Er winter09 by Logistics Officer Association

The Exceptional Release

L O G I S T I C S O F F I C E R A S S O C I AT I O N Enhancing the military logistics profession since 1982

W I N T E R 2009

EXECUTIVE BOARD President Col Doug Cato president@loanational.org

Features LOA Conference 2009 Scrapbook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .5

Vice President Col Richard Schwing vicepres@loanational.org Treasurer Lt Col Terry Dyess treasurer@loanational.org Information Officer Ms. Cathy Snyder InfoOfficer@loanational.org Membership Development Lt Col Jeff Martin membership@loanational.org Chapter Support Lt Col Jeff King chaptersupport@loanational.org Executive Senior Advisor Lt Gen Loren M. Reno Mr. Garry Richey Webmaster/Website Maj JD DuVall webmaster@loanational.org www.loanational.org

THE EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE Editor Col Dennis Daley editor@loanational.org Assistant Editor Col (ret) Mary H. Parker assteditor@loanational.org LOA Executive Director ER Managing Editor/Publisher Marta Hannon marta@loanational.org ER Worldwide Staff Lt Col Eugene K. Carter, 76 MXG/CD Maj Richard L. Fletcher, 305 AMXS/CC Ms. Donna Parry, AF/A4/7PE Lt Col Paul Pethel, 19 EMS/CC Graphic Design MMagination LLC – Atlanta, GA www.mmagination.com LOA National PO Box 2264 – Arlington, VA 22202 Issue No. 114 - Winter 2009

Back to Basics: Pulling Chocks Major General Robert H. McMahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .24 Nuclear Surety Basics By Colonel Stephen Williams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26 The Strategic Air Command By Major General (ret) Ron Smith . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .30 Today’s Operational Aircraft Maintenance Environment By Major General Robert H. McMahon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .36 Quantifying and Addressing Maintenance Discipline Written by the cadre of the USAF AMMOS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .40 Building a Compliance Culturein Aircraft Maintenance By Major Chris “CP” Cullen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .44 WARNING: Failure to Comply will kill you! By Colonel (ret) Bob Hamm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .48 How Do I Make You Care? By Major Brian Crum & Captain Kristy Mix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .52 Compliance and Discipline: It’s All On You Now By Colonel Paul R. Wood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .54 Balancing Innovative Solutions and Back-to-Basics Aircraft Maintenance By Chief Master Sergeant Jeff Fisher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .58 USAFE Maintenance Strategy for FY10: A Planned Approach to Back to Basics By Brigadier General Mark Atkinson . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .62 Maintenance Discipline – What’s in PACAF’s Toolbox? By Brigadier General Brent Baker, Sr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .66 Understanding the QA Guy By Master Sergeant Clinton Lowe . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .70 Sticking to the Basics Inspection Ready, Everyday! By Mr. Daniel E. McCabe and Mr. Eric Miller . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .72 Squadron Inspection Program: A disciplined approach to Unit Self Inspection By Brigadier General John Cooper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .76 WR-ALC Maintainers Change Culture By Focusing on Fundamentals By Captain Landon H. Culpepper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .80 Developing a Culture of Compliance: Difficult but Rewarding By Colonel Roger Rostvold . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .86 Why Electronic Tech Data Hasn’t Delivered in the F-15E and Why We Need It to Succeed By Colonel Joe Diana . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .87 Maintenance Compliance in an Austere Environment…Yes It Can Work! By Colonel Robert A. Hopkins Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .90 No-Notice, Short-Notice & Long-Notice Compliance Inspections By Colonel Dennis Daley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .95 Table of Contents Continued on Page 2..

President’s LOG(istics) LOA Members, What an awesome 2009 Conference in Las Vegas! I’ve heard nothing but great praise from the 1,400+ attendees, speakers and guests both during and post-conference. I really appreciate all the outstanding team work from our conference staff and volunteers. With this being our first non-host conference, we received superb support from our membership and it provided the Nellis AFB chapter the opportunity to assist, without the year-long commitment and man-hours associated with putting on a conference.

Col Doug Cato

My hats off to them for volunteering, but next year we’ll need individual member conference support. The 2010 Conference in Orlando is only a short 10-months away and the conference staff is hard at work nailing down the speaker structure. The theme for this year’s conference is “Logistics: The Combat Enabler”.

ER: PRESIDENT’S LOG(ISTICS)

It’s with regret I inform the membership that Col (ret) Bob Hamm, our Vice President for the past year, has resigned. Unfortunately as Bob transitioned from active duty military to civil service, it became readily apparent his new job wouldn’t allow him the flexibility he’d had in the past. I’ve asked Bob to continue supporting the LOA National Board in another capacity that’s more conducive to his civil service job. Bob, thanks for all you’ve done and are doing for LOA. We appreciate your dedicated service to this professional development organization. Under the LOA National By-Laws, the three remaining voting LOA National Board members met, discussed possible Vice Presidential replacements, and voted Col Rich Schwing, Headquarters DLA, to fill the remainder of Col (ret) Bob Hamm’s term. Rich, welcome back to the LOA National Board. At the conference, I outlined on the main stage where the National Board had set a strategic vision back in Nov 08 and I reported on our progress toward those goals. We met all but 3 of the 17 objectives we established. Those three are increasing joint and international membership by 100%, sponsoring an annual competition to

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued from page 1)

solve at least one specific logistics challenge, and creating an on-line e-store for LOA merchandise. Not so bad for an all volunteer force with full-time

FEATURES CONTNUED

day jobs. I’d like to say thanks for all the National Board members that have

Are Aircraft EOR Inspections Necessary? By Captain Adrienne Stahl............................96

worked so hard throughout 2009 to make these objectives a reality to include the huge task of getting our financials cleaned up, where we could make sound financial decisions.

In Every Issue President’s LOG(istics) ..................................2 Editor’s Debrief ..............................................4

In mid-Nov your National Board met in Washington DC to chart the strategic path for the future of LOA (2-5 years). We did this with the help of a consulting company that volunteered their services to support our non-profit organization. Although, we spent all day Saturday and most of Sunday

From the E-Ring ..........................................18

working on the strategy, we still have some work to do, wrapping up the

SES Speaks..................................................19

loose ends and discussing this with our Senior Advisors. We’ll be rolling out

Perspectives ................................................20

details of our longer range strategic plan after the first of the year.

AFSO Crosstalk ............................................83

V/R,

Focus on a CGO LOA Leader ......................98 CGO Corner................................................100 Chapter Crosstalk ......................................102

COL DOUG CATO, PRESIDENT LOA NATIONAL AND YOUR

LOA NATIONAL BOARD.

2 WINTER

2009

Fellow Loggies, We hope you had a wonderful Holiday Season and wish you a very bright New Year! - Your ER Worldwide Team

The Exceptional Release A Professional Military Journal written by logisticians for logisticians The purpose of the Logistics Officer Association (LOA) is to enhance the military logistics profession. LOA provides an open forum to promote quality logistics support and logistic officer professional development. Policy on Written Submissions: The editor invites articles and other contributions on issues that support LOA’s purpose. Direct manuscripts, letters and other communications to: marta@loanational.org and editor@loanational.org. Deadlines: The 15th day of January, April, July, and October. Story Format: Double-spaced, typed and electronically submitted to marta@loanational.org. Photos & Graphics: Send individual electronic files (hi-res JPG, TIFF or EPS with type as outlines for ads) along with stories (as separate text files) and include cutlines/captions. All photos and ads should be at least 300 dpi or greater resolution. Submitter data: Should be typed at the end of the story file. Information included should be: Rank; full name; service; home mailing address; business name and address; business phone (DSN and commercial); email; three to five sentence biographical sketch; and a photo (as a separate file – see photos and graphics above). Editorial Policy: The editors reserve the right to edit all submissions for length, clarity and libel. All submissions become the property of LOA. Advertisement Formats: Each ad must be sent as a composite hi-res (300 dpi or greater) EPS file with fonts saved as outlines. Fullpage ads with bleeds should allow at least 3/8” bleeds. Ad rates visit: http://www.loanational.org/exceptional-release/advertising-rates.php Advertising Contact: Ms Marta Hannon, Managing Editor PO Box 2264 – Arlington, VA 22202 – email: marta@loanational.org – Phone 405-701-5457 Subscriptions: The ER is published quarterly and is available via membership in the Logistics Officer Association at the annual rate of $25. Access membership forms on the website at www.loanational.org.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Editorâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Debrief Hopefully all who attended the 2009 LOA Conference enjoyed the conference and gained new insights into many of the initiatives currently underway in our logistics world. The LOA Conference recognized the 2009 Exceptional Writing Award winners who were selected for their standout ER submissions. Here are the winners in the three categories: Field Grade Officer, Company Grade Officer and Civilian Category.

Col Dennis Daley

In the Company Grade Officer Category Captain Susan Doyle and Captain Vaughan Whited from HQ AFMC earned top honors with their outstanding submission reviewing the historical development of Air Force Materiel Command and its diversified mission accomplishments worldwide today. In the Civilian Category Mr. Ken Norgard, Mr. Burt Foutz, Mr. Michael Lee and CMSgt Don Landon authored an excellent arti-

ER: EDITORâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;S DEBRIEF

cle on the implementation of the Air Force Global Logistics Support Center (GLSC) and the huge benefits offered to our Warfighters across our vast mission spectrum. In particular their research revealed the shortfalls with segmented supply chain model of the past versus the single source supply chain model offered by the GLSC. In addition, they provided a peek into the future with the GLSC assuming control of Air National Guard and contractor supply responsibilities. Finally, the article connected the GLSC to the planned merger with the Expeditionary Combat Support System and the efficiencies from a single integrated data system. Finally, the ER Staff selected Lt Colonel Travis Condon, Captain Richard Garza and TSgt Joseph Nicosia in the Field Grade Officer Category. Their summary of AFSO21 initiatives in the 62nd Logistics Readiness Squadron at McChord AFB generated much interest with the gains achieved in deployment processing and Enlisted Performance Reporting processes. V/R,

COL DENNIS DALEY AND YOUR ER WORLDWIDE TEAM.

WINTER 2009

Day 1 Golf Outing In your

face!!

The swe et Smell of Mon ey

y a cadd Whereâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s need ou when y one?

Drewitt: the Grand Poob ah of LOA Golf

now? hear me u o y n a C

Golf a nd cig ars could want fo . Who r more ?

Ahh... Th is is the life!

Icebreaker

Cheers!

ECSS Te am

om a hug fr ts e g l Lori Hil s Jim Has

Don’t lo some ok now, b one’s u pictu takin t g our re.

now. t talk ’ n a c I the I’m at ker! a Icebre

Can I ha ve a bite ?

Tuesday s the scene AV behind

Board on a mission

These are my bat-g lasses es! Good tim

LOA's Chief Loggie.

Wazzzuuuuupppp!

Wounde d warrior

Wednesday

Hey, have n’t we me t before?

May I sit by you?

k! OU roc Y , o N k. You roc

h. ur boot o e id s Step in

High Veloc ity Mx was packe d

ge ore bad m t o g e rry. We’v Don’t wo holders!

Roll Call.

Thursday

Heâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s smiling - it must be Th ursday

to next? Ok, so where

ner. Howdy, Pard So the do g says to the barte nder...

ne. Almost do

Mark yo ur calen dars!

s of Oz

ard The Wiz

see me OK? Can everyone

Banquet

Strategizing

The Honor Guard Sir! I WILL m ake it hap pen! I don’t kn ow if he k nows wha t he’s doin g.

Cheese!

Congratulations, Scholarship Winners! SRA ANDRE ADORNO- Wasatch Warrior Chapter Senior Airman Andre Adorno is a Logistics Planner Journeyman in the 388th Maintenance Operations Squadron, 388th Fighter Wing, Hill AFB, UT. As a Logistics Planner, he is responsible for the overall success of the Hill AFB deployment machine. SrA Adorno plans, prepares, directs, and coordinates deployment activities with higher headquarters and supporting MAJCOM component commands. He maintains safety, records management, and Training Business Account programs to the highest degree of precision. SrA Adorno enlisted in the Air Force in November 2006 as a Logistics Planner. He is currently pursuing an Associate of Science in Logistics Management from CCAF and a Bachelor of Science in Management and Accounting from Park University.

SENIOR AIRMAN PHILLIP C. CLEMENTS – Raptor Chapter Senior Airman Phillip C. Clements is an Integrated Avionic Systems Apprentice in the 43rd Aircraft Maintenance Unit, 325th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron, 325th Maintenance Group, 325th Fighter Wing at Tyndall Air Force Base. He is a key member of the 43rd Aircraft Maintenance Unit and is responsible for avionics systems on 29 F-22 aircraft. He performs maintenance on F-22 aircraft to include troubleshooting avionics systems, removal and replacement of components, executing scheduled maintenance, completing system upgrades, and repairing avionics systems. As an Aircraft Maintenance Unit representative he leads tours of the unit, briefs overviews of the F-22 aircraft, and gives enlisted maintenance career briefs. He volunteers at base and community events. Through his church, he supports events to provide food and entertainment to the local community. He is currently attending Gulf Coast Community College, working towards a bachelor’s degree.

STAFF SERGEANT DION J. LEWIS II is a Supply Specialist assigned to the 735th Supply Chain Management Group, Langley AFB, Virginia. He is 25 years old. SSgt Lewis was born in Wiesbaden Germany on April 23 1984. He was raised in Kansas City, MO where he lived with his grandmother. In high school, he was the starting defensive back and wide receiver on the varsity football team for four years straight, leading his team to two conference championships. SSgt Lewis enlisted in the Air Force on 26 August of 2003. He is a phenomenal worker who consistently performs at the highest level. He serves as a MICAP Technician and Training Manager for the Mission Readiness Division aiding United States Air Force military aircraft around the world. SSgt Lewis provides global logistics support for 65 stateside and contingency locations for approximately 2.5K aircraft valued at $170 billon dollars. SSgt Lewis serves as a Physical Training Leader and a Safety Monitor for the 735th Mission Readiness Division. He is married to Lauryn Lewis who is also from Kansas City, MO. Together they have one daughter named Morgyn Lewis. They are member of Six Mount Zion Baptist Church and are actively contribute to the AFSA (Air Force Sergeants Association), AFA (Air Force Association), Tuskegee Airmen Inc, Langley Club 56, NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), and Toastmasters International. SSgt Lewis is among our most dedicated young leaders in the 735th SCMG and the United States Air Force.

STAFF SERGEANT JASON I. JUKES – Shogun Chapter Staff Sergeant Jason Jukes is the Document Control NCOIC for the 18th Munitions Squadron, Kadena AB, Okinawa, Japan. He manages accountability of munitions stored in the Air Force’ largest conventional munitions storage area with more than 8M munitions items valued over $959M. He performs inventories on 30% of PACAF’s war reserve materiel (WRM) munitions and ensures munitions availability for 54 F-15 and 10 HH-60, 15 KC-135, and 2 E-3 aircraft assigned to the 18th Wing, the Air Force’ largest overseas combat wing. Sgt Taylor entered the Air Force in September 1998. Sergeant Jukes’ combat and deployment experience includes a deployment to Prince Sultan Air Base, Saudi Arabia as a munitions inspector in support of Operation SOUTHERN WATCH. Furthermore, SSgt Jukes deployed to Balad, Iraq in support of both Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and ENDURING FREEDOM as a Munitions Delivery Driver, Precision Guided Missile and Conventional Munitions Maintainer. He is currently pursuing an Associate’s Degree from the Community College of the Air Forces.

STAFF SERGEANT JUSTIN R. MOORE – Cajun Chapter Staff Sergeant Justin R. Moore is an Electronic Warfare Systems Craftsman assigned to the 2d Maintenance Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base.. Moore leads a shift in performing organizational-level maintenance supporting B-52 Electronic Warfare systems. He analyzes line replaceable units utilizing various hand tools and support equipment, identifies maintenance problem areas through data collection and trend analysis and recommends solutions. He manages the ECM section’s technical order library and is the equipment custodian for his Squadron’s SPRAM account. In addition, he utilizes the AN/ALQ-172 mock-up and the AN/USM-464 Countermeasures test set to isolate faulty system units. Moore enlisted in the Air Force in 2006. He completed his technical training in the Electronic Warfare Systems Course at Sheppard Air Force Base. He has been assigned to the 2d Maintenance Squadron at Barksdale Air Force Base, Louisiana from 2006 to present. He is taking his final class to earn an associate degree in Avionics Systems Technology through the CCAF. He has applied for Officer Training School to obtain a commission in the U.S. Air Force. STAFF SERGEANT RYAN M. VANARTSDALEN – Sonoran Chapter Staff Sergeant Ryan M. VanArtsdalen is an Aircraft Structural Maintenance Craftsman, Fabrication Flight, 56th Equipment Maintenance Squadron, Luke Air Force Base. VanArtsdalen directs aircraft paint operations, ensures airframe structural integrity, and leads a group of Airmen in the aircraft corrosion control and prevention office for Air Education and Training Command’s largest equipment maintenance squadron, supporting 170 F-16 aircraft assigned to seven Aircraft Maintenance Units. While serving at Luke AFB, Sergeant VanArtsdalen has been on three temporary duty assignments, including a four month deployment in 2007 to the 379th Air Expeditionary Wing, Al Ueid AB, where he performed sheet metal repairs, enabling the wing to fly over 9,000 combat sorties. Sergeant VanArtsdalen is currently involved with Luke Air Force Base’s corrosion control and paint operation in which the Air Force spends $1.5 billion annually on corrosion related materials to prevent, detect, and control corrosion. Sergeant VanArtsdalen will be graduating with his Bachelor’s degree in Technical Management with a minor and Airport Management. He will soon begin his Master’s of Aeronautical Science with a specialization in Aerospace Safety Systems at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. He has applied for Officer Training School to obtain a commission in the U.S. Air Force.

Congratulations, AF Award Winners! General Thomas P. Gerrity Award recognizes superior performance by a unit for maintenance and mission support of the Air Force Mission. The 2009 General Thomas P. Gerrity Award winner is the 48th MX Group, Lakenheath AB.

Mr. Ronald L. Orr Award recognizes the Air Force staff civilian assigned to a FOA, MAJCOM, HAF or SAF/IE installations or logistics activity that has spearheaded notable accomplishments to improve business processes or organizational efficiency of military activities. The 2009 Ronald L. Orr Award winner is Mr. Joseph Anthony Betsill.

Lt Gen Loren Reno, Col Dorothy Silvanic, 48th MX Group Commander and LOA National President Col Doug Cato.

Mr. Ronald Orr, Mr. Joseph Anthony Betsill, Lt Gen Loren Reno and LOA National President Col Doug Cato.

Congratulations, Award Winners!

2009 Lt Gen Michael E. Zettler Lifetime Achievement Award The purpose of the Gen Zettler Lifetime Achievement Award is to recognize members of the Logistics Officer Association who have demonstrated sustained, superior leadership in service to this organization. The nominees for this award must have at least 20 years of service in a logistics-related career and at least 10 years of membership in the LOA. Each LOA Chapter president and LOA Executive Committee member may submit a nominee for this award. LOA is proud to announce the winners of the 2009 Zettler Lifetime Achievement Award: Col (ret) Mary Parker. From Left: Lt Gen (ret) Michael Zettler, Col (ret) Mary Parker and LOA National President Col Doug Cato.

Maj Gen Mary L. Saunders Chapter Distinguished Service Award Maj Gen Mary L. Saunders Chapter Distinguished Service Award recognizes LOA National members who made the greatest contributions in support of their local LOA Chapter activities. The 2009 Maj Gen Saunders CDSA winners are Capt Ernest Cage â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Tinker/Crossroads LOA Chapter (left), and Col Rich Schwing - Ft Belvoir/Mount Vernon LOA Chapter (right)

Congratulations, Chapter Award Winners!

Lt Gen Donald J. Wetekam LOA Chapter of the Year Award Is given to an outstanding large LOA chapter (41 or more members). The 2009 Lt Gen Wetekam LOA Outstanding Large Chapter of the Year was awarded to the Tinker/Crossroads LOA Chapter.

Col James L. Hass LOA Chapter of the Year Award Is given to an outstanding small LOA chapter (10-40 members). The 2009 Col Hass LOA Outstanding Small Chapter of the Year was awarded to the Ft Belvoir/Mount Vernon LOA Chapter (left).

Gen George T. Babbitt National Distinguished Service Award recognizes two LOA National members who made the greatest contributions to furthering LOA National's goals and objectives during the past year. The 2009 General Babbitt NDSA winners are: Lt Col Terry Dyess Col Dennis Daley (not pictured)

Thank you, 2009 LOA Scholarship Donors Patrons – Scholarship Donations of $500-$999 (L-R) Mr. David Edmondson, CSC; Mr. Tom Hart, Honeywell; Mr. Robert Johnson, Pratt & Whitney; Col (ret) Robert Garcia, Raytheon; Col (ret) Joanne Flanigan; Col (ret) Stephan Farish; Lt Col (ret) Russ Hall.

Benefactors – Scholarship Donations of $1000 or more Mr. Hector Gavilla, ATTI; Col (ret) Jack Warner, Boeing; Lt Col (ret) Russ Hall, BoozAllen-Hamilton; Lt Col (ret) Diana Francois, WBB; Col (ret) Robert Drewitt; Col (ret) Donald Hamilton.

Thanks to Our 2009 Conference Sponsors! Platinum Sponsor Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Gold Sponsor GE Aviation Silver Sponsors Battelle Deloitte Services, LP EADS, North America Raytheon Bronze Sponsors AAI / Textron CSC Pratt & Whitney DRS Technologies Northrop Grumman Internet CafĂŠ Sponsor Standard Aero Ice Breaker Sponsor Accenture Loggie Reception Sponsor Boeing Company Online Registration Sponsor Honeywell Aerospace Golf Tournament Sponsor Honeywell Aerospace AM/PM Break Sponsors DRS Technologies, Pratt & Whitney

From the E-Ring W H Y C O M P LY ? My experience has been that most people do a task better if they understand (and agree with) why you want them to do it…or to do it that way. This pertains to compliance in spades. Here is my view on that.

Lt Gen Loren M. Reno

For starters, a culture of trust underlies the foundations of our Air Force. Note that integrity first is

E-RING, SES SPEAKS

been written in the blood of others, i.e., the warnings, cautions, notes, and process steps are just the way they are because a mishap

ER: FROM

lying, but not tolerating among us those who do. The same goes for cheating. We seek to instill/reinforce these from the beginning

THE

our first core value. Note the emphasis on honesty in the honor code we all embraced in our commissioning source…not only not

because our systems and processes depend on it. While some tasks do require a 7-level to sign it off, and others require the endorsement of a more senior officer, so many things ride on the word of a single airman. “Your word is your bond” is nowhere more true than in the USAF. The second point I’d make is that our AF Instructions and Technical Orders have been very deliberately written…with more deliberation than the average person who is executing the instruction or order requires. In cases of Technical Orders, much of them have

caused us to amend and improve the process, and we documented that in the TO. Recall that the “O” in TO means “order,” not “suggestion.” There is a third point I’d like you to consider that I didn’t think about when I was younger. It’s a standardization and reliability piece. As a senior leader, I depend on more people and actions than I have time to check-on. When a trusted civilian, SNCO, or officer answers a question for me, I may well up-channel that information without further checking. More tactically, maintainers are sent out to repair or maintain engines and aircraft that aircrews depend on to do missions their commanders have sent them to do. Use the same track for refueling and loading aircraft, securing parts, providing ground transportation, maintaining AGE, etc. Commanders depend on airmen like us to do tasks in a predictable way with predictable outcomes. They depend on us to do things right, and by-the-book is as right as it gets. (When I had a 1Lt review this article, he suggested I mention AFTO Forms 22 here…he’s right!) When we find better ways, we change the book, but we need the discipline in our actions that provides responsible commanders on up our chain with dependable, predictable, and reliable outcomes. When I hear about C-5 aircraft wheels/tires falling off in flight or communication contractors puncturing an underground fuel line (real examples from the past month), the cause is usually failure to comply. You probably have observed the same. “Why comply” is because it underlies all we’re about in the USAF, it is the safest and best way to do things, and others are depending on us to comply. That’s my view.

— LT GEN LOREN RENO DEPUTY CHIEF OF STAFF FOR LOGISTICS, INSTALLATIONS AND MISSION SUPPORT, HEADQUARTERS U.S. AIR FORCE, WASHINGTON, D.C.

18 W I N T E R

2009

SES Speaks I’ve been a part of LOA for many years and have personally found the Exceptional Release to be an outstanding, relevant contributor to the logistics mission, so I’d like to say thanks for allowing me the opportunity to express my thoughts and be a part of this great forum. At Ogden Air Logistics Center (ALC), we take great pride in the work we do, and take great effort

Mr. Mark D. Johnson

to support the mission of our customers on time, on cost, and with superior product quality. That support must be governed by a rigorous technical foundation; both in the management of weapon systems throughout their fielded lifecycle, and in the depot-level maintenance we perform to ensure these systems remain operationally safe, suitable, and effective. Memories of the “Taiwan Four” incident and aftermath should continue to remind us that logistics is a team sport – requiring precision and discipline. Everyone has a role to play and value to add in controlling and improving our processes. At Ogden ALC, we assumed that precision and discipline…and a solid technical foundation…existed in our maintenance processes, primarily based on product quality and LSET results. As we painfully discovered, there were significant gaps to fill. Our maintenance business requires the full engagement of the technical authorities for weapon systems and components, as well as rigorous processes within maintenance to manage and control the technical aspects of our maintenance processes, support equipment, tools, technical data…and even the qualifications of our people. The same disciplined configuration management processes we use to ensure our systems can be operated safely, suitably, and effectively, need to be applied to our processes, equipment, tools, data, and people. Everywhere you go, there are requirements for compliance – what you don’t often see is a process for managing it. Over the last year we’ve put a lot of thought into establishing and operating just such a process…we call our compliance process AMQS, short for Aerospace Maintenance Quality Standard. The great thing about AMQS is that it works anywhere there is a need for managing a process, tools, equipment, and the qualifications of our people to a precise configuration baseline. AMQS is not our ultimate goal or an end state – but it does provide the foundation and framework within which we can confidently focus on meeting or bettering schedule, improving product quality, and driving down cost. Combined with Lean, Critical Chain Project Management, SixSigma, and other AFSO21 tools, we believe it will help restore the technical superiority that needs to be the core to successfully executing our depot maintenance mission. In this issue, you will find an article written by Brig Gen “Coop” Cooper, the 309th Maintenance Wing Commander, describing our implementation of AMQS. It’s an excellent snapshot of the processes we’ve put in place to critically examine our internal practices, identify gaps, and solve problems. I encourage you to read it and learn from our efforts. Our hope is that it will assist you in improving your part of the logistics mission.

— MR. MARK D. JOHNSON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, OGDEN AIR LOGISTICS CENTER EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Perspectives IN STEP WITH LIEUTENANT GENERAL TERRY L. GABRESKI, VICE COMMANDER, AIR FORCE M AT E R I E L C O M M A N D , W R I G H T- PAT T E R S O N A I R FORCE BASE, OHIO.

ER: PERSPECTIVES

ER: What are the most significant changes in LOA over the years?

GEN GABRESKI: I’ve been part of this organization since it was founded as the Maintenance Officer Association – so the first change is the huge growth from a small group of folks at a few bases sitting down to have professional discussions, to a large, vibrant national (and international) organization making significant contributions to USAF logistics. Another big change was including all loggies – not just maintainers – and making this a Logistics Officer Association. The Air Force and this organization have reaped major benefits from this change – from mentoring of our officers to recognizing how interrelated maintainers and LROs are in the success of the Air Force mission. ER: What does Back to Basics mean to you in our Air Force’s Back to Basics campaign?

GEN GABRESKI: This one is very clear cut to me – I tend to be what we used to call a “brown shoe.” Back to basics means knowing the rules and following them. And ensuring your subordinates do the same, and then holding them accountable for that responsibility. Back to basics applies at every level too – as we discovered around the turn of this century when we did the Chief’s Logistics Review, it’s very easy to take your eye off the ball WRT policy, procedure, training, discipline and enforcement. When loggies allow this to happen – whatever level you’re at – dangerous situations occur. In our business, aviators literally bet their lives every time they strap on a jet we tell them is ready to fly. They bet their lives we did our job by the book and followed it to the letter. The bond that goes with that is sacred – integrity is a non-negotiable condition of employment for us. TO discipline, tool control, no pencil-whipping a job, compliance with standards, gritty but reliable job performance in sometimes non-glamorous situations, hours and hours of time devoted to making aircraft ready whether for the next day and in 6 months from now if our nation needs them, by a team of dedicated professionals is back to basics. It’s also accountability at

large by this team of professionals. As a brand new second lieutenant I learned the value of a good ass chewing – from the Lt Gen Terry L. Gabreski receiving end. As I gained increased responsibility, that technique became very clear in its utility – when you give folks honest feedback when they haven’t met the mark, two things happen. First, they never want to be in that position again, and second, when they get back to their duty section and tell their buddies about the experience, their buddies don’t want to be in that position either. And you may be able to modify behavior before bad behavior turns into an Article 15. ER: Early in your career you served in numerous field level leadership roles at Eglin, Shaw, Hill and Kunsan. How has the Air Force approach to maintenance discipline changed since those early assignments?

GEN GABRESKI: The first thing I learned about the Air Force approach to maintenance discipline is that our Air Force is uncompromising in what it expects of us – it is the individual who sometimes compromises that expectation. Maintenance discipline is at the heart of our country’s ability to fight and win our nations wars, so this isn’t an obligation we can take lightly or allow to be compromised. At each of the assignments indicated, and I’d add Clark AB in the Philippines, I learned several foundational lessons about maintenance discipline. Whether I was on the flightline or in a backshop, the ability to trust that the rest of the team was using the same uncompromising rules was paramount. And in every case, in every lesson, the difference the individual makes in upholding maintenance discipline was the deciding factor. How people approached this issue was the difference between success and failure. Every time a leader, a

WINTER 2009

supervisor, and individual Airman were unwilling to enforce those standards, the mission was compromised as well. Probably my best example came when I was asked to go to Clark, to take command of a 900-person Aircraft Generation Squadron which had just failed the ORI for the wing – you read that right, maintenance failed the ORI for the wing. There were many issues I had to address in the squadron to put these maintainers back on the right path (and oh by the way – be ready to pass the ORI in 3 months when the IG returned), but one of the primary issues was maintenance discipline – from tool control, to training, to TOs, you name it. But in the end, just like anything we accomplish in the Air Force, I didn’t fix this alone – I set the standards and enforced them – this team stepped up to expectations, and we generated 24 F-4s for the first “Outstanding” the PACAF IG had given out in years. You never saw a prouder group of folks. That’s what maintenance discipline allows us to do every single day on every flightline and backshop across the Air Force. ER: Do you have any advice for our CGO readers on maintaining a culture of compliance?

