CF-18's make emergency landing in Shannon, Ireland
- Thread starter Sheerin
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 265
- Points
- 980
Inch,
I was thinking along the same lines of what you posted and those increments for the hourly's helped a bunch, thanks.
So, unless you have stuff cratering on you then these numbers are just routine. I mean, how can they possibly make forward looking statements on what the average downtime is going to be? Has anyone compared the numbers between aircraft? I think it's obvious that our new choppers are not going to require near the time to maintain them that our more senior ones do, just the way things are built now sort of dictates that. I'll say this, so much time spent turning wrenches when you could be flying is not much good, but running choppers that are older than the men flying them sort of says that this will be a reality, no?
I had a 1974 Roper lawnmower once, thing went like snot and turned on a dime. Loved that machine. But the last two years that I had the Beast it was costing me a fortune to maintain. Parts hard to come by, get out and mow half the lawn then the thing grenades, on and on, does anyone see where I am going here?
I was thinking along the same lines of what you posted and those increments for the hourly's helped a bunch, thanks.
So, unless you have stuff cratering on you then these numbers are just routine. I mean, how can they possibly make forward looking statements on what the average downtime is going to be? Has anyone compared the numbers between aircraft? I think it's obvious that our new choppers are not going to require near the time to maintain them that our more senior ones do, just the way things are built now sort of dictates that. I'll say this, so much time spent turning wrenches when you could be flying is not much good, but running choppers that are older than the men flying them sort of says that this will be a reality, no?
I had a 1974 Roper lawnmower once, thing went like snot and turned on a dime. Loved that machine. But the last two years that I had the Beast it was costing me a fortune to maintain. Parts hard to come by, get out and mow half the lawn then the thing grenades, on and on, does anyone see where I am going here?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Time is money. In the Civi world Techs bill out for between $75 and $100 and hour plus parts and materials. Good maint costs good money.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Scott, I'm picking up what you're putting down.
The routine maintenance can be pretty close to estimates, especially after you do half a dozen inspections, you tend to know how long it takes to do the different inspections. We both agree that when stuff starts breaking like older machines tend to do, the time required can go up and up, and as you said, you can't estimate the time in those instances.
I'm sure there's a publication out there comparing the different airframes in the military, I just don't know where to find it.
Cheers
The routine maintenance can be pretty close to estimates, especially after you do half a dozen inspections, you tend to know how long it takes to do the different inspections. We both agree that when stuff starts breaking like older machines tend to do, the time required can go up and up, and as you said, you can't estimate the time in those instances.
I'm sure there's a publication out there comparing the different airframes in the military, I just don't know where to find it.
Cheers
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
To play devils advocate, if Seakings were maint intensive and overly expensive why are they used by so many private companies?
To quote an owner of a large AMO counseling a pilot who was upset over his maintenance bill "If you can't afford the maintenance you can't afford the aircraft"
Another one I loved
Boss "all you control cables need to be replaced"
Owner "how far can I fly before they fail"
Boss "at least to the site of the crash"
Owner "what crash site.........?"
To quote an owner of a large AMO counseling a pilot who was upset over his maintenance bill "If you can't afford the maintenance you can't afford the aircraft"
Another one I loved
Boss "all you control cables need to be replaced"
Owner "how far can I fly before they fail"
Boss "at least to the site of the crash"
Owner "what crash site.........?"
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 410
Perhaps the Seakings in the service do more flying.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Gunnerlove said:
I never said all Sea Kings were labour intensive, just ours. Most other ones flying in the world right now are 20-30 years old, also, not all of them are Sikorsky Sea Kings. Westland made a bunch under contract 10-15 years after Sikorsky started their production line. I'm not sure what kind of wear and tear deck landings cause, but I'd hazard a guess that it's a little harder on the airframe than landing at an airport or on an oil rig. Plus, in Canada, if we need 28 aircraft, we get 28 aircraft. Most other countries buy extras for rotation so that your aircraft last longer and you're not using the same ones all the time. The problem isn't the Sea King, it's the way we've used and abused it.
Cheers
S
Storm
Guest
Speaking of extras, didn't we originally havea tad more than 28 Sea Kings, and just happened to lose a few along the way? I'm kind of curious as to whether an actual study of potential loss of airframes was done or whether someone said "well, you have 28 now and seem to be doing ok, so we'll only give you money for 28 new ones" I just have this nagging pessimism that if any are lost the fleet is going to be a bit thin for demands placed on it. Anyone know if 28 actually will be enough?
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
It's true, we did have more. I'm not sure the exact number. 28 will be fine, keep in mind when we bought the Sea Kings, we still had an aircraft carrier and a few more ships. At present, we have 12 Frigates, 3 Destroyers and 2 tankers. If every ship was at sea with an air det embarked, we'd need 17 Helos, that leaves 11 to be in servicing and training. Since we never send every ship to sea, it shouldn't be a problem, not to mention that we don't have the yearly flying hours avail or the crews to man 17 detachments anyway.
Cheers
Cheers
Ex-Dragoon
Army.ca Fixture
- Reaction score
- 17
- Points
- 430
Well really if all the ships had their full Sea King numbers embarked you would have:
CPF(12)-1X12=12
280s (3)-2x3=6
AORs (2)-3X2=6
For a grand total of 24....not that the 280s or tankers carry that many but they were designed for those numbers in mind.
CPF(12)-1X12=12
280s (3)-2x3=6
AORs (2)-3X2=6
For a grand total of 24....not that the 280s or tankers carry that many but they were designed for those numbers in mind.
In either case 28 seems to be enough provided the entire fleet isn't at sea!
S
Sam69
Guest
Originally we purchased 41 Sea Kings. We are now down to 28 remaining airframes. However, the number of remaining airframes was not the determinant of how many new aircraft we should buy. The total number for MHP was determined through analysis of the number required to support operations (IIRC it was 2x Naval TGs at 7 aircraft per TG, plus aircraft for training and maintenance and four attrition birds = 28).
The maintenance hours per Sea King differs from that of the civvy operators for a number of reasons including: we operate them in a much harsher operational environment, ours have a great deal of specialized equipment in them, and we account for our maintenance in a different way than them. Although the advertised number for the CH-124 Sea King is 30 hours of maintenance per hour of flying. The reality is a bit different, as Inch explained, maintenance hours are really man hours and are the total number of hours of maintenance accrued divided by the amount of flying. That means that routine maintenance as well as second line maintenance and time spent on mods all count as maintenance time. The latter measure was a big factor in the past ten years as the Sea King has gone through countless mods to try and keep it safe and (reasonably) economical to operate.
Sam
The maintenance hours per Sea King differs from that of the civvy operators for a number of reasons including: we operate them in a much harsher operational environment, ours have a great deal of specialized equipment in them, and we account for our maintenance in a different way than them. Although the advertised number for the CH-124 Sea King is 30 hours of maintenance per hour of flying. The reality is a bit different, as Inch explained, maintenance hours are really man hours and are the total number of hours of maintenance accrued divided by the amount of flying. That means that routine maintenance as well as second line maintenance and time spent on mods all count as maintenance time. The latter measure was a big factor in the past ten years as the Sea King has gone through countless mods to try and keep it safe and (reasonably) economical to operate.
Sam
Similar threads
