BUFDRVR - about new squadron structure

The real problem comes from the different missions of the 'biggies'
and the fighters. The 'biggies' all fly canned schedules, with lots of
time to figure things out. A fighter outfit following a canned traing
schedule is in much the same boat. But fighters must 'surge' now and
then, either for evaluation (flunk and hell breaks loose)or for combat
(flunk and hell is for real.) My outfit at Danang had a stand-down day
- the other two squadrons were going to cover the frag. They fell on
their butt and while 115 of my guys were at China Beach 22 of my guys
launched 19 sorties with our 20 old F4Ds. ADC used to run 72 hour
exercises. No-notice, unscheduled, max effort. 15-20 minute
turn-arounds. I have flown 12 sorties in 72 hours several times in
those things. In the Cuban Crisis we flew 1800 hours in one month with
20 F102As. That sort of effort takes the highest degree of morale and
esprit and training to pull off. That is when the extra manpower has
to be there to hack the mission. 66-1 may be efficient in the use of
manpower but there is generally no slack even considering a canned
training schedule what with real manning under authorized levels
especially in the higher skill levels plus guys on leave, TDY, etc. If
the wheels had ever manned the units to meet surge requirements -
well, any organization would have worked with good people at the helm.
But to get a guy to put out his best over any considerable time takes
personal contact and visible leadership. It is much easier to get
everybody going the same direction if there is no visible tangible
demarcation between ops and maintenance ie we all wear the same patch.
As for 7-levels sitting in bread trucks playing cards waiting a call -
it didn't happen in the 102 or F4D outfits I was in. They were busy
fixing airplanes or training the FNGs.
Walt BJ

On 18 Nov 2003 21:34:49 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:

The real problem comes from the different missions of the 'biggies'
and the fighters. The 'biggies' all fly canned schedules, with lots of
time to figure things out.

In your fantasy dreams..

A fighter outfit following a canned traing
schedule is in much the same boat. But fighters must 'surge' now and
then, either for evaluation (flunk and hell breaks loose)or for combat
(flunk and hell is for real.)

So what would you call ORI, Chrome Dome, and something called ARC
Light, etc., on the "biggies"?
Have you ever been around the maintenace shops for B-52s when they
were regenerating aircraft for alert after an ORI? After your're in
the middle of an ORI and HQ decides to throw in some special missions?

My outfit at Danang had a stand-down day
- the other two squadrons were going to cover the frag. They fell on
their butt and while 115 of my guys were at China Beach 22 of my guys
launched 19 sorties with our 20 old F4Ds. ADC used to run 72 hour
exercises. No-notice, unscheduled, max effort. 15-20 minute
turn-arounds. I have flown 12 sorties in 72 hours several times in
those things.

Sorties are apples and oranges when comparing fighters and bombers.
They are two very different machines. There were more ECM systems
alone on a bomber than all the electronic systems that could be
crammed in a fighter. I am not sure, but I think a bomber just might
have a few more ounces of fuel than a fighter so it just might take a
few minutes more for refueling. Then there is lox, expendables, etc.
That was the good old days though. I wonder how the "biggies" have
done in our latest wars? All canned schedules, etc.?

In the Cuban Crisis we flew 1800 hours in one month with
20 F102As. That sort of effort takes the highest degree of morale and
esprit and training to pull off. That is when the extra manpower has
to be there to hack the mission. 66-1 may be efficient in the use of
manpower but there is generally no slack even considering a canned
training schedule what with real manning under authorized levels
especially in the higher skill levels plus guys on leave, TDY, etc. If
the wheels had ever manned the units to meet surge requirements -
well, any organization would have worked with good people at the helm.

SAC sucked and and the morale and esprit and training was lousy. I saw
better morale and esprit and training in SAC than at most any fighter
base. The one exception was Ubon with then Col. Olds, but before and
after things were not exactly great. People at the helm came and went,
but the NCOs were there doing the job. A job they believed in and
passed on to the new troops.

But to get a guy to put out his best over any considerable time takes
personal contact and visible leadership. It is much easier to get
everybody going the same direction if there is no visible tangible
demarcation between ops and maintenance ie we all wear the same patch.

And you still have people in the back shops that never see the light
of day right? The shop tech probably sees a crew member about as often
as the clerk did in the base tech order library? Home many shop techs
were behind the guy on the flightline?

As for 7-levels sitting in bread trucks playing cards waiting a call -
it didn't happen in the 102 or F4D outfits I was in. They were busy
fixing airplanes or training the FNGs.

Not unusual in our biggies shop at three in the morning while the crew
chiefs were sleeping, I mean doing record checks, that a 7 or 5-level
would be heading to a dark, empty flightline to replace a unit he had
removed hours earlier, repaired, and was now ready to reinstall.