GEN GABRESKI: You bet – I’ll give CGOs, FGOs and supervisors at all levels a quote from Mahatma Gandhi, “You must be the change you want to see in the world.” You want folks to do things “by the book,” you better look in the mirror and ensure you’re setting that example. Whether it’s acing PT tests, saluting, proper uniform wear, ensuring you aren’t using government property for personal reasons, you name it – each of us must ensure we’re doing it by the book. No one has the luxury of deciding which rules we get to follow – we’re required to follow them all. PT and professional appearance is a great example. When I was a LG/CC, one of my squadron commanders was clearly overweight – he was not in compliance. I put him on the weight program. When I called him in to accomplish the formalities, his statement to me was, “Leadership doesn’t start at the belt buckle.” Well, leadership does start with setting the example you want people to follow – if you won’t comply with the rules, why should anyone who works for you? ER: In 1999, as USAFE’s Director of Logistics, you successfully advocated to Air Force leadership a return of maintenance operations under the control of a maintenance group commander. Can you recount those events and what moved you to be such a strong advocate for the Combat Wing Organization?

GEN GABRESKI: First, I would tell you that I was one of sever-

logisticians and particularly maintainers. The Air Force had been under the Objective Wing structure with flightline maintenance working for flying squadrons since the beginning of the 90s. Starting in the Fall of 1998, we began preparing for what ultimately became the Air War over Serbia, Operation Allied Force (OAF). The CFACC and AFFOR Commander, Lt General Mike Short, selected me to be the AFFOR/A-4 to lead logistics across the theater. In that role, I was responsible for a variety of things not normally in a MAJCOM/LG’s job jar. We were responsible for bedding down and supporting 563 aircraft at 25 different locations across Europe, setting up the supply and theater distribution plan to support those units, and ensuring they had what they needed to successfully prosecute the war. The United States Air Force did indeed successfully prosecute the war, but on the logistics side of the house, the effort was much harder than it needed to be. The three big observations I had at the end of the conflict were that aircraft came to the war unprepared (high phase time aircraft and engines, as an example), units deployed unprepared (no or improper test equipment or tools, for example), and long term fleet management at home station was absent, resulting in heavy maintenance being required while units were also trying to produce sorties for combat. Those declining trends reduced airframe availability. Additionally, maintenance discipline was not being taught and trained as a warfighting skill. We did what today we call root cause analysis to find out what was behind these crippling problems. It certainly boils down to what we’ve all heard – we can operate however the Air Force tells us to. But as General Jumper used to say, it takes a PhD to run a flying squadron and a PhD to run maintenance – and very few of us have two PhDs. So my advocacy was based not on any failure of operators, but on the logic that says when we grow folks up deep in aircraft maintenance and give them their “PhD”, we owe them and the airmen they lead the opportunity to focus on maintenance as a core competency, versus a divided leadership focus. And to hold these PhD leaders accountable for results of that focused, experienced leadership. Although certainly there are examples of successful maintenance organizations under the Objective Wing that was not the experience we saw in OAF. I was able to present a briefing to our CSAF with these results. He was not receptive to making an organizational change, but instead directed we perform the Chief’s Logistics Review (CLR) to identify across the logistics enterprise where we need to focus attention and lay out the plan to fix what was broken. The CLR was extremely productive on a variety of levels. However, there

al who advocated this move. This was a very interesting time for Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

were senior leaders who continued to be interested in the organizational piece, which we now know as the Combat Wing Organization (CWO), and the CWO has served our Air Force in good stead. ER: Looking back on your career, what is the one lesson that you would like to share with our CGO readers that you wish you had known as a CGO?

ER: PERSPECTIVES

GEN GABRESKI: Narrowing this down to one lesson is impossible – if you’re not learning three or four lessons every day in logistics you’re not paying attention! I’ll share a lesson I learned as a major. When I became the 33 CRS/CC, as always the primary mission was combat readiness. Of course the avionics intermediate test stations (AIS) were part of CRS, and when it came time to do exercises in the wing to get ready for ORIs or com-

bat, part of our mission was to pack up the AIS, mobilize them, and then set them up again at a “deployed’ location. The first exercise rolls around for me, the new guy, and my AIS shop chief came to me with a simulation request – he wanted to simulate moving the AIS. So I asked why we weren’t going to mobilize them – he said, “Well if we move them, they’ll break, and we won’t be able to fix LRUs, and the wing commander won’t be happy.” This statement fell into the category of “things that make you go hmmmmm.” So let me get this straight – our mission is to be able to pack up and palletize the AIS – they’re built for mobility – meaning deploy it, set it up, and operate it in support of the flying squadron we deploy with. And if we simulate that, our folks aren’t getting the training to do any of that, and when the balloon goes up for real and we have to do this for combat we have no idea how this will break or what we’ll need to do about it? Wrong answer. From that exercise on, we physically packed, palletized, set up and operated the AIS in a different location. Did we find bugs? Of course, and we fixed them and honed our plan every time based on the most recent experience. Was this a popular decision? Uh, no. But that’s why they make commanders – to understand the mission, make the hard decisions on how to accomplish that mission and ensure combat readiness, and to be accountable for results. This was in the mid-80s. Interestingly, right after Desert Shield/Desert Storm, I got a hand written note from a CMSgt who had been my shop chief that initially presented me the simulation request – and had heartburn with my direction. The note was to thank me for making that shop exercise the way they intended to fight. Their unit had been one of the first in the AOR for Desert Shield/Desert Storm, and they actually packed up the AIS and took it overseas to support those F-15s. The Chief shared they had an extremely successful deployment to the AOR. This Chief was reflective enough to recognize that training the way you intend to fight is the key to success, and it depends on leaders at all levels to be part of that mentality. So, while he wasn’t initially happy, he led his folks on how we exercised properly – and ultimately was the beneficiary of his own leadership. As I head into retirement I’d like to thank LOA and logisticians across our great Air Force for what you do every day. It has been an honor to serve with you. ********* Ma’am - the men and women of LOA wish you all the success in the “life after” the Air Force. Thank you for your leadership and guidance throughout your career. We are a better Air Force because of you. K

WINTER 2009

Back to Basics: Pulling Chocks Major General Robert H. McMahon Let me begin by acknowledging the incredible success of the second largest LOA conference ever held that took place in Las Vegas recently. Some of our nation's best logistics professionals orchestrated, attended and spoke at this awesome event. Thank you to everyone who made this year's conference such a tremendous success. This edition of the Exceptional Release is focused on Back to Basics, and I invite you to read the wealth of articles concentrated on compliance across the logistics spectrum. The three tiers of compliance initiatives addressed in this ER are: base-, MAJCOM-, and depotlevel. I'd like to provide you with a brief update on some of the overarching Back to Basics initiatives we're implementing in an effort to foster a culture of compliance. I'll briefly introduce these three initiatives--the Logistics Readiness Quality Assurance Initiative, Assessment of Operational Wing-Level Maintenance and the Logistics Compliance Assessment Program--with a promise of more in-depth information in the following articles.

ilar in nature to those resident in Maintenance Groups, in all Air Force Logistics Readiness Squadrons (LRS). This LRS QA initiative reinforces the Air Forceâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s effort and focus on increasing the fidelity of our nuclear weapons accountability while simultaneously reinvigorating a culture of compliance. The LRS QA program is scheduled for implementation in three spirals throughout FY10. Spiral-1, composed of six LRSs, will serve to test and refine the policy, guidance, training, and manning aspects of the initiative prior to wider Air Force implementation. For this reason, the six squadrons selected to participate in Spiral-1 span the spectrum in terms of size: Small Category (less than 200 authorized personnel): 8 LRS (Kunsan AB, PACAF) Medium Category (200-350 authorized personnel): 22 LRS (McConnell AFB, AMC) and 52 LRS (Spangdahlem AB, USAFE)

LOGISTICS READINESS SQUADRON QUALITY A S S U R A N C E I N I T I AT I V E

Large Category (greater than 350 authorized personnel): 96 LRS (Eglin AFB, AFMC), 366 LRS (Mountain Home AFB, ACC), and 56 LRS (Luke AFB, AETC)

As a result of numerous reviews and assessments of the Air Force's Nuclear Enterprise, we determined it was necessary to implement a centralized and standardized Quality Assurance (QA) function, sim-

Spiral-2 implementation will begin 6 months after Spiral-1 and will include the majority of LRS units. Spiral-3 will begin in September

WINTER 2009

2010 and will consist of Air National Guard units and those squadrons with contracted operations Joint Base support missions.

LOGISTICS COMPLIANCE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM Effective 1 Oct 09, our Air Force Logistics Enterprise has a new tool at its disposal-one designed to foster and reinforce a culture of accountability and compliance across our profession. This tool is the Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP), and it was conceived after a thorough review of existing MAJCOM logistics evaluation programs revealed a significant disparity in the depth and breadth of assessments conducted. To put it bluntly, our core logistics processes were being inconsistently evaluated. Moreover, there was no Headquarters Air Force oversight in the process; limited cross-tell between MAJCOMs; and no mandate for root-cause analysis to address documented discrepancies and findings. As a result, Air Staff and MAJCOM subject matter experts worked in concert to compose and publish AFI 20-111, The Logistics Compliance Assessment Program. This AFI codifies a standardized, comprehensive assessment program focused on our core logistics processes and the personnel performing them. All logistics units are evaluated by their MAJCOMs on a limited notice basis and assessed to a common standard utilizing HAFmanaged checklists. Moreover, the program mandates root-cause analysis and includes a Community of Practice to enable crosstell of information and the warehousing of checklists, reports, and metrics. LCAP evaluations have begun and the program will be continually refined as assessment data is captured and trends are analyzed.

of stressed operational wing-level maintenance activities. This team found imbalances exist between operational requirements and maintenance capability which have created an environment where maintainers often feel pressured to deviate from technical data and policy to accomplish the mission. There were four root-causes identified by the assessment team: 1) The Air Force has no universally accepted tool to effectively balance operational requirements and maintenance capability at the wing level. 2) There is a shortage of both available and MDS-experienced maintainers to meet operational requirements. 3) Many maintenance policies and procedures are antiquated, cumbersome and time-consuming. 4) Electronic technical orders are ineffective and increase task time. A more in-depth article detailing the entire wing-level maintenance assessment effort and results follows later in this issue. As you read this ER, I encourage you to take note of the initiatives being implemented across the MAJCOM-, depot- and baselevels. As we move along the path towards a compliance-oriented culture, I'm confident we have begun to “pull chocks” in our Back to Basics efforts centered on our Core Values. To quote our Chief of Staff, General Norton A. Schwartz, “it is being loyal to those things that have inspired Air Force members for years...that is our fundamental values of Integrity, Service and Excellence. Excellence is the byword.” Major

ASSESSMENT OF WING-LEVEL MAINTENANCE

General

Robert

McMahon is the Director of Logistics

Given today's operational aircraft maintenance environment, our technicians and leaders are faced with huge challenges in meeting mission requirements. As a result, Lieutenant General Loren M. Reno, Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations, Logistics and Mission Support, chartered a team to assess the root-causes

Deputy

Chief

Staff/Logistics, Installations & Mission Support. He is also a senior advisor to LOA and a major contributor to the ER.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Nuclear Surety Basics By Col Stephen Williams The Nuclear Surety mission can be an arcane, counter-intuitive business when Airmen first begin to work and lead within it, especially if not groomed in it. Training helps, but there is no substitute for learning the rules, immersing yourself in the mission and the application of the rules, and continually assessing your adherence to the rules. This is called experience. Nuclear Surety is a very unique culture within our Air Force. This article is not for the 5% of the Air Force that lives and works in a nuclear surety environment daily. It is for the rest of us. Very intelligent, accomplished Air Force leaders can fail in the Nuclear Surety mission if the culture isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t understood and mastered, and the Air Force Nuclear Surety bench is not as deep as necessary.

W H AT I S N U C L E A R S U R E T Y DOES IT COME FROM?

AND

WHERE

The Department of Defense (DoD) 3150.2, DoD Nuclear Weapons System Safety Program states, Nuclear weapon systems require special safety consideration because of their political and military importance, their destructive power, and the potential consequences of a nuclear weapon accident or unauthorized act. To achieve nuclear weapon system safety and to maintain the public trust by protecting public health, safety, and the environment, it is critical that safety be considered as early as possible during weapon development and continues to be considered throughout the life-cycle of the weapon. Therefore, nuclear weapon systems must be protected

WINTER 2009

against risks and threats inherent in their peacetime and wartime environments. The process by which nuclear weapon system safety is ensured is through the effective management of the DoD Nuclear Weapon System Safety Program. My pardon for subjecting everyone to a lengthy quote from a DoD manual up front, but we need to understand what we are directed to accomplish. The quote is a perfectly distilled summary for why we have such uncompromising standards to ensure U.S. nuclear weapons are safe, secure, and positively controlled. The foundational DoD Directive 3150.2, DoD Nuclear Weapons System Safety Program, further directs, It is DoD policy that four DoD Nuclear Weapon System Safety Standards shall serve as the foundation for all nuclear weapons safety matters, as follows: 1. There shall be positive measures to prevent nuclear weapons involved in accidents or incidents, or jettisoned weapons, from producing a nuclear yield.

2. There shall be positive measures to prevent DELIBERATE pre-arming, arming, launching, or releasing of nuclear weapons, except upon execution of emergency war orders or when directed by competent authority. 3. There shall be positive measures to prevent INADVERTENT pre-arming, arming, launching, or releasing of nuclear weapons in all normal and credible abnormal environments. 4. There shall be positive measures to ensure adequate security of nuclear weapons, under DoD Directive 5210.41. Now, you may notice the word “surety” missing in the quoted DoD material. “Surety” is primarily a Department of Energy term, and it is not used consistently until we get to AFI 91-101, Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program. This instruction begins with, “The Air Force Nuclear Weapons Surety Program ensures personnel design and operate nuclear weapons and Continued on next page...

Airmen secure a cruise missile to a B-52 Stratofortress pylon during an alert generation exercise at Minot AFB. The exercise tested cruise missile loading and aircrew response procedures. (USAF photo by SSgt Jocelyn Rich)

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

nuclear weapon systems to satisfy the safety standards in DoD Directive 3150.2, DoD Nuclear Weapon System Safety Program.” The instruction then goes on to repeat the four DoD Nuclear Weapon System Safety Standards referenced in the DoD manual. Fundamentally, the Air Force Nuclear Surety Program is how the service meets DoD nuclear weapons system safety and security standards.

ER: NUCLEAR SURETY BASICS

HOW DO WE KNOW WE’VE GOT SURETY? We inspect for it. DoD 3150.2 directs the Secretaries of the military departments to, “Ensure that nuclear weapons technical inspections are conducted.” Now you may be wonderingwhat is a Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection (NWTI) and where does that guidance come from? Let me direct your attention to one of the most obscure, hard to get, but most important documents every nuclear surety warrior needs to know from front to back, DoD Technical Publication (TP) 25-1, Department of Defense Nuclear Weapons Technical Inspection System. Technical Publication 25-1/TO 11N-25-1 is the foundational document for AFI 90-201, Inspector General Activities, Chapter 5, Air Force Nuclear Surety Inspection (NSI) Program. Passing the NSI is not the purpose of the Nuclear Surety Program. The purpose of the Nuclear Surety Program is to ensure the Air Force maintains weapons “that require special safety consideration because of their political and military importance, their destructive power, and the potential consequences of a nuclear weapon acciTech. Sgt. Damen Cipolla inspects the rotary launch assembly as it's being lifted into a Bdent or unauthorized act” (DoD 3150.2M) in a Safe, 2. (USAF photo by A1C Carlin Leslie) Secure and Reliable manner at all times. The NSI merely validates our ability to do this. The greatest aspect through long and bitter experience that nuclear logistics operaabout TO 11N-25-1, Chapter 3, is that it bridges nuclear surety tions demand experience and technical expertise far beyond that concepts to examples of daily nuclear surety expectations and required for general maintenance of even non-nuclear munipractices. tions.” Prophetic words in 1987 and no less true today. . As with any Air Force mission, the nuclear mission requires good people W H Y W E C A N N O T FA I L to do important work well. However, unlike other missions, the As a service, we absolutely cannot let our nation down when it cost of failure can be much higher. comes to the stewardship of nuclear weapons. The confidence of our fellow citizens and our civilian leadership is at stake as Col Stephen Williams is the Nuclear Weapons, Missiles and well as our nations’ reputation. Major General Lewis G. Curtis, Munitions Division Chief (AF/A4LW) at Headquarters Air Force in his capacity as the San Antonio ALC/CC (former home of and is the Munitions, Missile and Space Maintenance Officer the Directorate of Special Weapons, precursor AF Nuclear (21M) Career Field Manager. K Weapons Center organization), once wrote, “We have learned

WINTER 2009

mission ready

Our Air men and women have the skill and the guts to complete their mission. But will they have the equipment? They will with the help of Honeywell. Our defense logistics partnership programs use proven technologies to solve the emerging challenges of global logistics and suport. With over sixty years of military system technologies and service, Honeywell is delivering service, reliability, and survivability enhancements to extend the useful lives of C-130, C-5, B1 and B2, the MQ9 Reaper, F-15, F-22, and F-35 aircraft. With continuous process improvements from Six Sigma LEAN, condition-based maintenance for equipment and vehicles, standardization, asset visibility & tracking, and the right people in the right jobs â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Honeywell helps you stay mission ready for the changing battlespace.

Visit us online at www.honeywell.com/missionready

1950's -- An overall view of a Boeing B-47 Stratojet aircraft in flight. (USAF Photo)

By Major General (ret) Ron Smith For decades, much has been cussed and discussed while seeking optimum and improved maintenance organizational structures, theories, or approaches. Invariably, the Strategic Air Command (SAC) always comes into that discussion, injected either by “grey beard” SAC advocates…or critics. So I was honored when asked by the LOA to describe the SAC maintenance environment based on my experience in the command. I will come at this from a SAC Bombardment Wing, aircraft maintenance perspective. But rest assured, what follows was applicable to all disciplines in all SAC units: Aircraft Bomb Wings, ICBM Missile Wings, Recon Wings…it didn’t matter.

The Strategic Air Command: Readiness through Standards, Compliance, & Excellence

First, a brief review. SAC was initially established in 1946 to provide the United States long range bombing capability. While now rich in heritage, the command was basically powerless at the onset due to the lack of capable assets, technology, and strategic thinking. And many historians add lack of leadership. That all changed rapidly with the arrival of SAC’s second commander, the legendary General Curtis LeMay and the Nation’s need for a deterrent to counter the emerging Soviet nuclear arsenal. Legend has it that General LeMay inherited a real “rag tag” command in 1948, with few operational aircraft and many untrained crews. Allegedly, one of his initial readiness tests was for his aircrews to “bomb” Dayton, OH. Folklore has it that the crews missed Dayton by as much as two miles. Known as “Iron Ass” due to his demands for focus and excellence, it is hard to imagine the reaction of this legendary leader. What followed the Dayton bomb runs was the beginning of a culture in SAC of assured readiness through focus on standards, compliance, and excellence.

General LeMay brought the needed leadership, strategic thinking, focus, and operational assets to ensure long-range bombing capability. Most would no doubt agree that this new readiness culture engrained by General LeMay was apropos regardless of the primary mission. But as SAC matured into the Nation’s premier nuclear deterrence provider during a most stressful and turbulent era in our history, the demand for such a culture was exacerbated. In the SAC days, nuclear responsibility wasn’t segmented and dispersed to multiple commands and/or entities. SAC was accountable for the operational control over the Air Force’s nuclear arsenal to include strategic bombers, ICBMs, and cruise missiles, as well as enabling capabilities such as air refueling, strategic recon, airborne command posts, and even fighter escorts until the mid-50s. The lines of authority, from top to bottom, were clear and well understood, as were the lines of accountability. SAC’s nuclear mission drove an environment where readiness degradation or laxity was simply not an option. The critical, no mistake, nature of the nuclear mission was instilled in every command member from day one. The nuclear mission wasn’t one of many tasks in a person’s job jar, it was their job jar! Consequently, SAC was made up of experts…experts in the nuclear business. There was an “I will not fail” sense in individual members and that same sense was populated at the unit level. Everyone said that SAC was unique…and it was. The nuclear mission was unique with no room for less than the highest levels of readiness, safety, and excellence. The consequences of anything less was unacceptable and made focus through standards, compliance, and excellence mandatory. The focus was embedded in every aspect

WINTER 2009

of SAC operations…there were no exceptions. And that culture was sustained until SAC was deactivated as a Major Air Command and Specified Command in 1992 following the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War. There were no “county options” in SAC! Readiness was ensured through the attainment of tough standards and the discipline to execute proven, standardized, and fail-safe processes and policies. So there were detailed command regulations, not supplements, for virtually every organization and imaginable process and/or situation. Readiness through standards, standardization, and compliance obviously required the command’s commitment to develop the policies, provide the tech data, provide the training, and ensure the resources necessary to sustain the required highest levels of readiness and excellence…and it did. Meeting tough standards is impossible without “pros” at work and the development of “pros” is grounded in training and education ...a never ending

event in SAC. New maintenance officers were not authorized to sign exceptional releases, downgrade red ”Xs”, etc. until they had successfully completed the FTD familiarization course for the assigned weapon systems. As the officer progressed through their career, advanced maintenance officer training/education continued at the SAC Maintenance University at Carswell AFB, TX. Teaching at the SAC Maintenance University was an expected role for field-grade senior maintenance leaders. Technical proficiency was assured through stringent certification processes before technicians were allowed to accomplish maintenance actions or maintenance supervisors were authorized to perform supervisory inspections. By the way, 30% of all completed maintenance actions in SAC had to have supervisory follow-up inspections. These technical certifications were accomplished through formal training and “over-the-shoulder” verifications by supervisors as Continued on next page...

1960s - Members of a Strategic Air Command B-52 combat crew race for their always ready-and-waiting B-52 heavy bomber. (USAF photo)

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

E R : T H E S T R AT E G I C A I R C O M M A N D

well as the handpicked Quality Control Section personnel assigned to the Deputy Commander for Maintenance (DCM) staff. And the certifications were not a one time event…recertification was the norm. Training time and equipment were musts. As the DCM, I set aside aircraft dedicated solely to munitions load crew and/or other technical training…there were no exceptions to use the training aircraft or personnel in training for other tasks. The same adherence was true for aircrew training…it was never disrupted. Senior leadership commitment to training sent a strong message! Training effectiveness and the discipline to comply with procedures were tested over and over through practice and exercises, conductA B-52D Stratofortress from the ed locally and by high93rd Bombardment Wing at er headquarters. For Castle Air Force Base. (USAF photo) example, each SAC Bomb Wing was required to conduct at least one full aircraft generation each quarter without fail. Everything in the Wing stopped to support the exercise just as if the Emergency War Order (EWO) was being executed. And exercises were not just limited to aircraft generation. For example, if aircraft dispersal was an EWO tasking…it was practiced and exercised. The readiness of the bomber and tanker alert force (crews, equipment, and senior staff) was tested 5-7 times a month with no-notice klaxons initiated by HQ SAC, day and night. Crews, who were housed 24/7 in alert facilities adjacent to the alert aircraft along with their maintenance crew, responded with either a “ready to taxi” response or an actual taxi exercise. Any failure to meet the stringent response times failed to meet readiness standards…and resulted in less than a pleasant day! And the SAC Wing’s senior staff was required to be available 24/7 to respond to actual or tests of EWO execution. As the DCM, I or my assistant was required to be on base 24/7, reachable at all time either by the SAC hotline (house and office) or the mobile device known simply as the “brick.” This exclusive SAC network was used by senior staff members only, and their location was known 24/7 by the operator. Specific exercises were conducted to test reaction time (in seconds) to either the hotline or the “brick.” You didn’t want to fail one of those tests either. I slept with that “brick!”

SAC inspections, which seemed countless by the way, were intended to test readiness, compliance, and excellence. Some may assert that SAC tried to “inspect in excellence”…not so. The inspections were focused on validation of readiness levels and the ability to fully execute the mission. So training effectiveness, processes, procedures, polices and the discipline to comply religiously were fully tested. The word “simulation” was not in the SAC dictionary. If an EWO task was required, it was demonstrated and evaluated. The inspectors were the EXPERTS. They knew Air Force, SAC, Numbered Air Force, Air Division, and Wing regulations/policies inside and out. They could cite page, paragraph and subsections…they had been there and done that! They were handpicked and they represented the best of the best. No different than most commands, there were Maintenance Standardization & Evaluation Teams (MSET), Combat Evaluation Group (CEVG) standardization teams, Inspector General (IG) teams, Nuclear Surety Inspection (NSI) teams, Numbered Air Force and Air Division teams, and on and on. But the biggest surprise associated with their visit was when they would show up! They were all no-notice visits and were centered squarely on readiness. I remember the long unrelenting days ensuring readiness to execute the wing’s mission…the focus was squarely on the mission, not preparing for an inspection. When the MSET arrived, it was known exactly what kind and how many evaluations they would conduct (over-the-shoulder and after-thefact), how many pieces of equipment they would inspect, and how many completed aircraft inspections they would evaluate. But who (technician or supervisor) the team would pick to evaluate, what task they would be required to do, or which pieces of equipment they would inspect was not known. Any maintenance action documented in the previous 90 days was game. Anybody who was certified to accomplish a maintenance task was game. But the pass/fail criteria, maintenance done IAW tech data, was known, and the overall scoring criteria was published for each adjectival rating. The criteria

WINTER 2009

were the same for everyone. I distinctly remember the day that a young Captain Smith (SAC MSET 73-75) had the “privilege“ of briefing the SAC/LG, Vice CINCSAC, and CINCSAC on the unsatisfactory rating awarded after the MSET inspected the CINCSAC’s aircraft. The brief was much easier for me than the CINCSAC’s maintenance team. I briefed the tech data requirements and the compliance, which obviously wasn’t much. But the new command maintenance crew did a much better job when we were sent back for the 90-day follow-up. And by the way, a major element of the MSET was the Tech Data Section, manned with experienced senior NCOs whose sole job was to ensure maintainers had current, accurate, comprehensive, and understandable technical data. Those memorable IG team visits! Again, a no-notice readiness evaluation to test every aspect of the EWO mission by actually doing it: aircraft generation, alert force exercises, mobility deployments, launch of all aircraft, bombing runs, refueling missions, etc…no simulations. Failure to meet the stringent readiness criteria was automatic failure. And there was the detailed verification of knowledge of EWO missions and command regulations/policies determined by testing (to include maintenance officers). Compliance with policies and procedures was verified through “show me” techniques! Survival of the compliance portion was totally dependent upon a thorough and active self–inspection program. Certain discrepant areas were almost automatic resume writing initiation events, i.e. repeat discrepancies or deviations in the Personnel Reliability Program (PRP) administration. The PRP program was the Squadron Commander’s program with no delegation…none. All entries in the PRP log were handwritten and were only made by the Squadron Commander. The chain of events was verified again and again: event, immediate PRP action, and individual/supervisor compliance with the action. There was no room for error, i.e. personnel reliability was the foundation of nuclear surety. Even with all the guidance in the world, the toughness and critical nature of the business required on-the-spot, critical decisons. The strong and aggressive training/exercise programs enabled personnel to feel comfortable to make those tough decisions…correctly. “To err is human, to forgive is divine, neither of which is SAC policy” was a popular slogan, and not too far from the truth. Meeting readiness standards and demonstrating excellence in mission execution were the expected norm in SAC and senior leaders were held accountable for that. And those senior leaders were expected to ensure the same accountability throughout their subordinate units. SAC Bomb Wings were organized for accountability: Wing Commander, Base Commander, and

Tri-Deputy Commanders for Operations, Maintenance, and Resources. As the DCM, if it had anything to do with maintenance, I was accountable: flightline, shops, weapon storage area, it didn’t matter. Was it a one mistake environment? No, but lapses in nuclear surety or readiness reduced the number of mistakes allowed significantly…and rapidly! I know. During my tenure, I followed a maintenance supervisor, two squadron commanders, and a DCM who failed the test. It was serious business. It was all about assuring the highest levels of readiness and nuclear surety. But there was room for creativity. While we really didn’t know about LEAN or six sigma, processes were continually assessed to enhance readiness, MC rates, response times, etc. And great improvements were made. I would argue that SAC created 6S …we just didn’t know it had a name! There was tons of fun as well. Bombing competitions, load competitions, etc. were all designed to create excellence, competition, and camaraderie...and above all to improve readiness. SAC’s motto “Peace is our Profession” will forever be etched in my mind. I have nothing but the fondest memories and appreciation from my SAC experience with take-aways that I tried to use throughout my career. The maintenance business is tough and critical, with little room for error. So I would argue that the same ingredients used by SAC to ensure readiness and excellence are applicable, and effective, regardless of the assigned mission or era in which it is being executed. Nuclear surety brings it own demands…as it must. But success and excellence comes from the same ingredients. It worked in SAC, and it has worked in countless successful organizations: readiness through focus on standards, compliance, and excellence…all grounded in accountability. About the Author: Major General (ret) Ron Smith retired 1 January, 1998 as Commander, Warner Robins Air Logistics Center following a 31-year career in Air Force logistics. The first twenty of those years were spent in SAC where he commanded three squadrons, served as an Assistant Deputy Commander for Maintenance (DCM) and as the DCM, 416th Bombardment Wing (SAC), Griffiss AFB NY from 1985-1987. During his tenure, the 416th Maintenance Complex was the recipient of the coveted Phoenix Trophy, the highest field-level maintenance award within the DOD. The general also served as the Director of Maintenance at an Air Logistics Center, Director of Quality (HQ DLA), and as Director of Logistics, Air Mobility Command and Air Force Materiel Command.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Today’s Operational Aircraft Maintenance Environment

By Major General Robert H. McMahon All of us are very aware of the scrutiny endured by the Air Force Nuclear Enterprise following the shipment of nuclear-related components to Taiwan in 2006 and the unauthorized transfer of nuclear weapons in 2007. Numerous high-level, fact-finding and investigative teams systematically dissected every facet of the nuclear enterprise and their recommendations to fill gaps in training, policy, procedures and inspections are being implemented today. Needless to say we’ve all learned a great deal and are a better Air Force for it…but, I think you will also agree this is not the most pleasant way to learn. Unfortunately, it appears the aircraft maintenance community may be experiencing fundamental breakdowns similar to those that befell the Nuclear Enterprise. Recent inspection results portray a negative trend in technical order and policy compliance on the part of aircraft maintainers. Moreover, Air Force Safety Center data confirms the number of maintenance-related Class B and C mishaps have increased for three consecutive years. Worse still, the top cause of these maintenance-related mishaps is failure to follow tech data. Confronted with this information, our Deputy Chief of Staff for Installations, Logistics and Mission Support, Lieutenant General Loren M. Reno, commissioned a team of seasoned maintainers to conduct a comprehensive assessment of today’s operational, winglevel maintenance environment. To better understand what’s going on in the day-to-day business of aircraft maintenance in our operational wings…Active Duty, Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve…this team was tasked to visit flightlines around the world

and identify the issues and corresponding root-causes negatively impacting our maintainers. Their deliverable was a structured and defendable report summarizing the state of wing-level aircraft maintenance. The team was composed of two graduated maintenance group commanders, three experienced maintenance officers, four maintenance Chiefs and two tenured maintenance analysts. They visited 15 bases across six Major Commands, including Total Force Integration (TFI) units and traditional Air National Guard and Air Force Reserve operations. At each base visited, the assessment team observed maintenance operations on all shifts and reviewed historical data such as manning documents, past inspection results, Quality Assurance reports, and much more. They also administered an AETC Studies and Analysis Squadron-developed survey, and interviewed maintainers one-on-one or in focus groups of up to 15 personnel. The survey and interview questions posed to these maintainers spanned 13 different areas from culture and training to contracted maintenance services and job satisfaction. By the time the assessment team completed its worldwide visit itinerary, they had gathered over 7,100 survey responses and interviewed more than 2,000 maintenance personnel.

