Value for Money Review - Maintanance of DF aircraft

[DeV]

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/do...2571CA00340B3D

Value for Money (VFM) Reviews

Expenditure Review - Maintenance of Aircraft in the Air Corps

Military personnel from the Army and the Air Corps, and civilian personnel from the Department of Defence produced this Expenditure Review of Maintenance of Aircraft in the Air Corps. This review topic was approved by Government for inclusion in the 2002 – 2004 programme of expenditure reviews.

The two key performance indicators for the Air Corp Maintenance function are the aircraft serviceability rate and the maintenance cost per hour. The serviceability rates varied over the reporting period. The age and diversity of the fleet were significant factors to the variation. The maintenance cost per hour varies according to each aircraft. The older aircraft are significantly more expensive to maintain.

At the end of 2003 the Air Corps were operating thirteen and maintaining eleven different aircraft types. Aircraft purchased prior to 1980 delivered 45% of flying hours. There are significant savings to be made from operating a reduced number of modern aircraft types. The retention of the Alouette helicopters alone, instead of their modern equivalent has increased maintenance costs by approximately €5.1 million in the last ten years. (At 2002 costs)

Air Corps aircraft are maintained to manufacturer’s requirements, which are sometimes adapted for the specific roles of some aircraft. The quality of the maintenance and the resulting safety standards are maintained to a high level.

The amount of contracted maintenance increased by almost 100% between 1998 and 2002 without a corresponding increase in serviceability rates. This is due in part to the difficulties in sourcing spares for the older aircraft, and the uniqueness of some of the Air Corps aircraft, on which Air Corps personnel have the most experience.

Aircraft maintenance performed in-house can be completed in less man-hours than contracted organisations, but because of skills shortages, difficulties with the availability of spares and the fact that the majority of maintenance is performed during normal working hours, the turn around times for maintenance checks can be compromised. Insufficient performance data is kept to facilitate labour productivity analysis.

The organisational structure of the aircraft maintenance function is based on a fleet of seven modern aircraft types that is, as yet, an unrealised fleet configuration. Within that structure there is no Officer accountable to GOC Air Corps for the performance of the maintenance function. Some of the maintenance squadrons are considerably understaffed. This is partly attributable to a decision, which culminated in no apprentice intakes for 1997 and 1998. This has meant that, allowing for technicians working in support in the aircraft workshops, in the Technical Training School and support functions, there only remains between 38 and 44 personnel, out of 277, available to participate in maintenance crews in the hangars.

The diversity of the fleet has resulted in higher stock levels and a high number of suppliers, which is both uneconomic and inefficient. This is compounded by the lack of a fleet replacement policy, which has hindered the adoption of an effective stock holding policy, consequently leading to an overuse of the more expensive Aircraft on Ground (AOG) purchasing system.

Aircraft Serviceability & Maintanance Cost per hour (2003):
GIV 81% €1555
CASA 75% €918
Beechcraft 76% €714
Marchetti 52% €570
Cessna 61% €213
Defender 82% €520
A III 41% €877
Gazelle 35% €1118
Dauphin 57% €1635
Squirrel 66% €580

[Goldie fish]

http://www.defence.ie/website.nsf/do...2571CA00340B3D

Aircraft Serviceability & Maintanance Cost per hour (2003):
GIV 81% €1555
CASA 75% €918
Beechcraft 76% €714
Marchetti 52% €570
Cessna 61% €213
Defender 82% €520
A III 41% €877
Gazelle 35% €1118
Dauphin 57% €1635
Squirrel 66% €580

And this is exactly why we don't want to hang onto these types. At least you get 85% availability for the G-IV at €1555/hour

[DeV]

It should be noted that (in general) helicopters are more labour intensive and expensive to maintain that fixed wing aircraft.

[Boomer]

It should be noted that (in general) helicopters are more labour intensive and expensive to maintain that fixed wing aircraft.

True but compare them to the AIII... Huge difference in the figures, mind that is of course most likely related to the electronics in the aircraft

[Vmax]

Aircraft serviceability figures look p#*s poor at face value.The cessna's are a simple aircraft to maintain and wouldn't be worked too hard, compared to similar planes used at a flight school not a stones throw away, 61%???? that has to be wrong!!!. Looking at those figures I'm surprised any operation gets completed, just as well it isn't a business then:wink:.

I have been told for example coast guard heli serviceability is around the 99 to 100% mark, thats on heli's ranging in age from 30 to 44 yrs old.

