PoW now being stripped for parts

penfold said:
If the lead time for components or systems is months(or shortening it costs an unreasonable premium) then unbolting it from POW and fitting it to QE makes practical sense.
Click to expand...
Assume they don't see it going back to sea any time soon.
What percentage of expected lifespan will it be in full commission (ie with full complement of aircraft) - if any?
 
It appears to me that the MOD are trying to make the best from having to choose between some very poor options, which wouldn't have occurred in a commercially aware organisation, where having a vessel U/S is viewed quite dimly.
 
jamie N said:
It appears to me that the MOD are trying to make the best from having to choose between some very poor options, which wouldn't have occurred in a commercially aware organisation, where having a vessel U/S is viewed quite dimly.
Click to expand...
You've never worked in the airline industry have you?
We have right now a number of almost new CSeries (A220) aircraft sitting waiting for engine spares. Many of which have gladly donated parts to keep the rest of the fleet in the air.
In my RAF days I can remember times when perhaps 30% of the nimrod fleet was grounded awaiting spares and they were used in the same fashion as spares donators to keep the rest of the fleet airborne.
As said, it's standard practice.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
You've never worked in the airline industry have you?
We have right now a number of almost new CSeries (A220) aircraft sitting waiting for engine spares. Many of which have gladly donated parts to keep the rest of the fleet in the air.
In my RAF days I can remember times when perhaps 30% of the nimrod fleet was grounded awaiting spares and they were used in the same fashion as spares donators to keep the rest of the fleet airborne.
As said, it's standard practice.
Click to expand...

Might be standard practice (forced by necessity) but given all the extra work entailed, it is not good practice.

As is over-servicing (not good practice), when a perfectly serviceable bit of kit is taken to pieces to make sure it is working. Then put back together, when it probably won’t. I spent time running a 2nd servicing bay, which brought the problems of over-servicing home to me.
 
Buck Turgidson said:
In my RAF days I can remember times when perhaps 30% of the nimrod fleet was grounded awaiting spares and they were used in the same fashion as spares donators to keep the rest of the fleet airborne. As said, it's standard practice.
Click to expand...

Hmm, it might well be euphamistically called "standard practice" but (unfortunately) that is a consequence of three factors.
  1. high-complexity
  2. low-reliability
  3. inadequate provision and contingency for spare parts
The first two are design and production issues. Nimrod being one of the most extreme and classic examples of both. The third is a classic finance and accounting issue for systems in almost all industries. As the bean-counters in all industries really really hate paying in advance for spares. Just in case of something that might happen at some unknown time in the future. But (sods law) rarely actually does with the few items you do have spares for. Been there, got the T-Shirt and scar tissue, as a project manager and designer, fighting and loosing the battle with project accountants for enough contingency in the projects. We look at that stock pile of spare parts as a valuable contingency resource, they view it as wasteful scrap and a depreciating asset. Of, course, given a long-enough time line, it always does turn into scrap.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top