Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Value for Money Review - Maintanance of DF aircraft

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Hi carrington and Turkey
    That's only ten hours per day, which leaves 14 for maintenance.That's why they have such high availability....Turkey, that 100% won't last. It won't even stay close to that. It'll be back to the usual 5 or 6 per day, which is not bad, as such. You should regard that 100 % as little more than a gimmick. If the Air Corps could actually sustain, airline-style, a 90% or greater serviceability, then I'd be impressed.
    regards
    GttC

    Leave a comment:


  • Turkey
    replied
    Yes carpark, it can be done, 100% availability of PC-9M's last week.
    Strange how you were too busy nit-picking to notice that........

    Leave a comment:


  • thebig C
    replied
    100%

    The Long Beach Police in California operate EC 130s, which entered into service at the end of 2002. After two years, the two aircraft had a 100% availability rate, even though they fly approximately 10 hours per day, seven days a week.

    It can be done....

    Leave a comment:


  • IL2M
    replied
    Interesting thread.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Steamy Window View Post
    What exactly is the problem with the Chinooks?
    See here:
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3606325.stm
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3609713.stm
    http://www.pprune.org/forums/printth...t=109805&pp=40
    http://www.publications.parliament.u...t/31113w09.htm
    http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/n.../0304486es.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Bosco
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    Hi there
    The bean-counters brought in a "lean" maintenance programme, in which maintenance heads try to predict the absolute minimum of stock needed to keep a fleet going.So, if the fleet of Lynxs use 10 engines per year in peacetime, then the MoD will fund ten engines and no more.naturally, war service in a hot and dusty environment is no respecter of bean-counters' estimates, so the fleet consumes 20 engines per year. result: fleets grounded as mechs scavenge from one aircraft to another to try and keep them going.
    also, stupidities like a grounded fleet of Chinooks in storage in the Uk and problems with the UK Apaches fleet are leaving the BA really stuck.
    regards
    GttC
    Oh dear god they tried to lean the military.
    That is not what lean is meant for.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Hi there
    After the crash of the Chinook in Scotland, doubts were raised about the engine's FADEC, which is a computer which controls the engines. There were also issues raised about wiring standards and crash survivability.So, a batch of them have ended up in store while the manufacturers and the MoD argue about them.
    regards
    GttC

    Leave a comment:


  • ODIN
    replied
    Was it not some radar problem?

    Leave a comment:


  • Steamy Window
    replied
    What exactly is the problem with the Chinooks?

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Hi there
    The bean-counters brought in a "lean" maintenance programme, in which maintenance heads try to predict the absolute minimum of stock needed to keep a fleet going.So, if the fleet of Lynxs use 10 engines per year in peacetime, then the MoD will fund ten engines and no more.naturally, war service in a hot and dusty environment is no respecter of bean-counters' estimates, so the fleet consumes 20 engines per year. result: fleets grounded as mechs scavenge from one aircraft to another to try and keep them going.
    also, stupidities like a grounded fleet of Chinooks in storage in the Uk and problems with the UK Apaches fleet are leaving the BA really stuck.
    regards
    GttC

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Recently read an article in Air Forces Monthly, it quoted "sources" as saying that the serviceability of the British Army's Air Corps Lynx fleet was as low as 25%.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    Hi there
    I agree that there would be opposition from seat-fillers but a lot of the actual work practises are essentially unofficial local arrangements. I witnessed many times, the ability of persons to engage in deliberate, unprovable "work-to-rule" when it suited them, but making positive change is not undo-able. From experience, a lot of techs would prefer to be left alone to get on with the job, rather than constantly being redirected to other stuff.There is a specific need for altering the current practises in the workshops as well. A lot is happening already but it's a slow process. The alternative is to civilianise virtually everything and the GoC will do it if he does not get what he wants.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Parts View Post
    The problem would not be sending the personnel to an airline to learn, it would be getting a public sector "union" to agree to new work practices, even if it is for the betterment of the Corps.
    And getting them back at the end of the secondment!

    Leave a comment:


  • Parts
    Guest replied
    The problem would not be sending the personnel to an airline to learn, it would be getting a public sector "union" to agree to new work practices, even if it is for the betterment of the Corps. The Trade Union in this country has far too much power; where once it was a guardian against injustice and oppression, it is now the single biggest stumbling-block to progress and the biggest threat to efficiency and competitiveness: the all-encompassing "She who must be obeyed", before even the slightest change is brought in. Thankfully, in our job, the RAs don't have quite so much power and can basically be told to shut up and get on with it, but imagine the snags thrown your way if you tried to bring in shift-work, no matter how sensible it is. "...offer to pay them a few quid more...": you'd have a huge pay claim on your desk and the threat of "Blue Flus", "Unofficial Press-Conferences" etc on the way.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X