aircrew

[Flash]

The VP Navy (and indeed the Navy as a whole) is moving toward civilian contract maintenance. When MMA comes on line, VP will be almost exclusively civilian maintenance. Civilian contractors will be traveling with us on dets and deployments, so things like QAR/CDQAR will be covered by them (the pros and cons of this could easily be their own thread.)

I don't know if I like that at all, I think it will caause far more problems than solutions. There are certainly instances were it is beneficial to the Navy and the Air Force (U-2 maintenance comes to mind, very unique airplane). But as a while I think that this is a bad idea.

What do you think Chief? Maybe we need another thread....?

 

[Steve Wilkins]

The VP Navy (and indeed the Navy as a whole) is moving toward civilian contract maintenance.

Not for the surface force.

 

[HooverPilot]

The C-2 Community just turned away from this track. It was proposed, studied and ultimately rejected. I think there are better ways for us to do the maintenance, but 100% contract isn't it.

 

[hscs]

Contract maintenance may make sense for the MMA with the ability to draw on significant civilian corporate knowledge from the 737. Doesn't work so well for the helo side of the house.

On another note, the one drawback that I see with AW conversion across the navy is that once you get aircrew out of the shops -- you need to keep them busy. I have been in and seen operational helo squadrons where the AWs weren't even required to have a PC qual, and thus, the AWs only ended up flying -- and that made the maintainer-AW relationship downright horrible.

 

[Stubby]

:icon_rage

I don't even know what part of that post to quote...

First and foremost, don't be so defensive. If you think I am unqualified to comment on an FE's rating exam, it's kinda stupid for you to critique how "simple" an AW's rating exam is. If I made it sound like I have a chip on my shoulder about FE's, it's only due to the emotionless internet medium (even though I used the same stupid little smiley face as you ). My rivalry with FE's is just as friendly and tonge in cheek as the FE rivalry toward AW's:icon_roll .

Yes, the merger will help FE's down the road in as much as they will take an "FE specific" rating exam. In the big picture, that's a plus for FE's... They will specifically train for the job that they are tested for on the rating exam.... in the short term however, advancement will be slow in the senior ranks until the Navy defined inversion is rectified. Additionally, some of the more experienced E-7 and above will be grounded for maintenance jobs, which is where the Navy believes thier expertise will be the most valuable. That's the Navy's plan, not mine.

Don't blame me for Navy policy. I'm simply relaying information that frankly I have more access to than you. I don't agree with every decision or justification.... but frankly I don't carry much more weight in the decision than you do. So don't shoot the messenger.

Incidentally, I flew with you in VP-9. Congratulations on your commission.

 

[Stubby]

I'm no fan of contractor maintenance. It's the way things are going, I accept it (I'll be retired before it's in full swing.). In the mean time, it's my job to implement the plans of those whose job it is to think them up.

hscs makes a good point in utilizing the existing corporate knowledge amassed on the 737, but then when the P-3 was created from the Electra, we managed to train military mechanics to work on it….

As far as contractor maintenance goes in other platforms…. I'm not one who generally tells someone that I know more about their platform/job/specialty etc. than they do (all evidence to the contrary); I would offer this advise however, don't think anything is impossible.

As far as rivalry…. That will always exist…. aircrew/maintenance rivalry is as old as aircrew…. You have even recently witnessed the FE/AW rivalry . Maybe you are all familiar with the Pilot/NFO/SWO rivalry . We’re all professionals (usually); We’ll continue to get the job done!

 

[Brett327]

Not for the surface force.

Yeah, and not for the Naval Aviation in general as previously posted. It makes sense for MMA, but I don't see a civilian Maint. Dept cruising on a carrier for 6 months. Also, the whole notion about FEs having a relevant rating exam is a bit bogus as well. This has been an issue with most of the maintenance rates where you're responsible for knowing about a rate as it applies to the Navy broadly, and not just to the platform you happen to be working on. As a VP AO, I had to know about every ordnance carrying platform, every kind of weapon/launcher components, test equipment/GSE, shipboard ops, magazines and advanced base storage, etc. If someone is only ever going to be an FE, then a more specific test makes sense, but it's not like they were being singled out in that respect. Being tested on things you don't work with on a day to day basis was a universal problem, but it made for maintainers with broader experience (at least around test time ).

Brett

 

[hscs]

I think that one issue that constantly gets overlooked is that our troops focus so much on their rating specific info on the test that they fail to spend enough time studying the BMR section. I understand that the BMR section is close to half of the test grade (Disclaimer: I have never even looked at a test -- this is just stuff I have been told by senior officers).