T O D AY ’ S O P E R AT I O N A L M A I N T E N A N C E ENVIRONMENT The assessment team’s extensive collection of observations, interview results and survey analysis led them to conclude that imbalances between operational requirements and maintenance

WINTER 2009

capability have created an environment where maintainers often feel pressured to deviate from technical data and policy to accomplish the mission. More importantly, the team’s research verified that one in 10 maintainers admit succumbing to this pressure and actually taking shortcuts or otherwise deviating from technical orders. Based upon the data collected, the team concluded there were four root-causes responsible for the current environment. Those four causes were: The Air Force has no universally accepted tool to effectively balance operational requirements and maintenance capability at the wing-level; There is a shortage of both available and MDS-experienced maintainers to meet operational requirements; Many maintenance policies and procedures are antiquated, cumbersome, and time-consuming; Electronic technical orders are ineffective and increase task time. One caveat; this study was not about operational requirements and whether the current demand for sorties is accurate or not…I’ll leave that assessment to the ops community. Rather, the team took the current environment as a given and then attempted to determine what factors were impacting our ability to accomplish safe, reliable maintenance by the book. With that said, let me talk in more detail about each of the four identified root-causes.

A North Carolina Air National Guard C-130 Hercules waits for depaint operations to begin at the 402nd Maintenance Support Squadron at Robins AFB. (USAF photo by Lance Cheung)

L A C K O F A S TA N D A R D I Z E D M O D E L F O R C A L C U L AT I N G M A I N T E N A N C E C A PA B I L I T Y The first root-cause identified by the team was that the Air Force has no universally accepted tool to effectively balance operational requirements and maintenance capability at the wing-level. Further, they concluded that the Air Force has no standardized and approved definition of maintenance capability, nor is there Air Force guidance requiring wings to balance operational requirements with maintenance capability. As a result, any perceived gap between what ops requires and what maintenance can provide is based upon subjectivity rather than fact, and how that gap is determined varies from base to base and unit to unit. The team did find that some wings accomplish maintenance capability assessments but that each uses different tools. Moreover, these tools do not accurately account for variables such as personnel availability, experience, and productivity based on the skill-level of maintainers. The result is that although 45 percent of maintainers responding to a recent Air Force Safety Center survey felt their squadron was over-committed based upon current manning/assets, there was no way to factually assess their assertion.

S H O R TA G E O F AVA I L A B L E A N D M D S E X P E R I E N C E D M A I N TA I N E R S The second root-cause identified by the team focused on manning. All bases visited by the assessment team reported a shortage of both available and MDS-experienced maintainers in critical career fields. As well, increased “out-of-hide” taskings…those positions not funded in programming, but required to ensure the smooth operations of wings, groups, squadrons or flights…have grown significantly in recent years and exacerbated the situation. Our Air Force has also made some “business decisions” to combat reduced manning that

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Continued on next page...

E R : T O D AY ’ S O P E R AT I O N A L A I R C R A F T M A I N T E N A N C E E N V I R O N M E N T

many maintainers believe have adversely impacted the proficiency and qualification levels of personnel on our flightlines. The consolidation of some AFSC shred-outs is one example. A decision to delete duty position requirements for upgrade to the 5 skilllevel was another example cited to the assessment team. Overall, maintainers reported reduced upgrade requirements, combined with a reduced focus on OJT, ineffective execution of master training plans, limited OJT opportunities due to flying schedules and an ever increasing ancillary training burden, have resulted in a less capable maintainer.

rently fielded electronic technical orders are often times fraught with usability and supportability shortcomings making them ineffective and inefficient. Maintainers deal with connectivity, software and hardware issues daily. Screens are difficult to read in direct sunlight, batteries routinely die in the middle of maintenance operations and just booting-up the laptop computers can take as long as 30 minutes. Moreover, the way some electronic tech orders are formatted means they significantly increase task time. For example, the assessment team witnessed F-15E “safe for maintenance” procedures take 30+ minutes using electronic tech data, when the same task takes 5 to 7 minutes using a paper job guide. Durability, compatibility and insufficient quantiTSgt Jason James Phillip checks a weapons ties of computers, round out the list of concerns. load on the flightline at Bagram Airfield, In summary, the time savings realized by no Afghanistan. (USAF photo by SrA Felicia longer having to maintain and update paper tech Juenke) CUMBERSOME POLICIES order libraries is often lost due to the design of AND PROCEDURES our current electronic tech data and the reliabilThe third root-cause identified centered around policy. The team ity and usability of the display systems. found that our maintainers are frustrated by our current policy and by the processes in place to access that policy. As we all know, policy emanates from multiple levels…Headquarter Air Force, T H E W A Y A H E A D MAJCOMs, wings, groups, and squadrons. The team found that The assessment team did an outstanding job identifying the chalbecause of continuous updates to policy and the sequential way it lenges presently confronting our maintainers. A summary of their is fielded—Air Force, then MAJCOM, then wing—policy being efforts and findings has been briefed all the way up our chain-offollowed by the maintainer was in constant flux. Further, we’ve command to include the Secretary and Chief of Staff of the Air not effectively managed how that policy is managed in an elec- Force. Now comes the hard part…doing something about the tronic environment. One technical sergeant told the team, ”There issues identified by the assessment team. To this end, each rootare too many supplements so you never know what you are miss- cause has been assigned to one of my Air Staff action officers. ing! For example, TO 00-20-1 is located on the OC-ALC website, These POCs have been tasked to develop detailed plans validathas a supplement located at a MAJCOM publishing site, has addi- ing and attacking each root-cause and report back to me by the tional aircraft forms documentation procedures referenced in AFI end of December with the way ahead. My goal is to remove any 21-101 found at AFEPL, a local instruction located on an MXG barriers impacting our maintainers’ ability to accomplish safe and site, and a MAJCOM message kept in a section read file to clari- reliable maintenance in accordance with established policies and fy procedures.” As a result, policies are inconsistently interpreted procedures. At the same time, every maintainer in our Air Force and applied. From a process and procedures standpoint, maintain- must be part of this effort by committing to the fundamental priners point to maintenance documentation, tools and equipment ciple of our profession…maintenance by the book. With a conmanagement, special certification, and ordering and receiving certed effort such as this, we’re certain to succeed in creating an parts as examples of cumbersome and dated processes difficult to operational maintenance environment befitting the world’s greatcomply with as they work to meet today’s operational require- est air, space and cyberspace force. ments. Such processes need to be targeted for update and streamlining to align them with the realities of our current aircraft maintenance environment.

About the Author: Major General H. Robert McMahon is Director of Logistics, Deputy Chief of Staff for Logistics, Installations and Mission Support, Headquarters U.S. Air Force, Washington, D.C.

INEFFECTIVE ELECTRONIC TECHNICAL ORDERS

He is responsible for organizing, training, and equipping more than

Finally, the assessment team found a majority of maintainers believe electronic technical data is a good idea. However, cur-

global engagement aerospace weapons system inventory.

180,000 technicians and managers maintaining the Air Force

WINTER 2009

SSgt Ben Norton works to regenerate a B-52 Stratofortress at Barksdale AFB. Airmen work around the clock during an operational readiness inspection to determine the ability to rapidly deploy assets and personnel. (USAF photo by S Sgt Sarah Stegman)

implement a proactive approach to maintenance discipline. Before leaders can begin investigating maintenance discipline in our organizations, we must understand the meaning of maintenance discipline.

Quantifying and Addressing Maintenance Discipline

The term â&#x20AC;&#x153;maintenance disciplineâ&#x20AC;? is common to USAF aircraft maintainers. It is heard at roll calls, listed as causal factors in safety reports, and touted by supervisors, peers and subordinates when the sacred oath of providing safe and reliable aircraft is breached. Regardless of how maintainers hear or use the term, maintenance discipline carries a powerful punch. The word discipline reminds us of genuine beliefs or conditions based on obedience to authority.

Written by the cadre of the USAF Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School

PROPOSAL

During the summer of 2009, Headquarters USAF A4/7 conducted a comprehensive assessment of operational wing-level maintenance with an overarching goal of analyzing the reasons for recent safety incidents and inspection results indicating a negative trend in technical order and policy compliance among aircraft maintainers. This assessment of operational wing-level maintenance identified the need for maintenance leaders, at all levels, to examine maintenance discipline issues and trends. The assessment challenged our community to

To address the lack of a standardized method to quantify the climate of maintenance discipline, USAF AMMOS developed a model incorporating data from maintenance inspection programs and safety mishap rates. It is our goal that this model can be used, by any leader, to assess the climate of maintenance discipline in an organization at any desired level. Aircraft and munitions maintenance organizations should start their evaluation of maintenance discipline by collecting applicable Logistics Standardization and Evaluation Program (LSEP), Logistics

WINTER 2009

Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP), and Maintenance Standardization and Evaluation Program (MSEP) data. LSEP/LCAP inspection reports are relevant to a major command (MAJCOM) or numbered air force (NAF) staff member, while MSEP data are better suited for analysis at the wing-level and below. Presenting this data visually allows the organization to determine areas for further statistical or practical investigation. The level of analysis (MAJCOM/NAF level vs. wing-level and below) will determine how the data are organized and analyzed. In the case of a NAF or higher level analysis, the average LSEP/LCAP pass rates for all bases within that organization should be plotted on a line graph by year (see Figure 1 USAF Average LSEP/LCAP Pass Rates). Conversely, if the analysis is conducted for units at the winglevel or below, the average MSEP pass rates for all units under that organization should be plotted on a line graph by year. After organization of the pass rate data is complete we recommend deeper analysis of STVs. The organization of the STV data will again depend upon the level of analysis desired by the organization. In the case of a MAJCOM/NAF level analysis, the average number of STVs for all bases within that organization should be plotted on a line graph by year (see Figure 2 USAF Average Safety/Technical Violations). However, if the analysis is conducted at the wing-level or below, the raw number of STVs for each unit within that organization should be plotted on a line graph by year or month, depending on the scope of the research. Once the maintenance leader arranges the applicable LCAP/MSEP/STV data according to the guidelines above, the second part of the model is ready for construction. Safety is the next area the maintenance leader must investigate for indicators of maintenance discipline. Maintenance supervision should work with their applicable Safety Office to collect the number of mishaps caused by a maintainerâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s action (or lack thereof) over a given time period. This data should contain at least the following information for each mishap: report number, mishap date, domain, and duty status. Usually the Safety Office can provide access to the Air Force Safety Automated System (AFSAS) to collect this data in a spreadsheet format to allow for further organization by the maintenance leader.

The number of safety mishaps for a given maintenance unit requires specific organization to allow useful interpretation. First, the maintenance leader needs to organize mishaps by the mishap domain (i.e., aviation, ground, weapons, etc.) to determine which measure of production (e.g. flight hours or maintenance hours) is used to calculate the safety rate(s). In order to adjust for variable fleet sizes and personnel numbers, a safety rate must be calculated for each mishap domain. For mishaps categorized in the aviation domain, the number of mishaps in a given time period should be divided by the number

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Continued on next page...

(3 "safety mishaps" )/(300,000 "flying hours" )=0.00001 "safety mishaps per flying hour" Obviously this result is difficult to scale for visual presentation, so multiplying this result by a factor of 100,000 flying hours will yield a more manageable result of 1 safety mishap per 100,000

flying hours. Once these basic calculations are complete the next step is to organize the data on a line graph.

P R O A C T I V E LY A D D R E S S I N G A R E A S OF CONCERN Maintenance leaders must take a holistic approach to assessing the health of maintenance discipline in their organizations. Taking this holistic approach means looking at ALL issues, factors, and concerns indicative of the “health” of maintenance discipline in an organization. These indicators primarily fall into two categories: quantitative and qualitative. Logisticians learn quantitative methods to produce metrics from day one. Leading and lagging maintenance indicators, supply stats, MSEP, and a host of other statistics specific to an airframe, section, or theater are commonplace. However, these quantitative indicators only tell part of the organization’s story. Maintenance leaders must always keep in mind WHAT each metric measures as well as WHAT the information is relaying. Misinterpreting quantitative

ER: QUANTIFYING

AND

ADDRESSING MAINTENANCE DISCIPLINE

of flight hours produced by the applicable organization over the same time period to calculate a Maintenance-Aviation Safety Rate (MASR). Similarly, the number of on-duty ground mishaps in a given time period should be divided by the number of Maintenance Man-Hours (MMH) produced by the applicable organization over the same time period to calculate a Maintenance-Ground Safety Rate (MGSR). Mishaps in other domains (i.e., weapons, space, etc.) follow a similar pattern: divide the number of mishaps over a given time period by the number of MMH worked by an organization to produce a safety rate. NOTE: during the computation of the safety rates the maintenance leader may need to apply a factor in order to scale results properly. Consider the following example:

Airman Travis Sharp inspects the lower fuselage of an F-16 Fighting Falcon at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. (USAF photo by SRA Christopher Hubenthal)

WINTER 2009

data could potentially cause a maintenance leader to make decisions, focus effort, or develop policies to address the incorrect problem, or worse yet, miss the entire root cause of the issue. Ultimately, the data collection and analysis will lead to some root cause problems you must address in your unit. While each organization will have its own unique challenges and constraints, there are some consistent, universal methods to help maintenance leaders and managers foster a culture of compliance and maintenance discipline in their organizations. These universal methods are codified in the aircraft and munitions maintenance AFTTP manuals. Units with poor safety records and compliance problems often have problems with adequate supervision. Maintenance leaders must ensure proper shift coverage by supervision and cycle key supervisors through all shifts. Having authority figures present throughout a workcenter's hours of operation ensures personnel know they will be held accountable for their actions. Additionally, in times of increased pace, risks increase and pressures mount. Without proper supervision and leadership, personnel may allow pressures to lead to unsafe maintenance. Everyone up and down the chain of command must understand their responsibility to call â&#x20AC;&#x153;knock it offâ&#x20AC;? when safety becomes a concern. The presence of an officer or SNCOs in a work center will help reinforce this concept. Also, by rotating supervisors across shifts, fresh sets of eyes are constantly evaluating a shift's performance and adherence to published technical orders and instructions. Supervision personnel are not the only individuals a maintenance leader must carefully manage across shifts. Be sure to focus your most skilled personnel on not only maintenance or production tasks, but also on training and developing others. By placing positive examples of discipline and competence throughout your unit and across all shifts, you will ensure your personnel are exposed to the kind of attitudes and compliance-based performance that drive an organization to succeed. Trainers and trainees should be assigned to the same shift to ensure continuity during the upgrade process. To further reinforce accountability, the supervisor should be the primary trainer for their subordinates. A maintenance leader, manager, or technician must never doubt the critical importance of using technical orders on the job all the time, every time. Demand technical order use and compliance. At the same time, encourage troops to analyze why guidance is written the way it is and help them seek ways to make their jobs easier and more efficient. This encouragement allows maintenance personnel to "buy in" to technical order use because they feel a sense of process ownership. However, maintain a structured and streamlined approach to get requests for guidance changes or technical order deviations, always ensuring proper authorization is obtained BEFORE performing tasks based on a change or deviation.

Another valuable technique, when executed correctly, is the use of unit self-inspections. Obtain copies of applicable Compliance and Standardization Requirements Lists (C&SRL) and use them to analyze your unit's processes. Self-inspections can be performed at any time. They can and should be conducted whenever a leader wants to assess their organization or when they suspect problems within their unit. For example, a maintenance officer may employ this method when their unit is suffering from low SI pass rates. The results of the self-inspection will tell the maintenance officer if their unit is failing to follow instructions across the board or just in a few areas. Of note, for the checklists to be run effectively and without prejudice, it is best if an individual from outside the element or section runs the checklistâ&#x20AC;Śeven from outside the organization, if possible. If personnel from outside the organization are unavailable, consider tasking newly assigned leaders to accomplish the checklist. This is also a very effective training method. Additionally, these newly assigned leaders will bring a fresh set of eyes to the inspection and a "why do we do it like this?" mindset. Quality Assurance personnel can also augment a unit's selfinspection program with Activity Inspections. Management uses these inspections to ensure work centers are complying with standards and meeting mission objectives. The use of formal selfinspection checklists coupled with a random sampling system holds section supervisors and technicians accountable for their individual programs and performance. Finally, the use of these techniques will identify personnel who are not in compliance with USAF standards and performance expectations. The most important keys to these techniques are follow-up, accountability, and consistency. Personnel must know the consequences for those who do not practice and enforce sound maintenance discipline. Consider sharing anonymous details of QA fails and breaches of AFIs, TOs, and local policy at unit roll calls. If you choose to use this technique, balance the negative connotations by also identifying and commending personnel who display proper compliance-based performance. We hope you will use the model described above as well as some of the tactics, techniques, and procedures as a starting point for examining and influencing the level of maintenance discipline in your organization As maintenance leaders, it is our responsibility to create a culture of compliance and ensure maintenance discipline is central in the production of safe and reliable aircraft. About the Author: USAF AMMOS Staff. Contact justin.godfrey@us.af.mil with questions.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Building a Compliance Culture in Aircraft Maintenance

one end and overregulation on the other. The analogy is relevant

By Major Chris “CP” Cullen To succeed in building a compliance culture in aircraft maintenance, we must construct more balanced prescriptions for reform and a workable and effective regulatory framework that ensures both regulatory compliance and mission performance. It’s our ability to drive organizational culture and real change in aircraft maintenance that requires more than just symbolic leadership action. It requires a practical solution to what is a very real problem in aircraft maintenance today. As maintainers and Warfighters, we’re responsible for generating and sustaining combat airpower to fight and win our nation’s wars. We cannot afford a system of regulation where the cost of compliance outweighs the benefits. The purpose of this article is to put regulatory compliance into perspective and to facilitate discussion and debate on the practice of compliance along with the art of regulatory reform.

BALANCED PRESCRIPTIONS

FOR

REFORM:

Regulatory reform is without doubt, one of the most pressing public policy issues of our time. In observing a number of case studies from across government and industry, one thing is clear – there is an art to getting regulatory reform right. In his book, The Regulatory Craft: Controlling Risks, Solving Problems and Managing Compliance, Malcolm Sparrow discusses the practice of compliance and the art of regulatory reform. He uses the analogy of a regulatory pendulum that is often swung too far; the dichotomy being deregulation on

in that our renewed focus on regulatory compliance in aircraft maintenance has triggered yet another swinging of the pendulum. Many maintainers are now calling for a return to the SAC-focused inspections ways of old. However, nostalgia is not the answer. To construct more balanced prescriptions for reform, we must reconsider the central purpose of regulatory compliance in aircraft maintenance.

T H E F O U N D AT I O N C U LT U R E :

OF A

STRONG COMPLIANCE

Regulatory compliance in aircraft maintenance is about prevention, about the management and mitigation of risks to airworthiness and safety. Building a strong compliance starts at the critical point of execution—where the screwdriver meets the screw in maintenance terms and where there are no barriers in place to prevent maintenance incident or accident from occurring. For all the new and improved programs that have come and gone over the past 15 years, the challenge remains the same—getting maintainers to do their jobs right and by the book. As a prior enlisted maintainer I can tell you that I was always focused on doing my job right, but I was not always focused on doing my job by the book. In fact, about the only time I ever opened the book was when QA or the Chief were around. It was definitely not how I was trained, but in those early days, I saw Technical Order (TO) compliance as something that simply got in the way of productivity and progress. For me the turning point was not a maintenance incident, accident or even a QA failure, but a video with General

Above: An EC-135 Stratotanker aircraft assigned to the 55th Wing at Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska is scrapped for salvage after sitting on the ramp at Pope Air Force Base, North Carolina for nearly one year. The aircraft was damaged in a landing accident on September 1997. (USAF photo by Dave Davenport)

WINTER 2009

rid ourselves of the belief that there is a difference between how we do things at home-station and how we do things while deployed. There is no difference and if the “cowboy culture” continues to exist while deployed, it will soon permeate into home station operations. Finally, we also need to rid ourselves of the belief that an AEF deployment to South-West Asia (SWA) is a fair indication of unit readiness and compliance. It is not an accurate indication and events like Unit Self-Inspection Programs (USIP), Operational Readiness Inspections (ORI), Unit Compliance Inspections (UCI) and Nuclear Surety Capt Jeffery Falanga, right, and Royal Australian Air Force Squadron Leader Jason Inspections (NSI), are Brown, both senior directors with the 71st Expeditionary Air Control Squadron, manage important.

Ronald R. Fogleman, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, on accountability. Accountability is the foundation of a strong compliance culture in aircraft maintenance and it must exist at all levels, not just at the lowest levels.

ELEMENTS OF R E G U L AT O RY FRAMEWORK:

Building a strong compliance culture requires more than just a solid foundation. It also requires a sturdy framework—a workable and effective regulatory framework. In aircraft maintenance that framework must provide an environment that ensures both regulatory compliance and mission performance. It should be comprised of at least the following key elements: 1) a clear mission focus, 2) high level policy and oversee support and combat aircraft on a base in Southwest Asia. The unit provides round-the-clock air defense and air battle execution of Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by and direction that drives a culHIGH LEVEL SSgt Robert Barney) ture of compliance and performP O L I C Y: ance from the top down, 3) an The Australian Defence Force’s (ADF) regulatory framework serves a organizational structure based on the concept of centralized control and decentralized execution, 4) strong and responsive unit Quality good example of the important role that high level policy plays in Assurance Programs (QAP) that ensure compliance and performance guiding and directing the regulatory practice. In the ADF, the vector from the bottom up, and 5) an independent regulatory body that clear- starts at the very top in the form of government legislation. From this ly states the regulations, ensures compliance with the regulations and legislation, the Chief of Air Force, in his capacity as the ADF Airworthiness Authority, provides policy and direction via a joint airmonitors the implications of compliance to prevent overregulation. worthiness directive (AD). The AD defines airworthiness as a concept, outlines the scope and level of airworthiness and airworthiness MISSION FOCUS: management in ADF aviation. It provides clear lines of responsibiliIn his book, The Death of Common Sense: How Law is Suffocating ty and accountability and mandates the development of two distinct America, Philip Howard argues “we seem to have achieved the worst regulatory frameworks—one that ensures technical airworthiness of both worlds: a system of regulation that goes too far while it also (how aircraft are designed, constructed, maintained and sustained) does too little.” It is an end state that we obviously cannot afford and one that ensures operational airworthiness (how aircraft are operin aircraft maintenance.Our system of regulation must have a clear ated). It is from this AD that the regulations themselves are develmission focus. It must exploit and dominate the “merge,” which is oped. The regulations are the foundation of the ADF’s regulatory the fragmented area of leadership battle space where regulatory frameworks. They clearly distinguish information that is mandatory compliance meets and “mixes it up” with mission performance. from information that is simply advisory. On the technical airworthiExploiting and dominating this key area of battle space requires an ness side, the single set of regulations also effectively standardizes epistemological shift in organizational thinking. We need to move maintenance and logistics practices not only across the tri-service compliance from the back of our minds to the forefront and rid our- arena but across aircraft design, construction, maintenance and supselves of the belief that we are too busy flying, fixing and sustaining ply chain assurance domains. The regulations are based on the “five combat airpower to worry about regulatory compliance. Time has Ws”: who – the audience of the regulations, what – the scope of the taught us that the ops tempo or mission creep cannot drive maintenance practice and cannot compromise standards. We also need to

Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE ER: BUILDING

C O M P L I A N C E C U LT U R E

Australian Air Force Leading Aircraftsman Evan Dutton and Cpl. Robert Freeman, members of 37th Squadron, troubleshoot an engine problem on a C130J Hercules cargo aircraft in Southwest Asia. The 37th Squadron flies a variety of missions to provide combat airlift support for Australian Defense Forces and coalition partners throughout Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by SSgt Robert Barney)

regulations, when – the applicability of the regulations, where – the location of the regulations, how – the content of the regulations and why – the purpose of the regulations.

CENTRALIZED CONTROL DECENTRALIZED EXECUTION: In his book The Five Pillars of TQM: How to Make Total Quality Management Work for You, General Wilbur L. “Bill” Creech asserts that effective process improvement depends on oversight techniques which provide focus, rigor and emphasis. Although he argues against centralism as a management and leadership philosophy, I do not think he is necessarily arguing against centralized control with decentralized execution. Centralized control is essential to effective regulation because it assures an adequate level of oversight, direction, standardization, interpretation. Compliance and decentralized execution is equally essential because it fosters accountability at every level. It drives a culture of compliance and performance through ownership in addition to process focused leadership action. The challenge with such a framework is avoiding what General Creech calls the “autopilot mindset” where everything is run from the top. Again regulatory compliance in aircraft maintenance is about prevention, about the management and mitigation of risks to airworthiness and safety. It must be driven from the bottom. 46

UNIT QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAMS: As a lead logistics inspector in the ADF’s joint Directorate for Aviation Compliance Assurance, I lead several UCI-like inspections every year. During my opening and closing meetings with key leadership, I am always quick to point out that we are only onsite for one to two weeks every two years. I do it to highlight the fact that a biennial inspection is a small snap shot of unit compliance. I do it to reemphasize the importance of the unit’s internal Quality Management System to ensure compliance, quality, safety, readiness and reliability for the 720+ days that we are not inspecting. It is no coincidence that the “Outstanding” units all have effective internal Quality Management Systems and more importantly, leadership teams that understand the link between regulatory compliance and mission performance. It is also no coincidence that the “Unsatisfactory” units all have ineffective internal Quality Management Systems and leadership teams that believe they are too busy flying, fixing and sustaining combat aircraft to worry about quality and compliance. In USAF maintenance, QA continues to be marginalized as a management burden but it needs to be maximized as a leadership tool. An effective QAP can serve as a holistic tool that analyzes, corrects and prevents non compliance, error, defect and deviation from occurring through a simple process that turns manage-

WINTER 2009

ment review into leadership action. An effective QAP can ensure regulatory compliance, good practice, continued process improvement and product realization. While AFI 21-101 does a fairly good job of outlining QA as a program, it does not provide us with the tools we need to ensure quality and compliance on our flightlines, in our hangers, and back-shops. As the capstone maintenance management document and procedures manual, it should. To do this we need to finally codify the art of moving from “problem faced” to “problem solved” into usable doctrine. You do not have to be a quality guru to get the “Deming Wheel” and to understand that effective problem solving is a sequential and continuous process involving planning, doing, checking and acting. Our challenge as maintainers is not to reinvent the wheel but to finally maximize it. I included a diagram of the “Deming Wheel” as a gentle reminder but purposely did not include the more detailed diagram outlining the tools and techniques associated with each cycle because it is very easy to get lost in the language of quality and to hide behind the relative obscurity and ambiguity of Pareto analysis, process mapping, key performance indicators, etc.

Additionally, while the role of the regulator is obviously to regulate, it is also to educate and to create an environment that fosters compliance through process focused leadership action at the lowest levels. In the ADF, compliance assurance is purely a desktop function. In other words, an assigned desk officer reviews a unit’s maintenance management plan, quality assurance program and procedures manual to ensure compliance with the regulations. This review of the organizations documented system of maintenance (SOM) forms the basis of initial and ongoing certification as an Authorized Maintenance Organization (AMO). It puts the real responsibility of compliance assurance on the unit’s internal QAP. The biennial, onsite inspection process is simply a conformance check. It is important that we finally get regulatory reform right and succeed in building a strong compliance culture that fosters accountability, ensures regulatory compliance, and mission performance. More importantly, we must succeed in restoring confidence in aircraft maintenance. Confidence and trust define who we are as maintainers, Airmen and Warfighters. Without confidence and trust, we may as well pack up our CTKs and head home. The purpose of this article was to put regulatory compliance into perspective and to facilitate further discussion and debate on the topic. About the Author: Major Chris “CP”

AN INDEPENDENT R E G U L AT O RY B O D Y: Finally, my experience with the ADF’s regulatory framework has also taught me that effective regulation requires an independent regulatory body. In the ADF Technical Airworthiness framework, the Director General for Technical Airworthiness (currently a Royal Australian Air Force Air Commodore) serves as both the Technical Airworthiness Authority and the Technical Airworthiness Regulator. He is responsible for developing and providing the regulations themselves, ensuring compliance with the regulations, and monitoring the implications of compliance to prevent overregulation.

Cullen is assigned to the SAF/IA Military Personnel Exchange Program as the USAF maintenance exchange

Plan to improve your operations first by finding out what things are going wrong (that is identify the problems faced), and come up with ideas for solving these problems. Do changes designed to solve the problems on a small or experimental scale first. This minimises disruption to routine activity while testing whether the changes will work or not. Check whether the small scale or experimental changes are achieving the desired result or not. Also, continuously Check nominated key activities (regardless of any experimentation going on) to ensure that you know what the quality of the output is at all times to identify any new problems when they crop up. Act to implement changes on a larger scale if the experiment is successful. This means making the changes a routine part of your activity. Also Act to involve other persons (other departments, suppliers, or customers) affected by the changes and whose cooperation you need to implement them on a larger scale, or those who may simply benefit from what you have learned (you may, of course, already have involved these people in the Do or trial stage).

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

officer to the Australian Defence Force. He is currently assigned to the ADF’s joint Directorate General for Technical Airworthiness as a lead logistics inspector and OIC in the Directorate for Aviation Compliance Assurance. He leads a joint team of personnel responsible for assuring regulatory compliance across ADF aviation and across the aircraft design, construction, maintenance and supply chain assurance domains. He also served as the Chief of Quality Assurance at Kadena Air Base in Okinawa, Japan and is a career flightline maintainer.

WARNING: Failure to Comply Will Kill You! W H A T W E N T W R O N G ? The maintenance team, a technical ser-

By Colonel (ret) Bob Hamm “See, this is what I didn’t want to do!” These words of a young aircraft maintainer were taken from a cockpit voice recorder following a terrible tragedy on one of our flightlines a few years ago and still ring in my ears today. Many of you are familiar with the mishap and have heard the mishap unfold during safety briefings or Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) classes held since the accident. The mishap occurred as a maintenance team worked to repair a recurring Electronic Flight Control System (EFCS) problem on a C-17. The words came after things went very, very, wrong – so wrong that a technical sergeant with sixteen years experience was killed when a flight spoiler closed on him just before sunrise on the morning of July 18th in 2004.

