Examination of Witnesses (Questions 64-79)
MR PAUL
O'HARA, DR
BEATRICE NICHOLAS
AND MR
DECLAN O'SHEA
19 MAY 2009
Q64 Chairman: May I welcome our three
new witnesses. May I repeat that you do not need to answer every
question, and actually you have heard all these questions answered
anyway so you need only add to anything you think you would like
to add because we are going to be going through the same sorts
of questions and we do not need to do it at huge length. But I
would like to say thank you very much indeed for coming. Mr O'Shea,
would you like to begin by introducing yourself and saying what
your company does?
Mr O'Shea: Certainly; thank you,
Mr Chairman. My name is Declan O'Shea and I am the President and
Chief Executive of Vector Aerospace. Vector Aerospace is a company
based in Canada; we have operations in the UK, Canada and in the
United States. We perform maintenance, repair and overhaul on
helicopters, helicopter engines and on fixed wing engines.
Q65 Chairman: Thank you very much.
Dr Nicholas.
Dr Nicholas: My name is Beatrice
Nicholas; I work for SELEX Galileo, which is part of the Finmeccanica
Group. I am the Director of the Surveillance and Protection Technology
area within the electronic warfare business there and we provide
electronic warfare equipment to wide range of helicopter platforms
for the UK.
Q66 Chairman: Thank you. Mr O'Hara.
Mr O'Hara: A very good morning
to you. My name is Paul O'Hara; I am the Rolls-Royce Vice President
to Customer Relations. I am representing Rolls-Royce, which has
one of the broadest portfolios of aerospace products in the world.
I am actually employed out of Bristol, which is where the Defence
Aerospace business is actually based. Personally, I am based at
AgustaWestland in Somerset.
Q67 Chairman: Thank you. In relation
to helicopters what do your companies do? Mr O'Hara.
Mr O'Hara: Rolls-Royce is proud
to be associated with the defence business. We are working on
a number of products which you have already described this morning.
On the Lynx helicopter, we have the Rolls-Royce Gem engine; in
addition to that we are actively supporting the UOR to replace
the Gem engines with the LH TEC T800. On the Sea King helicopter
we have the Gnome engine which, as we have heard again this morning,
is deployed in various locations around the world. RTM322, again
a partner engine but it is on a number of Merlin applications,
of which there are at least three; and the Apache helicopter.
There are other products that we are associated with but they
are not necessarily in the UK portfolio; but I think that covers
the majority.
Dr Nicholas: We make a wide range
of electronic warfare equipment, which is fitted to helicopters
that are in service with all three of the services. For instance,
we have the HIDAS equipment, which is fitted to the UK Apache
and will also go on to the future Lynx known as the Wildcat with
AgustaWestland. We made the Sky Guardian 200 Radar Warning Receiver,
which has been on a wide range of platforms for a number of years;
and the Sky Guardian 2000 Radar Warning Receiver which is on the
Sea King and Merlin Mk 3. Through other parts of the company—not
the part with which I am directly associated—we also make
radar and other equipment which is fitted on various parts of
the helicopter fleet.
Q68 Chairman: Do you make glass cockpits?
Dr Nicholas: We do not, no.
Q69 Chairman: Mr O'Shea?
Mr O'Shea: We provide depth maintenance
at Fleetlands for the Chinook, Sea King and Lynx helicopter platforms,
and for those same platforms in Almondbank we provide the dynamic
components.
Chairman: Thank you very much indeed.
David Crausby.
Q70 Mr Crausby: As I said in the
first part, we have in the region of 586 helicopters owned, of
which there are 17 types and several subsets within each type.
So can you tell us what problems that fleet within fleet causes
and what is the ideal situation we should be at? What kinds of
numbers of types and subsets should we be aiming at and what would
be the problems that are associated with all of that?
