The One Stop Shop DARA

[Pistonbroke]

If you were not the person taking that video then how do you know the circumstances surrounding that situation? You say that the Major has come down from 195 days to 90. That did not happen over night. The first 2 Majors carried out after that were run as trial ones, (agreed on by Bae, DARA AND the IPT). What followed was an IN DEPTH assessment of the results by ALL PARTIES involved.

Next came an IN DEPTH consultation by ALL PARTIES as to how improvements could be carried. This is still going on, the process does not stand still. The application of Lean went partway to this result but it was bloody hard work. The work force, me included, did not agree with what was happening but we have come to terms with it, (remember, there have been some 800 redundancies on St. Athan alone).

Over the past couple of years those of us left have realised that the way things were done was shooting ourselves in the foot and we could get the job done better but in a, (sorry for the term), lean way.

You say that you are having to recover the work that we do. If that is the case then tell your Bengo/Jengo/Sengo. Tell them to tell their bosses to tell the IPT. I can tell you, they are not shy of passing the message! (And to date, the post servicing feedback reports from the squadron has been top rated). I take that you have read them, (or know of their existance).

As for the aircraft returning to you with snags. On agreement by ALL 3 Parties, only work scheduled at the 12, 6 & 2 week meetings is carried out over and above the scheduled servicing. As engineers, like yourself and most of us are ex-VC 10 Bluesuits, we would like to give it the total treatment but we are not allowed to.

That is the commercial world, whether you like it or not. If you get back an aircraft with a book load of snags then it was either the crews decision or agreed by ALL parties. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you know the whole picture. We all are entitled to moan about work but have a look at the complete package and make an educated opinion.

Better still, come up here and spend some time with us, (you will be surprised how far out of the caves we really are)!

And before anyone says it, mud slinging is not my thing. I was not going to add to this thread but there are two sides to any story and I felt I was entitled to that.

 

[Past Engineering]

Pistonbroke:

Well said and so very true, this applies to all the platforms where the maintenance is being carried out by civilian contracts. As I have said on a few threads, the guys doing the job now are the ones that did it in blue suits for years and know the aircraft probably better than the some of the guys that are winging now.

We have the same setup on other projects with the pre-input meetings then when the inspection phase has been carried out we go back to the 'customer' and discuss the emerging work and the 'customer' decides what we can/cannot do, as you quite rightly pointed out, it is not the contractors call on what is or is not carried out.

 

[MrMasher]

You say that you are having to recover the work that we do. If that is the case then tell your Bengo/Jengo/Sengo. Tell them to tell their bosses to tell the IPT. I can tell you, they are not shy of passing the message! (And to date, the post servicing feedback reports from the squadron has been top rated). I take that you have read them, (or know of their existance).

As for the aircraft returning to you with snags. On agreement by ALL 3 Parties, only work scheduled at the 12, 6 & 2 week meetings is carried out over and above the scheduled servicing. As engineers, like yourself and most of us are ex-VC 10 Bluesuits, we would like to give it the total treatment but we are not allowed to.

That is the commercial world, whether you like it or not. If you get back an aircraft with a book load of snags then it was either the crews decision or agreed by ALL parties. Don't kid yourself into thinking that you know the whole picture. We all are entitled to moan about work but have a look at the complete package and make an educated opinion.

Better still, come up here and spend some time with us, (you will be surprised how far out of the caves we really are)!

And before anyone says it, mud slinging is not my thing. I was not going to add to this thread but there are two sides to any story and I felt I was entitled to that.

I work on Sea Kings which are serviced at DARA Fleetlands and we do get aircraft from them that are way below the standard that the RAF servicing shed used to provide.
It's not just the ones my particular workplace have recieved. Other flights are getting the same.
Our upper management know all about it but hands are tied. We don't have enough aircraft to be able to send one back, it's one-one out, and I am sure DARA know and rely on this.
I am sure we dont get this all party agreement you speak of. A crew go to DARA to drop off a Sea King for servicing and pick up another and bring it back.
As I have stated in this and other threads, some of the people who work at Fleetlands are ex RAF Sea King engineers and its not them that I have the problem with.
The whole system sucks and I dont believe it is really saving us any money or man hours but I am damned sure that some political party will get its required amount of votes in that area and that some top ranker will get a high paid job when he leaves.

 

[MrMasher]

Pistonbroke:

Well said and so very true, this applies to all the platforms where the maintenance is being carried out by civilian contracts. As I have said on a few threads, the guys doing the job now are the ones that did it in blue suits for years and know the aircraft probably better than the some of the guys that are winging now.

We have the same setup on other projects with the pre-input meetings then when the inspection phase has been carried out we go back to the 'customer' and discuss the emerging work and the 'customer' decides what we can/cannot do, as you quite rightly pointed out, it is not the contractors call on what is or is not carried out.