D I D N ’ T H A V E T O H A P P E N ! The maintenance team had thrown the book away. These maintainers failed to comply with technical data and ignored numerous cautions and warnings. You and I would say the maintenance crew displayed poor maintenance discipline. It’s been over five years now – but I still remember like it was yesterday as we struggled to figure out what went wrong and more importantly why! As President of the Safety Investigation Board (SIB) convened by the Commander, Air Mobility Command (AMC) immediately following the mishap, my job was to lead a team of experts to find out what went wrong, why things went wrong and more importantly develop recommendations to help prevent a recurrence. Figuring out what happened wasn’t that tough, but figuring out why the mishap occurred wasn’t as easy and as a result, we came up short in the recommendations department. Let me explain.

geant, two staff sergeants, and an airman first class, were continuing the prior shift’s efforts to identify and correct a recurring EFCS discrepancy. The aircraft had experienced numerous EFCS resets in flight since February and had returned from a mission that day with the same problem. Since February, maintenance personnel tried to fix this problem on six different occasions; not necessarily because this was a difficult problem but because, up to this point, maintainers failed to conduct systematic troubleshooting as outlined in technical orders. Specifically, a thorough continuity check of the wires between connectors on a spoiler actuator and computers on the flight deck had not been accomplished. However, based on turnover from the previous shift, the team was finally attempting to check continuity on wires running between two connectors on the #5 spoiler actuator on the wing and two computers on the flight deck. The team felt corrosion or contamination within the connectors located on the actuator might be the problem. The technical order procedure for accessing the spoiler actuator required removal of a lower flap access panel located on the underside of the wing. The panel was secured to the wing of the aircraft with thirty-eight fasteners. Two members of the team removed about half of them before they started running into stuck fasteners. Earlier in the shift, a master sergeant performing duties as the specialist expeditor recommended a shortcut that would eliminate the need to remove the panel to check out the connectors on the spoiler actuator. The team could check out the connectors from the top of the wing instead. The team discussed the shortcut but concerns, especially from the airman first class, with placing anyone under a powered flight con-

WINTER 2009

trol caused the team to disregard the master sergeant’s suggestion. But now, faced with the prospect of having to wait for a machinist to remove the stuck fasteners, the team elected to go with the shortcut. In a nutshell, the shortcut recommended by the master sergeant called for applying hydraulic pressure to raise the spoiler using the control stick in the cockpit and then depressurizing the hydraulic system while another mechanic takes a look at the connectors on the actuator under the open spoiler. The master sergeant explained to the team that the spoiler would remain open without hydraulics or control stick input for a period of time (but he admitted he didn’t know how long) before slowly retracting or creeping down, allowing enough time someone to take a look at the connectors on the spoiler actuator. The definition of “take a look” was never defined or universally understood by members of the team. Did it mean just open the spoiler and take a look to make sure everything was connected or did it mean crawl under the spoiler and disconnect the connectors to check for corrosion or hydraulic fluid? The youngest member of the team, an airman first class, voiced the strongest reservations about the procedure. However, the master sergeant was certain the shortcut would work and convinced the members of the team to proceed. You can hear the master sergeant explain to the young airman, “Well you’re not really supposed to do it. That ain’t the way the TO calls for it to be done. We’ve done it that way sometimes to take some shortcuts…” With a staff sergeant in one seat, the airman first class in the other and a second staff sergeant positioned in an escape hatch to yell instructions to the technical sergeant on the wing, the master sergeant walks the team through the procedure. On the flight deck, the airman first class pressurizes hydraulics and moves the control stick to raise the spoiler. Then as directed the airman depressurizes hydraulics and releases the

stick. Once the spoiler is open the technical sergeant crawls under the spoiler and disconnects one of the connectors, inspects it, and replaces it. This action causes a loss of signal on one of two channels between the spoiler and the computers on the flight deck. The spoiler doesn’t close but it does start to creep down and this startled the technical sergeant under the spoiler who walks up the backbone of the aircraft to the escape hatch and asked if the airman first class was still holding the spoiler open with the control stick. As a result of the conversation, there is a change in the plan. The airman first class, uncomfortable with the shortcut from the start, decides it’s safer to keep hydraulics on and hold the control stick in position to keep the spoiler open throughout the shortcut since no one knows exactly how long the spoiler will stay up with hydraulics depressurized. Out on the wing, the technical sergeant crawls back under the spoiler a second time and disconnects the second connector on the actuator. This causes a loss of signal on the second of two channels between the spoiler and computers on the flight deck. As designed, when the computer sensed a dual loss of electronic command signals, the actuator retracted the spoiler to the fully closed position and held it closed hydraulically. The technical sergeant was trapped beneath the spoiler and was fatally injured.

B U T W H Y ? This mishap

SSgt Nick Frazier configures a maintenance stand in preparation to change the No. 2 engine on a KC-10 Extender at an air base in Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by TSgt Charles Larkin Sr.)

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

shouldn’t have happened… but it did and we had to find out why. There was nothing wrong with the spoiler actuator or the computers. So, why did the spoiler close on the maintainer? It’s simple, the spoiler closed just as it should have when the computers sensed a dual failure. And what caused the recurring EFCS discrepancies? The SIB, with the assistance of local technicians, performed a thorough continuity check on the spoiler Continued on next page...

E R : WA R N I N G : FA I L U R E

C O M P LY

WILL KILL YOU!

system in accordance with technical data and found a broken wire on the second connector. This broken wire was the cause of the recurring EFCS discrepancy. The troubleshooting procedure took less than four hours! A recurring write-up over a six-month period, from January through July, was fixed in four hours! Why did this team throw the book away? Why wasn’t the problem found for six months? Two very tough questions for sure. Obviously the team displayed poor maintenance discipline throughout the mishap. They ignored cautions and warnings. They used an unapproved and dangerous procedure to gain access to the connectors on the spoiler actuator. Lapses in maintenance leadership at the maintenance crew level were evident throughout the mishap sequence. The master sergeant’s behavior led the maintenance crew to violate standard procedures, created confusion and led to an unsafe situation. The youngest member of the team, an airman first class, wasn’t successful in making her concerns regarding safety strongly enough to overcome poor maintenance leadership and discipline and break the mishap chain. In other words, this fatality wasn’t the result of an individual making a mistake while using an approved method to repair an aircraft. The fatality wasn’t the result of an equipment failure or faulty components. This technician died because of a complete

lapse in maintenance discipline and a total disregard for safety. But why would the team take these kinds of risk to repair an aircraft? In an effort to discover why this maintenance crew disregarded technical data and general safety practices while attempting to repair this aircraft, the SIB developed (with a lot of help from human factor experts provided to the team) and administered a survey to gauge the culture of the Aircraft Maintenance Squadron (AMXS). The survey was administered to 477 members of the unit yielding a reliability factor of 99 percent. Here’s what we learned. Based on interviews with the maintenance team and cockpit voice recordings, several questions related to the perception of pressure on maintainers to rush jobs or take shortcuts (failure to comply with technical data). Survey results indicated an environment where maintainers felt significant pressure to get the job done and a willingness to violate TOs while repairing aircraft. A significant portion of the respondents, over 80 percent, stated they felt pressure at least “sometimes” to rush their work or take shortcuts. Comments on the surveys indicated pressure came from expediters and production supervisors, although other sources (co-workers, flight crews, higher levels of leadership) were cited as well. Results of the survey showed while 85 percent

A1C Todd Elkins looks up information in an aircraft maintenance records binder on the Charleston AFB flightline. Maintenance technicians at Charleston AFB work around the clock every day to keep the base's fleet of C-17 Globemaster IIIs flying. (USAF photo by James M. Bowman)

WINTER 2009

of maintainers stated it’s never acceptable to violate TO guidance, 53 percent stated they used workarounds or shortcuts. In short, while the overwhelming majority of maintainers understood technical data is to be followed at all times, over half the maintainers felt pressure, real or perceived, to take a shortcut. These maintainers claimed they routinely used shortcuts or work-arounds to get the job done. As logistics leaders we know pressure to get the job done with limited resources is constant but never an excuse to use shortcuts or work-arounds.

LESSONS

ers, four chief master sergeants, three maintenance officers, and two analysts, who collected and analyzed data from maintainers at each base. Over 7000 maintainers responded. We also conducted focus group interviews with over 2100 maintainers. Finally, we validated our findings with the results of an Air Force Safety Center product called the Air Force Cultural Assessment Safety Tool (AFCAST). The tool, developed to assess attitudes and perceptions of maintainers across the Air Force, has been in use since June 2007. Over the past two years, more than 13,000 maintainers have responded. After analyzing survey responses from these two assessments and conducting face-to-face interviews with maintainers across our Air Force – it’s very clear to me… despite a clear message from senior leaders that we expect our airmen to follow the book - a maintainer on an Air Force flightline is just as prone to take a shortcut today as five years ago! The numbers don’t lie! Our maintainers are sending us a message. We can preach maintenance discipline and compliance all day long…but until something changes on flightlines across our Air Force we will continue to struggle with the critical issue of compliance with maintenance standards. What can we do to relieve the pressure maintainers feel to take shortcuts or use work-arounds to get the job done? Is the answer a better balance between operational requirements and maintenance capability, increasing availability of maintainers with experience on assigned aircraft, revising old worn-out maintenance policies and procedures, or improving the quality of our technical data? Interested? Check out Maj Gen McMahon’s article on his recent Comprehensive Assessment of Operational Wing Level Maintenance in this edition of the ER.

Airman Travis Sharp inspects the lower fuselage of an F-16 Fighting Falcon, at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. (USAF photo by SrA Christopher Hubenthal)

LEARNED.

Members of the SIB, including me, just couldn’t understand how this all happened. How did this team work itself into this corner? Was it just a failure in maintenance discipline on the part of this team? Or was it something bigger? The survey results led us to believe the problem was culture. What we should have asked, but didn’t is “what’s driving the culture” – there just wasn’t time. After the SIB concluded and the convening authority accepted our findings I went back to work as a Maintenance Group Commander. I had just taken command of a hard working group of maintainers with many of the same challenges faced by the maintainers at this C-17 Wing. Believe me when I say, if you think this can’t happen on your flightline or in your shops – you’d better think again! I found the same culture and attitude on my flightline and in my shops. And I’m here to tell you, the same pressures, whether real or perceived, exist on your flightline too! How do I know? Well, after three years as a group commander, I went on to other jobs. But in April of 2009, I was tasked by the AF Director of Logistics, Major General Robert H. McMahon, to co-lead a team of seasoned maintainers to conduct an assessment of operational wing level maintenance. We had the opportunity to ask the questions the SIB didn’t have time to ask in 2004; but this time we asked a lot more maintainers much more specific questions. We visited 15 bases across six major commands and the Air National Guard. Our team was comprised of two former group command-

About the Author: Mr. Bob Hamm retired from the USAF 1 October 2009 after 34 years. While on active duty he commanded three maintenance squadrons and a maintenance group. He served two tours on the HQ AMC staff as a maintenance assessor on the IG team and as Chief, Maintenance Policy. He is currently the Director of the Lean/Six Sigma Business Office, HQ AETC, Randolph AFB, TX.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

How Do I Make You Care? The Maintenance Discipline Challenge By Major Brian Crum & Captain Kristy Mix Leaders at every level are faced with a daily challenge: motivating Airmen with a personal desire to perform tasks as quickly, safely and efficiently as possible and to do it right each and every time! We want them to care about doing the job, and doing it well. One of our Airmen asked the question, “How do we make people care?” Caring and discipline go hand-inhand, as do the mission and the people. If you do not care enough about your people to run a properly disSSgt Nathaniel Metzler (left) and SRA Aaron Weldon, both assigned to the 31st Test and Evaluation Squadron at Edwards AFB, review ciplined unit, they will imia technical order for the Global Hawk aircraft. Computerized TOs provide the information required for maintenance on the aircraft and tate that same lack of care replace bulky, multi-volume books. (USAF photo by MSgt Jack Braden) about their work and each other. Because we cannot be next to every Airman when he/she is they are doing. Excerpts from his response are used below to illusfaced with adversity, we instill discipline to ensure the mission gets trate the need for consistent maintenance discipline. done. As maintenance leaders, establishing consistent standards and “How can we make people care? Every group of flightline leaders wants to holding ourselves and our units to those standards are the bedrock know. Maintainers commonly say, ‘I don’t care.’ When most come to the of discipline. line from tech school, they want to be the best Airmen they can be. The One of our crew chiefs, a leader among his peers who previously core values are fresh, their uniform pressed, haircut within standards, and demonstrated great ability, drive, and discipline, was associated with they say ‘Yes, Sir’ to everybody. Then look at the SrA/SSgt that’s been in a recent trend of careless incidents. He was one of the best and 4 or 5 years.” brightest in the AMU. Perhaps because of our maintenance officer training, you are driven, as a lieutenant, to go to bat for your “best and brightest” who violate a TO. This proverbial “honest mistake” is usually a “one-time occurrence,” but often enough it is the first of several. How can a leader associate the term of “best and brightest” with one identified as lacking discipline? Rather than counselings and reprimands, the maintenance officer settled on a way to document the behavior while gaining an understanding of why it existed. The crew chief was directed to write a two-page paper explaining how to make someone care about the job

Although our Airman introduces the topic of caring, he is talking about our culture. Introduced in basic training and tech school, when an Airman arrives at the field they have a certain level of discipline we can build on. How he or she turns out may depend on the standards of the unit and the Airmen leading and working alongside them. Officers, subjected to similar pressures, are counted on to cope independently and support their Airmen in dealing with their pressures. We do this by providing direction, setting an example, and balancing the needs of the mission and the needs of the Airmen.

WINTER 2009

We perpetuate problems when we don’t show the discipline to make honest distinctions and explain them to our Airmen. “I like to think that mechanics put jets in the air. These mechanics have ways of doing things, or tricks if you will, to save time and effort. Most don’t frown upon shortcuts because they get things done. Example: when you install a stab actuator, the TO calls for a stab actuator crane, and lists no alternate method for manual installation. I know people that have been in for ten years and never seen or heard of anyone using one. Has anyone stepped up and said ‘No, let’s do it by the book?’ Everyone in the entire chain of command blew it off because it would have affected their stats. Everyone is guilty of compromise here. Compromise is where it all starts.” As leaders we too must demonstrate the discipline to follow the rules while accomplishing the mission, or we risk demonstrating inconsistent expectations. If we expect the Airmen to call “knock it off” when they see an unsafe condition, we must have the discipline to tell operations when our maintainers are maxed. If a maintainer goes beyond the tech data to make a sortie, we give them an LOR. When leaders exceed the guidance on allowable work shifts to make a sortie, we pass out ‘atta-boys.’ “When an Airman arrives on the line, he knows nothing. The only things he’ll learn he learns from his trainer/supervisor. If assigned to one who cares to look after him and spin him up, he’ll probably become good at his job. Unfortunately, most trainers just show you how to get by. Why? A trainee is an extra burden. The job will take longer, their lunch will be cold, and production will be riding him to hurry. Young troops inherit this mindset from most everyone they work with. Not just the half-done job knowledge, but the attitude with which it was done.”

SSgt Sean Adkins listens as Capt Warren Carroll conducts a post-flight maintenance brief with maintainers at Nellis AFB. (USAF photo by SSgt Sarah Stegman)

Maintenance officers have a duty to make the mission happen. We do that by putting the right resources in the hands of trained personnel and ensuring they fulfill their tasks correctly, efficiently and safely. Short-term gains through lax, wasteful or reckless “get ‘er done” practices jeopardize our mission in the long run and harm the effectiveness of our Airmen. We rely on the axiom, “Flexibility is the key to Airpower,” but deploying, launching, and maintaining aircraft requires high levels of precision. Without consistent standards, consistently applied, we risk turning our profession into a chaotic mess. Maintenance discipline is more than merely doing the job right; it represents the trust in our Airmen to do the job in adverse conditions with minimal supervision. If we don’t care about the level of effort the Airmen are putting into their work, and more importantly, the mission they accomplish, then neither will they. Still, whatever the source of the Airman’s frustrations, they are real to him. The Air Force relies on one solution for those frustrations; leadership. Aircraft permeate our lives, but as officers we maintain Airmen not aircraft. It is less important to know the proper torque value of a given fastener, than it is to know the character and capability of the person applying the torque. As leaders we must address the Airman’s behavior, but we also have a duty to address the causes that might be affecting him and the rest of the unit. Consistently holding ourselves and all our Airmen to high standards fosters the maintenance discipline needed to meet our missions. About the Authors: Maj Brian Crum is the former commander of the 46 MOS and currently the Lead Analyst for Weapons Sustainment.

SRA Sean Sweeney (left) SSgt Robert Crow and identify a crack along the rear bearing support of a C-130 Hercules engine during a post-flight inspection at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. (USAF photo by A1C Jason Epley)

Capt Kristy Mix is the former 4 MOS Operations Officer and is currently HQ AFMC Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP) Aircraft Maintenance Inspector.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Compliance and Discipline: It’s All On You Now By Colonel Paul R. Wood We’ve all heard the phrase, now beyond a cliché, “think outside the box.” It encourages innovation, continuous process improvement, change for the better, efficiencies…you name it. I am a true believer in non-traditional thinking, especially living in today’s resource-constrained environment. Whether we’re talking manpower, experience, money, or time, there’s just not enough of it to get through the day, especially time. As an AFSO 21 trained killer, I firmly believe finding a better way to accomplish a task is welcome. All said, there are right ways and wrong ways to pursue change. In short, the first place to look for the answer is ‘in the box’ and that box for an Air Force technician of any field is the technical order. Seek the better way, but in the critical world of maintenance discipline, aviation safety, and logistics, get it codified--get it in the box. As Chief of Air Combat Command’s Logistics Compliance Accountability Team (LCAT), I am charged with assisting CAF wings through an independent evaluation of their maintenance and logistics units’ adherence to applicable technical data, policies and directives. We evaluate whether or not a unit is able to perform key logistics processes in a safe, standardized, repeatable, and technically compliant manner. We validate that unit processes are consistent and that the quality assurance program is effective. The LCAT also identifies

issues beyond the unit’s control, and takes them back as MAJCOM action items. Finally, LCAT provides training as problems are identified, really the last (but not least) purpose of our visit. At the core, then, the team’s charge is maintenance discipline; finding it and measuring it through observable means such as evaluations, observations, and verification or special inspections. While discipline may sound like a subject too ethereal to measure, the lack of it is very telling and often very obvious to an evaluation team, the IG, or a unit’s own Quality Assurance team. Lack of maintenance discipline can be dangerous, even deadly, harming the technician performing the job or the operator of the aircraft. In few other walks of life is discipline in the performance of one’s job more important than in maintaining aircraft. The seemingly routine acts we do every day carry with them potentially deadly consequences of failed attention to detail. It’s not only doing the right thing “even when no one is watching,” it’s choosing to do the right thing especially when no one is watching. Call it integrity first but in our world it’s basic maintenance discipline. The operative word is discipline--the personal discipline to make sure your actions are always done to the best of your ability and in accordance with the technical order or AFI. It also means calling “knock it off” if you notice steps are missed, if you have insufficient time to complete a task, or if you see a breakdown in the T.O. or AFI driven process. Having the prop-

er amount of time to accomplish a task is the challenge of leaders and managers. For example, leadership must ensure ample aircraft turn times, limited configuration changes between turns, and adherence when at all possible to the printed schedule. Finally, it all adds up to engagement, stripes on the line, and in the shops. It also means each one of us is engaged “in the moment”. When we are doing a task, we need to be engaged and involved in what we are doing right then, despite all the distractions competing for our attention. It’s attention to detail, as my T.I. at Lackland said many years ago. It’s discipline.

“A COMPREHENSIVE ASSESSMENT O P E R AT I O N A L W I N G - L E V E L MAINTENANCE”.

As a result of several high profile incidents and inspection results showing negative trends in T.O. and policy compliance, senior Air Force logistics leadership recently directed a review of maintenance and logistics practices throughout our service. The resulting report was titled “A Comprehensive Assessment of Operational Wing-Level Maintenance.” This report concluded valid operational requirements often exceed the maintenance capability to meet that requirement. Furthermore, it proposed, maintainers felt pressure to deviate from technical data and/or policy to accomplish the mission; that is, they were not directed to violate tech data, but felt pressure to do so to make the mission happen. This assessment team identified four contributing factors:

Lack of a standardized model for calculating maintenance capability (we unintentionally paint ourselves into corners because we can’t accurately capture how much we can do with what we have)

A shortage of both available and MDS-experienced maintainers

Cumbersome and time-consuming maintenance policies and procedures

Electronic technical orders that are ineffective and increase task time

The LCAP team sees evidence of all of these as we evaluate CAF units. For example, evaluating an F-15 unit, our evaluator took the e-Tool to the End-of-Runway (EOR) inspection area and ran the checklist while the unit used standard checklists, because the e-Tool would blank out or lock up. Seven aircraft successfully went through EOR and launched in the time it took our seasoned SNCO evaluator to go through the process one time using the e-Tool. Now that isn’t a condemnation of all e-Tools. Paperless tech orders and forms are the wave of the future and rightly so, for our Facebooking/Twittering “new breed of Airmen.” Furthermore, they aren’t just money savers, but time savers as well. And they aren’t all bad; a recent evaluation at an

MSgt Trey Munn, a fabrication evaluator with ACC, inspects B-1B Lancer aircraft parts repaired by the 28th Maintenance Squadron at Ellsworth AFB. Munn is part of the Logistics Compliance Accountability Team (LCAT) which assesses compliance with maintenance, logistics and supply chain management policy. (USAF photo by A1C Matthew Flynn)

A-10 base found good success with them, with reliability and utility rated high by the folks on the line. We need to evaluate what does and doesn’t work as we acquire new systems like theF35 or a next generation tanker or bomber. This comprehensive study concluded “imbalances between operational requirements and maintenance capability create an environment where maintainers feel pressure to deviate from technical data and policy to accomplish the mission.” Regarding this imbalance between operational requirements and maintenance capability, it is a fact of life. In the past, we had surplus or at least close to sufficient capability to meet this requirement, or come pretty close. In this age of seemingly unending split operations and out-of-hide bills to pay from centralized functions, we are in a daily struggle to make ends meet. That said, the requirement is what it is; the answer is not to say if we can’t meet the requirement it must be too high and needs to be lowered. The requirement is the requirement. And our operators understand constrained resources. With fuel prices as predictable as a ping

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Continued on next page... 55

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

pong ball in a tornado, Ops is constantly looking for more and better ways to effectively use simulators. They also understand there’s a shortage of experienced maintainers on the ramp, too. One of our challenges is to help develop a model to predict maintenance capability to meet that requirement. While awaiting the arrival of a sufficiently predictive model, leadership from the Wing to the wingtip must be engaged in knowing today’s requirements and the capability they have right now to meet them. It’s the old Five Ts many bosses talk about; the trained technician, with the tools, tech orders, and time to do the job properly. Now I will submit to you that much of the pressure we feel from this imbalance is that self-generated pressure to be the best; the best technician, the best Staff Sergeant or Captain on the line or in the shop. It’s a natural human desire and really, it’s what we want to cultivate in ourselves and our folks. Maintainers don’t like to fail. Nobody does, and I’m pretty confident in saying no one wakes up in the morning and says “I’ll think I’ll break something or hurt someone (or myself) today.” It’s personal pride in being the best at what we do, at being able to deliver what’s required. Leaders need to ensure our folks know the drive to be the best also means the discipline to knock it off when it’s too much task or too little time. It’s getting the job done at the right cost, not any cost. And we can talk and lecture all day long, but it comes back to personal discipline grown from living in a culture of compliance. Once I got my 5-level, no one was out there watching me. On a red ball launch or a routine phase task, as my Tech Sgt shift lead would say, “It’s all on you now.” If we model compliance and accept no less, those around us know the standard. And with compliance comes accountability. If you are disciplined in tasks, accountability is never a problem.

“WELL,

WE DID IT IN THE

AOR

USAF MSgt Eric Cornick, armament superintendent, ACC LSET (now called LCAT), watches A1C Anthony Floyd, a weapons load apprentice with 28th MXG prepare to load a GBU-38 JDAM into a B-1 armament systems trainer at Ellsworth AFB. (USAF photo by A1C Matthew Flynn)

AND WE

NEVER LOST AN AIRPLANE THERE…” So as we build a culture of compliance and foster self-discipline in ourselves and others, do we make it portable? In our expeditionary Air Force, being on the road is a way of life. Do we take discipline and compliance with us or is our attitude one of “that might fly in Big Blue land, but this is the AOR; gotta fight the bad guys---just get it done?” Been there, seen that done. Talk to a coworker who’s been on a CAFTT deployment, helping rebuild and train another country’s maintenance organization. The base line is often no maintenance discipline; zip, zero, zilch. And it wasn’t because the folks were bad or negligent; they were extremely proud of their aircraft and flying operations. Maintenance discipline just wasn’t part of their culture. 56

WINTER

The bottom line was mission accomplishment at all costs. As one officer once told me, it’s easier to tell the widow than to tell the Ministry of Defense they couldn’t meet their tasked flying schedule. For our own deployed operations, many of the locations are still pretty austere and don’t have the accommodations of home including a full stack of supervision and stop gaps, like a Quality Assurance office. Furthermore, the schedule is dynamic and the mission isn’t dropping BDUs on the Utah range; it’s supporting troops in contact--lives are at stake. That gravity can sometimes drive us to a “meet the mission at any cost” mindset. Sense of urgency is good; sense of panic is not. That’s why we schedule spares, why we have practice OREs and have ORIs, why we push for stripes on the line. Adding a flight crew to the list of today’s casualties is not a disciplined approach. 2009

THE VIEW

FROM THE

ROAD: LSET/LCAP

T R E N D S I N S A F E T Y A N D T E C H D ATA D I S C I P L I N E Before the LCAP (formerly LSEP) team goes on the road, we ask for a certain amount of deliverables from the unit being evaluated. Additionally, we look at the report from their previous evaluation and the current monthly trends of what their own Quality Assurance office finds. After the evaluation is through, the last act to make the trip and report final is the out brief to the ACC/A4 and staff. Among findings, focus areas, and evaluation results, we cover in detail all STVs-safety and tech violations that include Detected Safety Violations (DSVs), Unsafe Condition Reports (UCRs) and Technical Data Violations (TDVs). Besides being a risky practice for personal safety and airworthiness, each STV is a full .5 % deduction from a squadron’s grade, and in turn the MXG’s, overall score. Reviewing reports from evaluations I have been on since joining the team this year, there is an undeniable increase in the number of STVs from evaluations done 2 years ago. Technical order observations generally run the same; either tech data is at the job site and not being used or it isn’t there at all. And it’s not an e-Tools issue; its good old fashioned paper books. DSVs and UCRs are higher as well, though there’s no easy “family” to group them into, like tech data violations. DSVs and UCRs run from not setting parking

brakes, not using double hearing protection or leaving the floor grate open on the flight deck. Having grown up on the amazing C5, one two-story look down the gaping hole in the crew area–and talking to someone who has fallen through–you know that’s not a hazard you need to be introducing into an already challenging environment. All of which begs the question, “Why do we do these things to ourselves or our fellow Airmen?” Why put our health, well-being, or careers at stake?

YOUR TOUGHEST CRITIC Despite all the pressures, all the deployments, and an ageing fleet that requires tender loving care, we have the strongest Air Force in the world. It got that way because of those that came before us and will stay that way through our actions--yours and mine. Complying with tech data and policies means discipline…tough to do on a good day, harder still in the middle of sortie generation. Some days it can be almost impossible doing a routine task for the “Nth” time. But at the end of the day, we face our toughest critic. It’s not the LCAP or QA evaluator, the boss, or pro super, it’s the person in the mirror. If that person can look back and be satisfied with your actions today, you are disciplined. About the Author: Colonel Paul R. Wood is the Chief of ACC’s Logistics Compliance Assessment Team.

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Balancing Innovative Solutions and Back-toBasics Aircraft Maintenance By Chief Master Sergeant Jeff Fisher Our USAF fleet of aircraft have an average age of 25+ years; we fly 69% of the Operation IRAQI FREEDOM and Operation ENDURING FREEDOM sorties: our units are over 1,000 personnel short of authorized manpower; and the mission requirements are not going to let down any time soon. Faced with these harsh realities, Air Mobility Command (AMC) met these challenges with innovative practices and back-tobasics maintenance. Innovative solutions focused on efficiency, effectiveness, and safety increased aircraft availability . Air Mobility Command ensures compliance to standards through the Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP), Quality Assurance (QA), and Maintenance Resource Management (MRM). Our maintenance personnel are brilliant and dedicated professionals ; and the command supports them by listening to their needs and working together with the field to develop solutions to overcome the challenges.

CENTRALIZED SCHEDULING The Presidential Budget Decision (PBD) 720 cuts and the past freeze in Career Job Reservations resulted in a loss of authorized 58

WINTER

manpower and over 1,000 people below the reduced authorizations. Under the leadership of CMSgt James Brady, AMC Superintendent of Scheduling/Analysis, AMC centralized some planning and scheduling functions to reduce the number of schedulers needed at the field units. Instead of each maintenance organization inputting Time Change Technical Order (TCTO) or -6 inspection requirements in the maintenance information system on their own, , one person at the command level can execute the same actions with the same number of keystrokes for the entire command. The result is increased standardization and a method to mitigate the reduction of schedulers in the field as a result of PBD720.

E F F I C I E N T T O O L A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y Recently, AMC hosted a tool accountability conference with the charter to decrease the amount of wait time for maintainers through the use of Remote Frequency Identification (RFID) technology. According to SMSgt John Conn, AMC Policy and Procedures Manager, studies show Airmen spent an average of 14 minutes in line waiting on tools. Although the initial focus was on RFID technology, units at the conference provided feedback that the Tool Accountability System (TAS) was unstable and 2009

method to reduce depot status time . By absorbing some of the inspections accomplished during the original depot inspection into periodic inspections, this HVM effort allowed the interval time to depot to move from 69 months to 18 months. Other initiatives include reducing redundancy and standardizing work during scheduled inspections.

E L I M I N AT I N G R E D U N D A N C Y Our KC-135s are the oldest weapon system in the fleet with an average age of 48 years yet they perform the majority of aerial refueling operations. The KC-135 community eliminated several redundancies in their inspection requirements in a true back-to basics approach. Chief Master Sergeant Mark Clegg, KC-135/KCX Weapon System Manager, led the effort to combine the preflight, thruflight, quickturn, and dropped object prevention program (DOPP) inspections into one inspection. Technical data allows only one person to perform the inspection eliminating redundant inspections. The quick turn inspection is performed if the aircraft is on the ground less than 12 hours, a thru flight if the aircraft is on the ground over 12 hours and a preflight if the aircraft has not been preflighted in over 72 hours. Eliminating redundancy is just the start. Other initiatives are underway to increase aircraft availability.

I N C R E A S E D A I R C R A F T AVA I L A B I L I T Y KC-135 maintainers performing new inspection workcards. (USAF Photo released, McConnell AFB, KS)

should be our number one priority as this was the top driver resulting in increased time at the tool counter. Armed with this feedback, AMC requested and received approval from Headquarters Air Force to purchase a software system called TCMax, a more stable system and able to be used on the base servers. Headquarters AMC/A4 provided the funds, planning, and team to install TCMax throughout the command by the end of 2010. Additionally, Dyess AFB was selected as the test bed for RFID technology and gained additional funding from HAF AFSO21 to evaluate the need or benefits of RFID. Furthermore, the 725th Air Mobility Squadron in Rota, Spain created a self tool issue room allowing Airmen to sign out their own tools while meeting the requirements in AFI 21-101. The cost for set-up was minimal and coincidently increased the efficiency of the operation. These off-aircraft initiatives were just the beginning; AMC initiated aircraft related changes as well.

