C-130 maintenance unit gets much needed upgrade

[Ths]

This news item tells about a maintainance crew that finally after 2 years get decent facilities.

It is the story about Airforces: Anybody that walks or drives to work are class B persons.
It should be in the vital interest of the pilots that these people had the best possible work and living facilities, as it is one of the jobs where the smallest error can cost the pilots their lives.

At the moment a similar story is in the telling of the RDaAF, as they with the introduction of the Merlin to replace the SeaKing has moved the airstation to Karup (some flyboys on this forum might have memories from there).
The move is strategically and economically sensible - and given the conditions of these years (the first time in a 1000 years Denmark is without a direct threat to its existence) - is perhaps the best chosen time to perform a major reorganisation; but it involves the early retirement of very experienced mechanics and a shortage of qualified maintainance personel.

What people generally don't realise is how frail aircraft are - especially military, as a C-130 will not fly anything like civilian hours in their whole carreer - and are kept flying by the professional pride of the tecnicians - a major airlines is threatned on its life in case of negligent maintrainence, not in the military where people are expected to die.

The maitainence personel is highly skilled professionals, where army supply column personel have other problems: They are not high on anybodies love list (the US Army takes a slightly less condensating attitude), given a second rate leadership (as top notch commanders are fighting at the spearhead) and is given the most dangereous positions.
That's right truckdriver in the US Army had an unproportionally high casualty rate in the Gulf wars, they died and got hurt due to overwork - falling asleep at the wheel.

Just my ramblings.

 

[Tasman]

This news item tells about a maintainance crew that finally after 2 years get decent facilities.

It is the story about Airforces: Anybody that walks or drives to work are class B persons.
It should be in the vital interest of the pilots that these people had the best possible work and living facilities, as it is one of the jobs where the smallest error can cost the pilots their lives.

At the moment a similar story is in the telling of the RDaAF, as they with the introduction of the Merlin to replace the SeaKing has moved the airstation to Karup (some flyboys on this forum might have memories from there).
The move is strategically and economically sensible - and given the conditions of these years (the first time in a 1000 years Denmark is without a direct threat to its existence) - is perhaps the best chosen time to perform a major reorganisation; but it involves the early retirement of very experienced mechanics and a shortage of qualified maintainance personel.

What people generally don't realise is how frail aircraft are - especially military, as a C-130 will not fly anything like civilian hours in their whole carreer - and are kept flying by the professional pride of the tecnicians - a major airlines is threatned on its life in case of negligent maintrainence, not in the military where people are expected to die.

The maitainence personel is highly skilled professionals, where army supply column personel have other problems: They are not high on anybodies love list (the US Army takes a slightly less condensating attitude), given a second rate leadership (as top notch commanders are fighting at the spearhead) and is given the most dangereous positions.
That's right truckdriver in the US Army had an unproportionally high casualty rate in the Gulf wars, they died and got hurt due to overwork - falling asleep at the wheel.

Just my ramblings.

You have raised some very serious issues here. In the case of military aircraft you are spot on when you talk about the high usage rates of some types, like the transports, for example. They are also flown to extreme limits which must greatly increase airframe and engine stresses. I hadn't considered the fact that a civil airline faces mass lawsuits when a crash occurs whereas a military family who lose someone in any military related incident, seems to have to rely on compensation which, IMO, always seems inadequate and certainly far less than they might expect from the same loss in a non military situation.

Apart from aircraft and helicopter crashes an incident in Australia that highlights problems that can confront maintenance personnel was the illness suffered by personnel given the task of servicing the fuel tanks of F111 aircraft. Interestingly a civil action is being brought against the government by former RAAF personnel, which indicates that in Australia, at least, civil compensation is a possibility. However, the court hasn't, to the best of my knowledge, handed down a judgement.

http://www.australiandefencereport.com.au/12-06/f111_workers_launch_compensation.htm

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1630757.htm

What is the situation in other countries in relation to defence personnel or their families taking and winning civil damages cases for service related death or incapacity?

Cheers

 

[Ths]

There was in Denmark a couple of years ago the question of Air Force personel in the HAWK SAM-units. They had an extreemly high rate of late cancer - considering how unshielded it was from ionisising radiation small wonder.

So far as I recall the case just died there - with the victims.

There is a a point here.

