Author Topic: CH47 Chinook  (Read 307406 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #125 on: December 15, 2009, 17:22:56 »
On 450 Sqn. we did a couple of Arctic exercises. Frobisher Bay in 1972: We could keep 2 of 3 CH-113As in a heated hangar. One day the wind came up real quick and the rotor brake on the chopper that was outside(311) let go because the hyd. system leaked from the cold. The rotors started turning and eventually picked up some speed. The blades started to go up and down as they were turning. One blade drooped and hit the top,damaged the sync shaft and ripped the sync shaft bearing mounts out of the airframe. The blade broke in half. Most if not all of the rotor blades were write offs from contacting the fuselage and from flexing upward. Both rotor heads damaged. I witnessed the whole event. They had to break the fuselage down into 3 pieces and fly everything back south in a Hercules. Repair time was many months. All because of one small hydraulic leak caused by the cold.

Churchill in the 70's. Winter exercise. 3 or 4 CH-113As. Kept them in heated hangar with no major problems. At least what we called major--no aircraft damaged. Lots of problems with leaks in Churchill and a few on the transit from Ottawa and back. In Winnipeg just after startup a hyd line in the control closet broke and I got soaked. Snowbank by the aircraft turned pink.

 Petawawa or Wainwright  in winter is pretty much like the Arctic.

We regularly sent choppers to Alert and back in the summer. No problems. The Arctic in summer is like anywhere in Canada.

450 Was the SAR helicopter element for Trenton for several years and we regularly sent single choppers with only the FE for maintenance to all parts of the Trenton SAR area. Used to carry a Herman Nelson heater in the winter with good results most times.

In comparison the Chinook was a pig. All kinds of problems. Transmissions leaked, hydraulic systems leaked, engines had hot starts (requiring engine change), the cabin windows blew out in flight, structural parts failed, rotor heads leaked, and chip lights came on regularly.They got sick when they were left out in the cold. All kinds of flight control problems. Oleos went flat.
You name it and it happened.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #126 on: December 15, 2009, 17:28:06 »
It's probably cheaper to build infrastructure in just one place.

Maintenance is simplified, and deployment to Wainwright should not be a significant issue.

Training areas (Tac Low Fly Areas) off base are probably better in Pet. Moose do not phone in complaints.
The old Chinooks could fly from Edmonton to Ottawa with one fuel stop at Winnipeg using the long range fuel system. The system was designed and built by 450 Sqn before NDHQ even knew about it. That's another story. ;)
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #127 on: December 15, 2009, 17:56:21 »
FYI: Boeing CHINOOK CH-147

Boeing CHINOOK CH-147
 The Boeing Vertol CH-47C Chinook was a special uprated variant of the heavy-lift tandem-rotor helicopter acquired by the CF in 1974 and used primarily for Mobile Command operations.

The first aircraft unfortunately crashed on its initial delivery flight. The remaining seven survivors used extensively by the CF in transport duties associated with 10 Tactical Air Group (10 TAG).

These included medium airlift requirements including the transport of troops, rations, military supplies, transport and weapons for mobility operations. Arctic re-supply and special heavy-lift operations were also routinely undertaken. The Chinooks were based primarily with 447 and 450 Transport Helicopter Squadrons while employed by the CF.

Although highly versatile, the CH-147 Chinooks eventually proved to be maintenance intensive and consequently expensive to operate so the CF retired the fleet as an economy measure in 1991. The ex-Canadian aircraft were eventually refurbished by Boeing Vertol and sold to the Dutch Armed Forces.

Canada has re-aquired 6 used CH-47D Chinooks from the US Forces for use in Afghanistan and has placed an order with Boeing for 15 CH-47F Chinook helicoptes, although this order has not been finialized yet.  It is not presently known if these aircraft will also be known as the CH-147


SPECIFICATIONS
CDN Reg: CH-147
US/NATO Reg.: CH-47
Manufacturer:  Boeing Vertol
Crew / Passengers: four: two pilots & flight engineer & loadmaster plus up to 44 passengers, 33 troops or up 28,000 lb (12,700 kg) external loads.
Power Plant(s): two AVCO Lycoming 3,300 shp T55-L-11C turboshaft engines
Performance: Max Speed: 180 mph (290 km/h) Cruising Speed: 160 mph (257 km/h) Hover Ceiling: 9,200 ft (2,804 m) Range: 115 mi (185 km)
Weights:  Empty: 20,616 lb (9,351 kg) Takeoff: 39,000 lbs (17,781 kg)
Dimensions: Rotor Dia: 60 ft 0 in ( 18.29 m) Length: 99 ft 0 in ( 30.18 m) Height: 22 ft i6 n ( 6.86 m) 
Armament: None


http://rcaf.com/Aircraft/aircraftDetail.php?CHINOOK-171

 

