USAF Maintainers merging jobs

[Fishbone Jones]

Did the RCAF not do this about 20 years ago? I was Safety Systems in the late 70's, early 80's. After I released, I heard they were amalgamating trades, including SS tech into other aircraft tech trades. I forget the details, but I'm pretty sure it was exactly what we are talking about here. If so, it's already been done and proven. There is no argument.

 

[AmmoTech90]

It was not terribly successful. The RCAF have muddled through and made it work, but have still had to break air weapons back out into their own trade. And now that general duties trade, can't remember what it is called.
I was passing through the transit shacks in Borden in the 90s and bunked with two new grads of whatever trade had taken on air weapons. I had worked with Taz's a fair bit so was interested in what had happened. A six month air weapons course had been squeezed into a two week module, everything else would be taught at unit or other specialized courses. It went as well as it sounds.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Did the RCAF not do this about 20 years ago? I was Safety Systems in the late 70's, early 80's. After I released, I heard they were amalgamating trades, including SS tech into other aircraft tech trades. I forget the details, but I'm pretty sure it was exactly what we are talking about here. If so, it's already been done and proven. There is no argument.

Yes, it was called the 500 series amalgamation and it went too far.

Today we have:
AVN (airframes and engines)
AVS (electrics and avionics)
AWS (weapons)
ACS (aircraft structures and life support equipment)
AOS Tech (reserve only. Parks/starts/fuelling/towing/force protection.

It is probably about right, for us.

The USAF is talking about going from 57 trades to 10.

Given their recruiting and training mill, it remains to be seen if that is too ambitious, given the high release rate at 3 years.

 

[dimsum]

Yes, it was called the 500 series amalgamation and it went too far.

Today we have:
AVN (airframes and engines)
AVS (electrics and avionics)
AWS (weapons)
ACS (aircraft structures and life support equipment)
AOS Tech (reserve only. Parks/starts/fuelling/towing/force protection.

It is probably about right, for us.

The USAF is talking about going from 57 trades to 10.

Given their recruiting and training mill, it remains to be seen if that is too ambitious, given the high release rate at 3 years.

Here is the official website with the types of maintenance folks.

Maintenance and Repair Careers - U.S. Air Force

Explore career opportunities in aircraft maintenance and repair. Join our team of specialized mechanics and help us take on any mission at a moment's notice.

www.airforce.com

Just “aircraft maintenance” alone, not including facilities (which would be RP Ops in the CAF) or airframe maintenance (AVN Techs) you have the following distinct trades:

 

[brihard]

Here is the official website with the types of maintenance folks.

Maintenance and Repair Careers - U.S. Air Force

Explore career opportunities in aircraft maintenance and repair. Join our team of specialized mechanics and help us take on any mission at a moment's notice.

www.airforce.com

Just “aircraft maintenance” alone, not including facilities (which would be RP Ops in the CAF) or airframe maintenance (AVN Techs) you have the following distinct trades:

View attachment 88374

Sounds like they assign MOSs the way CAF would assign qualification competency codes.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Sounds like they assign MOSs the way CAF would assign qualification competency codes.

That is my guess on how the USAF gets “57” careers fields out of that.

You are probably an “X” tech qualifed on aircraft “Y”, so you are really “XY” and you would never normally leave your fleet.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Questions? Sure. Repercussions? Nope. Let me know when charges are pressed against someone unwilling to take on quals they aren’t comfortable with or not in their trade scope. I’ll wait.

I can, as a CO, 100% order you on a course. I can also order you to complete any task to lead to an authorization. If you fail to get an authorization, I can put you on remedial measures. If I see you’re, on purpose, undermining getting the qualification and authorization, I can charge you. And I would. I would also build a file based on the lack of military ethos and submit an admin review with a recommendation to release if that behaviour is kept over time.

If that supposed trade task amalgamation occurs, it will become part of your trade scope.

 

[Quirky]

I can, as a CO, 100% order you on a course. I can also order you to complete any task to lead to an authorization. If you fail to get an authorization, I can put you on remedial measures. If I see you’re, on purpose, undermining getting the qualification and authorization, I can charge you. And I would. I would also build a file based on the lack of military ethos and submit an admin review with a recommendation to release if that behaviour is kept over time.

I’ve seen my share of shit pumps over the years who’ve never gone above POM, and who shouldn’t even be at that level. No punishments, no admin reviews, no releases. These are all threats that remain on paper however never ever actioned. I’ll be impressed when someone is released over lack of competency and inability to function as an AVS/AVN etc as an A level. Right now, there is no incentive or punishment to go beyond a Cpl POM, because pay isn’t based off quals.

 

[SupersonicMax]

I’ve seen my share of shit pumps over the years who’ve never gone above POM, and who shouldn’t even be at that level. No punishments, no admin reviews, no releases. These are all threats that remain on paper however never ever actioned. I’ll be impressed when someone is released over lack of competency and inability to function as an AVS/AVN etc as an A level. Right now, there is no incentive or punishment to go beyond a Cpl POM, because pay isn’t based off quals.