Doing military service is dangereous, in war you might get killed. AND an enviromentally freindly battlefield is a figment of imagination.
The problem is what was done at the time the damage occured? If it was estimated at the time that the risk wasn't there, small or simply not known to exist, well then: Though luck.

The problem of maitainence of military aircraft - and I took transports as an example, because there is a recognised industry standard: There is a reason why Lufthansa doesn't do major overhauls on their planes in a mudpool by personel freezing in tents at night - just to paint with the broad brush.

My point is that skimping on maintainence is something you might have to do in battle; but with the sure knowledge that you are using a substandard piece of equipment.
Cutting maintainance corners is raising the risk for active service personel.

 

[z1pp0]

....the question of Air Force personel in the HAWK SAM-units. They had an extreemly high rate of late cancer - considering how unshielded it was from ionisising radiation small wonder.

So far as I recall the case just died there - with the victims.
....

I know absolutley nothing of this! But it cought my serious interest. Could you tell me more? Gimme some links or something.

/Dan

 

[spectre]

These are the boys (and gals too) from my home base... they kept us flying night and day 24/7


Good on them.

 

[chrisrobsoar]

Non-ionizing radiation (or, esp. in British English, non-ionising radiation) refers to any type of electromagnetic radiation that does not carry enough energy to ionize atoms or molecules - that is, to completely remove an electron from an atom or molecule.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-ionizing_radiation


Ionizing radiation has many practical uses, but it is also dangerous to human health. Both aspects are discussed below.
Ionizing radiation is either particle radiation or electromagnetic radiation in which an individual particle/photon carries enough energy to ionize an atom or molecule by completely removing an electron from its orbit. If the individual particles do not carry this amount of energy, it is impossible for even a large flood of particles to cause ionization. These ionizations, if enough occur, can be very destructive to living tissue, and can cause DNA damage and mutations. Examples of particle radiation that are ionizing may be energetic electrons, neutrons, atomic ions or photons. Electromagnetic radiation can cause ionization if the energy per photon, or frequency, is high enough, and thus the wavelength is short enough. The amount of energy required varies between molecules being ionized. X-rays, and gamma rays will ionize almost any molecule or atom; Far ultraviolet, near ultraviolet and visible light are ionizing to some molecules; microwaves and radio waves are non-ionizing radiation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionizing_radiation


The radars used in SAM sites it of too low a frequency to cause ionising radiation.

It the long-term cancer risk was elevated the question would be what it the source.

Some early transmit-receive cells (TR Cells) used very small quantities of radioactive material such as Tritium. But this material is only (a very small) risk if it is ingested, inhaled or enters the body through a cut.

Correctly operating Magnetrons, High Power Klystron Amplifiers (KPAs) and Travelling Wave Tubes (TWTs) due not produce emissions such as X rays is an ionising radiation. For a very short period (milliseconds) during failure a small amount of X rays can be produced. Similarly the high voltage power supplies can produce small amount of X rays during failure.

In practice these periods of risk are so short and so far away from the crew (the high voltage alone is much more of a danger) that they can be ignored.

It is more likely that the crews were exposed to some other common cause associated with the operation of the SAM sites, oils greases etc.

I know that many specialists regard some types of hydraulic oil and in particular cooling oils, such as Coolanol 25R (used in many high power transmitters) is cacogenic. Indeed this is one of the reasons that it has been replace with Poly Alpha Olefin (PAO). (That and the Montreal Protocol on CFCs and the fact that when presented as a mist it can explode!)


http://www.exxonmobil.com/lubes/exx...te_Ester_Dielectric_Heat_Transfer_Fluids.html


If you have any further details I would be very interested, as I have worked with radar for more than forty years and have a personal vested interest in the subject.


Chris

 

[spectre]

This news item tells about a maintainance crew that finally after 2 years get decent facilities.

It is the story about Airforces: Anybody that walks or drives to work are class B persons.
It should be in the vital interest of the pilots that these people had the best possible work and living facilities, as it is one of the jobs where the smallest error can cost the pilots their lives.

At the moment a similar story is in the telling of the RDaAF, as they with the introduction of the Merlin to replace the SeaKing has moved the airstation to Karup (some flyboys on this forum might have memories from there).
The move is strategically and economically sensible - and given the conditions of these years (the first time in a 1000 years Denmark is without a direct threat to its existence) - is perhaps the best chosen time to perform a major reorganisation; but it involves the early retirement of very experienced mechanics and a shortage of qualified maintainance personel.