Offline karl28

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 6,005
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 743
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #128 on: December 15, 2009, 20:07:52 »
       I am just glad that the CF will finally get these choppers that they badly need . Even if the new ones aren't used in Afghanistan they can still be used for lots of other operations or Future mission where ever they take the CF

Offline Jammer

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 13,985
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,021
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #129 on: December 15, 2009, 21:11:26 »
The Uk MoD just made a panic order of 22 Chinooks for the RAF. In return, the RAF will close it's Cottismore base (Tornado), in order to fund this.
They are expecting them in 2013. it sounds to me like an off the shelf purchase with none of their own modifications.
What could possibly go wrong?

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #130 on: December 16, 2009, 00:01:40 »
Frobisher Bay in 1972...

Dude, you're old!   ;D

Anyway, I see what you're saying about maintenance issues, but you can't compare the F model to the Cs that we were using.

That's like saying all Honda CR-Vs are crap because the 2002 model had a bunch of recalls.  (I only use this as an example because I have a 2002 CR-V and it had a bunch of recalls!)  Between then and now there have been loads of improvements to fix the problems from the past.  It can be expected that the same has been done with the F models.  Remember, several iterations have come and gone since we got rid of our hooks.

Of course, cold weather will be a factor.  It is in each and every aircraft, no matter the type or age.  Aircraft are usually designed based on where they will be used the most, not for the complete extremes.  As an example, how many helicopters are out there that have de-icing capabilities?  Not that many.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #131 on: December 16, 2009, 01:21:10 »
we got rid of our hooks.

Extremely poor terminology.

We did not "get rid of" them.

"Gave up", yes. "Lost", yes.

One "gets rid of" garbage.

One does not "get rid of" valuable things.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #132 on: December 16, 2009, 13:49:36 »
Yes Strike I,m an old dude but I have a good memory. I can't remember where I left my car keys an hour ago but I can remember working on a CH-113A tail # 418 in Rivers Manitoba in 1965 when it had less than 200 flying hours on it.

I stayed with the CH-113As until they were replaced by the CH-147s and did the acceptance check and delivery flight of Chinook 147005 from Harrisburg Pa. to Ottawa in April/May 1975.
I flew on Chinooks long  enough to discover that they weren't all that great and helped to design and implement several things that should have been incorporated into the aircraft before we ever bought them.

I remember when I migrated to C-130's and discovered that some very smart design engineers had made use of the bleed air ducting that goes to/from the engines to provide a system to preheat the engines using the same air source--the GTC/APU  that is used to start the engines. It's called nacelle preheat.

If I was going to buy a helicopter like the Chinook that was going to be used in Canada and left out overnight in extreme conditions that same  kind of preheat system--also routed to the transmissions and some other important areas would have priority over some of the other bells and whistles that are on the new Chinooks. If you can't fly the helicopter because one oil or hydraulic seal is leaking all of the other high tech crap in the world isn't worth a thing.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #134 on: December 18, 2009, 18:30:20 »
The CF's F(variant) will be a nice machine.  Much will be improved over the old C's...which Canada was still operating after most others had upgraded to D's.  I understand that there will be a lot of system modularity that takes into account much of the experience the Boeing and Chinook operators world-wide have had in the last 20 years (D's, E's, F's and G's).  Beenthere, you're right that there are some things that you can't change much, hydraulics don't like the cold very much, but if you get them going gently, they'll go and go and go.  Even the D's in AFG have nice FADEC engines that make fuel management issues a thing of the past.  The folks that get to fly and maintain these machines will really like them, I'm sure.

Cheers
G2G

Offline Bread Guy

  • Bread Baker & Info Curator (still learning @ both)
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Relic
  • *
  • 456,030
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 22,977
    • MILNEWS.ca-Military News for Canadians
Who's Up to Designing/Building Chinook Support Complex in Pet?
« Reply #135 on: March 29, 2010, 14:21:11 »
This, from MERX:
Quote
    …. Defence Construction Canada – Request for Qualifications, Design and Construction of Support Facilities, Medium To Heavy Lift Helicopters (MHLH), Petawawa, ON.