Does this include Fleetlands? Who specifically is the customer they speak to? IPT? I wouldnt mind knowing to be honest cos I know it doesnt involve the people who actually use the aircraft.
I suspect it being IPT deciding what can and cannot be done. How cost effective of them!

 

[Pistonbroke]

MM,

You have hit the nail on the head. The IPT/Bae pull the purse strings, (and I must point out, not ours)! I cannot remember the amount of times that we have had to let an aircraft leave here with snags that we can deal with. Sometimes it may be that the fleet plan dictates that it must go back, sometimes it is required down south and has to go, I can appreciate that but it is frustrating to the max when we are told that the kite will be flying straight to its MOB, regardless of any snags on route.

I am not saying that we are perfect but we are always looking to get better, dare I say leaner! I have no experience of rotary so I cannot vouch for them, perhaps they do have problem but the only way to get something done about it is to pass your findings/concerns to higher management.

In the early days of VC 10 Majors we did have problems and the IPT/BZN made no attempt to hide their dissatisfaction but because of the good relationship we had with OUR customers ie 10/101 Sqn we took the comments on board and 7 years later here we are doing quite nicely, and producing an excellent product to give back to them, (their words).

As an aside, on my last tour at Lyneham the lines were going ape at the standard the teams were kicking out and they were RAF!!!!

 

[Past Engineering]

MrMasher: re Fleetlands I will have to say it would not suprise me if they do not work the same, as it makes sense, but I cannot say for definite.

Outside the core maintenance contract which is as laid down in the 5A1, the decisions on what and what is not carried out is a decision made by the IPT/aircraft user squadron management, in consultation with the contractor.
We the contractor have no say in the decisions as we can only say wether we have the capacity to do the 'additional work' or not and wether this will require overtime to keep in on track or the aircraft is late out, both these decisions cost the MOD. So the contractor only does the 'additional, outside the contract work' IAW the IPT/aircraft user managements wishes.

Pistonbroke: The civvie contractors do not pull the purse strings the IPT/MOD/Aircraft user management do.

Additional problems arise from the air tests as some system faults are carried by the squadrons without being documented, when they land they snag these systems assuming that as we have serviced the aircraft we can now fix all the old snags. The problem being we do if we have disturbed that particular system during the maintenance the aircraft is on, but again if we are asked to investigate these 'fleet problems' it is outside of contract, but as has been mentioned we do try to be as helpful as possible and absorb some of the costs/time ourselves.

There are also certain systems that we cannot touch at the moment so these have to be handed back as is, so it could appear as if we are giving back a U/S jet that cannot be used operationally, again the civvie contractor has no control or say over these issues.

 

[Disillusioned]

I see your point with regards to the 5A1 but when the 5A1 is re-written to remove lots of the minor/major servicing and push the work onto the flexible primary system we operate you can see why people think the current DARA product is inferior to the previous RAF product.

To me it looks like the government says to the MOD "DARA need some more work so we're giving them the 2nd line helicopter servicing regardless of what you say".

DARA look at what's involved and says "we can't do that amount of work in that amount of time and still make a profit".

MOD says "That's ok DARA we have plenty of people who will pick up the work you can't cope with and we don't even have to pay them overtime. We'll just re-write tha 5A1".

DARA says "Kerching".

Government says "Happy, employed voters. Kerching"

Everybody else says "WTF?"

 

[Past Engineering]

Problem being our 5A1 looks like adding work (quite a lot), aging fleet (corrosion etc) and new servicing cycles for components that were 'on condition' and now have an overhaul life, there is an exercise that is costing this in men/money/time to see what the way forward is.

Also what a lot of people do not realise that any extra work requires a formal request to the IPT/MOD for agreement/funding and if it is going to be a permament requirement this requires a contract change and meanwhile back at the ranch there is an aircraft sat there in bits. But it is really annoying when the civvie contractors work their nuts off to provide a good job, safely, on budget and on time and we are blamed for the decisions made by the RAF management not the civvie management for the shortfalls in the frontline squadrons expectations. It is the guys on the front line and maintenance shop floor that take the brunt of this, not the RAF management/bean counters.

 

[MrMasher]

MrMasher: re Fleetlands I will have to say it would not suprise me if they do not work the same, as it makes sense, but I cannot say for definite.

Outside the core maintenance contract which is as laid down in the 5A1, the decisions on what and what is not carried out is a decision made by the IPT/aircraft user squadron management, in consultation with the contractor.
We the contractor have no say in the decisions as we can only say wether we have the capacity to do the 'additional work' or not and wether this will require overtime to keep in on track or the aircraft is late out, both these decisions cost the MOD. So the contractor only does the 'additional, outside the contract work' IAW the IPT/aircraft user managements wishes.

