Hi Guys,
I'm an outsider who left the RAF a few years ago (as Laarbruch closed.)
I am now in a "Senior" engineer position at a major charter airline. I apologise now for butting in to this forum but I think I can make a valid contribution.
If the Moderator's don't like what I write they can edit it out and I won't take offence. (well not too much anyway!)
It is all well and good getting these thoughts aired, and into the Ether; but what are you doing about it?
All MOD-type manning reviews (and hair-brained 'good idea' schemes) used to be collated at the Station concerned, usually by someone in Eng Wing or somewhere like that. The measurment of success of this period must be by producing the required number of aircraft on time, or within an acceptable lapse of time. A failure to produce aircraft can only be a failure and then appropriate actions 'should' be taken to improve production to the required rate.
WgCo Cumphy Chair stated earlier that the flying program was unfeasable - No aircrew would ever accept that statement - they would all agree "they" can do it! It is the engineers that stops them!
What is (apparently) unfeasable is the "Maintenance" Program behind this flying program.
In civvy street a maintenance program is changed to suit the type of operation the aircraft is flying:
If it is a low-hours (e.g. hundreds per year) operation, to and from one airfield, it may only require low volume maintenance.
If it isa high-Hours (...Thousands per year) and going down-route for ten days at a time, and crossing large sea water areas for many flights. It will require much more maintenance and perhaps more inspections too.
This is the first point you must consider:
Is the maintenance now being carried out suitable for the type of Flying program being operated?
Given that the aircraft are being pushed to the limit; this must mean that the engineering work is also pushed to the same limit or beyond (there cannot be less work!). Therefore; reductions in manpower can only be replaced by longer working hours or longer downtime. Another alternative is to do "maintenance" at the Downroute stations saving return sectors, but this means sending troops downline for longer periods and further exacerbationg the manpower problem.
There can also be a change in the way you work; in that, to make it less time consuming for the Techies - the Support staff should move closer to the line and be more of a SUPPLY system; delivering, to the engineer, those tools and equipment and spares he/she requires! Spread that about stores and see the reactions you get!
Secondly; the point of being part of a Squadron.
Most RAF units have an integral groundcrew staff and this does build a completely different view to the work required "For the Squadron". Lyneham aircrews have always missed the point of this and it has shown in the poor state of the aircraft and the relationship between air and ground crews. I know the engineers do their best, and this does not reflect on them personally, but if they(you) had more "ownership" of a small fleet; they(you) would perform with more interest! Similarly, if the aircrew had a better contact and understanding of how ground crew are pressed they would respond in some way (Good or bad!).
(These "us and them" problems still happen in civvie life, so don't think its perfect out here.)
Finally:
One of you must know a Rodney that either is, has a path to, the recorder/driver of this LEAN machinery?
How is this machinery recording these problems/defects/shortfalls?
How can you report them to the system?
Have you got/can you produce evidence for the system to see?
What suggestions (and plans if necessary) have been put to this LEAN scheme driver?
I apologise again if these seem rather obvious, or even condescending, statements - I don't know what has been voiced, or actions taken, prior to this forum. But it does seem that something should be done as an action and not just in words of complaint on a web site.
