BUFDRVR - about new squadron structure

Your example is why there was AFM66-1 and AFM66-6. One addressed the
needs of long haul aircraft, the other addressed the needs of the
gunfighter. If the USAF is now going to AFM66-6 across the board, that
would be a mistake.
KenG

SteveM8597 wrote:

Uhh, Walt, you do realize "heavies" surge for evaluations, combat or
preparation for both/either as well


As a fighter guy, I'd call a surge when you fly the same plane 4 or more times
a day and get 150 sorties to the range out of 72 planes, 1/3 of which are down
for heavy maint.

I have to admit I know nothing about maint on the heavies but I do know as an
ops guy and a maintenance control officer that surging under the old 66-1 one
concept was exceedingly difficult and time consuming because there was so much
downtime waiting for the highly skilled and well trained specialists. Plus
everyone carried a union card and only did "their" tasks.

To pull an F-4 cabin turbine for example first the crew chief had to pull the
panel. Then a machinist had to come to remove bad screws. Then hydraulics had
to come to remove some lines. Next aerospace repair had to come pull some air
lines, Then environmental had to come to pull the turbine. Re-installation was
the reverse. Imagine if it took seven mechanics to service the a/c or change
spark plugs on your car while each was also doing the same on other cars. A
competent mechanic can do all these tasks, ditto with working on planes.

The specialist concept might work good for extensive maintenance but not on
the flightline where the task at hand is to turn airplanes as quickly as
possible to get the air cleared and bombs on target.

My son just finished a maintenance training course on the Apache AH-64D Longbow
and was taught to do all the flightline tasks needed to keep the birds in the
air, armament, avionics, fire contril, flight controls, propulsion, rotors, and
so on. I think the AF is making a mistake switching back to the SAC concept
for fighters.

St