Mr O'Hara: I will take that first,
sir. I think from a Rolls-Royce perspective obviously the greater
the number of variants—and certainly I am talking obviously
at an engine level—then it does entail that you need greater
numbers of spares and different types of spares, more importantly,
to support those subsets. The ideal is obviously that you have
fewer numbers, certainly from an engine perspective, and therefore
in terms of reducing the logistical footprint. On the Merlin,
as an example, there are three different types of engines. With
regards to different marks they are subsets of the RTM 322 but
there are subtle differences, which although the pilots themselves
in terms of overall operation will not be aware of, when you start
to get to logistical footprints, when you start talking about
a supply chain then obviously that entails that different parts
have to be made. The ideal, certainly from an engine perspective,
is to commonise where possible; that brings economies of scale
into being and it means that there are less spare parts that you
have to procure to support that activity, and overall that reduces
the logistical footprint.
Mr O'Shea: From our perspective
it is largely an issue of planning. I think from the commercial
side commonality has been the key for a long time and that certainly
drives down costs. In planning the aircraft the main issue is
the supply chain because with the subsets of aircraft there are
many subsets of parts that are required. So it is not a key to
delivering the aircraft; the key is ensuring that you have the
parts and that is really a budgetary issue.
Dr Nicholas: If I can add to that,
as an equipment supplier to helicopters? It is a great advantage
for us if we can have common equipment across a range of platforms;
certainly from the supply point of view it makes it much easier
for us to have common equipment. It will reduce cost because we
can have larger productions runs. As my colleagues have said,
it also eases the supply chain and the logistics chain. I think
in addition there is also a big benefit across the wide range
of lines of development in that we can train pilots, maintenance
crew and our teams on a single set of equipment which they will
find on a number of platforms, and that reduces cost and reduces
repair time because we get a faster turnaround. I think one other
really important point for us is that if we have common equipment
across a wide range of platforms it makes it easier for us to
justify investment in the new technology for the future so that
we can improve the capability of equipment and deal with the threat
as that evolves.
Q71 Mr Crausby: How big an issue
is the training problem that we raised in the first part? The
Chairman described the example of training on analogue systems
only to operate on digital systems. Some answers to that were
that we would get around that, but would you like to be the first
person to fly with the pilot in an operation going straight on
to a digital system?
Mr O'Shea: Clearly you want to
be trained on the system that you are going to use and for commercial
aircraft the whole cockpit management team has been there for
quite some time, so clearly it has to be better to train on the
systems that you are going to use.
Dr Nicholas: I think the same.
We work very closely with the aircraft manufacturers to make sure
that we get the right training packages in place, but a diversity
of equipment certainly makes it more difficult for not only the
pilots but other crew transferring from one aircraft to another;
so if we can have more commonality of equipment that makes that
transfer simpler.
Q72 Mr Crausby: Is it a serious problem
in your experience?
Dr Nicholas: Anecdotally we have
heard suggestions but I do not have any hard evidence of that—it
would be anecdotal.
Mr O'Hara: I do not see that to
a large extent from an engine perspective because largely the
systems that we have are integrated with the cockpit, so the only
example I could give is the transition from a Gem powered Lynx
to a T800 powered Lynx. In that case there will be an additional
glass screen but the training that has been put in place through
AgustaWestland in conjunction with the Authority, will actually
train the pilots to utilise that additional glass screen which
therefore they will be used to that when they actually go into
operation through the UOR.
Q73 Mr Hamilton: With the variety
of things that have happened, with the variety of choices that
are available and with the changes that take place, how much downtime
does a pilot have to adjust to every single change that takes
place? The point about familiarity—and I think Mr Sharp
said earlier and you are reiterating—is that the familiarity
has to really be the key to the whole thing; that the person who
gets in the cockpit should have very little change, irrespective
of what change is round the corner. But from what we have heard
we have not reached that position, but that there is constant
change; so how much downtime does that mean for the pilots?
Dr Nicholas: I am not sure that
there is constant change of the equipment but there is constant
change between platforms because the equipment is different on
different platforms. I am afraid I do not know.
Q74 Mr Hamilton: And this has to
change for each one?
Dr Nicholas: In some cases yes.
I am afraid I do know what the impact of that is.
Q75 Chairman: That is not your field?
Dr Nicholas: No.
Q76 Mr Hamilton: Can I ask a question
about cannibalisation of spare parts because it was raised earlier
on. What are the problems in relation to cannibalisation of spare
parts?
