Download - Royal Australian Navy

More documents

Recommendations

Info

NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 2003 37 level. This approach ensures those generic principles of supervision; leadership and management that apply across the wider Naval communities’ non-commissioned ranks, are coupled with the specific Naval Aviation responsibilities inherent in the Naval Aviation maintenance system. The training is derived from Aviation competency standards (3 for LS, 10 for PO and 8 for CPO), which define the category employment profile for each rank level. On promotion to Chief Petty Officer, the CPO-ATT Competency Journal is required to be completed, before FSMS authorisation is granted. FSMS authorisation being one of the eligibility requirements for promotion to Warrant Officer. Chief Petty Officers are involved in the management, co-ordination and supervision of aircraft maintenance activities at the squadron level, as well as on detachments ashore and embarked. They also have increased responsibilities for the management of aircraft configuration, performance testing, QA and OH&S, while authorised as an FSMS. SUMMARY: The inaugural presentation of the ‘Diploma in Aeronautical Engineering - Maintenance’, sees Naval Aviation Technicians being recognised for their high levels of skill and training. With the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), looking to introduce the ‘Diploma’ as the minimum requirement for Licensed Aircraft Mechanical Engineer (LAME) in the near future, Naval Aviation personnel are set to be at the fore-front of training and recognition, both in the ADF and Civilian Aviation communities. BIBLIOGRAPHY: (Extracts from Speech given by CAPT DePetrio; 24 November 2002) (Extracts from Article by CMDR Varcoe RAN, Naval Engineering Bulletin; June 2001) (Extracts from Article by CMDR Varcoe RAN, Naval Engineering Bulletin; February 2002) (Extracts from Article by LEUT Unwin RAN, Naval Engineering Bulletin; August 2002) (Extract from Article by WOATA Tunnah, Naval Engineering Bulletin; August 2002) (Extracts from Article by CDRE Barter, Naval Engineering Bulletin; August 2002) (Extracts from Article by LCDR Cairney, Naval Engineering Bulletin; February 2002) (Extracts from Article by CMDR Hamilton, Naval Engineering Bulletin; February 2002) (Extracts from Article by CDRE Joseph, Naval Engineering Bulletin; February 2002)
38 NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 2003 DR ALUN ROBERTS, THE ASSET PARTNERSHIP Revolutionising Naval Maintenance with RCM Introduction This article describes the application of Reliability-centred Maintenance (RCM) to Naval assets and the revolutionary changes being made through its application. Over the years, several myths and misunderstandings have arisen about RCM: what it is; whether it consumes too much resource, whether it can be applied to all types of naval assets including structures; whether the ends justify the means. Following the recent visit to Australia by Commander Nigel Morris RN, Head of the Royal Navy’s Warship Support Agency RCM Group, considerable interest has again been raised within the RAN about the RCM process and how it can be applied to review and reduce burdensome maintenance workloads. It is apparent that the RN has made enormous progress over the past five to six years in implementing RCM-based maintenance programmes to the Hunt Class MCMVs, Type 23 Frigates and other platforms and that the benefits of RCM no longer need justification in the naval context. The RAN (through ANZAC) and the US Navy’s Naval Air Warfare Center have also started using RCM to review maintenance policies across a range of systems. practices been more necessary than in the aviation industry during the late 1950s and early 1960s. In this post-war period, new aircraft types were being FIGURE 1: THE TRADITIONAL VIEW OF EQUIPMENT FAILURE. brought into service with new technologies (greatly increased numbers of hydraulic, pneumatic, electro-mechanical and electronic systems) placing new and unforeseen demands on operators and maintainers. Up to this time aviation equipment had been much simpler and less stressed, with underlying maintenance policy being based on the belief that components and equipment displayed a ‘useful life’ after for equipment types was believed to increase around a specific number of operating periods as shown in Figure 1. As the new generation of aircraft entered service, aviation accidents associated with equipment failure were becoming more frequent to the point at which the US Federal Aviation Authority undertook a fundamental review of aircraft maintenance and safety. A major finding was that failure was considerably more complex than had previously been thought. There were in fact not one, but six patterns governing equipment failure, as we see in Figure 2. Against a background of having to do more with less, RCM offers a proven and robust means for the Navy to obtain maintenance ‘value for money’ and, in parallel, improve operating safety, system reliability and platform availability. The need for change Nowhere was the need for change in maintenance thinking and FIGURE 2: THE SIX FAILURE PATTERNS which failures would accelerate in frequency. In response, maintenance policies were developed to change or overhaul items as they approached this perceived ‘life’. Graphically, the conditional probability of failure Recognition of these patterns heralded a revolution in the world of aviation maintenance and equipment design. Patterns A, B and C supported the existence of age-related failure, but only in a relatively small percentage of
Page 2 and 3: NAVY ENGINEERING BULLETIN MARCH 200

Download - Royal Australian Navy

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?