HIGH VELOCITY MAINTENANCE (HVM) Air Mobility Comman developed several initiatives to increase aircraft availability while effectively meeting our demanding mission requirements. For example, the C-130 community created a

One initiative to increase aircraft availability for the C-130J is through the use of a portable maintenance aid. According to SMSgt Jimmy Ku, C-130J Weapon System Manager, the portable maintenance aid assists with troubleshooting malfunctions, and will be moving to a laptop windows based system in 2011 to improve the troubleshooting capabilities. Additionally, the C-5 community reduced the isochronal inspection time from 30 days to an average of 15 days through regionalization and several AFSO21 events at Dover AFB. Even with the effectiveness of the regionalized inspection concept, the C-5 community continues to develop innovative solutions to increase aircraft availability with Maintenance Steering Group (MSG-3) initiatives. Mr. Don Daley, C-5 Weapon System Manager, described how the MSG-3 revamped the scheduled maintenance and inspection criteria allowing intervals for PDM to move from 5-7 years to every 8 years by absorbing some of the PDM inspections in home station checks and isochronal inspections. Implementation will decrease the number of inspections not the number of items, increase the planned work package, decrease unplanned work, standardize work, and increase aircraft availability. The C-5 community is not the only community conducting HVM initiatives. Air Mobility Commandâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s C-17 community is moving toward a scheduled maintenance concept to standardize work. In an effort to save manpower and mission effectiveness, the C-17 weapon

Continued on next page... EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

system team, led by Major Craig Juneau, created a 180-day tire change requirement reducing maintenance recovery teams while increasing mission velocity. Additionally, home station checks moved from 120 days to 180 days thereby reducing aircraft downtime by 6 days. In an effort to maintain scheduled maintenance in place of unscheduled maintenance, our C-17 managers incorporated TCTO’s, refurbishment, and hard points to coincide with the HSC time. Hard points include items such as ground cooling inlet filter, water separation coalescer bags, battery storage, engine breather maniAirmen review a technical order for installing a rack for radar on an F-16 Fighting Falcon at Joint Base Balad, Iraq. (USAF fold, oil pressure line, engine chip photo by A1C Jason Epley) collector, engine oil filter, pitot probe, and fuel tank sump maintem. As seen with the consolidation of the DOPP into the pretenance. Back to basics did not focus on increasing aircraft avail- flight cards in the KC-135’s, these same time saving initiatives ability but also on establishing a safety culture. can be incorporated with all of our weapon systems. There will

C R E AT I N G

S A F E C U LT U R E

Underpinning these innovative solutions is a safety-focused culture verified by theLCAP program. At the heart of our maintenance culture is MRM used to create safety-minded mechanics who not only understand the dangers of the job they perform but also recognize the strengths and pitfalls of human behavior and group dynamics. The AMC Maintenance Division Chief, Colonel Craig O’Neal, stated, “Although there are some that say we cannot afford this program, I cannot see how we can afford not to implement this program. Furthermore, every maintainer should have this course before they ever perform maintenance.” MRM is a course designed to immerse all personnel into the culture and knowledge of human factors philosophy focusing on the importance, requirements, and implementation of MRM principles into daily maintenance activities. Colonel Carol A. Johnson, 60th Maintenance Group Commander, personally briefs each class and challenges her Airmen to find the next safety incident and determine solutions. While every maintainer in the Air Force is required to attend a 4-hour standardized MRM training course, AMC requires the course length to be between 8 and 24 hours of instruction. Each base has their own safety issues and the additional time in the course addresses each units specific challenges.

BACK-TO- BASICS Air Mobility Command supplement to AFI 21-101 is incorporating changes to limit redundancy without sacrificing safety. The DOPP inspection will no longer be required for any weapon sys-

no longer be a requirement to take time in our maintenance information system for every subtask of a repair. For instance, if a mechanic needs to change the tire and 12 other jobs are written up as part of the job package, the maintainer will only need to take time for the actual tire change discrepancy and not the associated tasks. Air Mobility Command supplement to AFI 21-101 is not the only publication to see change. Technical Order (TO) 00-20-1 and TO 00-25-172 are being revised with a back to the basics approach to aircraft maintenance. For example, there will no longer be a requirement to annotate in the aircraft forms the installation of fan stops, pitot covers, antenna covers, or panels opened/installed that are covered in the technical data. This is a change to the mental model of our maintenance force but these components are all covered in technical data requirements or within the preflight inspection cards. Maintenance does not write up the aircraft chocks installed, the ground wires, or the crew entry door open so why write up these other components. Another cultural change is the elimination of concurrent servicing for the mobility air forces (MAF) in all circumstances except refuel/defueling with JP-4, loading or unloading explosives, or concurrent servicing of liquid oxygen and maintenance. Yes, the aircrew can be on board, passengers can be loaded, and cargo can be loaded while performing a standard refuel/defuel. Mobility air force maintenance will now look like every airline in the commercial industry, and be able to increase our velocity by decreasing our ground time. As is always the case, AFI supplements and TO changes lead to a discussion on compliance.

COMPLIANCE If there was one common theme to all of these innovative solutions, the foundation for success is the strict adherence to technical data. In addition to the new MXG QA program, the new LCAP program will ensure the maintenance culture remains safe and compliant at all times. If the LCAP is a commander’s final test, their QA program is the study group and practice test. A solid QA program will give the commander visibility of problem areas within the organization and, as subject matter experts, suggestions for improvement. The new changes in AFI 21-101, T.O. 00-20-1, and T.O. 00-25-172 will eliminate many of the forms review, minor documentation errors, and re-focus the QA inspectors on over-the-shoulder evaluations. This will give our younger airman an opportunity to learn from our QA inspectors and help keep the focus on technical data compliance. Brigadier General Kenneth Merchant, AMC Director of Logistics, stated, “The Logistics Compliance Assessment Program is vital to me by validating each unit’s level of compliance and ensuring standards are high and consistent.” These inspections are no longer identified yearly and units are notified no earlier than 45 days that the inspection team will arrive. The LCAP team is hand-picked from a group of volunteers from field units based on prior team experience, QA experience, and system knowledge. The AMC, as lead MAF command, team joins forces with PACAF and USAFE and our total force team of Reserve and Guard to ensure the MAF team operates in standardized situations. When we deploy, AMC wants our MAF to operate as one, under one set of rules.

CONCLUSION The MAF maintenance team is highly motivated, well trained, and dedicated to the Air Mobility mission. While we face the challenges of aging aircraft, less people, and a challenging mission, the AMC team continues to develop innovative solutions to overcome these obstacles. Even with the changes in the approach to our inspection times and policy, the one constant and the foundation of our maintenance community continues to be adherence to technical data. AMC’s MRM program helps develop a culture of safety while our QA and LCAP team verify compliance. In the end, we have a Mobility Team ready to meet our nation’s call and conquer future challenges. About the Author: Chief Master Sergeant Jeff Fisher is the AMC Maintenance Policy and Procedures Superintendent. He is responsible for coordination with Headquarters Air Force on Instructions and general technical orders as well as providing the Mobility Air Force Supplements and interpretation of policy. Chief Fisher has been in the Air Mobility Command for 16 years . Chief Fisher has been a part of both the IG and LCAP teams in 12 Command inspections.

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

USAFE Maintenance Strategy for FY10: A Planned Approach to Back to Basics SrA Michael Nguyen inspects rivets on a B-1B Lancer bomber’s engine bay door at Ellsworth AFB.t(USAF photo by A1C Joshua J. Seybert)

By Brigadier General Mark Atkinson The United States Air Force has been flying and maintaining aircraft and munitions in the European theater for many years. Whether it was Cold War, World War, or regional conflicts, our maintainers have been called upon to perform missions vital to European partnerships and treaties. Today’s United States Air Forces in Europe maintainers are busy producing sorties at five primary flying/operating locations in theater while working hard to sustain split operations in as many as 20 geographically separated locations around the globe.

SUPPORTING COMUSAFE GOALS Supporting COMUSAFE’s goals of Taking Care of Airmen and their Families, Partnering to Win Today’s Fight, and Building Partnership Capacity is full time work in USAFE and involves every member of the command. As a

result of our engagement split operations are the norm for our units. Whether down range supporting Iraq and Afghanistan operations, or in the European theater supporting a regional partnership training event, it is not uncommon to have maintainers from a single unit maintaining aircraft at three or four geographically separated locations.

USAFE A4/7 SUPPORTING OBJECTIVES To assist COMUSAFE in achieving his goals and objectives for the command we developed five supporting objectives. Our supporting objectives are to improve our internal staffing processes, to lead the command in AFSO21 initiatives and continuous process improvement efforts, to improve sortie production capability, to sustain and maintain infrastructure and facilities, and to mentor and train current and future MXG and MSG leaders. Our five supporting objectives dovetail with COMUSAFE objectives. We have a clear 62

WINTER

2009

strategic alignment between our directorate goals and command goals. We have defined deliberate initiatives in support of our objectives. For example, under our “improve sortie production” objective we’ve established initiatives ensuring our units are properly manned, initiated a review of training requirements, and are developing a scheduling course. Individual divisions are assigned principal responsibility for each of our objectives. Our A4M division leads our objective to improve sortie production capability. Augmenting that effort is our continual emphasis on maintenance basics, whether deployed or at home station. Our philosophy is simple and straightforward--read the “book” and follow the “book”; if you discover the “book” is wrong, or have a better way to perform a given task, then follow the “book” and submit the appropriate paperwork to make improvements. If we send 16 aircraft to the AOR, or 6 aircraft to support a European partner train-

Just like other commands we experienced several mishaps in FY09 indicating we were not always successful in having our “follow the book” message resonate with every maintainer. Evidence is sometimes too easy to find; dropped objects, in-flight emergencies, and failed inspections. We’re working hard to reverse those negative indicators. In the year ahead, we want to be more consistent in our ability to meet command metrics, specifically focusing on Mission Capable (MC), Fix Rate, and Flying Scheduling Effectiveness. While the other leading and lagging indicators are important, we are taking an approach which we believe will provide the most return on our investment of time, talent, and resources.

TRAINING IS THE MOST BASIC OF BASICS ing event, we emphasize “follow the book” on every occasion, both down range and at home. This emphasis ensures safety and tech data are at the core of every unit level maintenance action and every headquarters level initiative.

R O O T- C A U S E A N A LY S I S ; THE NEED TO FOCUS ON BASICS USAFE maintainers are doing great work and we see evidence in their many outstanding accomplishments. In FY09 the command flew 67,899 hours, 33,693 sorties with zero Class A mishaps. Our maintainers successfully supported 6 AEF deployments, and 27 other deployment events supporting unit training efforts and working to build partner nation capacity and capabilities. Despite personnel losses our maintenance warriors have successfully met every mission requirement levied on them. They are doing a great job dayin, and day-out.

Our back to basics approach began with an in-depth analysis of sortie production factors. Some of the factors identified resulted in a renewed headquarters focus on training. Those factors included maintenance officers pinning on major and assuming larger leadership roles earlier in their careers, the systemic elimination of specialty shreds in some very technical career fields, and the expanded utilization of our Chiefs. We are working to help train, mentor and educate our officers, technicians, mechanics and our chiefs as each assume new roles and responsibilities.

RENEWED EMPHASIS ON MAINTENANCE METRICS As we institute back to basics principles our root-cause analysis suggested we were putting less emphasis on command maintenance metrics. It appears we lost some of the tough scrutiny from previous years and in some cases lack a basic understanding that meeting metrics is the first step towards building a world class main-

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

tenance organization. Metrics are simple indicators and are not the panacea for curing all sortie production issues. However, when units fail to meet command metrics and struggle to meet the monthly flying contract we have to examine and focus on those factors as a starting point in the recovery process. Good metrics, and good analysis, will help focus maintenance leaders on areas where improvements can be identified and plans fully executed. We are not chasing numbers and metrics; we are renewing our focus and training our managers to know and understand what each critical metric is telling them about their maintenance operation.

USAFE COMMAND M A I N T E N A N C E S T R AT E G Y PROVIDES FOCUS These indicators have led us to develop a USAFE command maintenance strategy. While the headquarters is charged with effectively training and equipping our units, we are somewhat limited in just how much we can impact daily sortie operations. We realize maintenance leaders in our units are the keys to realizing positive improvements in maintenance production. Maintenance teams are vital to our operation and every team member a valuable commodity. But, just like on every professional football team in the country, there can only be one head coach. In our units, that head coach must be a fully trained and prepared maintenance group commander. Our CSAF’s “all in” policy regarding group command will help us field the best group commanders available but there are still initiatives we can take to help train and equip those vital maintenance senior leaders.

F O U R V I TA L C O M P O N E N T S Our maintenance strategy and back to basics approach has four vital components

Continued on next page...

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

From left, SSgt Tywone Weston trains A1C Stacie Powers and Airman Desmond Jackson on how to inspect an aircraft engine during an aerospace propulsion upgrade training session at Ellsworth AFB. Weston is an aerospace propulsion craftsman while Powers and Jackson are both aerospace propulsion apprentices assigned to the 28th Maintenance Squadron. (USAF photo A1C Joshua J. Seybert)

under the overarching umbrella of Continuous Process Improvement; training both our senior leaders and our technicians, leveling the manning playing field among our units and other MAJCOMs, providing for equipment, facilities and supplies, and ensuring our units fully understand and utilize sound scheduling factors in planning both their short term and long range flying programs.

E I G H T V I TA L P R I N C I P L E S As we approach our strategy we are building upon 8 fundamental principals; quality, safety, training, manpower, equipment, supply support, funding, and facilities. Our role at the headquarters is clearly spelled out for us; resource and equip our units for the fight. The unit’s role is also clearly outlined for them; use those resources wisely and win the fight.

TA K I N G A L E A D E R S H I P R O L E IN AFSO21 To further assist our units we are taking a leadership role in AFSO21 initiatives across our logistics and mission support enterprise. Every division is tasked to lead one command wide AFSO21 event each quarter. The opportunities are abundant; scheduling processes, tool control, bench stock management, and technical order utilization, to name just a few in a target rich environment. We’ll lead events germane to one or more of our strategy key components (training/manning/fleet utilization and availability/equipment, facilities, supply). In that way, we’ll retain our strategic alignment with COMUSAFE and A4/7 objectives and goals while not wasting precious man-hours and resources in areas where the return on investment may not be as lucrative.

WINTER

2009

HEADQUARTERS LEADERSHIP; 15 D E L I B E R AT E S T E P S BASICS

TO THE

Unit decision making is the linchpin in sortie production. Still, we are taking a headquarters leadership role in training, equipping, and resourcing our units. In all, we’ve identified more than 15 deliberate steps we’ll lead from the headquarters to facilitate improved sortie production and to get our units back to the basics of maintenance life. We will meet monthly to discuss the initiatives, measure ourselves to see if real progress is being made, and we’ll work closely with unit leadership to ensure we are working with them in the areas where they need the most help. Our most basic of all steps is to ensure all of our units know and understand maintenance metrics. Our monthly Health of the

Fleet briefing will now include operational metrics so we can clearly see the connection between maintenance and operations. In addition, our wing commanders will sit in on the monthly MAJCOM briefing via VTC to ensure they contribute to the sortie production discussion and to provide the headquarters with first hand insights as to where we may be of assistance. Several of our initiatives involve renewed emphasis on training at all levels of the maintenance organization. We are embarking on training initiatives to ensure our senior leaders are fully knowledgeable of the maintenance processes they direct and control. We are developing a unit level scheduling seminar, bringing the HAF Ops/MX course to our wings, and developing and fielding a Maintenance Resource Mgmt course. Our MXG commander’s conference in September was our first education and training session and concentrated on leadership and management of sortie production operations. It

was not just a “FYI” type conference, but one where we discussed the tougher issues facing us; scheduling, flightline management and operations, leading from the front as the senior wing maintenance professional, and factors impacting our ability to meet metrics, flying the printed schedule, and producing mission ready pilots. In addition, we are taking a hard look at our current manning posture against like weapon systems across the Air Force. Where there are obvious disconnects we are working to alleviate them. We have quarterly manpower reviews established with our functional managers and we’ve identified those pockets across our command where we are not providing manning equivalent to the world wide average. We’ll work to eliminate those pockets in the coming months. These initiatives will ensure we take deliberate steps highlighting and enforcing maintenance basics in USAFE. Our plan

Proven by some of the most advanced, aerospace manufacturers to establish FOD control at point-of-use. In fact, a recent user reported their 100th aircraft produced without a single FOD incident. Wouldn’t you like to be that confident? Driven by CribMaster software Easy to use touchscreen interface 100% positive tool control Visual notification of missing tools 4 toolbox sizes RFID or optical sensor technology

1.888.419.1399

to improve sortie production and focus on back to basics is a joint venture between our flying units and our headquarters. The key to success in the sortie production business has always been, and still is, leadership at the unit level. Personal involvement and senior scrutiny of sortie production efforts will make all the difference as we work together in the coming year. We’ve already seen some improvements and we anticipate more as the year progresses. USAFE headquarters is “all in” with their assigned units but it will take the “man in the arena” to make it happen. Our “man” will receive good training, be fully equipped, well resourced, and expertly led…we’re committed to make that happen in FY10 and beyond. About the Author: Brigadier General Mark Atkinson is a career logistician now serving as the Director of Logistics, Installations and Mission Support at Ramstein AB, Germany.

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Maintenance Discipline – What’s in PACAF’s Toolbox? By Brigadier General Brent Baker, Sr. Have you ever had one of those days when your 4-star turns to you and says, “Improper aircraft towing. Failure to remove -21. Failure to follow tech data. Improper use of support equipment. All of these are on the rise. What are you going to do about it?” In 2006, General Paul V, Hester, the then PACAF Commander, did just that making the then PACAF A4, Brigadier General Francis M. “Frank” Bruno, and his leadership team, painfully aware of increased maintenance incidents across the command and concerned that virtually all areas were showing negative trend indicators. The solution was the development of a campaign for the “Relentless Pursuit of Maintenance Excellence” (RPoME, though commonly referred to as RoPe-ME). RPoME was designed entirely to refocus the PACAF maintenance culture. The goal was (and is) a culture where risk was further mitigated and the mission was 100% safely accomplished. Developing the 66

WINTER

Above: SSgt Daniel Nunn conducting BPO/PR on an Osan AB assigned F-16C. (Photo by Lt Col Jim Rich)

essential ingredients of RPoME drove a division of labor between PACAF MXG commanders and the headquarters staff. At the unit level, responsibilities resulted in seven critical focus areas: . Another way of looking at these areas is to use the example of “leading/lagging” indicators commonly used when we talk aircraft metrics. As you can see below, we categorized these as either leading or lagging indicators with the end result of RPoME being the overall total number of incidents which would be a lagging indicator:

Identify High Risk Tasks (Hazards in ORM terms) (leading)

Conduct ORM Refresher Training and Raise “Knock It Off” Awareness (leading)

Apply 6S Principles Where Applicable (leading and lagging)

Maximize Supervisors/Stripes on the Flightline & Other High Risk Areas on All Shifts (leading)

2009

Increase Cross-tell, QA Flash and NOTAM Briefs (leading and lagging)

Establish & Enforce Procedures for Beddown of Incoming Forces and Deployment of PACAF Forces Prior-to-Operating Procedures (leading)

Review Best Practices & Share Lessons Learned (leading and lagging)

The attributes of the seven critical focus areas are obvious to most. However, a few deserve special recognition because of their significant payoff. First, each PACAF MXG identified their top ten, high risk tasks not already addressed by a Key Task List (KTL) and scoured their work centers for areas that posed the greatest risks for incidents. They then used ORM to develop tailored risk mitigation plans for the risky tasks which included KTL development, where possible, and developed appropriate training plans to ensure safe execution. The final step was to draft a QA Flash for the major areas to increase command-wide awareness. The next big payoff came by ensuring an actively engaged supervisory presence on all shifts on the flightline, in back shops and in high risk areas. MXGs were asked to evaluate supervision coverage on the off-shifts and to develop a process to periodically reevaluate the coverage to guard against the migratory creep back to day shift. They developed supervisory training, especially for those on the off-shifts, specifically focused on risk mitigation procedures for high threat tasks and hazard areas. The real challenge in this task was maintaining active supervisory engagement. Some MXGs employed QA to assess leadership visibility and their level of participation in the work centers. Bottom line, as we all know, there is simply no substitute for “Stripes on the Line” when those stripes are actively engaged. From the headquarters perspective, A4 initiated development of a Maintenance Resource Management (MRM) training course, a “Get Well” program, and a Root Cause Analysis program to compliment the MXGs seven critical focus areas. MRM got its roots from cockpit/crew resource management. This is a program used by the flying community to identify and improve human factors through an effort to use all available resources to get the job done and to get it done safely. The objective of MRM training is to improve work force understanding and application of key, human factors skills that improve combat capability as well as safety. The course addresses cognitive (ideas and perceptions) skills and demonstrates how, through proper application of these management skills, you can improve your ability to:

Exchange information with others, as well as share/pool resources to add to mission effectiveness.

Coordinate your tasks with the tasks of others to achieve synchronicity and multiply the effectiveness of everyone within your organization.

Gather and discriminate sources of information, maintain a clear hierarchy of priorities, soundly apply procedures and techniques and support the team effort in accomplishing task objectives when faced with complex scenarios in a physically demanding environment.

PACAF was the first MAJCOM to implement MRM training across the board and the command took a non-traditional approach to certifying training instructors by actually certifying these instructors individually after one-week of instruction at PACAF headquarters. The rigors of this process ensured only the best were certified. The course’s content is probably the best “claim to fame” because real-world, recent and relevant incidents were used as case studies. Almost every trainee found scenarios where they realized, "Wow! That could have been me." This course was well-received within the command and has recently become a mandatory course for all maintainers across the Air Force. PACAF is convinced that MRM helps preserve combat capability. Another tool in the RPoME arsenal which has proven highly effective is a “Get Well” plan implemented when a unit is found to have a significant issue. PACAF/A4 uses a comprehensive management tool called Logistics (Log) Dashboard to assess how the logistics community is performing. The Log Dashboard is a series of stoplight charts grouped by NAF then subdivided by respective wings. Within each wing is a series of stoplights representing areas such as Inventory Control, Ammunition, Support Equipment, Training, Ops Tempo, Facilities and Readiness, to name a few. A variety of feedback mechanisms such as standardized metrics, IG reports, SAVs, LCAP, incident reports, etc., feed into the Log Dashboard and are used to determine when a wing is struggling in a particular area. When this is identified, the A4 may ask the wing to propose a corrective action which is then routed to all applicable staff agencies for comment and concurrence. Once finalized, the proposed action is considered the “Get Well” plan and is essentially considered a contract. Progress is monitored through a variety of means and usually includes a PACAF SAV somewhere around the mid-point of recovery. Recent successes stories proved the effectiveness of this kind of focus and energy by culminating in two PACAF units earning Chief of Staff Team Excellence awards. Additionally, PACAF’s success with its RPoME focus has led to the next generation; Relentless Pursuit of Logistics Excellence. Accurate incident reporting and data capture is the ultimate source of highly effective cross-tell between the units. PACAF’s first database, developed in Microsoft Access, captured rudimentary data and sent an email to a list of predetermined and approved recipients. We partnered with MSgt Linda Hughes and her ACC/A4W IT team to incorporate ACC’s Ammunition Incident Reporting template as the foundation for PACAF’s Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Logistics Incident Reporting tool now found at PACAF/A4 Incident Reporting SharePoint site. This new capability captures comprehensive details about a particular incident and generates a summarizing email alert to all that have requested notification. The email alerting capability is where the true beauty lies because it provides cross-tell to leadership at all levels across the command when an incident is reported. MRM and the “Get Well” program aside, at some point you have to determine if there is some other root cause of a problem. In trying to find the root cause of maintenance incidents, it appears that leadership, in many cases, is distracted by less productive areas and many are stuck on problems when they should be focused on solutions. Resource reductions have left us with a tough dose of reality but we, the maintenance community, have crafted PBD-720 manning cuts, for example, into a reason to relax our standards and thus paved the way for non-compliance creep. A recent AF level study illustrated that maintainers feel pressured to deviate from tech data and policy to accomplish the mission. Surveys suggested 1 in 5 feel pressured to take short-cuts. We’ve relaxed upgrade training requirements, electronic technical orders are not living up to expectations and experience levels are blurred. These issues are understood and appreciated.

However, these types of issues cannot allow us to relax the standards of maintenance discipline. If you think about it, manpower reductions actually create a premium on training which should make you think twice about taking advantage of recently reduced OJT qualifications for upgrade. The fact is that aircraft are aging faster than the experience level of the Airman maintaining them. The way to combat this is to stay true to your maintenance standards and take the time to intentionally build your technical experts. PACAF has made great strides over the last few years but we are far from done with our journey. Our next campaign is hitting the tarmac with a renewed call for leaders at every level to actively search out and eliminate distracters that impede solid logistics discipline as we continue our “Relentless” Pursuit of Logistics Excellence! About the Author: Brigadier General Brent Baker, Sr., is the Director of Logistics, Headquarters Pacific Air Forces, Hickam Air Force Base, Hawaii. He is dual-hatted as the Director of Logistics for Joint Task Force 519 and is responsible for campaign logistics support for all military forces assigned to the task force.

SrA Brandin Sirgey trouble shooting under the guidance of SSgt Casey Harris. (Photo by Lt Col Jim Rich)

Understanding the QA Guy

By Master Sergeant Clinton Lowe Moving back into a maintainer’s mindset, I recall my feelings when QA arrived at my work area. Whether on the flightline, in a nuclear missile silo, or at a jet engine test facility, QA always gave me the same feeling I felt when a police car pulled up beside me at a stop light. Suddenly, something I do is being judged. My standards and job performance are being scrutinized. As a member of QA, I’d like to help you understand your feelings and why we’re here. Here’s a story about a mishap that goes back many decades. Long before two-level maintenance, a senior member of a jet engine test stand crew had been doing his job for several years when he deployed to a forward operating base. The mechanic was known not only for his troubleshooting skills, but also for his disregard for basic safety practices. While he could fix an engine well, he did it without using the books and often disregarded safety equipment—hiding behind a “high ops tempo” excuse. The mishap occurred in the engine test cell. The run screen had been forgotten at the shop, and touting a need to get done right away, the maintainer insisted the engine be fired-up. Since he was the senior man on the crew, the other two did as they were told. While leak checking the engine at a high power setting, the mechanic worked his way along the engine as he’d done dozens of times before. Some think he tripped on one of the test cell stabilizing cables or slipped on the rubber coating of one of the engine connection leads. Whatever the reason, while he was on the farside of the engine from the operator, he met his Maker. The operator, seeing only the shoes of our expert through the test cell structure, barely saw the shadow head for the intake. Almost instantly the engine started stalling—the operator accomplished an emergency shutdown. The guy who told me about this, my former supervisor, worked at the engine shop in Thailand during the Vietnam War. The engine was a J57 out of an F-101 Voodoo fighter. He said they could barely stomach a cursory inspection of the intake. They saw the blood, hair and some clothing pieces...the engine was quickly put on a trailer, wrapped, and sent to an engine shop in Japan, where it was disassembled with oversight by a coroner. Rumor had it the compressor was littered with pieces of bone, flesh, and, well, you get the idea. The smell was unimaginable and the mechanics got sick every time another section was opened. Above: 1967 -- On the flight line, USAF technicians prepare a McDonald RF-101 Voodoo for a photo reconnaissance mission. Overhead, a Fairchild C-123 Provider takes off on another assault airlift sortie, providing an air bridge to an outpost in South Vietnam. High above, a Cessna O-1E "Bird Dog" returns after pointing out Viet Cong targets to pilots of strike aircraft. (USAF Photo)

WINTER 2009

My 30-plus-year Air Force career is littered with firsthand observations and second-hand accounts of accidents caused by people not following proper guidance. Some are humorous, some not. Like an engine shop troop who went up the intake of an F-4 to blend compressor blades and the crew chief who didn’t crawl the intake before he ran the engine. A few seconds after reaching idle the engine gauges started bouncing around; upon shutdown it was discovered the engine troop had left a ratCrash division crewmembers assigned to Naval Air Station Whiting Field,Fla., put out a fire on a mobile aircraft firefighting tail file on top of the trainer during a training exercise at the base. (USN photo by Jay Cope) Constant Speed Drive (CSD) housing. The result was a wiped out compressor and a de-certified crew chief. Then there was Eric, the ICBM technician I worked with who felt the lanyard he was using to be too short to reach everywhere he wanted to be. So he tied himself to a 50-foot piece of nylon rope. While cleaning around the top of the open, 90-foot-deep Minuteman launcher, a gust of wind nudged him and he performed a free-fall into the hole. Only because Providence was looking down on him did he miss the top of the missile, stopping only inches from a very immovable missile suspension arm at the top of the first stage booster. The guy who rescued him said his eyes were glazed and mouth open for the trip back up the hole. After that, Eric only used enough lanyard to get the job done and didn’t mind moving it from attach point to attach point. So, do you want to know why I work in QA? Because of these and many other tales of people who’ve taken short cuts, defied common sense, and disregarded the law. You need to understand that I’m looking out for you when I grab you for not wearing personal protective equipment (PPE); when I write you up for not wearing your reflective belt; or when I nail you for climbing on flaps or standing on top of a wing without a lanyard. I’m even saving you from sitting in a hospital bed wishing someone would come by to visit when I report you to your commander for a safety violation. When QA arrives in your work area, we’ve got an honorable intent. You might say we don’t like seeing sad faces at funerals or hearing of amputated limbs. And we’ll do what is necessary to ensure you or your coworkers don’t end up in a flag-draped box. Airmen assigned to the aircraft crash team position aircraft lift bags under the nose of a B-1B Lancer aircraft at Ellsworth AFB. The crash team is responding during a simulated major accident response exercise. (USAF photo by A1C Matthew Flynn)

About the Author: MSgt Clinton Lowe was deployed as a QA inspection leader in the 379th Expeditionary Wing.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Sticking to the Basics: Inspection Ready, Everyday! By Mr. Daniel E. McCabe and Mr. Eric Miller Sticking to the basics is about being “Inspection Ready” everyday. Ideally, we should never have to go back to basics if we are walking the talk…..living each day instilling and practicing sound maintenance discipline throughout our workforce. AFI 21-101 defines maintenance discipline in paragraph 1.6: “Maintenance discipline involves integrity in all aspects of the maintenance process. It is the responsibility of all maintenance personnel to comply with all written guidance to ensure required repairs, inspections, and documentation are completed in a safe, timely, and effective manner. Supervisors are responsible for enforcing and establishing a climate that promotes maintenance discipline. All personnel who fail to maintain maintenance discipline standards will be held accountable.” Furthermore, AFI 21-101 supports the Air Force core values and its application to maintenance professionals: Integrity First - do the job right the first time; Service Before Self - mission accomplishment over personal gain; and Excellence In All We Do - put forth the best possible effort all the time.

are a few examples. Too often after an incident or accident the resulting report recommends we go back to basics. The Hennessey report is a prime example. Among other incidents across AFMC, we over-pressurized a KC-135 and blew the backend off the aircraft. We had to have a catastrophic accident and a formal report to force us to go back to basics. If we were doing it right the first time, sticking with the basics, this accident would never have happened and we would not have spent valuable resources and time on an investigation that would ultimately tell us what we should have done in the first place. So why do accidents happen? People become complacent due to task familiarity. This can be common in an Air Logistics Center. Someone has been doing the same job for years and years and therefore, does not feel he needs to follow technical data. There is pressure to get the product out the door and shortcuts are taken to ”Get ‘er done.” Personnel are moved from job to

COMPLACENCY – THE WORST ENEMY OF ALL! Instead of “Back to Basics,” I am advocating “Stick with the Basics.” In our daily grind we tend to forget about the critical tenants of maintenance and logistics: safety, technical data, training, documentation, and tools Above: Judith Freer, a materials engineering technician at Tinker Air Force Base, positions an F108 stage four vane assembly aircraft component in the unique MIRA X scanning electron microscope. There are few largechamber SEMs in the world. Tinker’s is built to hold and evaluate larger aircraft parts up to 100,000 times magnification. This non-destructive view helps technicians in areas such as mishap investigations and corrosion identification. (Tinker Air Force Base photo by Margo Wright)

Stormy Hopson loves working on the KC-135 at Tinker Air Force Base just as her retired mechanic father once did. Maintenance issues and modifications now include a battle with corrosion in the tanker that began flying sixteen years before the Tinker sheet metal mechanic was even born. Here she works where the wing tip attaches, using a mounted template to help keep holes perfectly aligned as she drills. (Tinker Air Force Base photo by Margo Wright)

WINTER 2009

apply to their daily duties. They also need to know what the questions are asking them, document their self-inspection, and develop action plans for areas of non-compliance. The key here is to be “honest” when conducting self-inspections. Make a continuity book with the checklists that apply, answer them honestly and show proof of compliance. If the checklist asks for an appointment letter, have one in your continuity book. If it asks for a local instruction, write down what instruction corresponds (along with the paragraph) with that requirement. At Tinker we are putting proof of compliance into our SIP database. Brief senior leadership frequently on your SIP program showing what checklists are applicable, what was found deficient and subsequent corrective actions.

job, resulting in unfamiliarity with the task or where they are in the process. There is incomplete or missing documentation, or inadequate manpower for the task, but instead of calling time out, we forge ahead to meet the schedule. Other indicators include overdue or inadequate training. When you put this all together, it not only doesn’t follow the tenants of sound maintenance discipline, but also spells out a recipe for an accident. Maintenance discipline means having the time, the correct tools, the proper training, supporting supervision and great attitude to do the job right the first time, when no one is watching…Stick with the Basics! Tinker Air Force Base’s Jeff Hand, left, and Stan Jackson put an ACES II B-1 seat back together after preventive maintenance in the 565th Aircraft Maintenance Squadron Egress Shop. Each seat holds 14 miniature explosive devices that synchronize in an emergency to help eject a strapped in crew member from a doomed aircraft at zero to 80 miles per hour in approximately two seconds. (Tinker Air Force Base photo by Margo Wright)

Maintenance discipline philosophy is critical to producing quality products, with zero defects, on time and in a safe manner to the Warfighter. We do this by ensuring aircraft, engines, commodities and software are safe, serviceable and properly configured. You can’t over-emphasize safety, quality and timeliness as all three are equal. There is no room for shortcuts or incomplete maintenance actions - they cannot be tolerated! Do you have the correct technical data out and is it in use? Do mechanics have the right tools and training for the task they are performing? Is there a strong foreign object damage program in place? How is the housekeeping in the workcenters? Are there good shift briefings and turnovers? Are supervisors out walking around “walking the talk” or are they stuck behind a desk? In the early 1980s while working on the flightline, I saw an experienced egress technician, a Technical Sergeant, become complacent which ended his life when he rotated the banana link on the back seat of an RF-4C, causing the seat initiation while he was leaning over it. He never lived to remember it and I will never forget it! Stick with the basics.