In accordance with the rules, regulations, statutes and guidelines, and the professional associations of the Province of Ontario, Defence Construction Canada (DCC) is calling for submissions from Contractor Teams to provide the following services for the design and construction of the new facilities:

    • complete the design and prepare the construction documentation based on the Performance Specifications
    • design, register and obtain LEED® certification at the level of Silver
    • supply all labour, materials and equipment to construct the facilities
    • establish and maintain QA/QC processes throughout the implementation phase of the project
    • undertake complete commissioning and testing exercise to ensure compliance with the performance objectives.
    • supply as-built and operation and maintenance data ….

    The estimated design and construction cost is in the order of $124,000,000 ….

What do you get for $124M?  From the bid documents:
Quote
    The Heavy Maintenance Squadron Facility  will provide 2nd and 3rd line maintenance support for all Chinook operations in an approximately 13,000 sq.m. gross area. It will incorporate four (4) helicopter maintenance bays, one (1) explosion proof repair bay, as well as an interior wash bay with an underground water reservoir. Aircraft support shops and offices will also be located throughout the facility.

    The 1st Line Maintenance and Operation Facility will house the squadron operational helicopters, operators and support in a gross area of approximately 16,000 sq.m. The hangar floor will accommodate a minimum of ten (10) helicopters. The large, open, ready-use material shops will require basic systems with electrical and/or air compressor connectors to accommodate work benches, metal fabrication equipment and fume hoods. Squadron offices will also be housed in this facility.

    The Pilot and Maintainer Training Facility will be approximately 6,000 sq.m. gross area. A large portion will be high bays for simulators. Other areas will be used as computer rooms, classrooms, briefing rooms and instructor offices.

    The Common Support Facility will be approximately 5,000 sq.m. gross area. A large portion will comprise a high warehouse. Other portions will include office areas, repair shops for small equipment, and support vehicles.

Bid docs if you're interested available here.
“The risk of insult is the price of clarity.” -- Roy H. Williams

The words I share here are my own, not those of anyone else or anybody I may be affiliated with.

Tony Prudori
MILNEWS.ca - Twitter

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #136 on: March 29, 2010, 18:34:34 »
The complex looks cool. Just about what I would have come up with. 8)
Hopefully it will have a built in fire suppression/extinguishing system so that the whole fleet doesn't go up in one big fire.

Hopefully someone has included anti icing for the roof structure above the hangar doors so icicles don't drop off and skewer the aircraft as they are being moved in or out of the hangar.
.
Hopefully the large storage area is going to be used to store every spare part for the Chinook fleet so that there is no time wasted in shipping parts from supply depots located all over the country. If you want to be able to find something when you need it never let the supply system have it.

It would also be nice to have fuel hydrants located at parking spots but that part should wait until the unit has been operating for a couple of years in order to sort out the best parking arrangement.

I'm such a worrywart. ::)

But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #137 on: March 30, 2010, 13:31:18 »
Hopefully it will have a built in fire suppression/extinguishing system so that the whole fleet doesn't go up in one big fire.

That's pretty standard, which is also why there are several different bays, so all the aircraft aren't kept in the same hangar.

Hopefully the large storage area is going to be used to store every spare part for the Chinook fleet so that there is no time wasted in shipping parts from supply depots located all over the country. If you want to be able to find something when you need it never let the supply system have it.

Good luck with that one.  In an effort to lower our environmental footprint, the CF is sticking with "Just in Time" management of spare parts.  We may have alot of extra little pieces, but unlikely we'd have a couple of engines and a few full sets of blades just sitting around in case we need them.

It would also be nice to have fuel hydrants located at parking spots but that part should wait until the unit has been operating for a couple of years in order to sort out the best parking arrangement.

Not an environmentally sound option.  Plus, Pet already services 427 SOAS with refuelling via bowsers.  I suspect the only change would be that they will need to get an extra truck or two to manage the higher demand.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #138 on: March 31, 2010, 02:52:33 »
Leave it up to some wizard to come up with something named "Just In Time" to be used by of all people-the military so as to give the appearance of being environmentally friendly.

I don't know where the supply depots are located these days but I would bet big bucks that really good management would would put the spare parts really close to the one place that uses them.
That would be Just In The Right Place and would involve the use of common sense. Common sense is common and that"s why it's used a lot---in some places.

I can recall when we thought of setting up a unit fundraiser by placing bets on where something like a hydraulic line would come from after we put it on an IOR. Every supply depot in the country had bits and pieces of Chinooks stashed away.