I will admit I always thought it was something of a waste to train
someone for a highly technical electronics field and then have them
spend the rest of their enlistment loading tinfoil and changing 200+lb
transmitters. There were some that really disliked the shop, but if
the flightline work was finished as much as it could be they could at
least be breaking down equipment for repair, doing some of the less
technical work, paperwork, etc. Seems more prodcutive from the shop
point of view than pumping up tires, or sitting in a line truck
watching the stars...

The 'biggies' all fly canned schedules, with lots of
time to figure things out. A fighter outfit following a canned traing
schedule is in much the same boat. But fighters must 'surge' now and
then, either for evaluation (flunk and hell breaks loose)or for combat

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


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

So what would you call ORI, Chrome Dome, and something called ARC
Light, etc., on the "biggies"?
Have you ever been around the maintenace shops for B-52s when they
were regenerating aircraft for alert after an ORI?

Can I get an Amen?

Sorties are apples and oranges when comparing fighters and bombers.
They are two very different machines. There were more ECM systems
alone on a bomber than all the electronic systems that could be
crammed in a fighter. I am not sure, but I think a bomber just might
have a few more ounces of fuel than a fighter so it just might take a
few minutes more for refueling. Then there is lox, expendables, etc.
That was the good old days though. I wonder how the "biggies" have
done in our latest wars? All canned schedules, etc.?

I don't know what that means? We flew so many different types of sorties, I
can't even begin to count. Just for daily training from a MNX side, different
fuel loads, different weapons loads, some flare loads, some no flare loads, ECM
software XX here, ECM software XY there, pylons or no pylons, Litening II or no
Litening II, Combat Track II or no Combat Track II, I could literally go on for
twenty or so more iterations. So my question is; Walt, what is a "canned heavy
sortie"?


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

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.

Steve

Right ON!! I spent 16 years of my time in SAC as a Comm Tech(32870).
Loved it. It was very clear what was expected of you. It was very clear
what would happen if you didn't adhere to that expectation. If you did
adhere, You were given the authority, responsibility, and perks
comensurate with your position. The command always backed my decisions.
I once stopped a Looking Glass aircraft that was taxiing for a flight,
because I saw a problem with an HF longwire antenna. There was never a
word asked of me like "are you sure, you were over a hundred feet
away...". The aircraft was directed to return to the parking spot and
the antenna was checked (and repaired) in short order. The aircraft was
only minutes late for takeoff. I got a personal call from the
BattleStaff Commander (O7) thanking me for my attention to detail. It
seems that one week earlier, this same O7 was BattleStaff Commander on a
Looking Glass mission when a longwire antenna defect similar to this one
resulted in a flailing longwire breaking a window causing a rapid
decompression inflight. Once during an ORI I was dispatched (REDBALL)
to a tanker being generated for Alert duty. The problem was COMM 1 INOP
(mission esential). When I got to the bird, the Capt. Aircraft commander
told me to change it and get off the plane. I told him (with the ORI
evaluator standing behind him) "Sir, the problem might not be the RT, I
need to check it out first". A/C said "I can't, just change it and
leave". ORI evaluator said "Capt.... You are hereby grounded, please
exit the aircraft NOW." Then said to me "TSgt G..., you may now repair
the radio." The ORI evaluator was making a very strong point:
1. The maintenance tech is the expert on the system.
2. The expert on the system cannot test the radio with you in the seat.
3. The aircraft cannot perform alert duties without COMM 1.
4. Refusing to leave the seat when the expert requests you do so,
prevents the aircraft performing its Alert duties.

I was stunned when this happened, as I would have never intentionally
done something that would have resulted in such a dire consequence. BTW
the Capt. was requalified quickly (after the ORI). Still, I'm sure that
being grounded by an ORI evaluator doesn't look good on your permanent
record.

Speaking of AFM66-1. To me it is the best. A tech would often pull the
box, repair the box on the bench, then reinstall it. YOU were sure that
the box you pulled was bad. Fewer CNDs that way.

Those were the days eh?
KenG

Buzzer wrote:
On 18 Nov 2003 21:34:49 -0800, (WaltBJ) wrote:


The real problem comes from the different missions of the 'biggies'
and the fighters. The 'biggies' all fly canned schedules, with lots of
time to figure things out.


In your fantasy dreams..


A fighter outfit following a canned traing
schedule is in much the same boat. But fighters must 'surge' now and
then, either for evaluation (flunk and hell breaks loose)or for combat
(flunk and hell is for real.)


So what would you call ORI, Chrome Dome, and something called ARC
Light, etc., on the "biggies"?
Have you ever been around the maintenace shops for B-52s when they
were regenerating aircraft for alert after an ORI? After your're in
the middle of an ORI and HQ decides to throw in some special missions?


My outfit at Danang had a stand-down day
- the other two squadrons were going to cover the frag. They fell on
their butt and while 115 of my guys were at China Beach 22 of my guys
launched 19 sorties with our 20 old F4Ds. ADC used to run 72 hour
exercises. No-notice, unscheduled, max effort. 15-20 minute
turn-arounds. I have flown 12 sorties in 72 hours several times in
those things.