T H E F O U N D AT I O N : S E L F - I N S P E C T I O N Being “Inspection Ready” everyday involves creating an environment of sound maintenance discipline which is entrenched in the workforce. So how do you create this environment? The first and foremost step is a strong Self-Inspection Program (SIP). Supervisors at all levels must take time to learn what compliance checklists

QUALITY ASSURANCE: EYES AND EARS OF COMMANDERS

To ensure your SIP remains honest, you need a strong Quality Assurance Program to be the “check and balance” of your organization. Have QA validate your SIP program by sampling where you ran your checklists a month or two after the SIP was accomplished. If QA is finding discrepancies that were not documented, you are either pencil whipping your SIP or the person running the SIP does not understand what the question is asking. Furthermore, QA is required to perform an “Activity Inspection” in all squadrons in the Group. This is your validation of a strong or weak SIP. At Tinker, we have initiated a No-Notice Inspection (NNI) program as a way to complete our activity inspection requirement. In May of this year, we formed a team of QA personnel and subject matter experts, then deployed throughout the Maintenance Wing for two weeks. We ran this NNI just like a MAJCOM Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP). The local NNI included an in-brief to the Wing and Group Commanders 3 days prior to the NNI. There were daily hot-washes with Group Commanders, and we out-briefed Wing and Group Leaders, then produced a report. Once complete, we did not stop there. We analyzed data and formed AFSO21 8-step process teams to look at systemic issues across the Wing. The NNI team identified several Wing systemic issues. Team Chiefs and members were appointed throughout the Wing to work these issues using the 8-step process. Monthly updates were provided to the Wing Commander until all concerns were closed and verified. In addition Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

B A S I C S I N S P E C T I O N R E A D Y, E V E R Y D A Y ! TO THE

ER: STICKING

to the Wing systemic issues, Group Commanders worked on group specific issues utilizing the same 8-step process. The end result will be permanent fixes to problems vs. the “whack a mole” method. At Tinker we are also analyzing all forms of quality data and are consolidating this into one spreadsheet to see where the problem areas exist across the Wing and where we are not looking. This data includes quality assurance inspections, self-inspection data, quality deficiency reports, local audit reports, International Standardization for Organization findings. Data drives quality assurance to where it needs to go, both in bad areas and areas we are not looking at. Tinker also implemented a strong “process audit” program. A process audit looks at the health of the entire maintenance process. Take an example of the repair and overhaul of a constant speed drive. The process audit team looks at adequacy of technical data and if mechanics are using the correct tools and support equipment for the task. Do they have the correct benchstock and material for the task? Are they trained in the task they are performing? Do the work control documents have the correct technical data references? We look at the task from beginning to end and issue a report on the entire process. Quality Assurance findings are issued and actions tracked for completion. Some of the process audits can take two to four weeks, time well spent to ensure we have a healthy maintenance process. We also look at the health of programs across the Wing. For example, is the Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) program healthy? Quality Assurance runs a management system process audit across all groups that manage TMDE. We see strong areas as well as weak areas. Benchmark programs can assist the weaker areas and we see the complete health of the program improve across the Wing.

W H AT I S T H E R E A L R O O T C A U S E PROBLEM?

OF A

In addition to the NNI, Tinker developed a four-hour Root Cause Analysis (RCA) training class to teach Wing leadership about proper RCA identification. Too many times incomplete RCA on quality and self-inspection findings occur, which lead to unsuccessful corrective and preventative action plans. It is too easy to just hang the blame on the individual or supervisor; one must dig deeper to get to the true root cause and attack that for systemic compliance. Stick with the basics to understand what truly drove the nonconformance and fix the root cause so future occurrences can be avoided. If you have a good SIP and Quality Assurance programs, the last thing you need is a culture that promotes compliance. Time and again “producing products” outweighs “producing the product in compliance and with safety.” Brigadier General Bruce A. Litchfield, Commander of the 76th Maintenance Wing, makes this a daily priority. “Production with compliance and safety is what we live by at Tinker. Our Warfighters deserve the very best products and we produce them

Ray Faison drills holes for rivets on the trailing edge of a KC-135 spoiler, the top of the wing. Once doing his work at Tinker Air Force Base in a WW II-era building, the mechanic now works in one of the first shops to transition to the new Tinker Aerospace Complex. This and several other shops of the 76th Maintenance Wing, 551st Commodities Maintenance Squadron, will begin filling newly-created areas in Bldg. 9001. (Tinker Air Force Base photo by Margo Wright)

by being compliant and safe.” Changing the culture is no easy task; it takes constant reminders from all levels of leadership to ensure “maintenance discipline” remains at the forefront of everyone’s mind on a daily basis. We are helping supervisors by creating a daily “inspection ready” checklist, a tool they can use on a daily basis. It is one-stop-shopping to ensure they are checking compliance issues daily. It includes references to Air Force, AFMC and local instructions so supervisors can look at the reference instruction if there are any questions. We are also promoting a culture of compliance by sending out “Inspection Ready” flashes to remind our employees of compliance issues we are seeing in our self-inspection and our quality assurance programs. These bites of information are valuable tools to reinforce maintenance discipline. In summary, a strong culture of maintenance discipline is the key to being “inspection ready” everyday. When healthy maintenance discipline is coupled with a strong self-inspection program, a robust quality assurance program and a culture that embodies production with compliance and safety, you will always stick with the basics and never need to go “back to basics.” Mr. Daniel McCabe is the Chief of Quality Assurance for the 76th Maintenance Wing at Tinker AFB, OK. He retired from active duty in 2006 as a Lieutenant Colonel and Maintenance Officer. He was a previous Deputy Group Commander for Maintenance and two-time Squadron Commander. Mr. Eric Miller is the Chief of the Quality Metrics Element, 76th Maintenance Wing at Tinker AFB. Mr. Miller has been a key leader in the Tinker Quality Assurance Program and was involved in the Back to Basics Program in the late 1990s – early 2000s.

WINTER 2009

Squadron Inspection Program: A Disciplined Approach to Unit Self Inspection

Mark McCutcheon, Bomblift Production lead, 526th Electronics Maintenance Squadron, explains a technical issue on the MJ-1 bomblift to Brig. Gen. John Cooper, 309th Maintenance wing commander. Pictured from left are Lt. Col. Kevin Barker; Kelly Capener, 309th Electronics Maintenance Group deputy director; Dale Harvath, 526 EMXS planning chief; Mr. McCutcheon; General Cooper; and Tim Gray, 526 EMXS director. (Photo by Bill Orndorff)

By Brigadier General John Cooper From the unintentional August 2007 CONUS ferrying of six cruise missiles loaded with nuclear warheads to the “Taiwan Four” in March 2008, flawed actions in our Air Force team have shaken the confidence of our nation in their Air Force. Every Air Force professional recognizes that we have a great deal of work ahead of us to restore that confidence. These situations were not simply mistakes of a few untrained, or inexperienced, individuals but a collective failure illustrating a systemic erosion of Air Force standards. All investigations sound a common chord: our current state of internal discipline and compliance to standards does not meet our nation’s high expectations. In his 30 June 2008 Letter to Airmen, Air Force Secretary Michael Donley charged each of us to accomplish five tasks toward recommitting to our own high standards across the Air Force. Specifically, the SECAF identified a need for every Airman to “critically examine internal processes, restore discipline, identify weaknesses, and aggressively solve problems.”

The 309th Maintenance Wing is answering this call by implementing the Aerospace Maintenance Quality Standard (AMQS). AMQS is a comprehensive approach defining, validating, and controlling processes and equipment, emphasizing accountability in compliance, and ultimately enhancing customer satisfaction. AMQS focuses on delivering “quality through process control” and is bound by three tenets:

Figure 1: AMQS tenets.

WINTER 2009

Defined, stabilized processes Configuration management Leveraging a Squadron Program focused

Inspection

on targeted leadership surveillance and engagement By universally implementing AMQS across the wing, we expect the following outcomes: Improved compliance More effective, efficient processes Reduced internal rework Increased end item reliability Inspection readiness To be crystal clear about AMQS—it is not another “quality fad.” Instead, AMQS represents a

structured, disciplined approach to ensuring we get the day-to-day job done correctly the first time. Furthermore, if we discover barriers to completing specific jobs in accordance with published standards then AMQS provides a framework to identify and resolve these barriers. AMQS’ key feature, focused on discovering and helping resolve these barriers, is the Squadron Inspection Program (SQIP). At this point, you may be skeptical as to the value of yet another “inspection” designed to instill discipline when the Air Force already has a vast repertoire of surveillance tools at our disposal. After all, units around the Air Force currently perform quality assurance inspections, unit self-inspections, staff assistance visits, management inspections and receive MAJCOM inspections to help keep them on track. The major shortfall in this system is a lack of capability to correlate all interrelated findings. This is where SQIP comes in as not another inspection but instead three interrelated mechanisms focused on providing a structured approach at a tactical level. SQIP is an overall process for collecting and analyzing relevant data and a tool dedicated to helping squadron leaders focus their efforts appropriately combined with a universal feedback mechanism to ensure the leadership team remains on target.

SMXG Room

while noting the “fixes” then the LSET team would go away…until the next cycle. Reversing this “focus-then-forget” approach towards compliance was a top priority in fielding SQIP. In March 2009, the SQIP team crafted a sequenced action plan targeted toward accomplishing the following: Centrally collect/manage/analyze all surveillance/inspection data with full visibility Continued on next page...

Despite all the inspections and external help squadron leaders receive, the daily tempo of “answering the mail” distracts them from addressing systemic issues in a meaningful and timely manner. Conditioned to constantly focus on the issue of the day, conventional wisdom held that it was sufficient for leaders to dust off the last LSET checklists and simply make a couple of token passes through it for preparation. A prominent urban legend contended that if you successfully traversed the checklists several months prior to the LSET and documented all the “problem areas”

Figure 3: Example of a squadron Bucket List.

Figure 2: SQIP inputs and flow for continuous feedback.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Standardize the wing’s readiness approach to preparing for a nonotice LCAT Standardize analytical measures across the wing to ensure consistency

ER: SQUADRON INSPECTION PROGRAM

Provide a feedback mechanism for monitoring the pulse of all the mandated programs To build SQIP into an effective tool, the team recognized squadron leaders needed assistance in collecting all existing surveillance/inspection data currently scattered in various forms. This began with wing staff analysts pulling together the findings from all past and current inspections, no matter their source, into one data repository. They collated and categorized each finding then began a holistic analysis by squadron (fig 2). As the analysis results unfolded, discrete trend areas clearly surfaced. SQIP analysts took these trend areas and packaged them together in a “Bucket List” of focus areas including, but not limited to, tools, safety, and tech data (figs 2 & 3). At the same time, wing leaders purged all locally-developed inspection checklists and replaced them with the most current AFMC-sanctioned checklists. The results of this task provided all 26 squadrons with a solid baseline of current expectations to help them prepare for the new challenge of no-notice inspections. However, cleaning house and updating checklists will not fix larger systemic problems entrenched by decades of repeated poor behavoir. As anyone who has successfully closed out an annual flying hour program knows, it is the daily tracking of hundreds of individual tasks to completion that achieves the final goal. Maintaining a depot’s readiness for a no-notice compliance inspection requires staying on top of every program contained in the rather extensive HQ AFMC Unit Self Inspection (USI) checklists. Keeping this approach in mind, group and squadron leaders within the wing built individual Squadron Surveillance Plans (SSP) based on these comprehensive USI checklists. As a minimum, squadron leaders will ensure completion of every USI checklist a minimum of once annually with all deficiencies documented in the SQIP team’s database.

MMXG Team

By leveraging wing-level analysis of specific areas in each squadron’s Bucket List, squadron leaders can now make fact-based decisions on the value of running certain checklists more frequently to address their leading problem areas. Throughout each month, squadron leaders must roll through all scheduled SQIP checklists outlined on their SSP and document the findings. This, in turn, enables the SQIP team to collate real-time data and turn the results of the analysis into meaningful feedback for the squadron leaders to adjust their focus as necessary. The feedback mechanisms for SQIP are managed through the wing’s Director of Quality office to ensure consistent analysis and maintain configuration control over the contracted SSPs. In addition to the squadron leader’s findings, an expert QA inspector team is used to “fact check” a small sampling of SSP checklists run throughout a month. Finally, the routine inspections conducted by QA inspectors monthly are used to cross-check for those specific areas in each bucket list as well as helping to gauge SSP effectiveness. Wing-level oversight occurs monthly with squadron-by-squadron briefings to the wing leadership team using the SSP as the benchmark. As an example, figure 4 shows a sample monthly status slide from the August 2009 wing commander update. On the left side of the chart, the graph illustrates a historical view of the Bucket List from the last 12 months. This view clearly points to ESOH, Tools, and Tech Data as the top three focus areas on which this squadron director should focus based on historical observations. The graphic on the right illustrates this squadron’s

WINTER 2009

July 2009 results on their SSP (first bar) balanced against QA’s SSP oversight (second bar) and documented findings in their top three areas by independent sources (third bar). In this example, the squadron leader has appropriately focused on Environment, Safety, and Occupational Health (ESOH), Tools, and Tech Data compliance in his SSP. This squadron leader selfidentified 84 defects across 402 inspection items in his particular Bucket List for July 09. On QA inspection follow-up results depicted in the second bar, they only found one item in Tools that was missed by the squadron leader; not a bad result! Finally, independent oversight from a variety of surveillance activities indicate this squadron leader has actively engaged with respect to ESOH and Tech Data issues but still has more ground to cover in the area of Tools. To help focus the squadron leader’s efforts more precisely, the wing SQIP analysts break down the top three areas even further as illustrated in figure 5. Leveraging these fact-based breakouts provides invaluable insight and enables leaders to take action based on a data-driven target set. By leveraging fact-based analysis results and targeting the top three drivers, this squadron could reduce approximately 40 percent of findings by effectively concentrating efforts. So, under SQIP, what happens to an identified defect? Instead of a technician suffering in silence or instructed to “just make it happen” the squadron leader is now responsible for engaging in specific actions to resolve the impasse. As the best positioned with experience and networking, we expect a squadron leader to employ AFMC’s eight-step problem solving method to determine the specific root cause of the problem. Quickly identifying the root cause is critical to crafting, then implementing, a permanent fix to restart production in accordance with published standards.

he/she has the authority, and the responsibility, to halt production until the AMQS Configuration Management team can engage and facilitate a long-term fix. Since implementing SQIP, some squadron leaders have identified numerous cases where flawed tech data has been overcome time and again by relying on temporary fixes such as non-recurring engineering dispositions. Identifying these issues through SQIP action provides a fast-acting approach through an AMQS Process Certification mechanism to work quickly towards a lasting solution. As with any flawed tech data, long-term resolution may require timely assistance from a variety of resources throughout the entire Air Logistics Center, the supply chain enterprise, and possibly the lead command. As SQIP matures and its value becomes more evident, additional team players such as SPM engineers and equipment specialists are enthusiastically helping solve the Air Force’s challenges one at a time. Since the inception of the Maintenance Wing, this is the first time leaders are able to make fact-based decisions leveraging consistent analysis measured against documented standards. By implementing and maturing AMQS and SQIP to target, track, find, and fix tactical level issues, the 309 MXW will achieve desired readiness levels, measurable on demand, while meeting an Air Force standard our nation expects and deserves. About the Author: Brigadier General John Cooper currently commands the 309th Maintenance Wing (MXW) at Ogden Air Logistics Center, Hill Air Force Base, Utah. General Cooper’s a career aircraft maintenance and munitions

commanded

has the

squadron and group levels, and served as the AFSOC A4 prior to his taking com-

For example, if a squadron leader identifies flawed technical data, then

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

officer,

mand

the

MXW.

309

WR-ALC Maintainers Change Culture By Focusing on Fundamentals The very nuts and bolts of this organization lead to doing the job right the first time, every time.

By Captain Landon H. Culpepper Whether it’s a nation, organization, industry or educational institution, culture is what defines the people within. It’s no different at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center (WR-ALC) where removing and repairing wing boxes, tails, and major aircraft components requires an intense focus on compliance, safety, quality and timely production. The goal at WR-ALC, the largest industrial employer in the State of Georgia, has always been to do things the right way and produce their products better, faster, and cheaper for their customer. Accomplishing this has required a change in maintenance culture to keep pace with budget cuts, manpower constraints, and ever changing mission requirements. Within the ALC lies the massive 402nd Maintenance Wing (MXW), one of the largest maintenance organizations in the Air Force which is authorized over 8,500 personnel, most of who are civil service employees. It takes an enormous infrastructure and huge teams of mechanics to inspect, repair, modify, and return our nation’s assets to the warfighter. To make the mission even more personal, in many cases America’s warfighters are sons, daughters, family members, and friends of the Wing’s military, civil service, and contract employees. These mechanics have a vested interest in compliance, safety, quality and productivity within the written guidance of Air Force Instructions, Technical Orders, engineer guidance and AFOSH standards and understand that straying from this culture can equate to lost lives, damage and reduced mission effectiveness. Above: Major General Polly Peyer WR-ALC Commander recognizes 402 EMXSS Facility Engineers for achieving Gold in their Safe Site. (USAF photo courtesy of 402 EMXG)

WR-ALC maintainers perform programmed depot maintenance on C-5s, C-130s, F-15s, C-17s and commodity repair on thousand of avionics boxes and aircraft parts in addition to software maintenance. This complex business requires a workforce focused on safety, quality and timely production. The depot maintenance business has always been governed by regulations, just not the same ones as base or intermediate-level maintenance organizations. In December 2007, Air Force Materiel Command transitioned its Air Logistics Centers to Air Force Instruction (AFI) 21-101, bringing all Air Force maintenance activities under the same technical guidance umbrella. It’s been a long, slow transition, but compliance with AFI 21-101 for WR-ALC maintenance professionals performing and supporting heavy industrial maintenance would not have been successful without the empowerment and involvement at all levels right down to the mechanics on the shop floor. They are focused on compliance, quality and safety; in other words, they are focused on fundamentals.

FOCUS

COMPLIANCE

First and foremost to establish a safe, quality-focused culture, every member of the organization must be committed. In such a large organization, that is a task that takes time. WR-ALC has made great strides by implementing robust oversight programs and high standards to provide clear and focused direction. Many initiatives and programs that affect all five of the MXW’s groups have helped the process ranging from robust, well-manned quality offices to

WINTER 2009

maintenance processes. There small scale Tiger Teams empowered are many programs that monitor to fix problems on the spot and do quality of the manufacture and root-cause analysis to solve underlyrepair processes, but one program ing problems. These are just a few that takes production and qualiexamples of the many victories both ty to a higher level is the the 402 MXW and WR-ALC are International Organization of securing to establish a stronger comStandards. It is a certification pliance culture. Their progress was program that sets industrial stanvalidated in August 2009 when the dards for companies to show cusMXW successfully passed AFMC’s tomers that they can create and first Logistics Compliance repair a product with repeatable Assessment Program (LCAP) under quality through consistently docthe Air Force’s more stringent criteMark Clay (left) and Brice Carlson (right) are installing tubing in the umented procedures. Companies ria. Mr. David Nakayama, Director #3 dry bay of the wing structure of a C-130 prior to its attachment to that conform to these quality of the 559th Aircraft Maintenance the aircraft. (USAF photo courtesy of Capt Landon Culpepper) requirements gain certification, Squadron and responsible for C-5 which enhances their competiprogrammed depot maintenance, credits these results to a steady, continual emphasis on compli- tiveness for future workloads. In 1999, AS9100 became the ance. “We are working very hard to change not only our culture, International Organization of Standardization for the Aerospace but our DNA so everyone understands compliance is the key to industry. improved safety, quality, efficiency and production. This will not Through training, orientation, and meticulous review and tweakhappen overnight, but it has to be our only course of action.” ing of maintenance processes, WR-ALC maintainers have posIt has been a persistent journey for years to better organize com- tured to attain AS9100 certification. The process is not difficult. pliance as a daily part of ALC production operations. Mr. It requires mechanics to know how to access the most up-to-date Randall B. Allen, 402 MXW Quality Assurance Inspector, has information through the use of technical orders, E-pubs, and been instrumental in the implementation of AFI 21-101 in depot engineering guidance. Documentation is essential to proving maintenance. “Considering the years the depot followed processes were followed, quality tests completed, and solutions to AFMCIs, it took awhile for depot maintainers to adjust to the product failures developed. Maintainers are also empowered to instruction being located in a one-source publication. do root-cause analysis to find those solutions. Additionally, the implementation of the AFI required changes to Keys to AS9100 success are: checklists to standardize with the rest of the Air Force.” Mr. Allen also said, “a cultural change had to happen to flow with Follow Air Force regulations, technical orders, and shop programs that were standardized Air Force wide.” Depot mainteprocesses nance processes and programs are different, but the last two years Plan-Do-Check-Act to look for improvements have proven that common safety, quality and compliance programs do apply to all. ALC maintainers struggle with the same Taking corrective or preventive action for broken or flawed issues that all maintenance organizations do: wearing Personal processes Protective Equipment, properly signing out technical orders, cor Solid root-cause analysis to identify the ultimate cause rect use of maintenance stands, and housekeeping/FOD prevention. Check corrective actions, work to change regulations, and document processes

FOCUS

QUALITY

ALCs are not immune from the requirement to be postured for future workloads and partnerships. To do so, WR-ALC’s 2009 goal was to join both OO-ALC and OC-ALC as a fully certified maintenance organization. This was the next logical step in improving quality and embedding compliance in fundamental

The ALC workforce has integrated AS9100 by getting into the books, using established programs, creating new programs and implementing self-policing procedures. All of these have evolved the culture at WR-ALC. Today, an environment of compliance pervades the depot maintenance environment and enhances proContinued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

duction, safety and quality. In September 2009, the news that 402 MXW would receive AS9100 certification further proved the new culture is taking hold as they focus on fundamentals.

E R : W R - A L C M A I N TA I N E R S C H A N G E C U LT U R E

FOCUS

SAFETY

It is important to be compliant and produce a quality product. However, if the work environment isn’t safe it can lead to lost lives, productivity, money, and poor mission accomplishment. WR-ALC has embraced important safety programs such as the Voluntary Protection Program (VPP) where employees and leadership have the opportunity to improve all work centers through shared involvement.

ISO Inspector asks CMXG Mechanic questions concerning processes and procedures for AS9100 certification. Left to right: Bob Chateauneut (ISO Inspector), Amberle Husbands (Mechanic), Howard Bell (MXW ISO), SMSgt McKenze (CMXG). (USAF photo courtesy of Capt Landon Culpepper)

This fairly new program to the ALCs has been instrumental in significant safety successes at WR-ALC. Originally started in 1982, this OSHA program was designed to be a process or culture that involved leadership, work site analysis, hazard prevention & control, and safety & health training. The VPP has been used to promote excellence in safety and health, by eliminating injuries and illnesses that lead to higher worker’s compensation costs. At its foundation, employees in a work center form a “Safe Site” where they pledge to identify and correct safety issues. They must work with management on safety concerns and set future goals for their VPP site. The program reinforces OSHA standards and Air Force safety programs, requiring clean worksites, use of the 6S process, and the Wingman concept to accomplish the mission. Examples of fixes implemented at WR-ALC include adding eyewashes to aircraft on the flightline, repair of maintenance stands, and replacing of worn out specialized chairs. This unique relationship between management and employees reaps many benefits. Major Paul Ashley, Commander, Commodities Maintenance Support Squadron, said, “the VPP benefits are improved employee motivation to work safely, which leads to better quality and productivity, improvement of programs that are already good, recognition in the community and reduced worker’s compensation costs.”

Safe Sites. The sites have the opportunity to be granted several performance levels: Bronze, Silver and Gold . Currently, the wing has 30 Bronze sites, 48 Silver sites, and 37 Gold sites (the most difficult to attain). The ultimate goal is to achieve OSHA Star Site status. In June of this year, the 402 Software Maintenance Group was the first government organization at Robins to achieve OSHA Star Site status.

The Electronic Maintenance Group took VPP a step farther by raising money to purchase gift cards, hats, T-shirts, mugs, and coolers as give-aways to recognize and appreciate personnel commitment to VPP. At the kickoff of the “101 Critical Days of Summer”, volunteers handed out VPP items along with flyers of suggested tips to make each person’s summer safer. These actions enhanced an already strong program. Additional events were held and gave great opportunities for maintainers to focus on safety in the workplace and remind employees that “VPP Excellence” ensures quality and production without fatalities, injuries, and illnesses. Finally, WR-ALC culture continues to be a work in progress with focus on fundamentals and future support of warfighters. The ALC supports airlift and F-15 PDMs, commodity repair of aircraft parts, avionics, and software assets by complying with standards set forth by written guidance, achieving quality efforts verified by LCAP and AS9100, and instilling safety initiatives that are growing with each VPP site. The men and women of the 402 MXW proudly shoulder the responsibility of supporting our national interests and will continue to change its culture to meet those vital needs.

About the Author: Capt Landon H. Culpepper is a maintenance officer in the Logistics Career Broadening Program at Warner Robins Air Logistics Center assigned to the 402 Maintenance Wing currently working in program management for C-5 sustainment. Special thanks to Col Victoria H. Reed, commander of the 402

The WR-ALC Commander’s Safe Site Challenge has also been a successful method to encourage everyone to support the VPP. The 402 MXW launched VPP in October 2007 and now has 135

Electronic Maintenance Group and Capt James E. Schieser, Logistics Career Broadening Officer for their assistance with this article.

WINTER 2009

AFSO Crosstalk HSC RIE IMPROVES INSPECTION TIME 436 MXS DOVER AFB

E R : A F S O C R O S S TA L K

Submitted by: SSgt Nichole D. Naprstek (Nichole.Naprstek2@dover.af.mil) Dover Air Force Base’s C-17 Home Station Check (HSC) section held a “Rapid Improvement Event” (RIE) in an attempt to reduce inspection time. A goal of the event was to reduce inspection time from over four days to three. Despite the fact that the C17 HSC section is only nine months old they are working to make continuous process improvement a standard part of their operations. After each inspection (they average two a month) they performed an informal review of their processes to see what could be improved. The RIE enabled the team to look at the HSC process from start to finish rather than trying to recall specific kernels of time. Based on findings from the RIE, the team restructured the inspection flow chart to better utilize available manpower. They also arranged for all tools to be relocated to the Point-Of-Use during inspections to reduce travel time between the tool room and the inspection location. These small changes resulted in a savings of 22 hours (a 27% reduction in inspection time) as well as a 30% reduction in man hours.

P M E L S H O R T E N S T M D E C A L I B R AT I O N T I M E S 46 MXS EGLIN AFB Submitted by Major Michael Monfalcone (Michael.monfalcone@eglin.af.mil) The 46th Maintenance Squadron’s Precision Measurement Equipment Laboratory (PMEL) personnel at Eglin AFB recently had an epiphany: the longer the 23K+ Test, Measurement and Diagnostic Equipment (TMDE) items they calibrate are in the lab, the less time the TMDE items are available to the warfighter. The normal process for a PMEL technician is to calibrate to the full spectrum of capabilities for an item in the laboratory. This process can be extremely time-consuming and often goes well above and beyond what the equipment will be used for in the field. An AFSO 21 initiative developed by Eglin’s PMEL personnel called for the lab’s customers in each of the 400+ serviced work centers to

WINTER 2009

identify what capabilities they “require” for their TMDE and communicate that information to PMEL. These identified requirements will help PMEL focus on those particular calibrations, thus alleviating excess PMEL calibration requirements for equipment functions that will not be used by the customer. This process was implemented by forwarding a letter from the 46th Tactical Wing Commander describing the new process to all customers. Eglin PMEL also created a website where each customer can complete a form on-line with their requirements and return it to the Eglin laboratory. Eventually, as this initiative comes to fruition, a time savings of 30-40% will be realized and critical TMDE items can be kept where they belong: in the hands of the warfighter.