Pistonbroke: The civvie contractors do not pull the purse strings the IPT/MOD/Aircraft user management do.

Additional problems arise from the air tests as some system faults are carried by the squadrons without being documented, when they land they snag these systems assuming that as we have serviced the aircraft we can now fix all the old snags. The problem being we do if we have disturbed that particular system during the maintenance the aircraft is on, but again if we are asked to investigate these 'fleet problems' it is outside of contract, but as has been mentioned we do try to be as helpful as possible and absorb some of the costs/time ourselves.

There are also certain systems that we cannot touch at the moment so these have to be handed back as is, so it could appear as if we are giving back a U/S jet that cannot be used operationally, again the civvie contractor has no control or say over these issues.

I work on an OCU and they snag absolutely everything!
One of our aircraft has just had its 1st "rotortune" done by since it came from Fleetlands. Strangely enough it was out of limits! We also couldnt find the previous graph from its airtest out of Fleetlands to see why the figures were out and to compare to what we have now. Its not the 1st time!
Every single SeaKing we have recieved and a few others that I know of, in total that is 6 aircraft, have had these vibration or "rotortune" problems.
The trouble is, how do we say excuse me but this just isnt right? Our station management MUST be aware of these issues.
I believe the problem is that as a Sea King user we are in the minority compared to the Navy. The Navy have priority over us when it comes to putting cabs through Fleetlands. I just feel sorry for the poor bu66ers who have to use them in sandy climates.

 

[Disillusioned]

Has it been flagged to the VIB Cell Mr M? I'm sure they'd have something to say if "rotortune" history is going missing.

 

[MrMasher]

Has it been flagged to the VIB Cell Mr M? I'm sure they'd have something to say if "rotortune" history is going missing.

We had the vibe figures but not the track split graph. The vibe cell provided us with this info from their ground station terminal and they dont have the Fleetlands airtest track split info themselves!

 

[Past Engineering]

Mr M: It does sound as if Fleetlands do things differently to the rest of the contracts. The Quality department records figures for flying controls ROMs/Engine data and we would also keep copies of all air test rotortune data if we were on helicopters.

 

[sooty77]

A little while ago we had a cab come back from major from DARA and we found that they had fitted a U/S engine to the aircraft (it was a life ex engine) but they were happy to sign the cab off as servicable and DARA couldn't give a flying F***!
If I did that I would be in so much of the brown smelly stuff I would never see the light of day!

 

[matkat]

After having been in the RAF for 13 years it amazes me to read what you think about civilian aircraft engineering. Remember DARA gets the contracts because they are the cheapest the old adage of pay peanuts and get monkeys and have you not realised that most of the DARA personnel are ex-forces is it being said that as soon as they leave the mob they are becoming bad engineers? I certainly know that when I left and joined the civvie aircraft world I was undertrained and under knowledged it was starting all over again 17 years on I am still learning and am in fact a seniour manager with a well known airline, some of you should take stock for a bit and maybe you will start to realise that you are not the bees knees you seem to think you are. Try to realise there is good anf bad everwhere but in civilian aviation if someone is rubbish we can get rid of them inthe mob you are stuck with them, makes many underacheiver in civvie street pull his socks up in the mob it either gets them posted or promoted go think!!

 

[Prudhoe]

Fair point matkat, not all civvi techies are monkeys and most of the best RAF guys have jumped ship in recent years. At least some of them must have stayed in the aviation world. Perhaps the perceived problems with outfits like DARA are more to do with contracts and management than with the guys on the shop floor.

 

[MrMasher]

After having been in the RAF for 13 years it amazes me to read what you think about civilian aircraft engineering. Remember DARA gets the contracts because they are the cheapest the old adage of pay peanuts and get monkeys and have you not realised that most of the DARA personnel are ex-forces is it being said that as soon as they leave the mob they are becoming bad engineers? I certainly know that when I left and joined the civvie aircraft world I was undertrained and under knowledged it was starting all over again 17 years on I am still learning and am in fact a seniour manager with a well known airline, some of you should take stock for a bit and maybe you will start to realise that you are not the bees knees you seem to think you are. Try to realise there is good anf bad everwhere but in civilian aviation if someone is rubbish we can get rid of them inthe mob you are stuck with them, makes many underacheiver in civvie street pull his socks up in the mob it either gets them posted or promoted go think!!

Did you bother to read the whole thread?
I said this on post no5:

I'm not bitching at the workers, some of em used to be here!. I'm moaning about the way we are being fcuked over by this type of servicing. You wouldnt believe how much work has evolved from this.

