3 ms·

While I have no doubt that the linked article is legit, this was not my experience (I used to fly Blackhawks in the army). Maintenance schedules are periodic, w

While I have no doubt that the linked article is legit, this was not my experience (I used to fly Blackhawks in the army). Maintenance schedules are periodic, where after every flight day there will be minor maintenance, every x0 hours there will be moderate maintenance and repair, every x00 hours there will be major maintenance and repair, etc. Typically post-flight and x0-level maintenance and repair is conducted by the unit that owns the aircraft, by soldiers, not contractors.

Jtsummers 5y ago
It varies from system to system. The HH-60 Pave Hawk, for example, (USAF variant of the UH-60 Black Hawk) is well understood and on a regular maintenance schedule like you talk about. However, the USAF contract didn't require Sikorsky to hand over tech data and, instead of purchasing it, the USAF program office essentially reverse engineered a large portion of it. Go to the JSTARS, the maintenance is almost entirely done by NG (which also bit them, they fucked up the work on one and caused it to be grounded overseas after the issue caused a fuel tank rupture during midair refueling). There's also been a rush during Iraq & Afghanistan to push out small-run proprietary systems into the field for specific purposes, which also creates complications. Even if permitted, many of these systems end up being unmaintainable in the field due to the lack of maintenance tech data since it isn't required by the contract and lack of experience with the systems due to their relative novelty.
- daniel-thompson 5y ago
  Makes sense.
metaphor 5y ago
With respect to aviation, the O-level maintenance activity you would have encountered is largely unapplicable here. You'd have to step into the depot bowels of e.g. Corpus Christi, Tobyhanna, etc. to get a feel for the real behind-the-scenes clusterfuck.
mcguire 5y ago
How much of that work is repair of existing components versus wholesale replacement of larger assemblies?

Jtsummers 5y ago

It varies from system to system. The HH-60 Pave Hawk, for example, (USAF variant of the UH-60 Black Hawk) is well understood and on a regular maintenance schedule like you talk about. However, the USAF contract didn't require Sikorsky to hand over tech data and, instead of purchasing it, the USAF program office essentially reverse engineered a large portion of it. Go to the JSTARS, the maintenance is almost entirely done by NG (which also bit them, they fucked up the work on one and caused it to be grounded overseas after the issue caused a fuel tank rupture during midair refueling). There's also been a rush during Iraq & Afghanistan to push out small-run proprietary systems into the field for specific purposes, which also creates complications. Even if permitted, many of these systems end up being unmaintainable in the field due to the lack of maintenance tech data since it isn't required by the contract and lack of experience with the systems due to their relative novelty.

daniel-thompson 5y ago
Makes sense.

metaphor 5y ago

With respect to aviation, the O-level maintenance activity you would have encountered is largely unapplicable here. You'd have to step into the depot bowels of e.g. Corpus Christi, Tobyhanna, etc. to get a feel for the real behind-the-scenes clusterfuck.

mcguire 5y ago

How much of that work is repair of existing components versus wholesale replacement of larger assemblies?