RAF Rivet Joint
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LW50,
Sorry, my bad - I was responding to an earlier post about Boeing's role with Chinook. The DAOS accreditation I referred to was only for Philadelphia and the Chinook programme for the UK, not RJ. My sincere apologies for contributing to inadvertent thread drift.
In any case, if (as I understand it) RJ was bought FMS, the Design Organisation will be the USAF Program Office, not Boeing. It's one of those aspects of the US system that is not well understood over here - in many cases, the manufacturers are effectively a 'build to print' organisation. The relevant DoD program office authorises all drawings, owns them, and carries the responsibilities of the Design organisation, managing and 'owning' the design in detail.
What this means is that when the UK MoD goes to a US aircraft company and request that they prove that they are an accredited ADO, the first response is often blank incomprehension. Boeing in Philly have got over the bar, but it would be interesting to compare their DAOS 'exposition' with that of, say, Agusta Westland.
It's another area where lack of detailed knowledge within the MoD (in this case how the US DoD procurement system and the USG work) can lead to projects being launched with very limited understanding of the actual risks faced.
Best Regards to all those trying to make it work,
Engines
Sorry, my bad - I was responding to an earlier post about Boeing's role with Chinook. The DAOS accreditation I referred to was only for Philadelphia and the Chinook programme for the UK, not RJ. My sincere apologies for contributing to inadvertent thread drift.
In any case, if (as I understand it) RJ was bought FMS, the Design Organisation will be the USAF Program Office, not Boeing. It's one of those aspects of the US system that is not well understood over here - in many cases, the manufacturers are effectively a 'build to print' organisation. The relevant DoD program office authorises all drawings, owns them, and carries the responsibilities of the Design organisation, managing and 'owning' the design in detail.
What this means is that when the UK MoD goes to a US aircraft company and request that they prove that they are an accredited ADO, the first response is often blank incomprehension. Boeing in Philly have got over the bar, but it would be interesting to compare their DAOS 'exposition' with that of, say, Agusta Westland.
It's another area where lack of detailed knowledge within the MoD (in this case how the US DoD procurement system and the USG work) can lead to projects being launched with very limited understanding of the actual risks faced.
Best Regards to all those trying to make it work,
Engines
I have raised the 'flag' of Design Authority (DA) before and it is my belief that the USAF assumes the role of DA for the a/c in its inventory. In respect of the initial Chinook purchase the refusal by Boeing to assume this role for the RAF Chinook fleet caused problems for MOD. I do not know how this was resolved if it ever was.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 799
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
AA62,
See my post above. At least as far as the Chinook is concerned, it's been resolved as Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia are now a DAOS accredited Aircraft Design organisation (ADO) for that aircraft, following MAA acceptance of their DAOS exposition.
I'm quite sure that there was no pressure placed on MAA at all to accept the exposition. No, perish the thought.
Just as an aside, each of the US services (Army, USN, USAF) acts as the DO for their aircraft. So, for the Chinook, the US DO is the Army's Heavy Lift Program Office, located in Huntsville, Alabama. One of the fun things dealing with Boeing - they are not allowed to tell the UK a single thing about any of the US Army's programmes. Modifications, trials, problems, incidents, accidents, configurations, build programmes, you name it, the Uk MoD gets nothing about the US in-service fleet from its ADO. They have to go separately to the US Army for whatever the Army feel like giving them. Of course, this also means that Boeing could get to charge twice (or thrice) for doing the same bit of work on two almost identical aircraft. You understand that I'm not for one second saying that they do, just that they could.
Regards
Engines
See my post above. At least as far as the Chinook is concerned, it's been resolved as Boeing Helicopters in Philadelphia are now a DAOS accredited Aircraft Design organisation (ADO) for that aircraft, following MAA acceptance of their DAOS exposition.
I'm quite sure that there was no pressure placed on MAA at all to accept the exposition. No, perish the thought.
Just as an aside, each of the US services (Army, USN, USAF) acts as the DO for their aircraft. So, for the Chinook, the US DO is the Army's Heavy Lift Program Office, located in Huntsville, Alabama. One of the fun things dealing with Boeing - they are not allowed to tell the UK a single thing about any of the US Army's programmes. Modifications, trials, problems, incidents, accidents, configurations, build programmes, you name it, the Uk MoD gets nothing about the US in-service fleet from its ADO. They have to go separately to the US Army for whatever the Army feel like giving them. Of course, this also means that Boeing could get to charge twice (or thrice) for doing the same bit of work on two almost identical aircraft. You understand that I'm not for one second saying that they do, just that they could.
