Ground Job Training – A Matter of Professionalism and Safety

Ground Job Training

By LCDR Robin Dirickson, HSC-8 Department Head

Naval Aviation is a profession. It requires discipline, training and experience to perform at the highest level. Naval Aviators are revered for their commitment to excellence through studying, critical debriefs and adherence to a wide spectrum of doctrine.

Flight school, Fleet Replacement Squadrons and ACTC syllabi indoctrinate pilots with these values and force their assimilation into the profession to maintain the high standards required for successful, effective operations at sea and in combat. The Navy provides intensive training to make professional tactics, safety and even legal officers. As professional officers, we receive training at the Division Officer, Department Head and Command level to ensure we are leading with knowledge and shared values. However, this training often falls short in specificity when it comes to achieving education in the ways and means of our ground jobs

As disciplined professionals, aviators want to approach their ground jobs with knowledge and skill. Instead, the system of passing down ground jobs with or without a turnover implies that performance in this half of an aviator’s work performance is unimportant. An article appeared in the Spring 2022 edition of Rotor Review which recommended a repository for lessons learned and a “how to” for ground jobs. I would go a step further and suggest that turnover for each ground job should include standardized training.

Failure to provide specific guidance implies that each ground job is a place to learn, to dip a proverbial toe. This undervalues the time and talents of the leaders we place in those positions. Junior Officers and Department Heads are valued for their dedication to the craft of flying and tactically employing aircraft commensurate with their experience. They desire to be just as effective in each of their ground jobs. Regarding officers as amateurs also undercuts their authority and erodes commitment to their position. If a Commanding Officer always turns to the Maintenance Master Chief (MMCPO) for questions or solutions regarding maintenance, the Maintenance Officer and DIVOs come to believe that they have no role in knowing or fixing what is happening within the department. This anecdote applies similarly across all departments, divisions and programs.

I first believed this training to be necessary after completing a nine-month stint as Maintenance Officer in an operational squadron. After reading the NAMP and a few other governing directives in Aviation Maintenance Officer Fundamentals School, I took charge of a maintenance department of nine officers, 150 Sailors and six aircraft. I worked with a very competent MMCPO and several driven Mustangs who taught me about planning maintenance evolutions, guiding Sailors through their qualification process, and ensuring our procedures were accomplished in accordance with all written requirements. The course I’d previously received was a starting point for my experience, but the on-the-job training I received was a firehose of important information and leadership lessons.

After nine months, I was starting to feel like I had a handle on what actually goes on in a maintenance department and had developed healthy relationships with most of the members of the department. I turned over and within a week, my squadron suffered a Class A Mishap which was principally attributed to poor maintenance practices. Amidst intense grief at the loss of my friends, I felt simultaneously responsible and helpless. Since that day and since the Safety Investigation Report has been published, I have invested significant time considering how I could have identified the maintenance issues that contributed to the mishap. Could I have conducted my work as the MO in a way that would have saved these lives?

MO School should go much further than reviewing black and white publications. Exposure to the governing directives is critical, but covering the full scope of responsibilities and improving focus on application, including how to spot check that programs and procedures are being properly implemented, will develop a more capable Maintenance Officer. Going a step further to offer guidance on building relationships, navigating challenges, and learning from others will provide value added experience to ensure a new MO hits the ground running instead of learning every lesson the hard way. In keeping with the Air Boss’ directive to fight mishaps, future MOs (and CO/XOs who were not MOs) should attend a more useful, practical, experiential course. They deserve training that will prepare them to identify and mitigate risk armed with both an understanding of how to apply the knowledge contained within publications and the experience of those who have served before.

I recommend a multi-day course taught by experienced maintenance professionals which focuses on the MO’s role in regular maintenance functions, familiarization with applicable references, practical exercises for common responsibilities and guidance on what right looks like. This school could easily be twice as long with significantly more time spent on many of these topics. Professionals at the Wing, with significant operational experience and who control and inspect many of these programs, would be excellent instructors. The course likely only needs to be taught two to four times a year to capture most new department heads before they assume the MO role.

Returning to the bigger picture, there are experienced professionals at the Wing, Weapons School and FRS who could construct and instruct one- or two-day courses for the majority of other ground jobs assumed by junior officers and department heads. This upper level instruction ensures that the instructors have successfully completed the role and can pass on lessons learned and provide standardization. It also develops relationships between new and seasoned billet holders, including those who may even be inspecting the program in the near future.

Aviators are not the type of people who show up to work intent on muddling through, hoping to be ignored. Yet, this is how we regard our ground responsibilities by relying on ad hoc turnover and by failing to provide training or standardization. Many officers have succeeded at their jobs in the past, but significant time has been wasted on trial and error and mistakes repeated throughout the community unnecessarily. Ground training for ground jobs sets aviators up for success, improves their effectiveness as leaders across all command programs and signals that expectations are high for professionals in this business.

Beyond pride and professionalism, training is a matter of safety. The mistakes, the time wasted, the lack of standardization, the acceptance of ignorance and the undercutting of an officers’ authority create a shaky foundation for aircraft maintenance and flight operations. Providing training for ground jobs cements the officers’ role in assuring safe, standardized, high quality procedures are happening in every aspect of work our squadrons conduct. We preach that a Naval Aviator is more than a pilot, necessitating us to take on challenging roles. We must prepare for those roles in the same vein we prepare for a flight, because flight safety starts well before weight off wheels.