with my feet - I do not want to be around an accident waiting to happen and the 'break that chain' buzz word of the 70's to 90's is replaced by the 'we'll take it on risk' jargon.
Think of family, your next job and best advice to those under you on how to avoid compromising their standards and professional ability. Saying no and fronting up to a senior officer that ultimately doesn't sign any supervision/authorisation paperwork is the only way.
Otherwise, you know where your 'buck will stop'!
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be read by RAF Lyneham Execs...
It's a fair bet that the Stn Cdr and OCs and Flt Cdrs on the Sqns read Pprune. [They'd be living on another planet otherwise]. In any case, drop the hint in none-too-subtle conversations, loud enough to be heard by the execs in the crewroom or happy hour, making reference to this thread.
Working on the assumption that they are reading this, I respectfully suggest that you get out of your ivory towers and talk one-to-one to your line SNCO chiefs, in private, hats in the corner. And be unhappy with what you hear, for it will be the truth, and not the garbage spouted at the execs brief in good stats form.
I know, I have been there, and made myself thoroughly unpopular with certain members of the organisation hierarchy to boot. With 40 years service behind me as professional aircrew, I learned enough to listen to the guys on the line - if they said back was white as far as an engineering problem was concerned, that was good enough for me. It dug me out of many a hole by listening.
I have experienced all of the various cookie ideas dreamed up over the years, but if half the stories on this thread concerning the Lyneham reorganisation are accurate, I forecast a major [probably fatal] incident in the near future. I certainly would not want that on my conscience, and I don't blame the techies voting with their feet. It's madness - you can't support war on a shoestring; you have to have some slack in the system, otherwise you grind the guys into the ground and your war effort falls on its face.
Now working in the NHS, I can vouch for the old adage that you can prove anything with stats. The secret is to cut away the crap that surrounds and disguises the true state of affairs.
Execs, never mind your careers - can you live with yourselves knowing that you haven't done anything to stop a major accident? I'll ask the same question in a few months...
It's a fair bet that the Stn Cdr and OCs and Flt Cdrs on the Sqns read Pprune. [They'd be living on another planet otherwise]. In any case, drop the hint in none-too-subtle conversations, loud enough to be heard by the execs in the crewroom or happy hour, making reference to this thread.
Working on the assumption that they are reading this, I respectfully suggest that you get out of your ivory towers and talk one-to-one to your line SNCO chiefs, in private, hats in the corner. And be unhappy with what you hear, for it will be the truth, and not the garbage spouted at the execs brief in good stats form.
I know, I have been there, and made myself thoroughly unpopular with certain members of the organisation hierarchy to boot. With 40 years service behind me as professional aircrew, I learned enough to listen to the guys on the line - if they said back was white as far as an engineering problem was concerned, that was good enough for me. It dug me out of many a hole by listening.
I have experienced all of the various cookie ideas dreamed up over the years, but if half the stories on this thread concerning the Lyneham reorganisation are accurate, I forecast a major [probably fatal] incident in the near future. I certainly would not want that on my conscience, and I don't blame the techies voting with their feet. It's madness - you can't support war on a shoestring; you have to have some slack in the system, otherwise you grind the guys into the ground and your war effort falls on its face.
Now working in the NHS, I can vouch for the old adage that you can prove anything with stats. The secret is to cut away the crap that surrounds and disguises the true state of affairs.
Execs, never mind your careers - can you live with yourselves knowing that you haven't done anything to stop a major accident? I'll ask the same question in a few months...
Inter Arma Enim Silentius Lex Legis
Join Date: May 2000
Location: England
Posts: 733
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yes he/she can and they do.
The fact is that if the service is aware of a problem that will impinge upon operational capability, then the said problem will be acknowledged but accepted as part of a risk assessment.
It has always been thus..
The fact is that if the service is aware of a problem that will impinge upon operational capability, then the said problem will be acknowledged but accepted as part of a risk assessment.
It has always been thus..
Registered User **
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Cambridge
Posts: 556
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Risk Assessment
I think you're probably right Gorilla, many of the concerns highlighted here could here could well be "taken at risk", they could well be accepted following a risk assessment, but I would like to see the fully justifiable and supportable case that underpins such decisions.
Safety_Helmut
I think you're probably right Gorilla, many of the concerns highlighted here could here could well be "taken at risk", they could well be accepted following a risk assessment, but I would like to see the fully justifiable and supportable case that underpins such decisions.
Safety_Helmut
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: BPOM
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise words anothernumber, apart from he's a 1*.
Gorilla you are talking bxxxxxxs. Every single one is investigated. I believe DASC hasn't recieved any from Lyn recently though.
Normal chain of command is the usual way to resolve problems. The SFSO can go straight to the Stn Cdr. If you are still getting nowhere, or for reasons of confidentiality/anonymity, go for a Murphy.
Gorilla you are talking bxxxxxxs. Every single one is investigated. I believe DASC hasn't recieved any from Lyn recently though.
Normal chain of command is the usual way to resolve problems. The SFSO can go straight to the Stn Cdr. If you are still getting nowhere, or for reasons of confidentiality/anonymity, go for a Murphy.