Really good management would also never allow things like spare engines to be anyplace except in the squadron's hangar. Engine changes are so routine on most aircraft that the engines are either installed on the aircraft, in the engine shop being worked on or sitting in the hangar ready to go for the next engine change.

Rotor blades are another good example although they probably have less troublesome blades than in the past. However it isn't unusual for someone to hover the aircraft close enough to some trees that the aft blades do a bit of wood chopping.
One time long ago I closed a hangar door and in doing so scrunched the end of a blade. It was about 8 pm and we were closing up for the night and were going to head over to the JRs for a cool one. We took the blade off and installed one from the rack on the hangar floor. We hit the JRs before 10 and of course I bought a couple of rounds. :nod: The aircraft was able to fly the next day rather than sit while a truck drove half way across Canada with a fresh blade from a supply depot.
We had a SAR commitment back then so looking back I would have felt really bad about putting a vital part of SAR out of use and possibly costing some unfortunates to suffer and die for lack of resources.

Now we have a system in place to be environmentally friendly and while doing so possibly cause a whole fleet of helicopters to be unavailable in the event of some tragedy. Just think of this scenario. At 0800 on a given day the squadron is advised that a special inspection has been  ordered on the whole fleet because some part had failed. The techs do the inspection and find that all of the aircraft are faulty. What is required is that one part is needed for each aircraft. The parts are located in whatever supply depot and can be delivered in a day or two. It takes 30 minutes to install. At 1000 some terrible event takes place in Ottawa and every available resource is needed immediately. Every resource in Pettewawa  is available with the exception of every Chinook helicopter that Canada has just spent a gazillion dollars for.
When the people from high up on the hill ask why they failed to respond when they were needed most the reply is that we like to give the impression that we're green friends of the earth.
What happens then?
I know that the two events coinciding are rather unlikely but as we all with the exception of the good managers of course, know that  things can go wrong and on some days everything goes wrong.

 Fuel bowsers have clipped a few blades over the years as well. Things like after doing a refueling job at night the driver hops in and drives under the forward blade that hangs out beyond the front of the aircraft and droops really low. The result is the top of the bowser leaves a big gouge on the bottom of the blade.

Really good management is a rare thing in any government organization so what happens is that all kinds of fools end up in jobs that are far beyond their ability. They have to come up with all kinds of new ideas so that the fools in the next level up from them can say that they did a good job and move them up in the food chain where they can cause further havoc.

Really good management works on behalf of the organization to keep good systems good and only change what doesn't work.
The old saw "if it ain't broke don't fix it" is rather simple but it's wise. Wisdom and government should never be used in the same sentence with the exception of this one of course. 8) 
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 02:55:44 by beenthere »
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline captloadie

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Sr. Member
  • *
  • 39,558
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 609
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #139 on: March 31, 2010, 03:21:09 »
Some people who have never worked in the supply system should keep in their lanes. You don't hear us whining that every time I went out to a CC-130 to rig it for a drop, the techs hadn't done their job and I had to wait.

The supply system isn't a "Just in Time System". Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager, which rarely ask the supply system important questions like what the lead times for delivery, or bother to tell the system where to source the parts/POL from.  Maybe if someone goes out to Mountainview and scrounges through the parts that are sitting out there (including brand new engines for long ago retired aircraft) maybe they will find some Chinook parts left over from the time when we ordered 5 of everything just in case.


Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #140 on: March 31, 2010, 10:16:48 »
The "Just in Time" system that is used on the Tac Hel side isn't there for small everyday parts, it's there for larger items.  Although it would be nice for us to have a full store available whenever we need it, it's not feasible for the amount of times we nay need those items.  Not only that, but we are not the only ones using these types of aircraft and this is why the system reduces our footprint environmentally.

Let's take the CH146 as an example.  Large items like transmissions, windscreens, etc are received from Calgary, Montreal and sometimes Texas, because that's where the main Bell centres are.

Using the example of an SI isn't realistic as most SIs involve smaller items being replaced, which are usually held by the units.  If we run out we still have some aircraft serviceable and order the parts through Bell.  If the SI involves a large item, then the fleet would have to be grounded regardless even if we held the parts because of the manpower and hours required to carry out the inspections and repairs.

As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline Baden Guy

    Full Member.