Regards
Engines
Last edited by Engines; 9th May 2014 at 08:41. Reason: Expanding explanation
Engines,
my point was that at the time of purchase of the Chinook (done at the last minute because there was money left at the end of the financial year after cx of the original order a few years before !) Boeing refused to act as DA.
In respect of info from the USAF when I was a member of the HEART we visited Marshalls and were informed that they had been contracted to look at other air forces experience of Hercules serviceability. The USAF refused to co-operate, so most of their info came from the RAAF. Problem was a large percentage of it was 'A' model stuff. A very different beast in many ways to the 'K'.
my point was that at the time of purchase of the Chinook (done at the last minute because there was money left at the end of the financial year after cx of the original order a few years before !) Boeing refused to act as DA.
In respect of info from the USAF when I was a member of the HEART we visited Marshalls and were informed that they had been contracted to look at other air forces experience of Hercules serviceability. The USAF refused to co-operate, so most of their info came from the RAAF. Problem was a large percentage of it was 'A' model stuff. A very different beast in many ways to the 'K'.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF RJ Flight Ops
I have it from knowledgeable sources that the RJ at Waddington will be flying within a couple of weeks. RJs will be "accepted" into the force.
The 'new' MAA rules are great for modern procured aircraft, but do not fit the program of aircraft built in the 1960s is the reasoning.
After all, the airframes had around only 19,000 flight hours as KCs and some of the RC-W models in USAF have over 52,000 airframe hours. Seems safe enough for all concerned.
Everyone in the UK hierarchy will 'declare' victory, the RJ will begin flying RAF ops, the SIGINT capability will be added back to RAF inventory and the world will return to normal.
A side benefit will be the end of this entire blog. We can all move on to something less bureaucratic and more interesting.
The 'new' MAA rules are great for modern procured aircraft, but do not fit the program of aircraft built in the 1960s is the reasoning.
After all, the airframes had around only 19,000 flight hours as KCs and some of the RC-W models in USAF have over 52,000 airframe hours. Seems safe enough for all concerned.
Everyone in the UK hierarchy will 'declare' victory, the RJ will begin flying RAF ops, the SIGINT capability will be added back to RAF inventory and the world will return to normal.
A side benefit will be the end of this entire blog. We can all move on to something less bureaucratic and more interesting.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,072
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wish you were right Novan...
but the thread will continue forever with all those who believe the RJ shouldn't be approved rending their clothes and wailing and pouncing on every small issue and the other side ("the "kick the tyres, light the fires" merchants) coming on to gloat
it REALLY shouldn't have come to this pass.............
but the thread will continue forever with all those who believe the RJ shouldn't be approved rending their clothes and wailing and pouncing on every small issue and the other side ("the "kick the tyres, light the fires" merchants) coming on to gloat
it REALLY shouldn't have come to this pass.............
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Vienna, Virginia
Age: 74
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the Sanity
Heathrow Harry: Thanks for the sanity comment.
I guess we have read many examples of what we Yanks observe as "bloke bloody-mindedness".
Sometimes a good thing, as when everyone in the UK got bloody-minded about Operation Corporate. Sometimes a bad thing, when it involves mindless, bureaucratic "dog-chasing-his-tail" silliness.
And, after watching a few episodes of MI-5 over here, I am very aware of how anti-US many Brits can be (in this case the show's writers). Not at all the case with the many aviation friends, RAF friends, and a the girls I dated while flying out of Mildenhall.
I guess we have read many examples of what we Yanks observe as "bloke bloody-mindedness".
Sometimes a good thing, as when everyone in the UK got bloody-minded about Operation Corporate. Sometimes a bad thing, when it involves mindless, bureaucratic "dog-chasing-his-tail" silliness.
And, after watching a few episodes of MI-5 over here, I am very aware of how anti-US many Brits can be (in this case the show's writers). Not at all the case with the many aviation friends, RAF friends, and a the girls I dated while flying out of Mildenhall.
but the thread will continue forever with all those who believe the RJ shouldn't be approved rending their clothes
Good posts from Engines. We (UK and US) have very different procedures in this area and, had our authoritative Def Stan not been cancelled without replacement a few years ago, most US companies would topple at what it asks of Design Authorities and Custodians. They wouldn't say "impossible"; only, as Engines says, others do some of it but they could easily do it if required (and paid). A major difference is responsibility for safety. We choose one way, the US another; neither is wrong but we need to appreciate the differences. One of the major problems reported in the various ARTs by IFS was the UK tendency to drift toward MoD assuming more responsibility (e.g. retaining Special Trials Fits without design incorporation), but not understanding that we were assuming more responsibility and the obligations that come with it; while absolving industry of their obligations but continuing to pay them.
