Ah, Lean systems - work great when you are building a Toyota, tend to be fairly crap elsewhere.

XV277,

You speak the truth, and clearly. LEAN was invented to work in the Japanese manufacturing industry, but it hasn't stopped some from gaining personal recognition and career points by misapplying it to RAF engineering manpower.

Unfortunatly they are now suffering the fall out of thier mistakes in the last few years..... The K is a forgotten child now, spares and manpower are non-existant, shifts are running with 1or 2 lekkys, 1 or 2 fairies, 3-4 sooties and 6-8 riggers and a few AMM's most of the time, and often with no NCO's for a trade.... It ain't gonna get any better I'm afraid :(

AND, the US have started to report skin cracks in their globemasters. Bearing in mind the heavy use our SIX are being put to, how long before a grounding (ps ,i read this in a magazine, i am SOOO up to speed)!!!!

Poor old C130K
 

Reading this slightly ill informed article in "The Telegraph" points me to the government's attitude to trusty old servants that are getting on in years and suffering fatigue.
I'm afraid I'm not terribly hopeful that the fix of a new main spar and update of equipment will ensue.
Look what they have done to alzheimer's patients in the NHS because of cost. They are old and there work has been done. Medication(upgrade) denied
What happened to the Valiant in the 60's. Main spar crack, finished. Put AAR back 10 years.
I would like to think that the 'K' would last till the 400(M) enters service, but I'm afraid that the bean (BEEN) counters will have there way and the 'J' will be overexposed to operational abuse like the 'K' has been and will encounter the same problems around 2014.

Is it not true that the long-term fatigue-testing conducted by any company is only useful or retro-relevant if the Statement of Operating Intent or MAR or RTS is, and always has been, adhered to by an aeroplane's 'operators'.
I refer to the MAR and RTS but surely the SoOI is the lead document by the way.

Is there one for the J yet, and do any on the K fleet have current access to it's own version I wonder?

Rather than further editing - may I add that I've just found this outfit...

http://www.aace.co.uk/adams.php

Can't say I'm terribly impressed though!

I would say that the midden hath hit the windmill in such quantity the windmill now is mired in sh1t and won't even turn.

A valid point, but the good book requires a Fatigue Type Record, Part 2 of which demands “reassessment of fatigue life and damage tolerance in the light of Service usage and fatigue test results” with Part 3 being a “re-assessment of inspection methods shown to be necessary by the Part 2 analysis”. Also, that the IPTL reviews structural integrity measures at least twice every year and retains a permanent record of decisions.

I’m sure MoD has it covered………..



Topbunker

Your comment –re ADAMS is equally valid. I liken this to Risk Registers. They are but one link in the airworthiness and safety chains. Many in MoD think it sufficient to have a populated Risk Register (a list of Risks) and they may even have them classified and mitigation plans drawn up. But implementingthe plans is a quite different thing. That requires no little funding and skill but, frankly, few want to know; if only because people who understand and deal with risks are seen as a hindrance. This lack of implementation is precisely what the Nimrod BoI report reiterated, and is why MoD had to admit liability.

TOPBUNKER

Your comments are true for the K but not quite so for the J. The J's ground maintenance system records all manoeuvres and aircraft state/configuration so that the calculated fatigue usage is far more representative of the actual usage than a "simple" G counts vs Sortie Profile Code estimate.

N Joe

P.S. Cracks found in the Ks and complaints about Lean - is it Groundhog Day?

N Joe,

If only it was that simple.

GMS is Sh1te, initial baseline input from Lockheed is Sh1te, hard landings with a sink rate of -5200 feet per minute(!) add massive figures to the incorrect numbers in the GMS.

Couple that with the unlogged and unknown baseline on some of the fleet, and there is a mess waiting to happen.

ZH

hard landings?
 

What about overweight landings and T/Os (up to max overload) for weeks/months at a time?
What about high-speed taxying turns at high AUW?

I would like to think that the fatigue engineers take those into account too.....?

Flip

Mmm, what chance an attrition buy of Js to cover until the A400M comes along.....


Answers on a two letter postcard to.....

875 - Never claimed GMS was simple or perfect. But having worked on a variety of (older)aircraft types, and spent a (thankfully brief) time at Swampy Mortuary, the J's fatigue system is still the best I've seen. I've seen potential overstress data downloaded, sent to the manufacturer, analysed and reported back in time for the aircraft to make the next day's programme - that would have been impossible on all the other systems.

Flipster - As I understand it, the GMS stops monitoring loads when the weight-on-wheels kicks in so taxy loads won't be included (am prepared to be corrected on this). And Lockheed will take into account everything that you tell them.

N Joe

There are a few v.old C130's falling apart in Tan Son Nhat, Vietnam.

The C130s are on Google Earth

lat=10.8089410003, lon=106.658724501

A night out in Ho Chi Minh sounds lovely

Hallf a dozen more here:

10.182351 N 123.582212E

On Google Maps shows: Mactan Airport, Philippines - near Cebu City. (makes sense given your noted location.)
10.307863 N, 123.973315 E