We forced a COT for one of those at my unit. It happens. You're just not always privy to the details, especially when we’re talking administrative processes.

Also, there is a difference between a lack of competency, and an integrity problem.

 

[Good2Golf]

I can, as a CO, 100% order you on a course. I can also order you to complete any task to lead to an authorization. If you fail to get an authorization, I can put you on remedial measures. If I see you’re, on purpose, undermining getting the qualification and authorization, I can charge you. And I would. I would also build a file based on the lack of military ethos and submit an admin review with a recommendation to release if that behaviour is kept over time.

If that supposed trade task amalgamation occurs, it will become part of your trade scope.

This.

As a CO, I (my SAMEO implemented the remedial measure, but on my direction) made use of 5019-4 for precisely this case.

 

[Quirky]

Also, there is a difference between a lack of competency, and an integrity problem.

made use of 5019-4 for precisely this case.

Back when the AVNs were separated into two groups (Propulsion and Airframe) on the hornet, they tried to make A levels in each group cross train to make up for lack of manning. It was not well received. Other than one or two people who wanted to switch sides anyway, no one was forced to cross qual. There were no repercussions, there were no summary trials. People were left alone to do their jobs. If CO's want to charge an AVS tech for not wanting to get qualified in tire changes, I say go for it. In our unit, this cross-qualification is all voluntary and was not well received by the SAMS and SAMEO. They will not entertain it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Back when the AVNs were separated into two groups (Propulsion and Airframe) on the hornet, they tried to make A levels in each group cross train to make up for lack of manning. It was not well received. Other than one or two people who wanted to switch sides anyway, no one was forced to cross qual. There were no repercussions, there were no summary trials. People were left alone to do their jobs. If CO's want to charge an AVS tech for not wanting to get qualified in tire changes, I say go for it. In our unit, this cross-qualification is all voluntary and was not well received by the SAMS and SAMEO. They will not entertain it.

Ah, yes. The “only do what you feel like doing” military.

Not attacking you, Quirky. Just pointing out that Officers who fail to follow/enforce orders from higher are a much bigger problem than Techs failing to get qualified.

 

[Good2Golf]

If CO's want to charge an AVS tech for not wanting to get qualified in tire changes, I say go for it.

You know remedial measure isn’t a charge, right?

‘Not wanting to xxxxx’ isn’t the same as ‘it’s part of your POM/A-level, you’re provided everything you need to qualify, get on with it.’

In our unit, this cross-qualification is all voluntary and was not well received by the SAMS and SAMEO. They will not entertain it.

If that’s 1 CAD A4 Maint and DGAEPM’s position, then so be it, that shouldn’t draw a remedial action, but you didn’t identify the ‘optional’ nature of deciding what quals are required to pursue and achieve. Having a pick and choose sub-set to an A-level sign off that is. Officially approved by the RCAF and ADM(May) is not something I’ve heard of in the fleets I was involved with. Point is if it’s not optional, then remedial measures are reasonable in the case of refusal to seek qualification and certification.

 

[Quirky]

Not attacking you, Quirky. Just pointing out that Officers who fail to follow/enforce orders from higher are a much bigger problem than Techs failing to get qualified.

Agreed. Techs who fail to get qualified are either carried by the stronger ones, or put into positions where they can do the least damage. In the real world you'll just get fired.

 

[Eaglelord17]

Agreed. Techs who fail to get qualified are either carried by the stronger ones, or put into positions where they can do the least damage. In the real world you'll just get fired.

The real world doesn’t quite work that way. It really depends on where you work. In smaller shops the competency of the workers tends (and I say tends, not is, we have some real duds that came from smaller shops in my larger one) to be better. Larger shops there is always lots of hidey holes kicking around.

Often times those incompetent or willfully lazy people just get shuffled to a place where they do less damage/do the menial less critical work that still has to be done and allows the more motivated workers who hate repetitive tasks to do the more important tasks.

It really isn’t that much different from the military in that regard other than it is easier to fire. However with today’s labour market especially for any skilled trade, even a dud is more useful than no one.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

You can have a worker/solider who is really good at doing tasks up to a certain level, but if you give them task beyond that, it is a disaster. I had a guy like that, like a loyal dog. I could give him a task within his ability and no matter the time or weather it would be done. Anything beyond his ability would be a failure.

 

[dimsum]

You can have a worker/solider who is really good at doing tasks up to a certain level, but if you give them task beyond that, it is a disaster. I had a guy like that, like a loyal dog. I could give him a task within his ability and no matter the time or weather it would be done. Anything beyond his ability would be a failure.

Sure, but that implies an “advanced” (as in building upon the tasks they know already) or supervisory.

But if the added tasks are “beside” as opposed to “beyond”, like conducting a different type of check in addition to their normal checks, maybe they can do it? Also, how does one know if their people are actually up to the task or not? People can surprise you (in good ways and bad).