Oh really

[Safety_Helmut]

ExRigger

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

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

S_H

[dirtygc]

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

dirty

[Safeware]

Exrigger,

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

sw

[Exrigger]

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

I have certainly never believed any seriously tall stories in the old folks home (mess), unless I had actually been there, done that and got the t-shirt (or know a man who has), by the way I did know where you were referring to.
Have I read the threads on Nimrod Yes, ESf yes, and if as you say that it is my believing tall stories, then the contingency servicings are not relevant to these problems, as no-one does them, but if they are being carried out, then it still would not be relevant as issues/parts of the 5A1 that are of safety/airworthiness would continue to be carried out.

Do you seriously think that the present conflicts warrant their use, do you seriously believe that we should be reducing safety and airworthiness standards

Contingency servicings/maintenance were never designed to reduce the airworthiness or safety standards and what makes these conflicts any different to the ones envisaged by the 'experts' who worked out the reduced requirements, taking count of safety/airworthiness all those years ago and still do on current aircraft.

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

[Red Line Entry]

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

The Executive Summary states:

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

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

[Blacksheep]

120 Days!

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

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