ntw mmlc drops

Discussion in 'REME' started by stefdaunt36, Sep 18, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Have heard on the grape vine that all mmlc drops have been rendered nontaskworthy? we have some coming from exercise that have had to have dispensation to move. What's the word on the REME front?
  2. Something to do with the Transfer Box Mounting Bolts...havent had all the info yet but the whole fleet has been grounded until checked.
  3. Getting a bit boring now this one - they drop a box or rear prop every 10 minutes, why the hell its not fixed yet is beyond me.
  4. Yawn!!!!!!
  5. The guys at work arn't yawning as they have to check each and every shed we own, and it is no small task!!
  6. What I heard (apparantly from IPT) was that after the original signal about checking torques of the transfer box (think it was in may/june 08), another drops has lost its transfer box. Apparently its the mount bushes that are at fault now (been ok for 17years) and all drops are non taskworthy until an alternative bush has been produced and fitted. This was wednesday and we where told a signal was on its way but to date nothing has been received.
  7. Still yawning.

    Obviously the IPT have only just woken up to the problem. Its only been identified a few times. Lets see, oh yes 2002, signal sent to check all mounting bolts on gearbox and t/box. A few cracks around mounts found. Then again same prob two years later. And so on etc etc. Typical overreaction by IPT, put the fleet of the road, (bet the MMLC's in Afghan are still running).

    Lets not allow our well trained proffesional mechanics inspect and assess each one eh. Nope some tiffy arrse gets figures in, runs to the manufacturer, who is bound to put the best case solution forward, thats best case and best financial solution FOR THEM.

    Hey presto all new expensive mounts ordered. I wonder if anyone has told the manufactuer his mounts are pants and that they should pay for the new ones?
  8. Of course this has nothing to do with the fact that the majority of these vehicles are supposed to have had a complete nut and bolt overhaul as part of a Life Extension Programme. You would have imagined that all mountings and bushes would have been renewed during this phase of repair.

    The 'programme' was. if I can recall correctly, caried out in ABRO Warminster and ABRO Catterick; standards of work varied as did depth of repair - a quick lick of paint does not an overhaul make!

    Previous posters have stated that this [throwing props etc] is not an old problem, I can remember props being thrown during Op Granby when the vehicles were ganz neue.

    As to the speculation of a 'knee jerk' reaction by the IPT I can't agree, while an assessment of the risk is carried out and even if the risk is moderate the IPT must take immediate action and IMHO I believe that this action is the way ahead. Imagine, if you will, a coroner speaking to the CSV IPT ESM and asking him under oath:

    C: " The Transfer Box/Propshaft that released itself from 37%%78 on the M25 and bounced across 3 carriageways impacting on two cars and a minibus killing , maiming etc etc...........was this a known problem?"

    ESM: "We have been aware of the problem since bringing the vehicle into service"

    C: "What action did you take to resolve this problem?"

    ESM: " We had our really well trained individuals periodically inspect the vehicles to ensure incidents like this were never going to happen"

    C: " Did you never think of perhaps having the failing components improved through redesign rather than reliance on an already overworked trade which your Corps has been showing as having a shortfall for at least the past 5 years?"

    I don't doubt that the vehicles are still running whilst on Ops, someone will have mad the 'judgement call' and balanced risk against benefit/cost; they will have undoubtedly imposed controls in order to enable taskings to continue therefore not compromising the mission.

    As to approaching the OEM to replace the mounts after 18 years in service is unrealistic, it is neither implied warranty nor sympathetic warranty; added to that the 'contract' was written many years ago when there was not such thing as SMART Procurement .........will there ever be?

    btw manic well taken opportunity to tiffy bash!