# Aging Air Force



## MarkOttawa (16 Nov 2007)

People and much else:
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=54f55d1b-fdca-4a3f-9deb-60d371ab6917&k=99160



> Canada's air force is trying to replace aging members, aging infrastructure and aging vehicles, its commander says.
> 
> "The main challenge I have is age, but not my age," Lt.-Gen. Angus Watt, the chief of air staff with the Canadian Forces, said in an interview Wednesday.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## navymich (16 Nov 2007)

I got this article in an email today from an old navy bud who laughed at me and my age in the AF.  Although by that article I'm actually below average!


----------



## Bert (16 Nov 2007)

Seems funny on the surface.  I can't speak for most trades in the AF, but one might notice 
theres many members with 16+ years in and lots with 5 years or less.  Not alot in between.
I suppose thanks to the FRP of the 90s.  I figure the stats will change significantly in the 
next few years with the black hole looming.


----------



## Greymatters (16 Nov 2007)

When I got posted to the 1 CAD HQ in 1997, I was 34 years old and thought I was going to be one of the older guys there.  Turned out I was one of the youngest...


----------



## Northernguardian (25 Nov 2007)

The air trades are still relying on the oldsters to get the rubber on the ramp. This is becoming harder and harder to do as they are retiring or are being promoted off the hangar floor. There are very few former CRS, IST, AET, AFT, etc left below the rank of Sgt.

Since the poorly thought out trade restructure of the 1990s, the air trades have lowered their standards. For example, we now have two streams of AVS techs coming out of the training system  - one stream are respectable technicians, the others are trained to a lower standard - to be box changers, and some cannot read a schematic or interpret common electronics symbols. Don't laugh! The new AVN tradesman is a jack of all aviation systems, master of none. That might sound fine, but it doesn't work when you have a snag in an engine wiring harness. The new AVN trade techs take days and days to eventually realize that changing parts don't work. Not that many years ago (5), an engine tech and an electrician would figure a problem like that out in a few hours.

Rather than lowering standards, we should be raising them. We need better people and we need to pay them appropriately. We should be producing *AME grade techs*, and pay them Spec II, but *expect a hell of a lot more from them* than we expect from our so-called "Level A" technicians today. I think one of the reasons the CF has lowered maint tech standards is to produce a technician of a standard too low for civil aviation, thereby reducing attrition. Unfortunately, you wind up with many substandard individuals that lack the skill and knowledge required to correctly and promptly repair aircraft.

Yes, call me a dinosaur, but us Jurassic creatures were considered the best aircraft technicians in the world 30 yrs ago. Today we are not even a shadow of what we were just 15 years ago. LGen Watt and his fellow commanders have no idea of how precarious the situation is. No surprise there, as every CAS or CAD general is a pilot or nav. You'll never see an AERE officer in that position, even though we have some brilliant engineering officers. I hear the bragging about C-17s, Cyclone, and new Hercs - but they are useless if your maintainers lack the ability to keep them serviceable. We are being stretched thinner and thinner. Thousands of new troops for the army (which we need) but not one new air tech for all these new fleets. Just spread what we got around. Sure makes sense to me, esp when all our experience is disappearing. Fellow dinosaurs, please don't run for the door all at the same time!


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2007)

Northernguardian said:
			
		

> No surprise there, as every CAS or CAD general is a pilot or nav.



When is the last time you have seen a CLS that was not from the combat arms or a CMS that was not a MARS officer ?

The CAS is well aware of the issues with the 500-series.  Hes been told many times ( in ZX a few weeks ago comes to mind). The Comd 1 CAD knows it ( he hears it when he sees the servicability status of our aircraft)

But we all know from your previous posts that you have a heavy anti-aircrew attitude.

I enjoyed your points on the state of the 500-series but your message gets lost in your pointless observations.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2007)

> ....Today we are not even a shadow of what we were just 15 years ago. LGen Watt and his fellow commanders have no idea of how precarious the situation is. No surprise there, as every CAS or CAD general is a pilot or nav. You'll never see an AERE officer in that position, even though *we have some brilliant engineering officers*.




...like the ones who pushed for the MOC-500 amalgamation?



...glass houses...


Perhaps it would be more constructive to discuss whether AF9000+ and P03/P09 has helped or hindered the situation?


G2G


----------



## aesop081 (25 Nov 2007)

Another Northernguardian "post n' run"


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (25 Nov 2007)

I agree with some of the post made by Northernguardian. Been new generation level A myself, I must admit that I've seen disturbing quality of techs. Been in a AMS, I have to say that the CF doesn't help their new techs to develop themselves. For example, when I am requiered to fix a box or system, I cannot open it anymore. I am requiered to do the functional test and if found U/S, ship it to the contractor. How is someone suppose to learn & develop their skills if they can't even fix the system? Here in the lab, we are losing more and more systems to 3rd line contractors and therefore find ourselves replacing or I should say cleaning the exterior of the boxes.


