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..

Prior to 1970, Lyneham had centralised Line and Base servicing for the Britannias and Comets. After 216 Sqn got its own eng flt comprising elements of the old strat line and base support sqns the availablility of the Comets increased markedly. The ground crew were more motivated and happier too.

Interestingly, there had been no effort to include the C130K servicing within the Britannia and Comet centralised organization, 24, 36, 30, 47, 48 and 70 Sqns were supported by 2 Line Support Squadrons, LSS A and LSS B.

There seem to be 2 main themes running here.

The first is the issue of having 1st line engineering tasks for several squadrons being subsumed into a central organisation. This would lead to the removal of groundcrew personnel from flying sqns and seems to be universally regarded as worse than bad.

The second is that of 2nd line tasks being centralised for different aircraft types. In my view, this is a workable, and (depending on the circumstances) sensible way forward. Similarly, I can appreciate the move to avoid duplicating 2nd line facilities at separate bases (eg Tornado GR4 bits at Los/Mar or generic Tornado bits for all the stns). Again, PROVIDING the supply sytem is sufficiently primed to take care of the pipeline time involved, this could also be a "good thing".

IMHO, we shouldn't let our universal distaste for the first option blind us to the benefits of the second.

Comments?

Quite correct RLE, and that is what is going to happen in the GR4 Force.

The 2nd Line aspect won't be a major problem, but where Lyneham is concerned, I think it'll take longer to put an aircraft through a servicing because people won't be as familiar with "the other type". We can all use manuals if we don't know something, it just takes longer. However, will the system cope after Multi-skilling when there are only slightly more than half the number of techies?

It's the 1st Line bit of centralisation which is the problem, and I'm so pleased that many of the aircrew Ppruners views correspond with my own. How can a system which blatantly doesn't work at Brize be any use anywhere else? (Don't know about Lyneham).

I don't see why 1 SEngO, 2 JEngO's and a wobbly can't manage 2 sqns worth, leave the FS's downwards embedded in their own sqn;.at least that way pride and esprit de corps would be largely unaffected and people would still give a stuff - that's what keeps most of us going after all.

I fully agree with BEagle's comments about Brize; from an eng. point of view, the VC10 sqns, esp. 101, were always well worth a posting, now most wouldn't touch 10/101 with a long thin boating implement. Don't mind long hours, lotsa work etc but when you don't feel part of the team anymore what's the point?

Hopefully some of you guys might be able to point your EngO colleagues in the direction of this thread, and if some of them take notice and change their viewpoints, it's worth it. Some of them might even openly oppose the party line,ooooohhh. :uhoh:

Some quality Mess chest-poking might bear fruit, too. (especially if you live at Marham as there's a Wg Cdr there with a big position in the game!). :}

CAS are you listening? Don't let them chop squadrons to bits!!

Thanks all
JG

Surely the whole argument that lay behind the formation of 24/30 (Engineering) Squadron and 47/70 (Engineering) Squadron from what was A and B Line Servicing Squadrons at Rompers Green was to bring aircrew and groundcrew closer together to improve morale and espirit de corps?
Is this total 180 degree turn yet another condemnation of the RAF/MoD postings policy? OC Eng desperate to be seen to succeed, sweep out the old, in with the new, all to be noticed in their one chance of making Gp Capt? Success then means the next poor sod has to do something equally radical and so the circle goes round and round.

I saw this in the early days of the FGR2 in what was then Air Support Command, Coningsby was initially going to be centralised servicing with no squadron identities on aircraft or for groundcrew, as per the majority of the AT fleet at the time and as the V-force then was.
Something changed the minds of the powers that be at Upavon, though it took a little longer to persuade them of the need for formation flying practice at Squadron level!

Someone also sat up and took notice on the Vulcan squadrons as they all changed back to squadron groundcrew and dedicated aircraft, why does this always seem to happen??

Well, when I was a young 'wet-behind-the ears' sprog freshly posted to Scampton in errrmm....'64, the Vulcans had centralised servicing at 1st and 2nd Line. Working on E Dispersal, there was little contact with the aircrew and any association with Sqn pride etc was non-existent. Didn't stop us achieving the best serviceability levels that we could or taking pride in launching 4-ships from Kinloss QRA pans on Mickey Finns. Mind you, when the hooter went at 5.00am, you really did not know (for 4 minutes) whether to rush to the dispersal or wait for the mushroom cloud. But I digress.

At 1st Line level, to engender the Sqn spirit and to work as a close knit team in achieving the best levels of service and support requires aircraft and groundcrew to be firmly allocated to a Sqn. It also requires the aircrew to be full participants in the process and not to be stand-offish, as can (or did) happen. 2nd Line is different, due to the need to make maximum utilisation of the high cost resources needed, and to avoid expensive duplications.

So - centralised servicing = 1st Line bad, 2nd Line good (well, workable).

Lyneham Lad,

Do you happen to know why the V force abandoned centralised 1st Line and returned to squadron groundcrew with their own aircraft?
Surely if it was a success it would have continued, or was there a new OC Eng at 1 Group.............................