I dont think we are the 'bees knees' and didnt lead anyone to believe so did I?
I suggest you reread the entire thread.

Prudhoe has got it spot on!

Perhaps the perceived problems with outfits like DARA are more to do with contracts and management than with the guys on the shop floor.

 

[Past Engineering]

With regards to the issues on all these contracts, you have finally sussed that the guys doing the work know the aircraft and know what they are doing, in most cases that is a given. There are still the odd ones that seem to have a hidden agenda, and seem to want to get even with the RAF now they are in civvie street, but they can be and are being dealt with. Then there is the question of the management, the same applies to them as most are ex officers, with a few who are ex SNCOs who are now in an equivalent position to say a Flight Lt, now as with all there are some damm good ones (and some bad ones) who use their expertise from the service and listen to the 'troops' and work the way it worked in the 'old days in blue'.

So what is left, that will be the 'contract' this is where most of the problems lie, it is not true to say that the MOD allways give these contracts to the cheapest bidder, remember the Tornado contract given to a certain contractor and the damage that it caused that necessitated the centre fuselage swaps from the F2s in storage, so they have had their fingers burnt once. But on the whole the people within the top of the MOD who decide these schemes are the same ones who have no idea what is going on at the sharp end, they are the ones who write the contracts for the civvie company to accept, and when the civvie companies try to say it will not work a few minor bits might change, but sometimes it is a take it or leave it deal. Additionally on the civvie side you have a few contracts people who have no idea about the RAF or maintenance so the RAF sees them coming and confuses them with terms they do not understand and makes the contract a bit wooly.

So when the 'civvies' start work the guys on the shop floor, including a lot of the managers, try to change things from within and then try and tell the MOD that reality does not work as per the contract (you only have to read this, the Marham CMU threads etc to see what is said to top MOD and civvie management) and the stock answer is 'oh dear never mind, you'll have to sort it out yourselves' and the bottom line is there is no money allthough a few of the civvie contractors are using their small profit to try and improve things at their own expense, which is actually contract creep and are for services/spares/tooling that the MOD are contracted to supply but don't/can't as they dissapeared into the great black hole of lean and pooling of assets.

 

[PlymBoy]

I know what you're talking about Mr M and in our case it has little to do with cost cutting and more to do with vote winning. It was proven that St M were doing a better job at a lower cost but the government had to give dara one contract after taking away another. Can't have the governemetn making all those civvies out of work they can only do that to the forces.

The other part of the contract was that it free'd up more blue suits for TB's "Peace Keeping" missions.

Mr M is right, as r many of the comments on this thread. The one here is extremely true and many out there know this.
Will Leconfield become the new ground for SAR maint. Or are the new S92's the way forward.

 

[Paul Yallop]

Okay, this is going to hurt me more than you fcukers will ever know but.....
Would you expect Bae to carry out the major, clear the reds and greens, fix all arising faults for one specific price ?
Would you expect Boeing to carry out the major, clear the reds and greens, fix all arising faults for one specific price ?
Would you expect Westlands to carry out the major, clear the reds and greens, fix all arising faults for one specific price ?

No, you wouldn't. Why ? Because they are civilian companies and they do a set amount of work for a set price. DARA are exactly the same. They are NOT M.O.D. they are no longer N.A.R.O. they work to a set price to set job. Get over it. As long as we continue to extend the fcuk out of everything and hand them a bag of sh1t, we are going to get a bag of sh1t back. Every Aircraft is different, it has different arising faults it would be almost impossible to put a price on it. Your expectations of DARA is unreasonable.

However, keep a mix of M.O.D. and RAF fitters working on the aircraft doing a proper Major and at least we fix our own problems and get the Aircraft we want and our crews will be safe in !.

Now if you can just sell that to the ****** from the treasury who is footing the bill
::/: SB you are deluded, if you put your car in to have new pads and shoes and they give you a price that is it just a price. They ring you to tell you it will cost more and you say just do the rear shoes then. On the way home you crash, no brakes, whose fault, not theirs, doesn't make it right though. You should get a product that is fit for service, not the S*** that is currently being produced.DT_Xtremez_30:

Shouty one

 

[Scaley brat]

::/: SB you are deluded, if you put your car in to have new pads and shoes and they give you a price that is it just a price. They ring you to tell you it will cost more and you say just do the rear shoes then. On the way home you crash, no brakes, whose fault, not theirs, doesn't make it right though. You should get a product that is fit for service, not the S*** that is currently being produced.DT_Xtremez_30:

Shouty one

If you want your car fit for purpose, you pay the price. If the car is dangerous you don't drive it. We have the same options. If we didn't extend everything to the absolute fcuking limit maybe our Aircraft might be in better condition and last a little longer ::/: