Centralised Engineering At Lyneham
 

This may have been covered already. What do people think about the new centralised engineering at Lyneham. One question I have, what was the point if the J's are moving in the future.

Back in, I think it was around 1972, I went to Lyneham as a UAS APO on attachment and was told what a crock of $hit the idea of centralised servicing had proved to be. Everyone hated it, there was no improvement in serviceability and it had destroyed squadron life and identity for the groundcrew.

Does history teach us nothing?

pretty sure the aussies gave it a go when they got the j. also pretty sure that they have since seen the error of their ways and gone back to separate engineering. maybe we will learn for ourselves in about 3 or 4 years. sengo trying to make a name for herself methinks.:(

Just to make sure guys understand what this is about.

This is not just centralised servicing for one fleet, we have had that & all its problems for years.

We are talking about centralised "mixed fleet" servicing for many engineering functions to "Improve our Efficiency"

How it makes sense for cross-type servicing I will never know.

I hope the lines Work to Rule to show OC ENG what a bag of S***e it all is, rather than try to get around all the problems.

Having worked with a lot of the groundcrew on Det, I have a huge amount of respect for the work they do. I wish the powers-that-be would listen to their advice sometimes, and stop thinking they know best - they clearly do not.

I am sure, like a lot of GC's and GE's I have spoken this idea is madness, and is your standard "wheel re invention" to get someone promoted push...........but once she, correction "someone" has gone they will not give the preverbial toss:yuk:

Anyone one yet been met by the "specialist rovin team"? Thoughts please:ok:

Nice to see "someone" has taken the GE's needs into account..........:}

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Centralised Maintenance
 

Gents et al,

This may be news to some but not to others. It is highly likely that ALL RAF aircraft engineering is going this way. Centralised Maintenance Units are certainly being mooted at Marham under the LEAN / E2E and will probably happen next year, although it is allegedly only a low-down proposal.

I for one and many of my oppo's feel quite strongly about our squadron and take a great deal of pride serving on it and being part of its achievements. Groundcrew ARE proud when THEIR aircrew do well at something, and likewise deflated when they don't. The squadron system is what the RAF is all about, and always has been. Could I even be so crass and cheeky as to say that the squadron possibly means more to GC because they tend to stay on it longer than AC?

If all the engineering goes Centralised, I personally think it could be the biggest self-inflicted mistake the RAF could make. For instance, why would the vast majority of GC give a toss if the "flying squadron" achieve their CFT each month or not? Doesn't affect me, it's not my sqn anymore.

Another instance: take the sqn/station Families Day - we feel a buzz if we manage to successfully launch the 4-ship and spare for the flypast, especially when our families see OUR jets doing their thing. You all know what I mean. PRIDE. Again, why would we give a toss if they weren't anything to do with us?

All I see with this proposal/certainty is reduced availability for you fliers due to lack of morale and interest. Don't think standards will drop, but motivation will. Why work till 4am to generate a spare jet for the programme, when I can work till 2, give you the minimum and if you drop a sortie due to crew-out, thats tough.

Guys and girls with growbags:- if you empathise with my views here, YOU are the people who can probably put a stop to this centralised nonsense; nobody listens to Blunties but everyone listens to aircrew. I believe if enough aircrew with a bit of rank make enough noise, then the proposal could be quashed, while people still care. From conversations I've had with mates at Brize/Lyneham, CMU's don't have an feeling of identity or pride- is that why our AT availability is poor?

Yes, this IS my soapbox subject, it's one I strongly believe in fighting for. Despite what one of my EngO's thinks, I am not "resistant to change", I just know a good thing when I see it. And a crap thing.

If you're a champion of Centralised Groundcrew, do tell us why ripping the heart out of our system is a good idea. :mad:

I'm still not sure a lot of guys are getting this.

What Lyneham is getting, is in effect, centralised servicing for Tornado's and Jag's!!!(eg 2 different types)

OC Eng is effectively creating a SuperVASS, where experience and knowledge count for nothing.

I hope she can sleep easy in her castle when the first major f/up happens - which it is bound to in such an abysmal system.

Jobza,

Head, nail, hit.

Well said mate.

When K****n R******k forced such a system on the Covert Oxonian Aerodrome, everyone suffered. Squadrons lost identity, the 'menders' were relocated over 2 miles from the 'benders' - and all the hard work of building up standards of excellence on the individual squadrons was thrown out of the window thanks to this so-called 'management initiative'....:yuk: . Serviceability became ever worse, team morale plummeted (folks who would previously have sold their granny to get a posting to the stn now did anything to avoid it) - everyone hated it. Great; task, team and individual needs all suffered..... To sum it up, a young ex-C130 Air Engineer on the VC10 said that his first year was the best posting he'd ever had; his second year was the worst he'd ever had and he'd do anything to get back to the C130.... I think he later PVR'd.

So now there's some new smart acronym around the bazaars to disguise yet more cuts, is there?

Such is progress.

If you want dedicated service from your groundcrew, you must dedicate them to their aircraft. And you probably have to dedicate the aircraft to the crews.