FOURTH

BUT

FIRST

Submitted by 2d Lt Matthew Getts (matthew.getts@seymourjohnson.af.mil) Prior to a joint MXG/OG AFSO21 Rapid Improvement Event, the weekly scheduling process was filled with waste that negatively affected flying and maintenance operations. Specifically, there were four separate Ops/Mx scheduling meetings with excessive attendance, no standard scheduling timeline guidance beyond AFI 21-165, no published Pen & Ink changes, duplicate products for flying pages, and multiple changes after agreement by both sides. By applying several AFSO21 tools, such as the Value Stream Map, a cross-functional team re-flowed the process and established expectations and guidelines. This back-to-basics approach cut personnel involved by 66% and slashed man-hours expended by 50%, effectively allowing more time to execute the current week of flying and maintenance. With over 12,000 man-hours saved per year and 15% fewer errors, the 4th Fighter Wing will more efficiently and effectively be the “Fourth but First!”

Members of the 4th Maintenance Group and 4th Operations Group discuss ways to share resources and more effectively schedule flying at one of the new scheduling meetings created by a recent AFSO21 RIE.

E X C E E D I N G PA R T S T U R N - I N S TA N D A R D S Submitted By: TSgt Brian Byrd (brian.byrd@tyndall.af.mil) The 325th Fighter Wing process for turn-in of F-15 and F-22 repairable parts was continuously failing to meet the required time standard of 24 hours, with both supply and maintenance processes contributing to poor performance. Additionally, the 325 AMXS Supply and Avionics Sections used different tracking procedures for classified parts. The methods used for tracking all parts varied from unit to unit and were not tracked correctly, with little communication between the sections to ensure standardization. The unit conducted a Rapid Improvement Event and through process mapping, uncovered disconnects resulting in streamlined procedures and policy changes. Specifically, countermeasure included additional training, implementation of additional pick up times by both commercial carriers and Base Supply contractors, 24-hr manning of Base Supply Parts Store, and the conversion to a scanning system to ensure the tracking process is standardized across the enterprise. The team also benchmarked and standardized their vault process. The event goal was to reduce maintenance turn-in to 20 hours. Since implementation in January 2009, this goal has been met or exceeded every month. The changes have also resulted in a savings of over 193 man hours and over $3K in wage cost avoidance per year. K

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Maj Michael Davis, a 379th Expeditionary Maintenance Squadron operations officer, prepares to marshal an F-16 Fighting Falcon aircraft departing for a mission at an undisclosed location in Southwest Asia. (USAF photo by TSgt Jason Edwards)

Submitted by Col Roger Rostvold A culture of compliance is not a new concept. All Air Force organizations have a varying culture of compliance that both fosters and enhances compliance efforts, or, at its worst, impedes or renders compliance efforts meaningless. During a speech at the Air Force Association, General Norton A. Schwartz, Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, stated we will restore confidence and trust by re-emphasizing compliance in our routines and inspection processes. He envisions an Air Force which has re-emphasized compliance in nuclear, aircraft and missile maintenance, acquisition, and medical disciplines initially…and all disciplines in due course. Scandals and headlines teach us a culture of compliance must be taken seriously. Having a strong compliance culture in aircraft maintenance is always in our best interest. It is not enough to have policies and procedures in place, or to have good intentions. Compliance must be an embedded part of the logistics organization. A wise person once said that the test of a truly moral person is whether he does the right thing when no one is looking. This is consistent with the first Air Force core value, “integrity first.” The test for all logistics organizations is whether they maintain and reinforce each day a culture of compliance. This includes a culture of doing not only what is within the strict parameters of technical data and instructions, but also what is right — whether or not anyone else is looking. The compliance culture underpins our daily logistics actions and the choices our Airmen make every day. Organizations must guide and reinforce the activities of our Airmen as they make these decisions and choices each day. If an organization lacks integrity, all the laws in the world will not keep them in compliance. An organization that measures and rewards high integrity has the best chance of influencing positive behavior. Airmen will not only do things right, but also do the right things, consistently and voluntarily. For the future of our Air Force and country,

Developing a Culture of Compliance: Difficult but Rewarding we must understand what drives logistics decisions and ensure that doing the right thing is at the core. Creating a compliance culture is difficult. A culture of compliance relies upon education, training and prevention—not compliance training, but training in ethics and integrity. As a logistics leader, you need to identify the norms of your organization, the behaviors of your technicians, and the processes you have in place. How leaders embody compliance will influence how others will act. Fundamentally, logistics leaders need to “talk the talk and walk the walk.” Also, it is important that organization members act by his or her conscience or police themselves. This requires all Airmen to be well aware of his or her responsibilities and the value of buying into a culture of compliance. Finally, unless logistics personnel are aware of the policies, they cannot be expected to follow them. Likewise, if they are not held accountable for the adherence to polices, they are unlikely to heed them. Any lack of adherence can lead to a potentially costly logistics mishap. Too often logistics organizations view and treat regulatory compliance as a separate activity rather than understanding how to incorporate compliance into their day-to-day operations. Units that struggle with compliance need new unit policies and procedures. Then, the leaders of that organization must extensively communicate those expectations to their Airmen. An organization cannot control everything and everyone. The key is fostering a culture of compliance in which ethics and integrity permeates the entire organization. The culture of compliance is too important to be left to subjective impressions. A good culture of compliance relies heavily on careful documentation. As our senior Air Force leadership thinks and talks about compliance, we will benefit as it helps us sharpen logistics oversight. It will also enhance the quality of logistics we deliver daily to our nation, the ultimate customer of every logistics organizations culture of compliance. About the Author: Col Roger Rostvold is the current 388th Maintenance Group commander at Hill AFB.

SrA Jason Hill, 335 AMU, reloads IMIS software on electronic tech data. (Photo by TSgt Byron Barwick)

Why Electronic Tech Data Hasn’t Delivered in the F-15E and Why We Need It to Succeed By Colonel Joe Diana The results of the HAF-directed "Comprehensive Assessment of Operational Wing-Level Maintenance" were recently released. The assessment concluded that “imbalances between operational requirements and maintenance capability create an environment where maintainers feel pressure to deviate from technical data and policy to accomplish the mission.” The assessment pointed to four root causes driving the imbalance. One of which was that “electronic technical orders are ineffective and increase task time.” At Seymour Johnson AFB, we have struggled with the implementation of electronic tech data for the last 3 years. It is important for maintainers to understand what went wrong with our implementation of

electronic tech data in the F-15E community and to realize that the intended end state is something we must have to succeed as an Air Force. First, here is a quick primer on electronic tech data. There are three components of the system. The first is the hardware (laptops, servers, etc) that maintainers use to access tech data. We use the term eTools. The second is the software to run the system, such as Integrated Maintenance Information System (IMIS) used by the F15E's. And the third is the technical data itself (F-15's use the term Interactive Electronic Technical Manual System (IETMS)). These components make up a system described as Type 1 through 5. A

Continued on next page...

tSPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Type 1 system is simply scanning paper tech data into a PDF format and a Type 5 system provides interactive technical data and diagnostics abilities to predict future failures. In the F-15E community, we are using a Type 2 system that allows for hyperlinks and other web tools to assist technicians with troubleshooting. Newer weapon systems that are designed with electronic tech data from the start tend to be Type 4 or 5. The implementation of Type 2 electronic tech data into the F15E weapon system failed to deliver for 5 main reasons: 1. The implementation was not conducted as an acquisition program and therefore lacked disciplined milestone reviews during development and implementation. Had our electronic tech data been a formal acquisition program we might not have avoided all our problems, but we would have had better visibility on the risks we were taking. New weapon systems do a better job of integrating the tech data into the acquisition program, but for any legacy weapon system looking to bring on electronic tech data make sure it is done using a formal acquisition program. 2. The design and development of the program occurred in a much different AF/A6 environment. Cybersecurity is critical to our success, but 5 years ago no one had any idea what effects Standard Desktop Configurations (SDC), the Network Operations Security Center, CAC logins, and all the other AF/A6 policies would have. Every SDC update impacts our electronic tech data. Every software push has an impact to our electronic tech data. We have tried to create bridges to the AF/A6 community but much of their guidance is DoD driven and the Office of the Secretary of Defense isnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t apt to make exceptions for a single weapon system. Therefore, we are forced to change and adapt which frustrates our Airmen who are looking for a consistent and stable way to access tech data. One of the key features of IMIS was going to be the ability to link the tech data

with our Core Automated Maintenance System (CAMS). However network limitations have prevented that from becoming a reality. We anticipated electronic tech data easing the duties of the Tech Order Distribution Account (TODA). We had no idea that AF/A6 would require Functional System Administrators (FSAs) for every system on the network. The workload and certifications for an FSA far exceeds what our old TODAs did. The laptops are used in an industrial environment that increases the wear and tear on the hardware. Consequently, they are constantly being repaired and hard drives rebuilt at a wing cost, both in funds and FSA manpower. Even without the wear and tear, it is common practice to rebuild a significant number of our 500 laptops from scratch on a monthly basis due to SDC updates. Any system using electronic tech data needs to create manpower positions for FSAs to handle the workload. We also were promised a wireless network to make all this work and to leverage other applications (CBTs, maintenance documentation, etc). We are still two years away from that being a reality due to security issues. Any system converting to electronic tech data has to have AF/A6 involvement in the development and sustainment.

SrA Jesse Anderson, from the 4 AMXS accomplishes an engine bay inspection using electronic tech data. (Photo by TSgt Byron Barwick)t

3. We got the hardware wrong. From the outset we failed our air- 5. Finally, we did not provide sufficient training on the use of electronic tech data. Our Airmen received only the briefest training men with the eTools for the F-15E. Initially we used a Tough on how to navigate and use the system. After 3 years we still Book Tablet as our hardware. However the hardware was purarenâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t using (or teaching) the system at our tech schools, and chased in anticipation of the roll out of the program and then many of our Field Training Detachment courses are still convertthe program was delayed. So our Pentium III systems gathered ing. We also struggle with keeping our FSAs trained. The FSA dust and quickly became obsolete. We are blessed to be able to training requirements recruit some the smartest and most techniare similar to what cally savvy young Americans, but handing AF/A6 requires for netthem a PIII laptop with 256mb of RAM is work administrators. like asking them to play with a Our maintainers strugCommodore 64 at work while they play gle to train to those XBOX 360 at home. We have finally standards. Any system turned the corner on the hardware and planning on using elecnow our Airmen use dual core laptops with tronic tech data needs 2GB of RAM. However, we still need to to provide for training pursue future hardware solutions and we not only current techneed a variety of hardware devices. We nicians but adding need small hand held devices for job guide training to the tech activities, large screen laptops for trouschool pipeline. bleshooting wiring issues, and solid state hard drives for running engines. When you Panasonic Tough Book e-tool after 2 years of flightline use. (Photo by TSgt You would think that at add the hardware chalByron Barwick) this point I would be all lenges of working in hot for going back to a or cold environments, or in the bright sun, getpaper only system, but I am much more passionate about fixing and ting the hardware correct is difficult indeed. The improving what we have. I also communicate to our Airmen that AF/A6 community through the AFWay program as one of the first legacy systems to convert we can help those that needs to lead the charge. As more and more follow behind us by communicating our issues and fixes. We still weapon systems need hardware for electronic have to overcome the cultural challenges associated with electrontech data the AF/A6 community needs to vet ic TOs and that will take about a generation. For the older Airmen and approve systems the same way they do for out there you remember that when computers first came out (yes I desktops, laptops, cell phones, etc. am talking old), most of us composed on legal pads and then typed. 4. We did not perform a full validation and ver- Today all of us compose on the computer. That same issue exists ification (val/ver) of the technical data as we with our experienced Airmen that like to spread out the wiring diamigrated to electronic tech data. Our transi- grams across the ramp or found the pages for a brake change based tion to electronic tech data was more than on the blackened edges of the pages. They fail to see the benefit of just scanning what we had into an electronic touching a wiring diagram on screen and having it highlight its file. Our Type 2 system uses hyperlinks and entire path and data or having our In-Process Inspection items approaches troubleshooting from a pure fault embedded in the tech data or having the entire TO library at your tree perspective. As a result we lost step fingertips. I see a future with embedded video to show our Airmen sequences that were in the paper TOs and we how to physically manipulate a part into position or a safety video lost system overviews. We were fortunate to that shows what happens when you fail to follow the warnings and have enough experienced maintainers to rec- cautions. Eventually we will have a seamless link between our tech ognize missing steps and lost data, but that data, our maintenance information, and our maintenance docuimmediately put doubt into the system. Any mentation systems. We recruit based on our technology and elecplan for a conversion beyond Type 1 needs to tronic tech data is what our Airmen expect. And while the pain of include an initial full val/ver as well as peri- the last 3 years has been significant, if other legacy systems can odic streamlined follow-on val/vers when spi- learn from our mistakes then it will not have been in vain. ral updates occur. Our experience levels continue to decline and we canâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t put our About the Author: Col Joe Diana is a core 21M with 24 years of Airmen in a situation where they could get active service currently serving as the Commander of the 4th hurt because we didnâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;t spend the dollars and Maintenance Group, Seymour-Johnson AFB, NC. K time on a val/ver.

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

Maintenance Compliance in an Austere EnvironmentYes, It Can Work! By Colonel Robert A. Hopkins Jr. On 2 July 2009, the 451st Air Expeditionary Group transformed into the 451st Air Expeditionary Wing (451 AEW). Under USAFâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s newest Wing emerged the 451st Expeditionary Maintenance Group (451 EMXG) with a hand full of Airmen at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. To most, this may sound normal; however, the transition and activation took place in a war zone at a NATO base where base operating support is provided by U.S. Army. The 451st Expeditionary Maintenance Group initially consisted of four people whose mission including building a Maintenance Group from the ground up and adding additional aircraft to the fleet with no disruption to the war effort or degradation of aircraft in support of Operation Enduring Freedom. Building a maintenance group in a war zone from the bottom up can be certainly fulfilling and rewarding. It can also be challenging, and opportunities were plentiful when establishing a maintenance compliance culture. Given the task, the group focused on overcoming challenges and exploiting opportunities to create a culture of compliance through continuous process improvement.

OVERCOMING CHALLENGES As the original plank owners, Squadron Commanders and Chiefs were challenged to get engaged from the start. Their charter was to create a sound maintenance culture of discipline by standardizing and educating maintainers on the right way of doing business and avoid chasing statistics or jeopardizing safety. They were charged with developing leaders who could make calculated decisions to meet any mission. One of the greatest challenges was reorganizing the maintenance functions from five autonomous flying squadrons to the new Maintenance Group with two Expeditionary Maintenance Squadrons. Further complicating matters was the diverse unit in Above: A1C David Marshall and SrA Robert Dyson-Cersley install an Aft Nacelle Triangle Rib during an A-10 phase at Kandahar. (USAF photo courtesy of Maj Kenyon Bell)

the group. The fleet included attack aircraft, rotary wing, unmanned aerial systems, airlift, and command, control, and communications aircraft from both Air Combat Command and Air Mobility Command. As each unit deployed with an aviation package, maintainers identified more with their home station flying squadron than the new expeditionary maintenance group. Communication at all organizational levels was paramount in order for these units to embrace their new identity as a coherent combat wing. To facilitate cultural change, the rigorous application of Air Force Instructions 21-101 and 21-201 was implemented. The group also implemented daily production meetings with measurable metrics. Other meetings encouraged interaction and communication among the various Aircraft Maintenance Units (AMUs) with the intent to build a cohesive team to win the fight.

C U LT U R E

COMPLIANCE

Operating under austere conditions at a remote location presented challenges, or opportunities, for improvement in order to accomplish the mission. Maintenance leadership had to assess the airfield layout, understand the current maintenance culture and determine maintenance capabilities to perform proper maintenance. The maintenance compliance culture needed to be focused on attention-to-detail, proper maintenance procedures and strict adherence to maintenance discipline. As we know, maintainers will find a way to get the mission done, regardless of what tools, equipment, and people they have on hand. The question is, at what cost? Maintenance compliance results in fixing and flying safe, reliable aircraft, and putting iron on target. Compliance is a maintenance trait, born and bred in them from â&#x20AC;&#x153;day one, block oneâ&#x20AC;?. At the root of compliance is integrity. If integrity is broken or lacking, then standards erode, resulting in safety deficiencies and eventually in total system failure. Whether in peacetime training or in a wartime environment, maintenance leaders are charged with enforcing maintenance discipline and maintenance standards. Maintenance leaders at all levels need to stand up

against the slightest hint of erosion in safety and maintenance standards, ensuring the mission is done safely, the first time, every time.

the mission. When adapting to the ever-changing mission, maintenance culture needs to be sound, safe, and reliable.

A major concern for the new Maintenance Group was compliance with maintenance instructions and technical orders. Although maintenance for each type of aircraft fell under the direction of AFI 21-101, each AMU had its own subtle nuances of how to interpret the AFIs and ways of approaching aircraft maintenance. Many of the AMUs have deployed to Kandahar Airfield for years with little or no maintenance oversight above squadron level. The unit’s primary focus was on accomplishing the mission as directed by the daily Air Tasking Order. Unfortunately, some units employed less than desirable maintenance practices when fixated or channelized attention on the operational mission, and maintenance 101 deficiencies became evident. For example, one unit accomplished an engine run on an aircraft without the aircraft forms at the airplane. When the forms were retrieved, several inprocess inspections were not signed off. In another case, munitions were being built up within 30 feet of a smoke pit. To raise the maintenance discipline in the Maintenance Group, a robust Quality Assurance program was established to educate Airmen in the identification and resolution negative maintenance trends. To standardize maintenance practices, the Group created a Wing supplement to AFI 21-101 with Mobility Air Force and Combat Air Force guidance included. Given the addition of proactive Group level oversight, the environment and culture of compliance rapidly improved in all areas. With a culture of compliance firmly rooted in our deployed team, risk taking away from the baseline became easier to assess.

Compliance entails housekeeping. Flightlines and maintenance shops should be kept spotless. However, austere locations can be dirty, dusty places and it is difficult to keep areas clean. Although housekeeping in an austere location may be difficult, it is not impossible. As such, the group surveyed each ramp and found years worth of scrounge and spare parts stored in various areas. Due to frequent rotations, some units did not even realize certain parts and equipment were on hand. Examples included abandoned tool boxes not properly maintained; avionics parts hidden in lockers; and bench stock items “rat-holed” in shelters. Additionally, wooden smoke pits, break areas, and observation decks were everywhere. Portions of the flightline looked like a shanty or abandoned mining town. Not only did these structures take up valuable ramp space, but also unsafe and an eyesore. Incredibly, one wooden break and eating area was less than 25 feet from a refueling spot, posing a fire hazard and health risk. In order to clean up these areas, group leadership directed an inventory of all items; and items no longer required should be disposed of or turned into supply. Furthermore, some wooden structures were removed, ultimately freeing up additional ramp space.

When establishing a disciplined culture in a wartime environment, maintenance leaders are asked to take risks and accept those risks. Prior to taking risks, leaders need to ensure Operational Risk Management and Maintenance Resource Management are taken into consideration Maintenance leaders are constantly adapting to changes. Whether it is configuration changes, waiving net explosive weight limits, testing new weapons loads, or dealing with austere weather conditions, they all must adapt to complete

SSgt Tiffany Ladkin performs a non-destructive inspection on an A-10 in phase at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan Sep 2009. (USAF photo courtesy of Maj Kenyon Bell)

SrA Joshua Marcantel marshals an HH-60 at Kandahar Airfield Afghanistan. (USAF photo courtesy of Mr. Willie Rivera)

“Attitude is everything” and presented another opportunity to change the maintenance culture .We have all heard, “This is the way we have always done business and nobody had a problem before. So, why is there a problem now?” When a maintenance leader hears, sees and senses this attitude, they know there is a dilemma. People are reluctant to change, especially maintainers. Once maintainers get comfortable, they like normalcy. This breeds complacency. The underlying theme is determining what constitutes normalcy? If normalcy for maintainers is the lack of maintenance discipline, then normalcy is detrimental to the mission. Complacency in a maintenance group is the “death spiral” to all bad things. Complacency, like weeds in a Continued on next page...

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

required to transform the culture. As this group evolved, one would think or expect units would send their seasoned NCOs and officers to lead in war. Based on Air Expeditionary Force tasking, TDYs, ORIs, training and other home station events, the caliber of personnel (sometimes junior personnel) required some leadership development. In a wartime environment, there is little time to focus on CONTINUOUS PROCESS maintainers who come to the fight IMPROVEMENT MSgt Esteban Manso, C-130 Production Superintendent, oversees the unprepared or who do not have the As compliance started to be C-130J prop change led by SSgt Justin Keane with the aid of the Flying heart or desire to learn. The fast Crew Chief crane operator, SSgt Fabian Balderrama. (Photo courtesy of embraced by maintainers, the paced, real-world environment of group began to put more emphasis MSgt Esteban Manso) war forces a maintainer to grow and on continuous process improvelearn very quickly. Maintainers ment. At the start, group leadership reacquainted AMUs and must have a willingness to learn and to lead a disciplined maintemaintenance shop personnel with Air Force Smart Operations for nance culture in wartime as well as in peacetime. the 21st Century (AFSO21) concepts including Lean, Theory of Constraints, 6S, and Six Sigma. Shortly thereafter, one of the AMUs volunteered to conduct a mini-rapid improvement event C O N C L U S I O N to improve aircraft maintenance operations. Due to that AMU’s After just three months, the 451st Expeditionary Maintenance success, another AMU began its own 6S initiative. To capitalize Group still has numerous challenges and plenty of opportunities on these continuous process improvement examples, group lead- for additional improvements as the Wing mission continues to ership initiated a long-term strategic plan. For benchmarking and expand and evolve. However, significant progress was made in improvement opportunities, key leaders and process owners creating a world-class maintenance operation focused on a culture toured each AMU’s flightline and maintenance shops. The goal of compliance and continuous process improvement. The 451st was to identify areas for improvement and best practices. As a Expeditionary Maintenance Group carries on the proud mainresult, numerous ideas were generated to improve operations tainer’s ethos of maintenance compliance, high standards and across the group and were incorporated into the value stream excellence in all they do…the first time, every time. The American public can rest assured the 451st Air Expeditionary analysis for future AFSO21 events. Wing and the 451st Expeditionary Maintenance Group will do its part to defeat tyranny and win the hearts and minds of the EXPLOITING OPPORTUNITIES Afghan people through diligent maintenance compliance. The With AFSO21 lessons in mind, leaders were taught to expand original team of four has grown to a full up functioning maintetheir toolbox and take ownership of their processes and people. nance group. The proof is the fact that the diverse aircraft fleet When maintainers are deployed, they usually fold into the unit expanded greatly without a single disruption in prosecuting the and do their time without investing time, energy and effort into war effort. In fact, operations have expanded exponentially. The improving people or processes. Austere environments offer unique next time a maintainer deploys to war, remember, the demands of opportunities to get involved in developing layouts for new builda wartime mission can be met while maintaining a culture of ings and acquiring the right equipment for the next generation of compliance and continuous process improvement. deployers. Although deployed maintainers may not get an opportunity to see the results of their efforts when deployed, they took About the author: Colonel Robert A. Hopkins Jr. is currently the ownership of the processes to better support their replacements commander of the 451 EMXG at Kandahar Airfield, Afghanistan. who will be able to use the fruits of their labor: new facilities and He was previously the 20th MXG/CC. Since the 451 EMXG was new equipment. garden, must be pulled out by the roots. If not, the garden plants are choked and they eventually die leaving nothing to harvest. The same weeds are found in maintenance. If leaders are complacent, they too will not be able to ensure units safely fix aircraft and build bombs the right way…the first time, every time.

activated on 2 July 2009, Col Hopkins has had a unique opportu-

Another equally important factor for maintenance compliance and key to changing the maintenance culture was developing leaders throughout the ranks. There were formal leaders; however, some needed more encouragement to lead. There were also informal leaders, but their “buy-in” was needed to get the change

nity to build a Maintenance Group from the ground up and has already incorporated AFSO21 and continuous process improvement initiatives to ensure maintenance compliance in an austere wartime environment.

No-Notice, Short-Notice & Long-Notice Compliance Inspections: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly!

tTSgt Matt Worcester, 436MXG QA, verifies HAZMAT serviceability dates in preparation for Dover’s Apr 09’ LSEP inspection. (USAF photo by Lt Dan Martin, Dover AFB)

By Colonel Dennis Daley Is an across-the-board 45-day short-notice Logistics Compliance Assessment Program (LCAP) inspection policy the answer to our compliance woes? Several well publicized events illustrating significant deviations from written policy, technical orders and regulations have made us all painfully aware of the need for a heightened sense of compliance. No one can argue that there is a need to improve our compliance standards. No one can argue the advantages of a LCAP (logistics vice maintenance) compliance centered inspection program. No one can argue a short-notice format will keep units on their toes. But is the 45-day short-notice arrangement the BEST configuration to refocus our units on a compliance based culture? I argue that there is an even better inspection plan. Unfortunately, there are many interdependent factors that affect compliance to written regulations. Factors ranging from ops tempo, inexperienced technicians, degraded homestation maintenance capabilities, deployments, failed leadership focus, inadequate manning…and the list goes on. However, there is one factor above all others that is absolutely paramount in developing and sustaining a compliant culture in our Air Force. What is that you ask? Inspections, yes old-school, black-hat “there is a speck of FOD in the tool box” inspections. A professional tough inspection program is absolutely necessary to ensure a compliant culture. Not only the quality and depth of the inspection but also the format and the scheduling of the inspection program is critical to achieving the compliance culture we all seek. That’s why the decision to go to a short-notice inspection program is so important. But dare I ask…is a short-notice inspection our best option? Simply put, could there be other inspection plan alternatives that offer even better results? I would agree that there are certain mission areas that would benefit from a no-notice inspection format…but not all. Some units will benefit from a short-notice inspection format…but not all. Some units would benefit from a predetermined long-notice sched-

uled inspection format…but not all. But all units would benefit from a hybrid inspection plan comprised of all of the above—no-notice, short-notice and long-notice inspections. Here’s my case.

NO-NOTICE INSPECTIONS: ROOTS BACK TO S A C . Let’s first review the genesis of short-notice inspections. The old war horse, General Curtis Emerson LeMay, very successfully implemented no-notice inspections in the Strategic Air Command (SAC) in the 1950s. The sight of a KC-135 carrying the SAC IG team from Offutt AFB on final approach was the first indication of an impending SAC inspection. It was enough to make the crustiest Deputy Commanders for Maintenance (DCM) shake in their boots. If the unit failed the inspection the wing commander would often be whisked directly back to General LeMay’s office with the returning IG team….never to return to his desk again. It was a “by-the-book” organization that prided itself on compliance and a checklist culture. Only the strong survived! However, our father’s Air Force of 1959 is not the same Air Force of 2009. First of all, we are in a prolonged war requiring the dedication of major resources in manpower, supplies and equipment on a daily basis. SAC was able to focus all of their resources on their primary Cold War mission which included training and provisioning for that Cold War mission. Split operations at homestation and deployed locations were unheard of until the later years of the Vietnam War when the B-52s deployed for Southeast Asia operations. Today, many units must allocate their scarce resources across both homestation and deployed missions, which do not allow commanders to focus on the single mission area as did their forefathers in SAC. Secondly, units were not manpower constrained. It was not uncommon for a B-52 squadron to have over a 1000 maintainers to support a 14-aircraft squadron. Not until the 1990s did we see the emphasis on leaning our force structures for cost savings and efficiency purposes. Remember the Peace Dividend of early 1990s that justified the reduction in forces focused primarily at the critical mid-level Continued on next page...

SPECIAL ER SECTION: MAJCOM

non-commissioned officers? Only to be followed by the more recent PBD 720 [Program Budget Decision 720, Force Shaping—which accelerated the retirement of a potion of our aging aircraft inventory and cut 40,000 active duty and Total Force members] that affect our support forces. The manpower and the ability to focus those units on a single mission allowed SAC commanders to focus exclusively on compliance related issues. Although compliance is important as it was in 1959, the homestation environment is totally different when maintaining a constant inspection-ready edge across all units.

T H E G O O D : C O N S TA N T INSPECTION POSTURE. A

TSgt Donald Mozingo, 436 MXG QA, performs a CTK inspection in preparation for Dover’s Apr 09’ LSEP inspection. (USAF photo by Lt Dan Martin, Dover AFB)

45-day short-notice inspection concept definitely offers three distinct advantages. First, the field units must sustain an inspectionready posture eliminating the weekend binge approach to compliance. No longer would a unit be able to prepare for an identified inspection only to resort to a business as usual approach to compliance immediately after the inspection. The unit commander would have to maintain a 24/7 level of inspection readiness because of the possibility of no-notice inspections. Secondly, a short-notice inspection concept would force field commanders to review daily practices to implement new and creative actions to ensure clearly compliance standards. For example at Dover, we recently implemented an often forgotten Management Inspection (MI) Programs focused on our tool and equipment support sections. After spending countless hours getting our CTKs inspection ready for our April 2009 LSEP inspection, we thought a MI schedule inspection of our CTKs would help our support areas to maintain a higher level of inspection readiness using QA pre-identified self-inspections. Undoubtedly, a no-notice inspection plan would generate similar innovative approaches for field commanders to build in a systematic compliance check into then normal operation. Finally, a short-notice inspection program might provide a more accurate real-time compliance assessment of a unit. Without any advance notice, units would have little time to prepare for an inspection. Consequently, the inspection team would assess a more realistic status of day-to-day operations. If the purpose of a MAJCOM inspection program is to accurately evaluate the capabilities of an organization, it makes sense to initiate no-notice inspections that prohibit little time for inspection preparations. THE BAD: QUALITY OF THE INSPECTION. The short-

notice inspection might diminish the quality of the inspection itself. I think we should guard against developing a spot-check mentality that might or might not accurately evaluate a unit’s compliance stature. Might we be implementing a more hit or miss inspection to spot check compliance? Again back in the day, SAC units sustained a constant level of readiness for their constant mission requirements. The time of the inspection was not a variable because of a fluctuating mission requirement. However, today with the various factors affecting units, the inspection results may vary depending on current status of the unit. Is the unit currently supporting deployed units or reconstituting following a recent deployment which might impact the unit’s posture? Not sure, but something we should at least consider.