Mr O'Shea: We are responsible
for three platforms: that is the Chinook, the Sea King and the
Lynx. The Chinook we do not have a cannibalisation issue, and
although the Sea King is 40 years old we do not have a cannibalisation
issue there. Clearly there is some redundancy on the Lynx because
their numbers are reducing, so there are donor aircraft coming
available. And from time to time, because we operate pulse lines,
we may have to take one from an incoming aircraft to test it more
quickly than the process would otherwise suggest, and bring it
forward. But we rarely find that we have a cannibalisation issue.
Mr O'Hara: From a large perspective
it does depend upon the type of support arrangement that we are
contracted to. So from an engine perspective where it is more
traditional type support you are far more likely to have support
issues in terms of the procurement of the spares, the legacy spares,
as opposed to a more inclusive type arrangement where it is more
on track with an availability contract, where we as industry—sorry
to use the terminology—are directly responsible for the
whole procurement, the resourcing of the spares, the actual forecasting
of the spares, etc, which means that as a total package it is
far easier to deliver the product that you are actually trying
to get forward.
Q77 Mr Hamilton: So on the spares
issue what improvements are you making to try and speed up the
process to get spares on the field as quickly as possible?
Mr O'Hara: On the traditional
side, it is things like life extension and it is about looking
at the number of arisings; it is actually trying to stop the arisings
from occurring in the first place. If you have deployed service
engineers forwards with the units that are actually utilising
the equipment you can actually stop something that would be coming
back and therefore could be quite a costly rejection. Investing
in repairs as opposed to actually utilising brand new components
is another way of cost reduction as well; so it is all about working
both with the people who are actually doing the level servicing—in
some circumstances it is ourselves, in some cases it is partner
companies—but at the end of the day it is working together
to try and reduce the cost of those operations. That is in a traditional
sense and in the availability we take a far more inclusive type
of arrangement so that all aspects of the engine support are incorporated
into that supply.
Q78 Mr Hamilton: Could I ask the
final part of my question and that is the risks associated with
putting a more powerful engine into an old airframe?
Mr O'Hara: Perhaps I should answer
that. It is on a case by case basis. I think there was a particular
case that you were debating this morning but I would talk about
two subjects that I am aware of: one is with the Lynx, with the
T800 and the second one is RTM 322 and we are proposing growth
versions of that for the Merlin application. We have worked hand
in glove with the aircraft manufacture so it is not about—an
example was used this morning- of almost overpowering the aircraft
and therefore the aircraft not being able to take it. We have
worked very, very closely in the integration programme of the
LH TEC T800 on to the Lynx. The aircraft is well capable of taking
the performance that it provides and therefore what we are doing,
although we are an engine supplier and the engine is a product,
it is actually increasing the capability of the air vehicle very,
very significantly in an airworthiness role, in a safe method
and a supportable method. On the RTM 322 we do have a bigger variant
of that particular engine, with which we are in discussions and
negotiations with AgustaWestland, and that similarly would provide
the Merlin with increased capability in a safe environment and
a supportable environment as well. So on a case by case basis
we do have examples where we have taken engines, all being new
designs, and they have gone into some aircraft that have already
been out there for a long time, like the Lynx, and there are other
examples where we are fitting it into newer aircraft like the
Merlin. The final thing I would say, if I may just go a little
bit further, we were talking about the RTM 322 integration into
the Apache. I think in terms of taking one engine out and putting
another engine type in, that tends to be the textbook integration
programme and everybody that was involved in it from the Authority,
AgustaWestland, ourselves and Boeing, it was the textbook way
of actually doing an engine integration.
Q79 Chairman: We were all told at
the time though that it was a very dangerous thing to do.
Mr O'Hara: Before they made the
judgment most people were concerned that it was a very, very large
risk to the programme. It became very, very apparent when the
demonstrator aircraft that was out in the States was not actually
going to be required for the full extent of the programme, and
LBA 6 demonstration programme in the States was cut short because
of the progress and success that we had made in the States. The
remainder of the flying was done on prototype aircraft in AgustaWestland
in Yeovil.
| 