If you break both systems down, the same work has to be done, but it is simply not MoD policy to have the necessary expertise or resources to do it. A simple example. In 1989 (eighty-nine!) AMSO informed the Fire Control and Surveillance Radar IPT in MoD(PE) that, henceforth, the RAF at Harrogate would act as Design Authority for the Sea King HAS Mk3 radar - brought about by a minor problem involving AMSO not bothering to train users, leading to a misconception that the DA wasn't doing his job. I simply had the DA show the supplier the archive holding the master drawings and room with the Sample & Reference Rigs, and asked him when would he have the facilities and expertise in place to maintain this minor aspect of the work, then we'd transfer it all to him. Didn't hear from him again. (Nor would MoD have the necessary resources to prepare and maintain Safety Cases, which is done on the same contract).
The US forces are an infinitely better resourced outfit and probably have such capacity, but I suspect they contract out a lot of it to industry. MoD used to be the DA on, for example, some Rolls Royce engines, but if you studied the contract RR actually did most of the work while MoD had a very knowledgeable engines specialist in charge. Nothing wrong with that, but where is the recruitment ground nowadays for such internal specialists? We don't own Fleetlands and its engine shop any more.........
But MoD has gone too far the other way, starting with the policy that we don't need ANYONE who understands how to do it. (CDP, 1996). This means we are no longer seen as an intelligent customer in many areas (yet superb in others). In practice, industry wanders off at a tangent sometimes and loses sight of the goal as there is no one in MoD to set the requirement and guide them towards it (2 entirely different skills).
In respect of the initial Chinook purchase the refusal by Boeing to assume this role for the RAF Chinook fleet caused problems for MOD.
Last edited by tucumseh; 10th May 2014 at 06:00.
tuc:-
No, we don't. Mainly I suspect because we don't want to. There is a theme running through this thread, and elsewhere, that Airworthiness is for wimps. Real men would jolly well go to Waddington and simply kick the tyres and light the fires - job done!
This simplistic attitude in a profession that should know that going to war in the air means confronting two foes, the enemy and the air! All you have to do to make sure that the latter prevails, before you can even close with the former, is to do nothing. That has been MOD policy for nearly thirty years. The only difference now is that it professes, via its subordinate MAA, to want to change all that. The irony is that now it doesn't know how to, thanks to the thorough demolition of Airworthiness expertise that it presided over.
This isn't just about Rivet Joint, or Nimrod, or Chinook, or Seaking, or Tornado, or Hercules, or indeed any other fleet. It's about all fleets. It's about your fleet. It's about your ability to go to war in the air!
"La, la, la! I can't hear you!"
We don't learn, do we?
This simplistic attitude in a profession that should know that going to war in the air means confronting two foes, the enemy and the air! All you have to do to make sure that the latter prevails, before you can even close with the former, is to do nothing. That has been MOD policy for nearly thirty years. The only difference now is that it professes, via its subordinate MAA, to want to change all that. The irony is that now it doesn't know how to, thanks to the thorough demolition of Airworthiness expertise that it presided over.
This isn't just about Rivet Joint, or Nimrod, or Chinook, or Seaking, or Tornado, or Hercules, or indeed any other fleet. It's about all fleets. It's about your fleet. It's about your ability to go to war in the air!
"La, la, la! I can't hear you!"
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Bristol
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAF Rivet Joint
I Apologise for trivialising this very well informed thread but it has parallels across MOD. Workflow below taken from JSP000 - MOD policy for dummies.
1. Draft a policy without properly assessing the consequences - especially the cost of compliance.
2. Realise that as a country we have outsourced most r&d and de-skilled the procurement element with generalists.
3. Pay a manpower sub to write a risk/safety/security/<add specialism here> case to explain why complying with the policy is a bit difficult.
4. Escalate until you reach the top of the pyramid.
5. GOTO 1.
1. Draft a policy without properly assessing the consequences - especially the cost of compliance.
2. Realise that as a country we have outsourced most r&d and de-skilled the procurement element with generalists.
3. Pay a manpower sub to write a risk/safety/security/<add specialism here> case to explain why complying with the policy is a bit difficult.
4. Escalate until you reach the top of the pyramid.
5. GOTO 1.
RAF Rivet Joint
Did hear at a conference yesterday that it was about to get an emergency clearance for use on ops only, that it would then go out to HERRICK to cover the drawdown, but there was a chance of it being grounded once back to enable the full clearance process to be sorted.
So, it's grounded apart from when it needs to fly?