• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

EO Tech Sight

sidemount said:
I'd like to say that is uncommon for EO Tech sights.....but as an EO Tech, we see these come through my shop all the time, for that very reason.

Unfortunately replacing them is about all we can do at this point, repair parts are extremely limited for EO sights.

EO Tech sights aren't even repairable items for that matter.  But if you are receiving ones with manufacturing defects that is something that needs to be pushed to the LCMM on a DRMIS PR TFR. Or no action will be taken to fix the issue.

 
We can get battery compartments, the god awful inserts that are in the battery compartment and th screw to hold it on the rail.....and thats about it for repair parts.


My guys BLR'd 3 yesterday for the detatched optical piece
 
As far as I know, the LCMM is in the know of this issue....whether something is being done....well thats a different story
 
sidemount said:
As far as I know, the LCMM is in the know of this issue....whether something is being done....well thats a different story

Something better being done. As of right now I have a ~6% failure rate on our primary weapon system. Should we be filling UCRs?
 
UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.
 
sidemount said:
UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.
That's not true. They are also they're to inform the bloated HQ if there is a problem with a piece of kit and possibly how it can be fixed. If enough are generated then HQ will possible look into going to a different type of item or provide insight on how to fix or minimize the problem.
 
I look at it this way....when I see a piece of kit come in with the same problem over and over I generate a TFR and send it off to the LCMM for that piece of kit....as would be the case for the eo tech sight.

If I were to get a part in from supply to repair say a lav and that part came to me from the manufacturer broken I would generate a UCR.

Tfr for common faults (broken after we get it)
Ucr for manufacturer defects (broken before we get it) edit to add: also if the equipment does not function as intended

This is how I have always done it as a tech.
 
Yes they are both for sure to inform higher of problems....each one just has a slightly different purpose
 
sidemount said:
UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.
Sheep Dog AT said:
That's not true. They are also they're to inform the bloated HQ if there is a problem with a piece of kit and possibly how it can be fixed. If enough are generated then HQ will possible look into going to a different type of item or provide insight on how to fix or minimize the problem.

Exactly, I just staffed up a UCR for the 15-ton beaver tail that the reserve CER's have for loading the case backhoes...
 
sidemount said:
UCRs are mainly for if they show up from manufacturer broken. If they were working, then failed, see your local eme guys (eo techs) and get them to do another TFR.

You're thinking of a PIF - Pre Installation Failure report.

A UCR can be submitted by anyone who has a concern about the condition or serviceability of an item, at any point in the equipment's life cycle.
 
Occam said:
You're thinking of a PIF - Pre Installation Failure report.

A UCR can be submitted by anyone who has a concern about the condition or serviceability of an item, at any point in the equipment's life cycle.
Hmmm sounds about right....I have been wrong once or twice before [emoji1]
 
This LCMM looks forward to receiving UCRs...it's one of the few things I don't have to go into DRMIS for these days, and any day I don't have to start DRMIS is a good day.
 
Occam said:
This LCMM looks forward to receiving UCRs...it's one of the few things I don't have to go into DRMIS for these days, and any day I don't have to start DRMIS is a good day.

DRMIS.....that program makes me want to smash my head through a concrete wall several times a day.....the amount of time it takes to do the DRMIS process for replacing NVG parts takes at least 3 times as long as it does to do the repair itself.
 
UCRs can also be used for getting funding priority, and the way things are, you need your ducks in a row to get in the cue above where ever the cut off line happens to be.  Also, unlike an email, it's official, and is tracked by other people then just the LCMM; at least over on the Navy side.

I've seen a few times where problems were "well known" on the coast, and then when I got to Ottawa, the LCMM had heard rumours, but had nothing they could take for action, didn't know who was actually having the problem, and didn't know what ship(s) it was on.

We're in a huge bureaucratic beast, but if you don't feed it and jump through the hoops, the only guarantee is that nothing will happen.  At least if you put in a UCR, and nothing happens, you can follow up on it as people are accountable to action it.

Kind of like voting; you can't complain about the politicians if you don't vote, and you can't complain about the LCMMs not doing their jobs if you don't send up the paperwork.  A lot of them are responsible for hundreds of items, so they won't necessarily even have noticed the six returns with defects unless someone raises it up.  I used to complain a lot more before I came to Ottawa and saw what they are dealing with, so have the luxury of context. :2c:
 
Navy_Pete said:
I've seen a few times where problems were "well known" on the coast, and then when I got to Ottawa, the LCMM had heard rumours, but had nothing they could take for action, didn't know who was actually having the problem, and didn't know what ship(s) it was on.

I'm living that dream right now.  Some new equipment we installed during FELEX had a peculiar, visible defect that you didn't even have to have technical training to notice, but it wasn't communicated to Ottawa.  Now we're doing a $28K per ship retrofit to fix it, when it could have been fixed at much less cost had it been reported as soon as it was noticed.

We're in a huge bureaucratic beast, but if you don't feed it and jump through the hoops, the only guarantee is that nothing will happen.  At least if you put in a UCR, and nothing happens, you can follow up on it as people are accountable to action it.

Kind of like voting; you can't complain about the politicians if you don't vote, and you can't complain about the LCMMs not doing their jobs if you don't send up the paperwork.  A lot of them are responsible for hundreds of items, so they won't necessarily even have noticed the six returns with defects unless someone raises it up.  I used to complain a lot more before I came to Ottawa and saw what they are dealing with, so have the luxury of context. :2c:

I'm the TA (Technical Authority) for 3424 NATO Stock Numbers, under 135 different active ERNs.  My days go very quickly.
 
I've been meaning to write up some UCRs, I'll start with this problem this week. Good times.
 
Ive done a few TFRs that have brought changes to some of our kit that have brought about changes and they are importants same as UCRs so that like was said, you feed the beast and fet some change. If you do nothing then nothing changes....paperwork sucks but its a required evil.....and most of us do paperwork everyday anyway so one more sheet isnt so bad haha
 
DRMIS TFR's are not that hard to do once you crest the small learning curve.  They can be done in either the portal or production.

And to clarify there is a difference between UCR's and TFR's.  TFR's are for when an item fails to live up to is technical specifications.  Such as the problem here with EO Tech sights.  UCR's are for when an item does meet it's technical specifications that DND asked for, but the end user finds that it fails to meet the requirements of their job...ie DND just didn't ask for what we need.  UCR's are still on the old system but will eventually move to DRMIS so I"m told.

 
NinerSix said:
Can you elaborate?

If you have not done the new TFR's see your planner or Prod O, there is a DRMIS simulation and PPT on how do them as well as an training aid pdf.  Really they are just an other type of notification, were each level in the CoC adds their comments in the text field and then adds the next level of review as a "partner".  Those people can then take action.  The normal flow would be Tech--Maint Supvisor--Planner/Prod O--ETQMS--LCMM/TA.  in the unit it will stay as a TFR, and once the LCMM gets it he changes it to a LIR, LCM Investigation Report.  It's then in his hands.  But your ETQMS can easily query for answers once the TFR is made.  And there is no longer a Unit TFR number, the DRMIS notification number becomes that and is recorded by the Planner/Prod O.

Myself as the ET 1VP, I've done one on the LAV6 and one on the C7 bayonet failures without any issues.  The technical issues might not be easy or fast to fix on the equipment....but that is no different from the old TFR system to new.

 
Back
Top