What people generally don't realise is how frail aircraft are - especially military, as a C-130 will not fly anything like civilian hours in their whole carreer - and are kept flying by the professional pride of the tecnicians - a major airlines is threatned on its life in case of negligent maintrainence, not in the military where people are expected to die.

The maitainence personel is highly skilled professionals, where army supply column personel have other problems: They are not high on anybodies love list (the US Army takes a slightly less condensating attitude), given a second rate leadership (as top notch commanders are fighting at the spearhead) and is given the most dangereous positions.
That's right truckdriver in the US Army had an unproportionally high casualty rate in the Gulf wars, they died and got hurt due to overwork - falling asleep at the wheel.

Just my ramblings.

To be quite fair, I started out Mx and then became aircrew. Them just getting the facilities is a huge story...but guess what? The aircrew did not have any better facilities.
In fact, when the same unit was at masirah island we shared the same tents that the mx used, and when we moved up to manas, Kyrgyzstan they used the same tents everyone used...but us aircrew had to walk 3/4 of a mile further for the showers and bathrooms... Our unit always gave the Mx the same facilities that are offered to the aircrew.

 

[z1pp0]

Non-ionizing radiation (or, esp. in British English, non-ionising radiation) refers to any type of ....

...
If you have any further details I would be very interested, as I have worked with radar for more than forty years and have a personal vested interest in the subject.


Chris

Thank you Chris. This was interesting. I would like to know more about radar technology. Specificaly mil radars. Shure I have googled it but could you recomend a site or a book on this subject?

@ Ths: Could yo gimme more info on this perticular 'scandal'?

/Dan

 

[Ths]

It was all over the Danish papers some years ago. Zippo

 

[Ths]

chrisrobsoar :

Well perhaps; but I know it was standard training practise to throw a frozen chicken in front of the radar to warn the new conscripts of the danger of walking in front of the radar. The chiken not only roasted it charcoaled.

 

[Grand Danois]

chrisrobsoar :

Well perhaps; but I know it was standard training practise to throw a frozen chicken in front of the radar to warn the new conscripts of the danger of walking in front of the radar. The chiken not only roasted it charcoaled.

This is what I could dig up. This was the situation February 7th 2003:

Danish Hawk operator exposure to radiation was similar to German, which was far below dangerous or non acceptable values, or similar to those found in the report:

„Berufsgenossenschaft der Feinmechanik und Elektroteknik“ from Präventionsabteilung Fachbereich Strahlenschuts, November 11 2001.

This report basically says that there is no documentation of the relation between cancer and radar exposure, however t cannot exclude the possibility etiher.

There is also another report:

Bericht des Arbeitsstabes Dr. Sommer ”Die Bundeswehr und ihr Umgang mit Fefährdungen und Gefahrstoffen, Uranmunition, Radar, Asbest“, June 21 2001.

This report had at the time (2003) been the basis 3000 claims for reparation in Germany. 1800 had been processed, 1300 claims had been rejected, 9 had been accepted, with a further 4 that would be. The latter two groups are from the Bundesmarine and Hawk units.

An epidimological survey was expected primo 2003 on the 80,000 people who had been working on radars since 1957.

Generally the Germans do not accept that there is a relationship between working with radar and cancer, however, as it cannot be ruled out completely (100%), some special cases have been given reparation.

As the conditions and circumstances were similar, the material from the German studies could be applied to Danish circumstances.

In Denmark 1 out of 5 claims - there apparently only was five claims - were awarded reparation.

In Danish.

link1

link2

 

[Ths]

The problem is to show a clear connection between exposure and cancer - it can be done for smoking; but you have a 20-30 % chance of developing a cancer that will kill you - and which cigar killed you.
Finally there is no such thing as an enviromentally friedly battlefield.

The other problem for technicians is the limited carreer opportunity. In Denmark they finally made a SAM - officer major general, otherwise they have to be pilots. There was also a glass-cieling for navigators and controllers.

 

[spectre]

How is this relevant to C-130s units getting better beds and a roof?
Not that this is not a very important subject.

 

[Ths]

The problem about maintainence of military aircraft, not only transports, is that they are very frail constructions.
When they are used operationally they are shot at, operated at the edge of what the manual recommends: In general military flying is abuse of materiel.
In peace time you have the facilities to care for the aluminium and the personel, because personel to some extend at least is geared towards the much higher operational usage in wartime.

