Ops and Maintenance officially combine

[busdriver]

Why would you need a crew chief? Because a crew chief can legally fix shit on the aircraft. So while the whole crew is actually doing the work, the crew chief is signing off on the work, meaning you can break in BFE and still get out of town in a reasonable amount of time. I can think of a whole slew of scenarios that having a flying crew chief on board would be good, and I fly a helo. Our problem is space and weight but for a heavy guy, what's one extra dude on board?

[Guest Boom]

Please tell me that cat flies J Models!

Fontus

Your wouldn't need a FCC then either. Just reboot.

[zrooster99]

Worst idea ever, and some MX Officers are about to have a shitfit cause there goes their command opportunities.

As has already been said, it's a good idea. I worked as a MX Officer under both systems and thought the MX under Ops system was better, even when I was still in MX.

Herka, I agree SOME MX officers couldn't lead their way out of a paper bag. But I, for one, was a very good leader when I did that job, and there were many more out there. In all fairness, there are also plenty of rated folks that don't have the first clue about leadership.

Edited for Retarded Spelling

Edited December 12, 2007 by zrooster99

[Hacker]

And as far as the whole Maintenance Officer thing goes...I'm still trying to figure out what their job is.

Here's an idea -- spend a day or two shadowing your SMO. Then you'll know.

Go ahead and sit in on the OG standup every day and face the man to explain every NMC/PMC tail number, for every ETIC, for every GAB, for every MND.

Spend some time up in the Ops Officer's neck of the woods working on flying hour contracts, and turn patterns, and configurations, and ASDs.

Instead of making an ignorant statement like that...go find out.

Hacker...the previous MX officer.

[bomber1]

Here's an idea -- spend a day or two shadowing your SMO. Then you'll know.

Go ahead and sit in on the OG standup every day and face the man to explain every NMC/PMC tail number, for every ETIC, for every GAB, for every MND.

Spend some time up in the Ops Officer's neck of the woods working on flying hour contracts, and turn patterns, and configurations, and ASDs.

Instead of making an ignorant statement like that...go find out.

Hacker...the previous MX officer.

I knew I was going to take some heat for that comment. It's a good thing my old man doesn't log onto baseops...he's a retired MX Officer. But it would be hard to call myself a Crew Chief if I didn't rag on the maintenance O's. Trust me, Crew Chiefs know MX Officers are important. We just play dumb to the fact.

[Guest Boom]

https://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123099672

In 6-7 years they'll be apart again IMO.

[Eeyore]

Well we once again reinvent the wheel!!! Will it last?? I hardly doubt it will. The metrics of promotion will rear its ugly head. Additionally, what function does the MX group really HAVE?? How is the AF going to provide opportunities for command at the O-6 level. Will the MX Grp be the metrics clearing house for sorties, ute rates, mx effectiveness, etc. OPS rejoice for now and be careful what you wish for!!

[afnav]

It's changed at least four or five times since I came in. I still remember the DCM as God.

Considering the non-rated, support types have almost a ten percentage point advantage to O-5 over ops, they will just have to live without my sympathy.

[Guest f16wolf]

Who cares if it is cyclic? This is the best thing for the mission. Since when should promotions trump the mission. I saw so many people chasing numbers at my previous assignment it made me sick. What matters is the number of aircraft generated for training and combat. I doubt the enemy cares how many O-5s are selected from the maintenance/logistics career field. Not to mention the sortie generation rate dramatically increased during deployed ops over even exercises back home. This is the right thing to do. Sure there can be a middle ground, but it went way to far the other direction.