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 55,977
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 1,935
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #141 on: March 31, 2010, 10:59:55 »
See Strike above:

"As for the issue of the Chinook blades, sure, we'll probably go through a few, but I suspect no more than what we go through on the Griffon side.  With the proper tarining of everyone involved accidents like bowsers and trees can be avoided minimized."
« Last Edit: March 31, 2010, 11:04:38 by Baden Guy »

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #142 on: March 31, 2010, 12:23:25 »
http://www.chqsoftware.net/product_info.php?products_id=125&osCsid=c9110ec00644322c2362ed35f0ea9922
I found some examples of CH-47 service bulletins at the link above. They may help to illustrate the vast difference between the Chinook and the Griffon.

The Griffon is rather like a Honda Civic where The Chinook could probably be compared to  an 18 wheel transport truck. I make the comparison to simplify the difference for people who have limited experience and may have been misled by glossy sales brochures produced by Boeing.

The service bulletins usually entail more than checking for things like improperly installed seat belts and other  nuances that plague little helicopters.
I rather doubt that the stock of split pins and tiewraps that a TACHEL Sqn. gets by on would be of much help for a Chinook operation.

Also as the unit will be the one and only operation of it's type in Canada and it will provide all inspection and maintenance for the fleet from one facility it would only require the use of the free but much underused common sense that most of us have to rely on to conclude that it would be a great idea to keep a whole bunch of spares on site

It's all well and good to play the green game but there are some times when for the sake of operational efficiency we have to do what's practical.
Unless of course you are in some sort competition to be named as the greenest aviation unit in the CF and I'm sure that every Chinook that sits on the ground rather than goes flying will vastly reduce carbon use and those nasty emissions.

 
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #143 on: March 31, 2010, 12:53:15 »
It might be the only Chinook unit in Canada, but it certainly won't be the only one in North America.  Where do you think 4th line maintenance with be done?  So it won't be providing ALL inspections and maintenance.  I might be getting picky, but it's only because you are not looking beyond our 1 unit and our borders.

As for being green, this is a CF policy, not an Air Force one.  Why do you think we have a massive supply depot in Montreal?

To quote captloadie:
Quote
Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager

This means it makes no sense carrying 3 full sets of blades, the same amount of transmissions and engines, and half a dozen windscressn.  Sure, have one or two on hand and then order replacements as they are used, as is the norm.  These items don't get replaced every day, even in theatre.

To put this in perspective, do you buy 30 jumbo packs of toilet paper so that you don't run out during the year?  Of course you don't (unless you are some type of hoarder in which case may I direct you to a pretty cool show on A&E on Monday nights).  Not only is this cost prohibitive, but the space it takes up could be used for other things.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #144 on: March 31, 2010, 15:32:22 »
When the Jet Rangers in Portage were turned over to Bombardier in 1992, all of the spares purchsed for the fleet came out of whatever supply depot(s) where they had been warehoused for the ten years that we'd been operating Jet Rangers, and were consolidated in Portage. Some things had both the Bombardier guys and us a little baffled and amused: there was a whole main uselage section in a crate, primed in zinc chromate.

We'd bought and  paid for something that had never been used, and was never likely to have been, and if we ever needed it there certainly would have not been any rush.

I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

These are not the same old Chinooks that we bought three and a half decades ago, and the CF maintenance and supply systems and manufacturer support systems have all changed too.

Offline Chapeski

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 9,482
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 406
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #145 on: March 31, 2010, 15:46:32 »
Some people who have never worked in the supply system should keep in their lanes. You don't hear us whining that every time I went out to a CC-130 to rig it for a drop, the techs hadn't done their job and I had to wait.

The supply system isn't a "Just in Time System". Stores held at the unit or on the base are based on the consumption levels and stock limits provided to the supply system by the USER and the Program manager, which rarely ask the supply system important questions like what the lead times for delivery, or bother to tell the system where to source the parts/POL from.  Maybe if someone goes out to Mountainview and scrounges through the parts that are sitting out there (including brand new engines for long ago retired aircraft) maybe they will find some Chinook parts left over from the time when we ordered 5 of everything just in case.

Thank you for saying this as I was just about to start fuming about it.

beenthere, we have 2 main Supply Depots, 1 here in Edmonton, and 1 in Montreal. Items that take a while to get are sometimes on back order from the manufacturer, or we are awaiting new procurment contracts (item manager stuff, far above any regular supply tech's job). So before you go around decrying the system sit there and think of some of the other factors that come into play. Also, was there not a maintenance contract that was signed as well? Is that not the defacto thing the gov't is putting into the big contracts now? I don't think we are going to be in a big hurt for parts, not for a while anyway.
"All the great things are simple, and many can be expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope."
-Winston Churchill
"Nine times of ten an army has been destroyed because its supply lines have been severed"
- Macarthur, August 1950 to the Joint Chiefs of Staff

Offline beenthere

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 1,010
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 264
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #146 on: March 31, 2010, 17:58:53 »
I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Spares will no doubt be needed from day one. Despite the sales pitch that paints the latest model of Chinook as being the perfect helicopter it's very complex and still retains a mass of systems that cannot work without failures.

