Jet repairs slow at Hill AFB, slower elsewhere

0 Comments | Deseret News (Salt Lake City), Apr 4, 2004 | by Copyright 2004 Deseret Morning News By Lee Davidson Deseret Morning

WASHINGTON -- If you've ever been forced to wait an extra day for car repairs, you might relate to Air Force units that had to park planes up to two years longer than planned for work at the nation's three air logistics centers -- which include Utah's Hill Air Force Base.

What's more, like car repairs that cost more than estimated, work done by the three logistics centers cost much more than planned -- $134 million in 2001 alone on just six types of planes studied by inspectors. The depots had to absorb those losses themselves instead of their customer Air Force wings.

That's according to documents obtained by the Deseret Morning News through a Freedom of Information Act request.

The documents provide some good news for Hill, however:

Delays and cost overruns for aircraft serviced there were much less severe than those serviced at the two sister bases. That could be important, as another base-closure round is scheduled next year and the bases may compete against each other for survival.

The Pentagon's Air Force Audit Agency studied the efficiency of planned, major maintenance work on six types of aircraft: the F-16 fighter and A-10 bomber serviced at Hill, the C-5 and C-141 cargo planes serviced at Robins Air Force Base, Ga., and the KC-135 and B- 1 bomber serviced at Tinker Air Force Base, Okla.

After looking at such aircraft serviced from October 1999 through January 2002, inspectors concluded the three bases "did not accomplish aircraft maintenance requirements in a timely and cost- efficient manner."

In fact, 40 percent of all planes studied had planned maintenance completed late, even though bases could delay their promised finish times once per plane (after an initial inspection) without the newly revised date being considered late.

Inspectors said 33 percent of the A-10s and 31 percent of the F- 16s receiving planned maintenance work at Hill were delayed beyond promised finish dates.

But that was at least two times better than the 70 percent of B- 1s and 88 percent of the KC-135s that were late at Tinker, and about three times better than the 93 percent of C-5s and 94 percent of C- 141s delayed at Robins.

Grounded aircraft

Inspectors said delays at Hill ranged between six and 342 days, or just under a year. They were up to 384 days at Robins and up to 842 days (over two years) at Tinker.

As an example, Tinker in 1999 found it had scheduled in and accepted 21 more KC-135s than it could actually handle for programmed maintenance. It decided to park 16 of them and to "gradually work these aircraft into the ongoing Programmed Depot Maintenance schedule until all were completed."

Inspectors said the backups caused problems for customer Air Force units. During May 2002, for example, inspectors found that a total of 132 KC-135s were grounded for repairs. Air Force plans called for no more than 50 of that fleet to be grounded for repairs at any given time, so, inspectors wrote, "Operational Air Force units faced a shortage of 82 aircraft."

Inspectors complained that the logistics bases did a poor job of estimating how many man hours would be needed for maintenance work and that errors and extra work cost a combined $134 million in 2001 alone which depots had to absorb.

Estimates for work at Hill were short by 14 percent on A-10s and 21 percent for F-16s, for a combined cost overrun of $22 million.

It was much worse at sister bases.

At Tinker, labor estimates were short by 23 percent for the B-1 and 43 percent for the KC-135 for a combined loss of $70.5 million. At Robins, estimates were short by 43 percent for the C-141 and 78 percent for the C-5 for a combined loss of $41.9 million.

Inspectors said maintenance workers planned 35,047 man hours of work on one C-141 at Robins that actually required 55,490 hours for an extra cost of $2.3 million for that one airplane. (The Air Force will phase out the C-141 by 2006, and last year ended all programmed maintenance for it.)

Increasing efficiency

Air Force Materiel Command, which oversees the three logistics bases, said that the study came during "one of the most tumultuous times in our depots" and they were "in recovery from Base Realignment and Closure" rounds that shuttered two other depot bases. Also, "we were saddled with many aging aircraft issues."

Still, inspectors called on the Air Force to review its methods of planning aircraft work to eliminate delays and cost overruns and look for ways to hold down costs. Air Force Materiel Command said it has done just that.

Air Force Materiel Command said in a written reply to the study that it has instituted what it calls "lean" business initiatives "which have increased the efficiency of our work centers and decreased the amount of time people spend doing the job and the time a part stays in the repair process. This puts the part in the mechanic's hand sooner and eventually decreases the overall time an aircraft stays in depot."

In the March issue of its magazine called "Leading Edge," Air Force Materiel Command said air logistics are going through an "extreme makeover" by what it calls "LEAN methods" to improve production lines and support for them.