Maybe its just the military way:confused:

[Goldie fish]

I think much of it is down to them working 9 to 5(ish) while similar civilian operations would continue either on overtime or shift work.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi all
There's no comparison between AC maintenance and civvie maintenance...civvies are more efficient, more adaptable and turn out better servicability, full stop. Donners work (!) from 0900 to 1630, including three lunch breaks, are tied to two air legislation systems(the Dons' and the outside worlds), have a heavily-unionised stores set-up(spring-loaded to the strike position), have a creaking inspectoral system, have only a partial out-of-hours maintenance service and have a layer of oul sweats who don't want to be disturbed from a deep sleep til pension time...their overhaul times are a sad joke, graphically illustrated in the Marchetti days when the Don contracted out Marchetti overhauls to Irish Helis. The result was that two civvies, operating on a 12-hour day cycle, reduced the duration of the IRAN major overhaul from 9 months to six-eight weeks. they repeated the job on six aircraft, just to show that it wasn't a one-off...the Don is too rigidly tied into the military system, where manpower can be taken at a moment's notice for non-aircraft related tasks. There is no lack of manpower, never was, just a refusal to let them work without interruption. This is all old hat and would be solved by a root and branch overhaul, but there are too many vested interests and too little motivation, such as a realistic payscale for shift/abnormal hours.
Go civvie, full stop.
rant mode off
GttC

[DeV]

Also the fact that many of the tech staff are also either apprentices or instructing apprentice classes.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi Dev
In reality, that's not much of an issue as they are comparatively small in number and apprentices in third or fourth year are useful enough for non-signing tasks.it's the distribution and use of manpower is the problem.The RAF took techs off guard duties in 1954.They let proper soldiers guard airbases and off-base landing grounds. Techs in permanent bases in the RAF work shift and liaise with civvie contractors, to a much greater extent than Donners ever do( see Marshall Aerospace)and, of course, the RAF are extremely experienced in off-base air activity (Harriers, C130s, helis,etc). As a start, the Don could get the newly resident RDF unit to provide guards and air defence and free up techs for spanner time(not to mention reducing lost spanner time to pipe-playing, football kicking,etc).Ultimately, more tasks will end up being sold out to civvie operators, manned by ex-Donners.
regards
GttC

[DeV]

According to Flying In Ireland:

Out of 277 staff assigned to maintenance in Feb 2003, 51% were unavailable on an given day due to other military duties, courses, leave, also being instructors, based in Gormanston (why its closed as a AC base?). That leaves 141.

Allowing for personnel working in aircraft workshops, Technical Training School and support functions. Only 38 to 44 personnel were available to work in the hangers.

The AC operates 11 different aircraft types which means:
- up to €10,000 a year per aircraft for manual revision
- 20,000 items of spares (valued at €28 million) of which 37 are worth €9 million
- dealing with 79 different spares suppliers

[Parts]

...based in Gormanston (why its closed as a AC base?)...

Was it in Feb 2003? Not too sure.

[DeV]

The report recommends:

That the aircraft fleet be modernised and rationalised (as recommended by PWC).

Implementation of long term fleet replacement policies.

Introduction of a appointment of Seninot Aero Engineer Staff Officer in ACHQ to oversee and manage the execution of all aircraft maintenance, set the maintenance priorities and decide on maintenance personnel allocation and efficiency measures on a day-to-day basis.

Introduction of a centralised maintenance planning cell.

MIF to include perfromance measures.

Activity survey to release technical staff from other duties

New technical recruitment & retention policies. To include annual apprentice intake.

Make personnel in Gormanston (including those without appointment) available at Baldonnel.

Review of maintenance infrastructure (buildings, equipment, etc).

SSO Logs to be responsible for supply chain management of aircraft maintenance.

[GoneToTheCanner]

Hi there
Send every single person connected with aircraft maintenance on a 90-day secondment to any decent airline.They'll soon find out how to achieve high serviceability rate and an efficient supply chain.Airlines have just as many suppliers but they are more efficient at working with the suppliers. Get every techie away from non-tech duties and form them into crews, just like airlines do and put them on shift.They need to wake up and learn from the real world.
regards
GttC

[Parts]

Best of luck running that past the Union.
Sorry, the Representative Association.

[GoneToTheCanner]

How not? If the AC can send lads to the factory for manufacturers courses, they can send them to a local airline. There's nothing a DF member likes more than a course out of barracks, with the possibility of "sub" and a new experience. To beat the PDFORRA neggies, offer to pay them a few quid more.People power will soon deal with them.
The servicability rates quoted above are a shambles, compared to any civvie operator. Our routine sevicability in the airline I work for is greater than 95% and that's common for most airlines. It's not impossible to achieve, by any means. All it takes is a willngness to work shifts, pay a shift allowance and not accept bullshit from suppliers...I'm quite sure the DF transport fleet could do with a shakeup, as probably could the NS serviceability rates. I'll bet any money that their servicability rates are below civvie par as well. Civvies aren't perfect by a long shot, but they are efficient and always strive to stay that way.
it's not hard to achieve, it just takes a mental adjustment and a few physical changes.
regards
GttC