What is the objective of short-notice inspections? Is it simply to better evaluate our units? Or is it to make us more compliant? Maybe, spot checks with a smaller inspection team will better assess the compliance posture of a unit. It definitely will better assess the baseline normal posture without any preparation, assuming that the inspection is not a random spot check. Unquestionable short no-notices will give us a better inspection of daily ops if it happens on the right day…but what if it isn’t the right day? More importantly does it offer the units the opportunity to review their programs in detail? THE UGLY: UNIT PREPARATION: The absence of detailed game day inspection preparation and the many benefits obtained from a unit focused on inspection preparation is THE major shortfall of a no-notice or short-notice inspection program. The short-notice concept inhibits the primary benefit of scheduled pre-identified inspections—the actual preparation of the inspection itself. It’s the practice before the big game, not the game itself that will make us a better team. The pre-identified inspection serves as a forcing function to motivate units operating at a hectic pace to allocate resources to inspection preparation. So what are the paybacks from countless hours of inspection preparation? Everything from a detailed review of outdated OIs… to an independent review of that old dusty certification roster… to a total CTK-makeover…and the list goes on and on. You get the point, without that dreaded date on the calendar, it is difficult to dedicate scarce resources for the detailed preparation required to successfully conquer the visiting inspectors. In reality, unfortunately, many units are struggling just to meet tomorrow’s flying schedule. Yes, we should maintain the CTKs and the cert roster and the OIs inspection ready at all times. I think most units do to a passable level. However, for those units striving for that outstanding rating, the detailed review across the breadth of their operation makes them a better unit. They form teams that scrutinize their

processes and equipment and raise their unit compliance to a higher level as they prepare for the upcoming inspection. Here’s an antidotal story that illustrates my point. In preparation for our April 2009 Logistics Standardization and Evaluation Program (LSEP), our Group Superintendent, CMSgt James Smith, decided to checkout our OIs. Chief Smith was so concerned; he formed a team of five superb SNCOs to review our OIs. For four weeks, his handpicked team sat at a table non-stop with our OIs on a projected screen reviewing every line of every OI in our entire Group. The results were impressive. However, would we have dedicated five of our best leaders to do a line-by-line review of over 40 OIs without the motivation of trying to ace an impending LSEP inspection? During that same April 2009 LSEP inspection preparation, over a seven month period, we invited members from other bases to conduct six LSEP practice weeks modeled like an actual LSEP inspection from in-brief to out-brief. One team was from our A4 headquarters unit performing a traditional Staff Assistance Visit (SAV), while the other five teams were from sister MAF units. The results were outstanding. These external looks revealed many areas we needed to improve for the upcoming AMC LSEP inspection. They greatly assisted us in obtaining our first outstanding rating in almost a decade. In addition, many of the visiting inspectors related to us the crosstalk benefit of the lessons learned as they inspected us. They were ready to take those lessons back to their homestations and improve their inspection programs. Bottom line, the pre-scheduled longnotice inspection serves as a great motivator and venue to improve the quality of our inspection programs. Yes, we should be sustaining that culture regardless of an impending inspection. However, a unit striving for excellence will add additional resources in inspection preparation that will result in an enhanced compliance posture. The result is our units are better units because of the preparation…much better.

date with at least a 12-month notice followed by a 24-month period where a no-notice inspection COULD occur. Or we could employ a less stringent no-notice inspection (similar to a SAV) as a preparatory inspection that would be automatically followed by a long-notice scheduled inspection 18 months later using the nonotice inspection as a pre-inspection to the more indepth scheduled inspection. And if we are really committed to compliance, we would follow the stringent scheduled inspection within 12 months with a smaller follow-up inspection simply to assess the findings identified in the previous scheduled inspection. The exact make-up of the inspection program isn’t as important as the concept. The point is that neither an all long-notice inspection program nor an all no-notice inspection program nor an all shortnotice inspection program is the best solution to maximize unit compliance. Just as we use alternate aircraft inspection types between minor and major phase and isochronal inspections, we could develop the right mix of no-notice, short-notice and scheduled inspections. In addition, we should tailor our inspection program structure to a unit’s mission. A unit possessing the awesome responsibility of nuclear weapons might need more no-notice inspections while a strategic airlift base might need a more shortnotice and long-notice inspection structures.

BOTTOMLINE: IT’S ALL ABOUT C O M P L I A N C E . There are many factors affecting a unit’s compliance culture from leadership, ops tempo, deployments, experience levels, manning…the list is long. However, the format of the inspection program itself is absolutely critical to achieving the desired compliance end state. A hybrid program offers the win-win of unit preparation from a scheduled inspection program as well the consistency of a no-notice inspection program, thereby eliminating the binge aspects of a scheduled program.

Here’s even more to think about. All units may not require the same inspection program based on their mission type. Just as the format itself might call for a blend of inspection types, might different unit mission require different T H E WAY A H E A D : A S H O R T- Mr. A. Claycomb, 512 MXG QA, verifies proper TO NOTICE PROGRAM W I T H changes are accomplished in preparation for Dover's inspection programs? General LeMay would argue an ICBM missile wing at F.E. Warren P R E PA R AT I O N . It sounds like a Apr 09 LSEP inspection. (USAF photo Dover AFB). AFB may need more of a no-notice format total contradiction. How could we than a mobility airlift wing at Travis AFB. achieve the benefits of the no-notice and short-notice inspections Again the issue is complex, very complex. Hopefully I have at least with its constant state of compliance while also achieving the benidentified some ideas to consider as we all try to achieve the same efit of long-notice scheduled inspection with its detailed inspection goal…compliance in all we do. preparation? We could, if we alternated our inspections cycles between no-notice inspections, short-notice and scheduled inspec- About the Author: Colonel Dennis Daley is the 436th Maintenance tions. For example, a hybrid inspection concept could designate for Group Commander K each unit a three-year cycle starting with a pre-identified inspection

AF Ground Crews from the 392nd Air Expeditionary Wing perform an EOR inspection on an A-10 Thunderbolt II at a forward deployed location in Southern Iraq during OIF. (USAF photo by SSGT SHANE CUOMO)

Are Aircraft EOR Inspections Necessary?

By Captain Adrienne Stahl Combat Air Forces (CAF) maintenance and operations units rely upon frequent aircraft inspections as visual and/or operational checks of aircraft systems to ensure safety and reliability during training and combat flying operations. The End of Runway (EOR) inspection is one of the most common daily inspections performed on an aircraft. It is the final visual and/or operational check of the aircraft prior to flight. The EOR inspection, and the manning required to accomplish it, was deemed necessary to identify and correct all defects prior to aircraft take-off , especially those threatening safety of flight,. Before an aircraft ever gets to the EOR, however, many additional inspections with additional dedicated manning are performed to help prevent the launch of unsafe or unready aircraft. In 2007, the USAF underwent a massive force shaping initiative as a result of Program Budget Decision (PBD) 720, which reduced Active Duty, Guard, and Reserve manning by nearly 40,000 personnel--1,300 personnel in the crew chief career field alone. The aircraft maintenance community felt the impact of this manning cut as home station operations and deployment commitments continued. The Air Force called upon its personnel to mitigate this loss of manning by reducing or eliminating unnecessary work through AFSO21. In the spirit of Air Force leadersâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; AFSO21 emphasis, the researcher asks, can maintenance and flying operations achieve the same

desired result--safe and effective performance of every aircraft on every flight--if the USAF eliminated the need for the EOR inspection? No research currently existed that analyzed whether the elimination of the EOR inspection could return the crew chief manning to the flight line without risking safety of flight. Therefore, an analysis of the daily aircraft inspection requirement process, an examination of aircraft deficiencies found through these inspections, and a study of what efficiencies can be gained through these inspection processes was necessary to maximize the capabilities of the USAF. Captain Stahl analyzed the EOR inspection on CAF aircraft, using A-10 maintenance at four different bases in Pacific Air Forces (PACAF), Air Combat Command (ACC), and United States Air Forces Europe (USAFE) as a case study. The researcher hypothesized that the benefit of eliminating the EOR inspection, in the form of man-hours returned to the flightline, would outweigh the risks of eliminating the inspection, in the form of items critical to safety of flight being missed prior to take-off. The researcher broke the EOR analysis down into three sections: A10 crew chief and EOR manning, the comparison of the specific tasks included in the EOR inspection versus the specific tasks of the other required inspections prior to every aircraft launch, and data gathering through the use of the Integrated Maintenance Data System (IMDS) and a survey. She began the analysis by determining that an average of 10,101 man-hours per base was dedicated to

WINTER 2009

the EOR inspection annually. She then compared the required inspections performed on every aircraft prior to flight to identify duplicate tasks in these inspections. She found that every area that is inspected at EOR is also inspected at least twice prior to the aircraft arriving at EOR through three other required inspections. She then conducted a survey of A-10 crew chiefs from the four bases of study to determine the common discrepancies found and corrected during an EOR inspection. Through the EOR survey, the researcher found that crew chiefs corrected 46.3 discrepancies for every one discrepancy that caused a ground abort of the aircraft each week over the two-year period of study. 85.7% of crew chiefs surveyed felt that the EOR inspection was very valuable or extremely valuable in launching safe aircraft. Next, she collected IMDS ground U.S. Air Force Lt. Col. Kevin Sutton, director of operations, 80th Fighter Squadron, watches an Airman abort information indicative of the discrepancies develfrom 80th Aircraft Maintenance Unit perform an end-of-runway inspection during a peninsula-wide oped after taxi or found at EOR. She found that the fre- operational readiness exercise (PENORE) Nov. 5, 2008, at Kunsan Air Base, Republic of quency of discrepancies occurring at EOR was actually Korea.PENORE participants are tested on their wartime capabilities and response actions. (U.S. Air higher in seven of the eight EOR inspection categories Force photo by Staff Sgt. Jason Colbert/Released) due to changing aircraft conditions from the time the aircraft leaves chocks to when it arrives at EOR. Overall, each of during previous inspections can be identified and either fixed or ground aborted, averting potential emergencies in flight. the findings for this study led to disproved hypothesis. It was clear from survey responses that the EOR inspection not only provides crew chiefs extra confidence in the airworthiness of an aircraft, but also produces its desired effect: to detect critical defects that may have developed or have become apparent during ground operation of the aircraft. In light of the reduced manning across the Air Force, the crew chief career field is performing the same mission, on aging aircraft such as the A-10, with significantly fewer personnel. Because personnel are being stressed to do more with less, the chance for errors or missed items could potentially increase. Through the EOR inspection, these discrepancies that may have been inadvertently missed by over-stressed crew chiefs

While the 10,000+ man-hours dedicated to this inspection would undoubtedly be beneficial to the daily flightline workload if the EOR inspection was eliminated, the potential cost of that elimination is immeasurable. The cost of a missed item or a condition developing after taxi could be small--such as an ineffective training mission--but could also be as severe as in-flight emergencies or catastrophic failures, costing the Air Force an aircraft or even a pilotâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s life. As the EOR inspection on the A-10 has proven to be effective in the discovery of potential, safety of flight discrepancies, the researcher recommended that HQ ACC/A4 re-look at CAF aircraft which are currently exempt from the EOR inspection. She also recommended that HQ ACC/A4 rewrite AFI 21-101 to give more specificity to the location where the inspection will be performed, and finally that HQ ACC/A4 charter a study to address the optimum number of crew chiefs dedicated to EOR, which could still potentially make crew chief man-hours available to AMXS again. Capt Adrienne Stahl started her maintenance career serving several positions at the 388th Maintenance Group at Hill AFB, UT, including the Maintenance Operations Flight Operations Officer. She then served as the Officer in Charge of the 25th Aircraft Maintenance Unit in the 51 AMXS at Osan AB, ROK and is a graduate of class 09B from the USAF Advanced Maintenance and Munitions Officer School at Nellis AFB, NV. Capt Stahl is currently assigned as the 1 AMXS Operations Officer at Langley AFB, VA.

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

Focus on a CGO LOA Leader An Interview with Captain Ernest “Nest” Cage What is your current duty title and what are your responsibilities at OC-ALC? Executive Officer to the Commander, 76th Maintenance Wing – I provide executive/administrative support to the wing commander enabling time definite decision making for one of AFMC’s largest wings (over 8,000 personnel) at America’s largest Air Logistics Center. What are some of the interesting projects currently ongoing at OC-ALC? Transformation is the name of the game here at OC-ALC. We are working to reduce the flow days it takes to repair and return KC135s, B-1s and B-52s to the warfighter. Bringing in new workloads like the C-17’s F-117 engine and partnering to repair the F-22 Engine (F-119) with Pratt & Whitney. We have increased depot production capacity with the recent grand opening of building 9001, the old General Motors Plant adjacent to Tinker. This facility with more than 3 million square feet is filling up at a steady pace and promises to bring more workload to OC-ALC in the years to come. What would you like to tell your peers about an assignment in the depot? This is truly a fascinating place that pushes you to think outside of the box to do “big logistics” in support of our warfighters at base level. Don’t wait to be picked up for LCBP or AFLEET to come to the depot. There are good assignment opportunities at the O-3/O4 level for 21As/21Rs within our Air Logistics Centers and the AF Global Logistics Support Center that offer folks an opportunity to work huge issues that have Air Force wide ramifications. I would recommend at least two assignments at base level before

As President of the Tinker Crossroads Chapter Capt Cage introduces a guest speaker during one of the chapter's Logistics Over Lunch Lectures.

heading to an ALC or AFGLSC – you will be looked at as a field expert so you need a good foundation to draw on… Have you deployed recently? If so at what location and in what position? What did you learn for that deployment experience? I have not deployed since 2005 and we did not deploy forward from Korea (2006-07). However, I am looking forward to serving in the AOR as a Squadron Operations Officer for a year starting in March ‘10. It will be good to be back amongst the inspirational Airmen who so masterfully enable combat logistics. Have you been involved in any AFSO21 events? Actually yes – as a Logistics Career Broadening Officer at OC-ALC I was able to earn my Six Sigma Lean Logistics Greenbelt Certification from the University of Oklahoma. This course of study required my team to undertake a Lean project that significantly reduced waste while increasing efficiencies within one of OC-ALC’s administrative areas. We are projecting to save several thousand dollars annually.

Cage as a Logistics Career Broadening Officer at OC-ALC on a class field trip to the Air Force "Bone Yard" AMARG at Davis Mothan AFB, AZ

WINTER 2009

What did you think of this year’s LOA Conference at Las Vegas? What did you like best? Where can we improve? I thought that the conference was exceptional! I always leave LOA National reenergized and more informed as a professional logistician. Las Vegas is never a bad place for anything… I really enjoyed Maj General C. Donald Alston’s briefing on the state of AF nuclear issues – very informative and timely. I think it would be great if we could

invite more of our joint/coalition air logisticians to attend/speak. I am sure there is much we can learn from each other. What positions have you held in your local LOA Chapter? President of the award winning Tinker Crossroads Chapter – 233 members strong! What is the biggest challenge you encounter as an officer in our Air Force today? Motivating and inspiring great folks to stay in spite of our high ops tempo. I have watched some great Airmen hang up their hats over the past few years …

Cage reviews hot topics for the upcoming week with members of the 76th Maintenance Wing Executive Support Staff.

VITAL STATISTICS Name: Captain Ernest “Nest” Cage Hometown: South Boston, Virginia College: B.S. Psychology, Virginia Tech ‘02 M.A. Management, Webster University ‘04 Lean Six Sigma Greenbelt Certification, University of Oklahoma ‘09 PhD (Candidate) in Business, Capella University ‘10 Professional Military Education: Air and Space Basic Course ‘02 Contingency Wartime Planning Course, CADRE, Air University ‘04 Joint Air Operations Planning Course, CADRE, Air University ‘04 Squadron Officer School (Correspondence/Residence) ‘07 Acquisition Professional Development Program (APDP) Level II Life Cycle Logistics ‘09 Level I Program Management ‘08 Assignments: Air Mobility Command Regional Supply Squadron (Scott AFB) HQ AMC/A45 (Scott AFB) 734th Air Mobility Squadron (Andersen AFB) 51st Logistics Readiness Squadron (Osan AB) USAF Logistics Career Broadening Program (OC-ALC/Tinker AFB) 76th Maintenance Wing (Tinker AFB)

Please identify a leader or leaders who you feel are role model leaders that have made a positive impact on you as leader. Many folks in general and a few specifically – Col (ret) Ed Skibinski for his enthusiasm and insentience that 2Lts must be masters of their trade. Col (ret) Ron Crooks for his afternoon mentorship sessions about AF life... Maj Thang Doan for giving me tough love and no breaks as HQ AMC’s most junior staff officer. Col Keith Boone for taking a chance on his youngest officer to lead one of the squadron’s most high profile areas – we did very well! SMSgt (ret) Sheila Bowles for being a CMSgt without the rank. In my mind she will always be the epitome of an enlisted leader. Brig Gen Bruce Litchfield for his vision and insatiable drive for mission success. Lt Gen Loren Reno for leading righteously and caring individually. What are your long term professional goals and objectives? JCS/J4, Squadron, Group, Air Base Wing/CC… I suppose we can all aim for the stars… For retirement my dream job would be to serve as the director of logistics for the UN’s World Food Programme – talk about global reach for a truly global cause… Off duty, how do you spend your free time? Spend time with my Fiancé Sonya – more than any man could ever want – She’s got it all… But also fencing, sailing, swimming, traveling and following Virginia Tech Football during the good, bad, and ugly seasons – go Hokies – “Ray Rah Polytech Virginia!!” K

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

CGO Corner WA K I N G U P I N V E G A S Wow! What an experience to remember! It has been a few weeks since the 2009 LOA National Conference and I am still pumped-up about the wealth of knowledge and unforgettable experiences captured during four short days in the Nevada desert. Las Vegas with all its glitz and glamour did not disappoint…and the lessons learned and opportunity to catch up with old friends was priceless.

ER: CGO CORNER

I have been going to the LOA National Conference every year since 2003 (with the exception of my tour in Korea) and I can honestly say that I always leave re-energized, and more informed about our community and the critical mission we have been entrusted to execute. The conference provides a platform to not only hear from our most senior Air Force logistics leaders, but also offers a great opportunity to exchange ideas from various levels across our global joint logistics enterprise.

Captain Ernest Cage

For many young CGOs, the LOA National often prompts a “ah ha!” moment — a first look at the big picture of logistics that reveals how — what is done on the flightline and in the warehouse — relates to the larger Air Force mission. This was the case for me during my first conference as a second lieutenant. I was simply amazed and impressed at the sophistication and enormity of the logistics enterprise. You can imagine that been one of two non-rated officers to be commissioned from my ROTC detachment in 2002, that there was little fanfare from the cadre when I got my assignment as a supply officer. Nevertheless, I hit the ground running when I reported to my first job at the Air Mobility Command Regional Supply Squadron (AMCRSS), but something was missing. While my friends exchanged emails recounting the thrills of causal status and the beginning phases of pilot training, my correspondence focused on wheels, tires, brakes, oil, etc. Needless to say, my reports were met with hushed enthusiasm. I felt like I was out of the fight. In fact I spent most of my off-duty time during that first year looking into pilot and navigator cross-training opportunities. However in the fall of 2003, all of this would change. My squadron commander admitted to all eleven lieutenants that he could not afford to send everyone to the LOA National Conference in Oklahoma City. However, he strongly suggested that we all consider using permissive TDY to attend. In fact, he all but insisted that we find a way to get there — stating “LOA is a part of your professional development!” Being one to follow orders—my best friend and I carpooled down to Oklahoma City. I marveled the entire week—brief after brief—war stories from the front lines, presentations from past and present maintainers and loggies. There were Army and Navy logisticians there, not to mention the Chief of Staff and Secretary of the Air Force—wow and wow! Did I mention that one, two, three, and even a retired four-star logistics General Officer took time to have lunch with the lieutenants—I did not even know there was such a thing as a non-rated General Officer in the Air Force! The highlight of the week was a visit to the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center (OC-ALC). I had worked with the item managers at OC-ALC via email and phone on a frequent basis, but never could imagine the scope and size of the Air Forces’ largest ALC—I left speechless— this was a long way from my cube at the AMCRSS and certainty a lot more important! eLog21, AFSO21, Expeditionary Combat Support System (ECSS), Repair Network Integration (RNI) are just a few of the big concepts that I learned about at LOA National. Each conference offers a glimpse under the curtain—a proverbial “international auto show” of emerging and launch-ready programs and ideas that will take our logistics community to new heights. Thanks to LOA, I always seem to be one-step ahead of my Airmen when they ask questions about new initiatives. In truth, I am not sure how long it would have taken for me to see the big picture without that fateful LOA Conference in 2003. What I do know is that driving back to Scott AFB from Oklahoma City; I made a pact to myself that I would make the Air Force a career. I hope you all agree with me and will help inspire those logisticians who are not members yet, to join the best club in town. The 2009 National Conference was another huge win for LOA, full of great discussions with new and old friends and of course, waking up in Vegas wasn’t too shabby either!! See you all in Orlando. Capt “Nest” Cage is Executive Officer to the Commander, 76th Maintenance Wing, Tinker AFB, OK. He has been a staff writer for the Exceptional Release since 2006. He is also the 2009 recipient of the LOA National Major General Mary Saunders Distinguished Chapter Service Award. He may be contacted at ernest.cage@tinker.af.mil.

100

WINTER 2009

Chapter CrossTalk WARRIORS OF THE NORTH CHAPTER - GRAND FORKS AFB Submitted by Maj Sarah Williams The Warriors Chapter traveled to Winnipeg, Canada, for a tour of the 17th Wing. Maj Raby, Canadian Forces (CF), provided an overview of the Wing Logistics and Engineering Branch which consists of Telecommunications and Information, Supply, Foods, Air Movement, Transport, Electrical, Mechanical, and Engineering, Refueling, and Construction Engineering. We were also given a tour of the Combined Air Operations Center (CAOC). The Canadian CAOC is similar to our Air Staff and acts as the operations center for all Canadian forces.

Grand Forks LOA Chapter members visit Canadian Forces.

The wing is home to 8 C-130E/Hs which are used for SAR and A/R missions. These 8 Herks are a quarter of 32 C-130s across Canada. Aircraft are serviced at one of two depots between Edmonton and Montreal. Maintainers fall into one of three shreds between Avionics, Airframe (E/E, Propulsion, APG), and backshops. Maintenance relies on one supply system for Canadian Forces, Army, and Navy. Benchstock supplies are consolidated in one warehouse to capture daily usage rates instead of individual work stations.

AIR BRIDGE CHAPTER – DOVER AFB, DE Submitted by 1st Lt James Harris Once again, it has been a busy quarter for the members of the Air Bridge Chapter. We sent members to the National Logistics Officer Association conference for an insightful week. Our maintenance logistics readiness officers in attendance were able to ascertain new knowledge about critical developments in our career fields and make essential connections that will help in our daily work and in establishing future ties. Several Chapter members participate in a beach cleanup at Rehoboth Beach, and held a Grotto’s Pizza fundraiser immediately after the beach cleanup, which drove a 42% increase in chapter funds. The chapter was also visited by several great speakers. Col Chris Bendall, AF/A4LF, came out to discuss Logistics Force Development and provided a career update for 21As and 21Rs. Capt Kylie Ruth gave an AMMOS “Spread the Word” brief and taught a lesson on the Aircraft and Aircrew Tasking System (AATS) to give a taste of what AMMOS has to offer. Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

101

JAMES RIVER CHAPTER – DEFENSE SUPPLY CENTER, RICHMOND, VA Submitted by Captain Robin S. Williams In July, members of the Defense Supply Center Richmond visited the Defense Threat Reduction Agency located at Ft. Belvoir, VA, to become more aware of DTRA and the services it provides to the DoD. Members learned the mission of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) is to safeguard the US and its allies from weapons of mass destruction (WMD) (Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and high-yield explosives, of CBRNE) by providing capabilities to reduce, eliminate, and counter the threat and mitigate its effects. Members of the James River Chapter accompanied by DLA Career-Broadening NCOs outside DTRA-HQ Ft Belvoir, Virginia.

ICEMAN CHAPTER - EIELSON AFB, AK

E R : C H A P T E R C R O S S TA L K

Submitted by Maj Chris Boring Over the last quarter, the Iceman LOA Chapter has enjoyed hosting several visitors and guest speakers including Chief Gaylor (the 5th CMSAF), Brig Gen Litchfield (PACAF/A4), and General North (COMPACAF). The Icemen credit the strength of their LOA relationships in helping prepare the team for their recent LSET success including the 354 AMXS rating of “Excellent” with the best PACAF AMXS score since 1992! We have a new Executive Board that brings renewed energy and enthusiasm and has already crafted a new mission statement, published milestones for their goals for the next year, and created Share Point site for all members to interact, mentor, and share info. Additionally, we’ve forged a partnership with Fort Wainwright, our nearby Army post, to co-host events including a large joint volunteer project.

WASATCH WARRIOR CHAPTER – HILL AFB, UT Submitted by Lt Evan “Scooter” McCauley

Maj Gen Andy Busch, OO-ALC/CC, addresses the Wasatch Warriors at Hill’s Log Cabin.

The chapter recently hosted a membership appreciation luncheon featuring Maj Gen Andy Busch, OO-ALC/CC. The lunch was an opportunity for 80 LOA members and guests to mingle in the rustic comfort of Hill AFB’s renowned Log Cabin. Maj Gen Busch addressed the audience, touting on the myriad benefits of professional organization membership. He discussed the tribalism that often afflicts these organizations, and praised LOA for involving military, civilians, members, and non-members alike. Following Gen Busch’s remarks, the crowd congratulated SrA Andre Adorno, one of 2009’s LOA National Scholarship winners.

SONORAN CHAPTER – LUKE AFB, AZ Submitted by Capt Kurt J. Umlauf In July, ten members of the Sonoran LOA Chapter teamed up with Luke AFB’s Munitions Flight to tour the Munitions Storage Area (MSA) and build MK-82s for the day’s frag. Chapter members gained insight to what happens “behind the wire within the wire” to produce and supply 48% of the U.S. Air Force’s aircrew for 25,000 sorties on an annual basis. Chapter members learned that no bomb, bullet, rocket, missile or sortie is produced without synergy and teamwork. 102

WINTER 2009

Airman Carynne Duryea explains munitions storage practices to Sonoran LOA Chapter members.

NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION CHAPTER – WASHINGTON, DC Submitted by Lt Col Christine Erlewine The NCR chapter’s latest professional development opportunity was a meeting in which Maj Gen Duane Jones, AF/A4/7P, was the guest speaker. Gen Jones shared with the members his recent experiences visiting the AOR with LTG Kathleen Gainey, the JCS J4. Gen Jones represented the Air Force as all of the Service “4’s” accompanied LTG Gainey on this trip. In Aug and Sept, approximately 20 chapter and family members volunteered to work Honor Flight. Honor Flight brings World War II veterans from across the country to Washington, DC to see the World War II Memorial. NCR LOA Chapter member Col Margaret Cope, left, volunteers at the World War II During the Sept event, over 1,600 veterans were on hand, Memorial. most of whom were greeted by Bob Dole. Our chapter members volunteered in a variety of capacities to include, serving lunches, escorting veterans around the memorial and cleaning up after the activity. Supporting Honor Flight is the community project the NCR Chapter has adopted. Additionally, the NCR Chapter donates funds to bring veterans to visit the memorial. We are honored to help these great Americans realize a dream of seeing the World War II Memorial!

BLACKJACK CHAPTER - NELLIS/CREECH AFB, NV Submitted by Maj Matt Wynn The Blackjack Chapter started off with an executive panel of our three new logistics group commanders: Col Blanks (57 MXG/CC), Col Fox (99 MSG/CC), and Col McKenzie (432 MXG/CC). They shared perspectives and war stories, and then answered questions from the audience on the future of 21A/Rs, career broadening opportunities, and lessons learned.

KITTY HAWK CHAPTER – SEYMOUR JOHNSON AFB, NC Submitted by Maj Bart Kenerson

Members of the Kitty Hawk Chapter standing with the ship’s Captain on the bridge of the Maj Bernard Fisher.

In Sept 17 members made a trip to MOTSU Port to tour the munitions loading and unloading process aboard “Maj Bernard Fisher.” They received an in-depth briefing on the way ahead for the USAF Afloat Prepositioned Fleet (APF) program. The APF is focused on providing responsive and effective agile combat support (ACS) to the combatant commander (CCDR) by storing the latest generation weapons capability. The Bernard Fisher stores 886 ISO containers consisting of joint direct attack munitions, guided bombs, unguided bombs, air-to-ground missiles, and small arms. Altogether the ship carries approx 6M lbs of net explosive weight. Continued on next page...

EXCEPTIONAL RELEASE

103

RAPTOR CHAPTER – TYNDALL AFB, FL Submitted by 1Lt Kevin Lawracy The chapter dug-deep and mustered all of their logistics experience to put together a highly successful golf tournament. With a little bit of ingenuity and a fair amount of hand massaging these loggies recruited 24 teams to the event. The participants enjoyed a perfect day golfing on immaculate greens off the beautiful Emerald Coast shoreline, while helping fund the Raptor Chapter Scholarship. The event turned a profit of $2300, adding to yearlong fundraising efforts supporting our scholarship fund. This fund will award three Tyndall logisticians’ children with $750 toward their undergraduate education expenses.

Tyndall LOA Chapter members at the Annual Scholarship Golf Tournament.

DESERT EAGLE CHAPTER - AL UDEID AB, QATAR.

E R : C H A P T E R C R O S S TA L K

Submitted by Maj Jeffrey D. Hayden The chapter recently had its highly anticipated inaugural membership meeting and professional development opportunity. In September, we hosted Col Michael Stickney, AFFOR/A4, at the “kick-off” event. Col Stickney shared his fondness for military history, relating the Battle of Antietam to current day operations, and stressed the importance of our specialty as logisticians to the GWOT. Additionally, he shared current developments concerning the logistics officer career field, anticipated merger of Aerial Port Squadrons into Maintenance Groups, and shared his perspective on current mission developments during the question and answer session.

WRIGHT BROTHERS CHAPTER – WRIGHT-PATTERSON AFB, OH Submitted by Mr. Douglas Wood In August, we held a LOA Golf outing at the Green County Country Club. This is the Chapter’s major fund raiser each year, and this year we raised a record breaking $8,000 for scholarships. The total is comprised of $3,000 cash and a Wright State University donated seminar valued at $5,000. This year, we awarded three scholarships $1,000, $500, and $250. Later in August, Maj Gen Janet Wolfenbarger, Director, A2/5 Intelligence and Requirements met with us at the Beavercreek Holiday Inn. Maj Gen Wolfenbarger provided insight to what is being done to enhance the Command’s weapon system “Life Cycle Management” process. In September, the chapter supported the AF Marathon by manning the hydration station five miles from the finish line. Twenty one chapter members supported nearly 10,000 runners. Later in September, Dr. Steve Butler, Executive Director, Air Force Materiel Command, met with Chapter members to discuss the myriad of initiatives the Command is executing.

GATEWAY CHAPTER – SCOTT AFB, IL Submitted by Lt Col Tim Gillaspie The chapter has been busy! One of our expert traffic management specialists provided an excellent briefing on his recent deployment to Scania, Iraq, performing Movement Control Team duties with the Army. Next a Supply Chain Management brief provided by IBM consultant, Chuck Glazer who provided a detailed summary of the analysis his company has done on supply chain planning trends and challenges for DoD and commercial industry. The work included analysis of survey responses for 120 global supply chain executives providing the audience with a truly educational briefing. For our September meeting, we were fortunate to have a team from the 101st Sustainment Brigade brief on their Aerial Delivery University. The brief covered air drop missions and their vision for the enhancing the DoD air drop capability. Finally, we had our annual scholarship golf tournament, raising over $700 in spite of foul weather ! K

104

WINTER 2009

LOGISTICS OFFICER ASSOCIATION Post Office Box 2264 Arlington, VA 22202

Non-Profit Organization U.S. Postage

PAID

Permit No. 768 Nashville, Tennessee