GAF has too many Christmas trees
Red On, Green On
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
GAF has too many Christmas trees
Der Spiegel claims GAF has few working aircraft and relies on hangar queens for parts:
German fighter jets unable to fly and mechanics forced to borrow spare parts, claims magazine - Telegraph
German fighter jets unable to fly and mechanics forced to borrow spare parts, claims magazine - Telegraph
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Temporarily missing from the Joe Louis Arena
Posts: 2,131
Received 27 Likes
on
16 Posts
"O Tannenbaum, o Tannenbaum,
wie treu sind deine Blätter......."
wie treu sind deine Blätter......."
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting they're supposedly borrowing parts to "save" money. All this in fact does is treble the manpower bill when the part has later to be removed and refitted to the donor, still leaving the original job.
Nothing new here, move along please.
"Robbing" was all part of the job in the RAF, at least when I served on 43 Squadron (`70s), everything replaceable would be robbed to increase the overall squadron serviceability due to spare part shortages, especially avionics.
Often finished up with one "Hangar Queen" that looked like a skeleton in the corner of the hangar. That included robbing Spey engines, not the quickest component to move to another airframe. any black boxes, Air Data Computers, Gyro platforms, all part of the service. Nothing has changed really.
"Robbing" was all part of the job in the RAF, at least when I served on 43 Squadron (`70s), everything replaceable would be robbed to increase the overall squadron serviceability due to spare part shortages, especially avionics.
Often finished up with one "Hangar Queen" that looked like a skeleton in the corner of the hangar. That included robbing Spey engines, not the quickest component to move to another airframe. any black boxes, Air Data Computers, Gyro platforms, all part of the service. Nothing has changed really.
And the wheel, she continues to turn.
Providing an engineering solution to a supply issue.
Latterly it was renamed 'Cannibalization' (A rose, by any other name).
A further problem with this process was the inherent issue of protracted functional checks associated after fitting the replacement item...
Providing an engineering solution to a supply issue.
Latterly it was renamed 'Cannibalization' (A rose, by any other name).
A further problem with this process was the inherent issue of protracted functional checks associated after fitting the replacement item...
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ShotOne, why remove and refit the 'borrowed' part onto the 'doner' instead of just fitting the new part to it?
Of course in a perfect world there would be a whole shelf full of every spare needed in the Tech Stores thus preventing the hangar queens, maybe the hangar queen should be struck off Sqn Strength and added to the Type IPT's strength while it's awaiting them to source the missing bits?
Of course in a perfect world there would be a whole shelf full of every spare needed in the Tech Stores thus preventing the hangar queens, maybe the hangar queen should be struck off Sqn Strength and added to the Type IPT's strength while it's awaiting them to source the missing bits?
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Nothing new..." Perhaps not, but if the numbers are half as bad as stated, surely worthy of debate?
It's not even saving money...why not just buy 1/3 the number of airframes and enough spares.
It's not even saving money...why not just buy 1/3 the number of airframes and enough spares.
why remove and refit the 'borrowed' part onto the 'doner' instead of just fitting the new part to it?
Of course in a perfect world there would be a whole shelf full of every spare needed in the Tech Stores thus preventing the hangar queens, maybe the hangar queen should be struck off Sqn Strength and added to the Type IPT's strength while it's awaiting them to source the missing bits?
why not just buy 1/3 the number of airframes and enough spares
Spares are never sexy enough to be be properly addressed in procurement programs. Programs are mostly for hardware, and routinely under-address spares. Purchace cost vs. life cycle costs, and both are usually low balled. Bean counters hate to pay for stuff sitting on the shelf, and full life cycle costs are rarely built into programs. Winning the bid on the initial build is only half the victory and may be a wash profit wise, the real money comes from follow on orders, upgades and maintence support (both routine and depot level work) Even more so if you hold the codes and the rights on any work- you have the customer over the barrel.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Closer than you think...
Age: 65
Posts: 390
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aye, I get the xmas tree bit, had more than one part of something myself in the past but I was questioning the extra work to remove a just fitted part to put it back from where it came from when It would seem less work to leave it where it is and simply fit the new part to the doner.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: London, New York, Paris, Moscow.