Sorties are apples and oranges when comparing fighters and bombers.
They are two very different machines. There were more ECM systems
alone on a bomber than all the electronic systems that could be
crammed in a fighter. I am not sure, but I think a bomber just might
have a few more ounces of fuel than a fighter so it just might take a
few minutes more for refueling. Then there is lox, expendables, etc.
That was the good old days though. I wonder how the "biggies" have
done in our latest wars? All canned schedules, etc.?


In the Cuban Crisis we flew 1800 hours in one month with
20 F102As. That sort of effort takes the highest degree of morale and
esprit and training to pull off. That is when the extra manpower has
to be there to hack the mission. 66-1 may be efficient in the use of
manpower but there is generally no slack even considering a canned
training schedule what with real manning under authorized levels
especially in the higher skill levels plus guys on leave, TDY, etc. If
the wheels had ever manned the units to meet surge requirements -
well, any organization would have worked with good people at the helm.


SAC sucked and and the morale and esprit and training was lousy. I saw
better morale and esprit and training in SAC than at most any fighter
base. The one exception was Ubon with then Col. Olds, but before and
after things were not exactly great. People at the helm came and went,
but the NCOs were there doing the job. A job they believed in and
passed on to the new troops.


But to get a guy to put out his best over any considerable time takes
personal contact and visible leadership. It is much easier to get
everybody going the same direction if there is no visible tangible
demarcation between ops and maintenance ie we all wear the same patch.


And you still have people in the back shops that never see the light
of day right? The shop tech probably sees a crew member about as often
as the clerk did in the base tech order library? Home many shop techs
were behind the guy on the flightline?


As for 7-levels sitting in bread trucks playing cards waiting a call -
it didn't happen in the 102 or F4D outfits I was in. They were busy
fixing airplanes or training the FNGs.


Not unusual in our biggies shop at three in the morning while the crew
chiefs were sleeping, I mean doing record checks, that a 7 or 5-level
would be heading to a dark, empty flightline to replace a unit he had
removed hours earlier, repaired, and was now ready to reinstall.

I will admit I always thought it was something of a waste to train
someone for a highly technical electronics field and then have them
spend the rest of their enlistment loading tinfoil and changing 200+lb
transmitters. There were some that really disliked the shop, but if
the flightline work was finished as much as it could be they could at
least be breaking down equipment for repair, doing some of the less
technical work, paperwork, etc. Seems more prodcutive from the shop
point of view than pumping up tires, or sitting in a line truck
watching the stars...

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

Probably one of those discussions that will never be resolved because missions
are so different..

Now put yourself on a fighter ramp in the middle of semi indian country whenthe
bad guys are constantly lobbing rockets, mortars, and small arms fire and
trying to get the bird up on cockpit alert at the end of the runway, with the
bird cocked on 3 min alert and tell me how great that same approach is.

In SEA, about all you needed was two good engines, operating flight controls,
and a weapons release system that worked, when push came to shove and the bad
guys were trying to come over the fence.

The problem was COMM 1 INOP
(mission esential). When I got to the bird, the Capt. Aircraft commander
told me to change it and get off the plane. I told him (with the ORI
evaluator standing behind him) "Sir, the problem might not be the RT, I
need to check it out first". A/C said "I can't, just change it and
leave". ORI evaluator said "Capt.... You are hereby grounded, please
exit the aircraft NOW." Then said to me "TSgt G..., you may now repair
the radio." The ORI evaluator was making a very strong point:
1. The maintenance tech is the expert on the system.
2. The expert on the system cannot test the radio with you in the seat.
3. The aircraft cannot perform alert duties without COMM 1.
4. Refusing to leave the seat when the expert requests you do so,
prevents the aircraft performing its Alert duties.

I was stunned when this happened, as I would have never intentionally
done something that would have resulted in such a dire consequence. BTW
the Capt. was requalified quickly (after the ORI). Still, I'm sure that
being grounded by an ORI evaluator doesn't look good on your permanent
record.

Speaking of AFM66-1. To me it is the best. A tech would often pull the
box, repair the box on the bench, then reinstall it. YOU were sure that
the box you pulled was bad. Fewer CNDs that way.

Those were the days eh?
KenG

(Smartace11) wrote:


In SEA, about all you needed was two good engines, operating flight controls,
and a weapons release system that worked, when push came to shove and the bad
guys were trying to come over the fence.


This is likely a different situation and requires a different
approach...I see nothing wrong with what the tech (nor the
evaluator) did at all. I congratulate the tech, he did what his
expert knowledge told him to.
--

-Gord.

As a fighter guy, I'd call a surge when you fly the same plane 4 or more
times
a day

Pretty narrow view of life you have there...


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"