Troubleshooting a system such as the "automatic" flight controls which are a combination of sensors, control units and hydraulic components as well as mechanical linkages usually involves swapping out so called black boxes and other components until the faulty component is isolated. Without a supply of components there is no option other than robbing parts from other aircraft. Once the robbing starts it becomes epidemic and results in two or more aircraft being unserviceable rather than one. It also causes duplication of maintenance functions as parts that are removed have to be replaced on both aircraft. Techs get pissed off when they work in a system that lacks the materials required to do their jobs and the whole situation deteriorates into a laughable but sad fiasco.

Test equipment used to check such systems comes at great expense and with all sorts of promises that it's capable of finding faults. However in reality it often cannot detect some of the simple faults that cause problems.
It's so smart that it overlooks the obvious. Just like some people.

Quick engine change units are essential to efficient aviation operations as it's often more efficient to change the complete engine than to change engine components while the engine is mounted on the aircraft. Sometimes an engine develops  faults that defy the usual troubleshooting techniques and removing it is a better option than an endless series of test flights. The best place to check functions is on a test stand where the techs can test the engine as many times as required and do all kinds of adjustments on the spot without all of the complications of calling in a crew and flying the aircraft, landing, making adjustments or changing components and then going through the whole flight test again.

If an aircraft develops an engine problem away from home base the sqn. can dispatch a repair crew with a spare engine that's kept right in the hangar and the whole recovery task can be completed in less time than it would take to ship the engine from the supply depot to the sqn.
To even think of an operational unit not having a QECU on hand defies logic.
But not lately. If I could do it all over again I would  change one thing.

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 34,541
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,463
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #147 on: March 31, 2010, 18:37:36 »
I wouldn't get too wrapped up in this "green" crap, but there is no sense whatsoever in buying stuff that is not likely to be needed much and/or in a hurry. I have reasonable confidence that parts will be stocked in the quantities and locations where it makes the most sense.

I'm not knocking the supply system but rather the idea that it's more important to be green than maintain a reasonable stock of spares right at the place where they are needed.

Yes, parts that are used often will in all probability be kept at the unit, as has been stated already.

As for automatic flight controls, there is enough experience between the aircraft that we are flying now that the big heads in the maintenance world and supply will have a reasonable idea of what will have to be kept close by.  Not to mention that they are relatively small and don't take up much room in the way of stores.

Quick engine changes are essential, but that doesn't mean there's a reason to keep 3 or 4 of them kicking around in case they all go tits up.  Do you keep a full set of tires in your garage in case all of them go at once?  No, you have 1 spare (winter tires don't count in this analogy) because the chances of you losing all your tires at once is pretty remote...unless make a habit of pissing off the cops and run over a barrier of course.   ;D

The system may not be perfect, but it works for the Griffons both at home and abroad and is somewhat* working for the Chinooks overseas.  Let it go.

*I say somewhat working for the Chinooks overseas simply because we didn't have a Canadian stock system set up for these aircraft when we first got them and ordering parts and POL was a bit of a bear.  Not sure if this is still the case or not.  I've been out of that loop for almost a year now.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 219,842
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7,502
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #148 on: March 31, 2010, 20:13:11 »
We seem to be able to look after our other fleets fairly well, acknowledging that nothing is perfect (and neither was the old system), so why expect New Chinook to be any different in that regard than CH146, C17, and C130J etcetera?

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 272,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,330
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: CH47 Chinook
« Reply #149 on: April 02, 2010, 11:37:39 »
I think the folks will have the logistics worked out for the Hook.  Boeing (Vertol) is a very capable supporter of their products.  Whatever parts need to be kept in location to support 1st through 3rd level maintenance will be, the rest will be a blend of items supported by the CFSS (and the unit will leave that to the CF log/supply pros to manage) and the rest will be managed by Boeing and the in-service support provider (yet to be determined, but to be chosen by competitive assessment process with PWGSC).  I have faith that lessons learned from previous and recent acquisitions were taken into account in the work with the Chinook, and that both the aircraft and the installation will support the capability for decades to come.

Cheers
G2G