If a tank is wrongly maintained it stop (maybe at an akward spot, but never the less it is unlikely to fall apart), but an aircraft with a maintainence flaw is liable to meet the ground prematurely in one or several pieces - which will prevent it from accomplishing its mission - permanently.

Few doubt the risk of flying with an overtired pilot, but an overtired mechanic forgetting a spanner is just as lethal (I'm thinking of a specific case) or overseeing a pitot tube cover - pilot in a hurry to get the bird in the air (those marines are pressed and need the shells NOW and to get their wounded out). Basically what I'm saying is that you can get an awfull lot of fine facilities for the price of one Herky-bird. Everybody knows that overtired workers with substandard facilities make more mistakes; but the link between the facilities and the mistake that cost an aircraft (plus the very expensive crew) is hard to quantify.

 

[spectre]

The problem about maintenance of military aircraft, not only transports, is that they are very frail constructions.
When they are used operationally they are shot at, operated at the edge of what the manual recommends: In general military flying is abuse of materiel.
In peace time you have the facilities to care for the aluminium and the personel, because personel to some extend at least is geared towards the much higher operational usage in wartime.

If a tank is wrongly maintained it stop (maybe at an akward spot, but never the less it is unlikely to fall apart), but an aircraft with a maintainence flaw is liable to meet the ground prematurely in one or several pieces - which will prevent it from accomplishing its mission - permanently.

Few doubt the risk of flying with an overtired pilot, but an overtired mechanic forgetting a spanner is just as lethal (I'm thinking of a specific case) or overseeing a pitot tube cover - pilot in a hurry to get the bird in the air (those marines are pressed and need the shells NOW and to get their wounded out). Basically what I'm saying is that you can get an awfull lot of fine facilities for the price of one Herky-bird. Everybody knows that overtired workers with substandard facilities make more mistakes; but the link between the facilities and the mistake that cost an aircraft (plus the very expensive crew) is hard to quantify.

Well, being both a mechanic on AC-130s and a Flight Engineer on both AC-130s and C-130s I can say...sleep is much more important while flying vs maintaining.
When you are the fixer..you have a large team that is overlooking one another..and then what is called a seven level who overlooks everything else and makes sure that the procedure was done correctly. then the Flight Engineer comes around and looks at the maintenance that had been performed and looks it over to see if it was done correctly on his/her preflight.
I am not at all saying that the maintainers do not deserve better. I am not saying that they do not have a hard, complex job....what I am saying is..even if one of your maintenance team members is "under the weather" the team can still function and do the job correctly. But if a pilot or other crew member is not well rested...a lot can go wrong.

 

[Ths]

spectre: That is precisely my point: When pilots are down it is apparent immediately. Properly managed maintainence is robust so they can perform for very long with very little - and as a commander I would be hard on my maintainence; but don't commit the error that because it has gone well (without major disaster) for long, then it must be able to continue forever with nothing. Maintainence can perform wonders by postponing problems that will show up on overhaul - hopefully. I recall on a ferry where they got al the coppertubing heated (to prevent breaking of the copper tubes) - and discovered all the "repairs" done with tin. Now that is why You have major overhauls; but does the aircraft live to get that overhaul.
My experience with "grease-monkeys" (a term of endearment with me) is that they only complain (not the usual bickering which is necessary for any piece of organisation and equipment to work) just before the crunsh. Simply because they have given up warning in time.

 

[spectre]

spectre: That is precisely my point: When pilots are down it is apparent immediately. Properly managed maintainence is robust so they can perform for very long with very little - and as a commander I would be hard on my maintainence; but don't commit the error that because it has gone well (without major disaster) for long, then it must be able to continue forever with nothing. Maintainence can perform wonders by postponing problems that will show up on overhaul - hopefully. I recall on a ferry where they got al the coppertubing heated (to prevent breaking of the copper tubes) - and discovered all the "repairs" done with tin. Now that is why You have major overhauls; but does the aircraft live to get that overhaul.
My experience with "grease-monkeys" (a term of endearment with me) is that they only complain (not the usual bickering which is necessary for any piece of organisation and equipment to work) just before the crunsh. Simply because they have given up warning in time.

Ok, I misunderstood sorry.

 

[Ths]

Spectre: Don't apologise, you're entitled to a clarification, and I'm delighted to have one of the services less in the limelight to discuss with, as it gives a different perspective.