 

[Stubby]

I think that one issue that constantly gets overlooked is that our troops focus so much on their rating specific info on the test that they fail to spend enough time studying the BMR section. I understand that the BMR section is close to half of the test grade (Disclaimer: I have never even looked at a test -- this is just stuff I have been told by senior officers).

The number of BMR questions on a test depends on the paygrade of the Sailor. There are 25 on the E-4 exam, 50 on the E-5 exam, 75 on the E-6 exam and 100 on the CPO exam. The mentality is that the more junior Sailors are more concerned with rating specific material, while the more senior Sailors (who should already have rating specific knowledge)are more concerned with general leadership information. These questions can be anything from "how far do you swing your arms to the rear while marching?" to "what is the maximum allowed length for fingernails on a female Sailor?" to "what is the maximum punishment an O5 Commanding Officer performing Captain's Mast can impose at sea?"

Additionally, yes the rating exam is generalized in such a way that you will be asked questions not necessarily relevant to your platform. Taking the AWC exam I had to know how to field strip a GAU-16.... what kind of oil to use and what kind of ammo. Although I have about 3.1 hours of SH-60 flight time, I assure you I have never fired a GAU-16... but there are AW's in those squadrons. Even with the FE's taking a more "job specific" exam, I imagine this will still affect them.... there are FE's on C-130's for example....

 

[Flash]

I'm no fan of contractor maintenance. It's the way things are going, I accept it (I'll be retired before it's in full swing.). In the mean time, it's my job to implement the plans of those whose job it is to think them up.

hscs makes a good point in utilizing the existing corporate knowledge amassed on the 737, but then when the P-3 was created from the Electra, we managed to train military mechanics to work on it….

Roger that Chief......

As for using contract maintenance for even the 737, I have problems with it. What if they walk away when they get orders to deploy to Iraq? They are civilians, they can do that. And part of the point with contract maintenance is to rely on less people, a few leaving will hurt a lot more than if you a lose a few in a regular squadron.

Now if you have a problem with an engine, then sending it out to a civilian contractor then that makes a lot of sense. The front-line guys should always be military though.....in my opinion......

 

[scarnuts]

If someone is only ever going to be an FE, then a more specific test makes sense, but it's not like they were being singled out in that respect. Being tested on things you don't work with on a day to day basis was a universal problem, but it made for maintainers with broader experience (at least around test time ).

Brett

I agree

 

[Stubby]

I agree

Thanks for the input!

 

[scarnuts]

Thanks for the input!

Check your PM.

 

[JIMC5499]

Additionally, yes the rating exam is generalized in such a way that you will be asked questions not necessarily relevant to your platform. Taking the AWC exam I had to know how to field strip a GAU-16.... what kind of oil to use and what kind of ammo. Although I have about 3.1 hours of SH-60 flight time, I assure you I have never fired a GAU-16... but there are AW's in those squadrons. Even with the FE's taking a more "job specific" exam, I imagine this will still affect them.... there are FE's on C-130's for example....

Things are still the same then. I went to an AD 'A' School at North Island in 1984, never touched any other aircraft than an SH-3H, got to my E-4 exam and it was nothing but P-3's.

 

[sandygoca]

it's true

The TRUTH- It's funny, the truth is, I'm not sure which manual it is...but PSD will know... I do know, it is all tied into money and that most administrative seperations occur within the first two years of service...think about it...the Navy just paid who knows how much to educate you to become an AE, and now that you know what your options are (because your recruiter had a different idea for you based on his brief encounter with you) you want to abandon one course of action for another, you haven't proven yourself at the entry level yet! Do they want to spend on you, again? Not yet...you are going to become an asset to the fleet first (2 years in rate)...then they will decide if you are a good candidate for AW (CREO 3-overmanned)....via your CCC.

The Upside- By the time you read this you will have found all the answers you're looking for, and the greatest benefit is that you will have a year and some change to condition yourself to swim for 45 minutes continuously, which will ultimately make you physically ready for anything they can throw at you in the pool....nothing favors your chances for success other than your level of preparidness. Plus you will class up at Aircrew/ARSS as a fleet returnee and possibly with rank.

The REALITY-Remember the attrition rate at Aircrew/ARSS is 60% (one of the highest). So when you're standing in the shallow end of the pool with your gear on after multiple high intensity sprints and you're asking yourself (everyone does) "Do I really want to do this?", you will really know, because you will have spent the last year and some change conditioning and preparing yourself because you had no other choice than to wait.

P.S. Have fun )