Pr00ne

Pr00ne,

Probably because it all fell apart after I left (when I was forced to leave the delights of Lincolnshire and go, kicking and screaming, to hot & sweaty Seletar). Gawd, wot a shock, exchanging the mighty Vulcan for single and twin Pioneers.

That aside, you are probably right that is was yet another new chappie trying to make a name for himself.

What's the general feeling at those stns that already have centralised 1st line servicing? Having never worked transport, AWACS and the like I simply don"t know.

Is everyone happy with the status quo or is there any desire to go back towards a "traditional" sqn setup?

It's a $hite idea.......

I think some of the point has been missed here by those not familiar with Lyneham's eng setup.

Lyneham has NEVER had Sqn-based engineering - it has always been centralised. Eng Wg was, and still is, a separate entity to the Fg Sqns, from OC Eng right down to all the LACs.

The fact that Sqn based engineering works better has little to do with esprit de corps - it has more to do with the fact that Sqn JEngOs report directly to the Sqn Cdr, and can be dragged into his office to explain themselves when ac fall over. At Lyneham, JEngOs, SEngOs and OC Eng Wg don't give a sh1t if XX Sqn loses a task due to ac unserviceability, because they are not accountable directly to the Sqns, therefore do not get bollocked for slacking off or fcuking up (in the Sqn's eyes).

In modern, NMS, cuddly-fluffy business-like speak, we (the Sqns)are their 'customers' (-chokes back vomit) and as such should expect to recieve a minimum level of service. But what if we don't? Where do we go to complain? There is no direct command-chain link between us and the engineers, so when we complain, we get 'fcuking aircrew, blah blah blah'. If there WERE a direct command-chain link, a Sqn Cdr could say to his JEngO "Get this fcuking aircraft fixed", and it would happen. THATS why it works better that way.

We have always had 2 1st lines at Lyneham; when the fleet split, they were renamed 'K-line' and 'J-line' to represent the split fleet. What they are now doing is combining them for mixed-type servicing, presumably having everybody (or at least enough of the workforce) dual-qualified.

Like others have said already, a stupid idea. Unfortunately, it is an even more stupid idea than the original setup, which was already a stupid idea.

I have already been on the recieving end of this idiocy - delayed 2 hours due to some of the shoddiest servicing and associated paperwork I have seen in double-digit service.

Women - Know Your Limits!!!!!!!!!! ;-D

16B

Hold the personal abuse...
 

Anyone who believes that OC Eng at Lyneham is solely and personally responsible for this change is seriously deluded - and there seem to be a significant number of individuals in that category. If you want to blame anything, blame a system that, despite claims of 'real terms' budget increases, is seeing its spending power reduced year-on-year by rampant inflation in the defence industry and, as a result, is being forced to make some difficult choices. Stations are expected to find 'efficiency measures' by Groups, driven by Strike, driven by the Centre, driven by the Treasury. Easiesy way to efficiency measures is by cutting manpower, Eng Wg = biggest manpower pool = easiest target. I have no doubt that the changes that have taken place will have been discussed (and reluctantly agreed) by the Station Management Board (including the sqn cdrs), with endorsement from Group and Strike. OC Eng is the poor individual who has to make it happen - I know, I've been in a similar situation myself, trying to drive through a change (with which I personally did not agree) against massive resistance. While you may not agree with the changes that have been made, has anyone considered that OC Eng may also not agree, but has been put in the position of driving the change through regardless? I think some of you need to look at your posts and consider that abuse of Lyneham's OC Eng, as a small cog in a big machine, is actually inappropriate.

For what it's worth, given the choice (and many don't have it) and the fact I've experienced both, I'd rather be on a sqn - but that doesn't mean that centralised servicing can't work. I have also been at Waddington, where centralised servicing of Sentry was implemented at the start and, because nobody knew any different, it worked very well. Given time and a bit of understanding, so might Lyneham...

16B - there is a direct command chain link, it's just stepped up a level to the Staish, who I'm sure takes a great deal of interest in what his sqn cdrs tell him and would call OC Eng in if he felt it necessary.

True - it's highly unlikely that this idea was the brainchild of the OC Eng in question. More likely to have been imposed from on high - and the unfortunate OC Eng has been left to get on with it.

The intangible asset of well-motivated sqn groundies is something which anonymous bean counters cannot enter onto their wretched balance sheets though.

I've been and had a look around the 'new' Eng setup, and I can't recall a single more retrograde step than this idea. People who DON'T KNOW about the aircraft they have to make decisions on being put under heavy pressure to achieve servicability rates.

As to 'leave OC Eng alone it's not really up to her' .... what was the job title again? :hmm: This is an incredibly poorly implemented foolish idea, with the opinions of the SNCOs on the line totally ignored. The result - I have never seen a more dis-spirited bunch of people than the personnel she is meant to be be leading, nor a more shambolic engineering line (despite the enormous efforts of the SNCOs et al. to keep things safe).