It was A Line and B Line in my day. It was only when I reached 1312 Flight, with its own aircraft and its own groundcrew that I saw just what could be done to sort out those snags that are written up 'NFF'.

I remember a Greenie working for hours to sort out a radar snag and not fixing it and trying something else after the next sortie - and going through that procedure about four times before establishing it wasn't electronic at all, it was mechanical and to do with the scanning mechanism.

About 2 years later, when I was SNavO, Wg Cdr Ops asked me what I thought of a proposal to reduce the scan from 180 degrees to 120 degrees in order to prevent damage to the mechanism. The entire fleet had been suffering from ropey scan patterns and no-one had taken the trouble to really sort it out until this JT got his teeth into it at Stanley.

I believe the plan is to assign a Chief Tech to have his 'own' aircraft. He alone is responsible for it's serviceability and for drawing the team of teccies to sort out any snags.

The fact that we don't have even half the required CT's at Lye to do this gives you an idea of its chances of success :ok:

Must reiterate the plea from Jobza Guddun: there must be a few PPRuNe readers who have been involved with the E2E review and implementation (Marham esp springs to mind). Give us some justification for the move away from sqn-based maintenance. This is probably an ideal forum to help convince us sceptics!

As an ex-sqn EngO myself, I am extremely doubtful that the benefits of centralisation will outweigh the (often unquantifiable) advantages of sqn-based operations. On my sqn, every single member of the groundcrew took pride in being part of the sqn and as mentioned earlier, at 0400 in the morning this means a lot when deciding to go that extra mile to fix the jets. It certainly wasn't due to inspired leadership from me!!

(PS. We could do without the personal attacks from the start of this thread tho'.)

Edited for sp

There is absolutely NO benefit whatever in centrallised servicing - except for the bean counters. Serviceability rates invariably suffer, esprit de corps vanishes out of the window - all of which was learned back in the '60s and '70s. But the idiots at the top just don't care if it'll save them paying for a few extra posts......

As one of HMQ's fliers what scares me most is the dilution of excellance we have so far come to expect, and recieve, from our "type" dedicated groundcrew. Now that we are mixing our "J" and "K" bretheren how long will it be before we start asking them to do the "odd job" they are not really qualified to do? How long before some poor b@astard has a serious ground, or even worse AIR, incident!

In my techie days you did a "q" course to work on a specific type and now as aircrew, with a few notable exceptions, you qualify on ONE type and thats all you operate! Where is the sense in any of this mix and match madness.

Scary times for someone of my ripe old age:mad:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

This is what happens when you put a bird in charge of boy's toys.

;-D

16B

You will go straigh to hell for that one:p

But can't fault your logic:ok:

all spelling mistakes are "df" alcohol induced

Hi all
My 2d worth...It reads like their Airships are trying to introduce airline practice and/or JAR 145/66 by the backdoor and getting it wrong.....we had a guy try the same in the early 90s in our little Fuerza Aerea over here.For once, the spanner-wielders and the fliers united,unofficially, and stonewalled the process. The heli guys didn't want the unwashed from turboprop land fettling their beloved rotors, and vice versa.The process was allowed to fade away.....the downside of individuality was duplication, with two seperate radio/avionic shops and other multiplied facilities, that weren't strictly necessary on one site. Up to a point, I agree with a lot of the correspondents here, but I think airline-style multi-typing and multi-tasking will be brought in, like it or lump it. For example, our division of the national Airline has had five different Types in 21 years, often simultaneously, as one was introduced and the other phased out. It was and is expected that we adapt to all sizes and shapes, regardless. Our airline used to be crippled with antiquated union practices and jobsworthism ( mechs not allowed to change lights....avos can't change wheels,etc) that dragged us down, not helped us grow and survive. To a certain extent, those old practises are still prevalent in our Military and their servicability rates are often appalling. Also, I wouldn't like to be stuck on one Type for all of my career. If I was told by the Boss that I'd be a Jag-fixer til I fell out of the food-chain, I'd go spare. Same if I was a pilot, Military or Commercial. Perhaps there is a case for centralisation,at some level.Certainly, there is no case for not-around-hereism or stagnation of any kind.
regards
TDD

Been there, done that, worked with centralised servicing both in the RAF and in the USAF and it didn't work for either service near as well as squadron servicing. In fact, the only way it was made to work at all was to identify squadrons with particular sections of the 'factory' so that air and ground crew could develop a sense of corporate identity.

So sad to see the lessons so hard learned so easily forgotten.

I have yet to speak to ANYONE here who thinks this is a good idea.

What I do want to know is why nobody actually stood up and said

"No, I won't let you do this. There is no reason other than self, and it will not work."

Is OC Eng really that powerfull?

Or is it that as usual, the Officers make their decisions, and bugger off on their next posting leaving the groundcrew to pick up the pieces?

Rumour control says it's already failing, with tasks missed and aircraft flying with open entries...

A change is as good* as an improvement. If you're looking for promotion, that is.......

* If not better..