Posts: 3,632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Always a Sapper Aye, I get the xmas tree bit, had more than one part of something myself in the past but I was questioning the extra work to remove a just fitted part to put it back from where it came from when It would seem less work to leave it where it is and simply fit the new part to the doner.
I remember in the 70's an RAF Puma that was Stored at Fleetlands, it probably had about 50 hrs on it in total, but was a bare shell minus everything including the tail boom aft of the fuselage. BTW, it did fly again.
At Brize on the Ten's I felt sorry for the guys in base on major inspections as we would often rob bits off them at night, that or the war reserve spares.
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sussex By The Sea
Age: 79
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember in early 80's the GAO took the DoD to task over this very topic across all 3 services. The extreme case was the USAF wing which had canibalised a whole squadron, while still declaring it as operational on the ORBAT. The aircrew ISTR were spread across the other squadrons on the wing.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Deepest darkest London
Posts: 258
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On one of many visits I had around a certain windswept airfield on the Lincolnshire Wolds, during the 1980s.
The ASSF was full of Christmas trees, mind you I presume it helps if you fill in the paperwork to say what you took off
V1
The ASSF was full of Christmas trees, mind you I presume it helps if you fill in the paperwork to say what you took off
V1
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: by the Great Salt Lake, USA
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Exactly - we never had to return a part to its original aircraft because:
1. parts are not permanently assigned to aircraft.
2. there is a formal process in the US military (USN & USMC, at least) for cannibalization of parts - there is a specific maintenance code for the action, and a specific and simple process to transfer the unfilled parts order from the original aircraft to the aircraft cannibalized from. Then, when the part comes in, it is simply installed on the "hangar queen", and all is good.
1. parts are not permanently assigned to aircraft.
2. there is a formal process in the US military (USN & USMC, at least) for cannibalization of parts - there is a specific maintenance code for the action, and a specific and simple process to transfer the unfilled parts order from the original aircraft to the aircraft cannibalized from. Then, when the part comes in, it is simply installed on the "hangar queen", and all is good.
This wondrous engineering practice was once described by a colleague as "Borrowing the tyres off your mate's car to get yours through the MoT"...
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Even if the part doesn't have to be replaced on the donor (or doner) aircraft it's still double the man hours , plus paperwork. And there are situations where it's a requirement to restore the originals. Of course it happens, just that it's not, by any stretch, a money saver.
Some years ago the RAAF had quite a few Hornets sitting around awaiting engines [overhauls and repairs]. This was caused by our material mob not pre-ordering enough spares. One cannot snap fingers and acquire parts and components. the OEM's don't hold warehouses full of bits due to cost etc. Xmas treeing aircraft has been around since the Wright Bros. The airlines swap parts or take bits off others on the line or in maintenance all the time.
if there was a perfectly good replacement part sitting on the shelf, then the techies would grab it first- lot's less work. The problem is the part is NOT on the shelf when it is needed.
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The airlines swap parts...take bits off others..." True, but they a) are usually required to be returned to donor aircraft due leasehold legalities and b) someone has to explain and justify the extra cost of the manhours.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,071
Received 2,939 Likes
on
1,252 Posts
Plus you then have to update the all the component hours, lessors I can agree with as you could get less scrupulous companies putting high houred components on the one being returned.
The one I could never get my head around was the 1/2 life component exchange that we did on the Royal Flight VC10's, I could see the reasoning behind no components over half life etc, but when you have 4 serviceable engines with a trend log to back up their reliability, pulling one, two or even on one occasion three engines and replacing them with lower houred unknown engines from the bay seemed barking to me.
The one I could never get my head around was the 1/2 life component exchange that we did on the Royal Flight VC10's, I could see the reasoning behind no components over half life etc, but when you have 4 serviceable engines with a trend log to back up their reliability, pulling one, two or even on one occasion three engines and replacing them with lower houred unknown engines from the bay seemed barking to me.