I take issue with the statement by 16 Blades that Lyneham has never had sqn based engineering. In 1970, elements of the Strat Line Servicing Squadron and the Comet Scheduled Servicing Flight element of Base Support Squadron were amalgamated into 216 Sqn Engineering Flight. 216 Sqn was then responsible for 1st 2nd and 3rd line servicing of its own aircraft until disbanded in 1975.

Sorry for posting my thoughts here.

I was told about this forum via a friend who is in the same boat as me, her husband is also a member of HLS, and going through the same thing as mine. My husband is an Engineer on the newly formed HLS at lyneham and in 20 years of him being the the RAF I have never once had him say "I dont want to go to work" until now. He is constantly short tempered and cannot sleep while he is on shift due to the stress this new system is putting on him.

This system was also implemented just before Christmas which meant that the usual xmas spirit has been non existant. Plus, no leave was allowed due to the swapping of shifts etc which has seriously dented the moral of the few lads I have met since this was started. They all felt proud of their respected squadrons when they found a Squadron identity when the J's and K's got a number (24/30eng and 47/70eng) but again, they have been made to sound like quick fit fitters again with a title 'HLS' which the lads have named 'Hercules Laughing Stock'

My husband feels that he has no direction and cannot lead his men due to the fact that this radical change of the usual working practise means everyone feels lost. He feels that he no longer belongs and that the new system leaves the Sgt's feeling useless as their lads come to them for information, but they cannot provide it as they are out of the loop as they are not trade managers anymore.

As for the posts here about working both aeroplanes it isnt whats happening as my husband says the aircraft are so radically different that its impossible for the lads to work on each others aircraft without specialist training.

My husband has been on Squadrons thoughout his career and it always made him proud. It was amazing that being on a Squadron gave them all an identity which bred pride and comaradery which kept the lads chins up even when the chips were down. Lyneham is the first place Ive heard of in 16 years of being an Air Force wife where the ground crew and aircrew are two seperate entities and it shows in the moral and the identity of the lads. They now have no pride, no interest, no moral, and most of all no clue of whats going on (as no formal briefings were held to inform Sgts and below on what was going on)......and thats from someone who see's the lads and lasses from the outside.

Like I said, I'm sorry for posting this but I have been so worried about my husband and the things that have been going on. All I hope is that thing don't get so bad that we have an accident where someone is killed because of a system that has been rushed into place for no apparent reason.

Point taken, izod. I stand corrected.

What I should have said was the Hercules fleet at Lyneham has never had centralised servicing.

Maintainer,

Using that logic, there is a direct Cmd Chain link between everybody in the RAF and everybody else. What I meant was a direct link at Sqn level. Once you get above the level of the front line operators, priorities become diluted and the message is lost.

16B

from lynehamwife I should hope not, people are on shift to work, not sleep. Its people sleeping on shift that are letting the side down, imagine how much more work would get done, if people stayed awake at work.

Sorry for your miss-interpreted reponse

My husband does not sleep 'On shift' He is too busy working.

A shift is the 4 days he is on. In other words, he cannot sleep while he is supposed to be sleeping off.

Having a name like that you should understand that off shift means your on your 4 days off. Are you the same person posting on the lyneham village website, as you also had a go at a young SAC there for voicing his concerns......what was the response? "Its young idiots like you that make the RAF what it is today" there as well. I won't go into what you said after that, it might get edited by the site administator.

Please try to make constructive points when posting on forums instead of stupid digs. Instead of being sarcastic, you could have asked if I meant that he slept whilst at work.

LynehamWife

No need to apologise about posting here. Your thoughts on this subject are most welcome.

I fear the current feelings of your husband are repeated in many homes across the station.

If you find many of your friends are saying similar things, it might be worth trying to get your points across to the senior management on station if you get an opportunity - Hive, mess function, etc.

It is sad, but sometimes it is much easier for the wives to speak to the higher echelons, as they feel no rank structure.

Just so you know, the aircrew on station are dead against this as well. None of the senior line pilots I know were consulted at all, and most of us only found out about it at the 11th hour on the rumor mill.

I agree totally about the lack of Sqn identity. The only good thing to have come out of OP TELIC is the techie mates I have made whilst on det. The togetherness out there shows how it can be done.

I shall watch out for any more posts from you. It makes a pleasant change from some of the vindictive drivel we see on here.

P-T-G

lynehamwife

The reason your husband is acting this way is because his is a proffesional engineer who takes pride in his work.

For which he will get no reward.

If he hasn’t worked it out for himself already – he needs to care a little less about the flying program.

The time has never been better for a ‘work to rule’. When morale is low, and there is no motivation, there is no reason to make an extra effort.

Don’t cut any corners, don’t miss any meal breaks, don’t compronise on safety. Look after the young lads and gals below you. Imagine how bewildered they are. Your only focus is your shift Flt Sgt and JENGO…and shift change. And family.

For too long the engineering world has been a ‘can do’ outfit. I know of no other trade that will work a 12 hour shift in the pissing rain without a proper meal break.

The grown ups work on bar charts, graphs and budgets. Let them worry about the things that they are paid handsomely for.

Happy Christmas