[Guest Mike Brogan]

It was a mistake for Ops and MX to split in the first place. When we were combined there was much more of a one team/one fight mentality: MX would bend over backwards to help us take care of the mission, and Ops would bend over backwards to make sure they were getting what they needed to do their jobs well. After the split, it because "us" versus "them," along with daily food fights at standup over who was going to "buy" the deviation for the late takeoff or sortie cancel... and ever since MX has consistently given the minimum support required by AFI and nothing more... and God forbid that we roll a crew to a perfectly good aircraft that wasn't supposed to be in that week's lineup, thereby throwing MX's MSE metrics off. Hell no! It's better to cancel the sortie than to do that! At least from MX's perspective...WGAF about the training opportunities that the aircrews are losing.

Hopefully with the merger, things will go back to the way they were before the split...

[JarheadBoom]

...there was much more of a one team/one fight mentality: MX would bend over backwards to help us take care of the mission, and Ops would bend over backwards to make sure they were getting what they needed to do their jobs well.

That's how it was, for the most part, in the Corps (and by extension, the Navy).

"us" versus "them," along with daily food fights at standup over who was going to "buy" the deviation for the late takeoff or sortie cancel... and ever since MX has consistently given the minimum support required by AFI and nothing more...

Jeez, you sure you're not at McGuire?

On my last flight we had nav problems during taxi-out, and MX (via the CP) was trying their damndest to pin the late T/O on the crew. That lasted until com/nav showed up at the jet and saw the indications & warnings we were getting... and even then the pro super was commenting on how pissed the MXG/CC would be about how the late T/O "would be seen as MX's fault".

[Guest Mike Brogan]

That's how it was, for the most part, in the Corps (and by extension, the Navy).

Jeez, you sure you're not at McGuire?

On my last flight we had nav problems during taxi-out, and MX (via the CP) was trying their damndest to pin the late T/O on the crew. That lasted until com/nav showed up at the jet and saw the indications & warnings we were getting... and even then the pro super was commenting on how pissed the MXG/CC would be about how the late T/O "would be seen as MX's fault".

I'll be at McGuire next week for the air show!

As for the MX versus Ops stuff, I'm sure it's much the same AF-wide.

[Jon - Trident Home Loans]

Looks like another Moseley plan in the trash...

Maintenance shake-up put on hold

By Bruce Rolfsen - Staff writer

Posted : Tuesday Jul 1, 2008 16:12:35 EDT

The move to reorganize maintenance groups and missions support groups —which was supposed to start today — is on hold.

Acting Secretary of the Air Force Michael Donley issued orders June 27 setting aside the changes until he has had time to discuss them with service officials and decide if realignments are needed.

“Secretary Donley directed the delay in order to have an opportunity to discuss the appropriateness and timeliness of these changes with Air Force senior leaders within the context of today's new realities,” the Air Force said in a written statement to Air Force Times.

There was no word on when Donley anticipates making a decision or if he will consult with chief of staff nominee Gen. Norton Schwartz.

Just two weeks ago, before Donley became the acting secretary, Air Force officials were expecting wings to begin making the changes July 1 and to be done by November.

Outgoing Chief of Staff Gen. T. Michael Moseley has been the prime proponent for reorganizing wings. But with Moseley set to leave by Aug. 1 as part of the shake-up of Air Force leadership ordered by the Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, Donley shelved Moseley’s plan.

The proposed changes — called the “Global Wing Structure” — would have moved airmen assigned to fighter, bomber and rescue aircraft maintenance units into flying squadrons. The crew chiefs, weapons loaders and other maintainers had been in maintenance squadrons. Aircraft maintenance units assigned to special operations and mobility wings would not merge into flying squadrons

Air Force-wide, the reorganization called for the creation of wing-level “materiel groups” and the disbanding of the maintenance groups. Each material group was to have included back-shop repair squadrons that had been part of the maintenance group, plus the wing’s aerial port squadron and logistics readiness squadrons that had been under the mission support groups.

[Longhorn15]

Hopefully Donley and Schwartz make the change force-wide and not just for ACC.

[capt4fans]

That's funny. I just PCA'd 450 Mx personel into my Sq today. And I get all the administrative control and non of the operational control.

Have I mentioned that I hate my desk job???