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Nov 2007)

TB, a big part of the problem is that in the MOC-500 amalgamation, the minimum OFP (operational functional point) was lowered from QL5 to QL3, so not only were 7 trades mashed into three, but the minimum qualification level was reduced significantly.  This had the effect of making things appear "efficient" and "effective", but was a fallacy only fully visible after the more experienced IE, AF, AE, RCS, etc... techs moved into the C-release world and the new young apprentices and journeymen came to the line without the experience of the other pre-amalgamation techs.  Further to this is the personal/qualification overhead that the P03/P09 system takes to "ensure quality".  Hypothetically, my unit could have 100 technicians, but 23 are required for AF9000+/QMS stuff, and because they have to have the required qualification levels, can't help the young kids learn the ropes.  That, also combined with the aircraft-specific "LRU-isms" (line replaceable units, replace only, no diagnosis allowed) and you have the current problem.  Now, out of 100 guys, you'd be lucky to see more than 5 or 6 C-releasers on the line (i.e. not in the MTL/AMCRO/AF9000+ offices)...for that, I fully agree with you.  I do not agree with Northernguardian's spleen-vent about why pilots and navs don't understand.  If you don't think I have some idea of the maint issues from my points above, I don't mind...my job is to fly things to a +/- 5 sec, +/-1m tolerance, not to fix the machines, but I do take professional pride in trying to understand your issues as best as possible.

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (26 Nov 2007)

Good2Golf ,
I understand the importance of quality control AF9000+ etc. However I see precious knowledge that could be used for training new techs witch are the future generation of the air force. I believe the lack of technical challenges in some area of maintenance amplify the recent departures of newly qualified level A like I'm witnessing in my unit.

By the way I have nothing against aircrew


----------



## Northernguardian (26 Nov 2007)

I'm going to ignor the nasty comments. I do think that AERE officers should occasionally advance to MGen and LGen appointments. That is a personal opinion. That doesn't make me anti-aircrew. I am a strong supporter of the maint community and the air force (which includes aircrew), and I'm proud of my profession, as you all are. I'm not going to participate in this group to insult other members. 

 It is clear that our senior air force leadership appreciates the fact that we have problems in the maintenance community, but I am concerned that it is not properly addressing the crisis by providing more air techs in the CF. There is nothing but continual downsizing on legacy fleets to provide techs for new fleets. The CF is growing dramatically, but we aren't, despite more and more demands being placed on the maint community. Things will get a lot worse as our aging experts (from legacy trades) depart in the next few years. The solution is not to dumb down the air trades (as we are seeing) - what we need are technical specialists that are experts in air maintenance.

I personally know many of the people involved in the implementation of the MOC 500 restructure. Some were NCMs. Every one of them has retired. From what I've seen, many of our current AERE officers consider amalgamation a mistake, but naturally keep these opinions private. To slam our serving AERE officers for the decisions of their predecessors is unwarranted. The proposed new Armament/ALSE trade is a clear sign that the old mindset is gone. A positive development for sure.

AF9000 is one of the best things we've brought in (never thought I'd say that), along with the new P series. We are finally setting clear training, maintenance and policy standards we never had before. The P series is continually being improved, which is great, but doesn't accomplish much if our techs don't read or follow it. Even though we have problems,  its not all gloom and doom.  How about converting some AESOP or FE positions to techs? Just kidding!


----------



## observor 69 (26 Nov 2007)

I retired a few years ago as an AVS tech and live in the Greater Toronto Area. I presently am involved in hiring technical contractors for maintenance of an apartment building. 
Remember that old adage you used to get in high school, study hard so you can go to university and make a good living. Well I get to hire the technical trades that didn't go to university, HVAC systems, elevator maintenance and electricans to name a few. Many of them are making as much as a GP in a Family medicine clinic. The point is I can sure see why it must be hard to keep well trained technical personnel in the military. Let's compare a MCpl AVS trade posted to Cold Lake, $ 65K ? annual, versus a senior elevator or HVAC tech living in the GTA making close to $90k.  
Perhaps my numbers are outdated but is there anything wrong with my basic point?


----------



## aesop081 (26 Nov 2007)

Northernguardian said:
			
		

> That doesn't make me anti-aircrew



Hummmm..........




			
				Northernguardian said:
			
		

> After 30+ years in the CF as an aircraft technician, now a manager, I find it a bit insulting to find aircraft technicians lumped into a group called "support trades" along with non-air trades (non 500 series). Note that there is a separate group - "air crew trades." I take it that since air crew are not "support," they must comprise the true (and thus superior) rest of the "air force." Sort of like comparing combat arms trades to cooks feeding them.
> 
> I'm not sure who created this group, probably aircrew who actually believes that this is a fair place to put maintainers. I doubt there was any malice involved, and I am not pointing any fingers.  It should be remembered that the "air force" has long given preferential treatment to aircrew. There has always been an under appreciation of the contributions of our technicians by aircrew, and the subordination of our maintenance community to aircrew has been going on for as long as there has been an "air force" in this country. As a result, this touches a nerve.
> 
> ...



And then.........



> How about converting some AESOP or FE positions to techs? Just kidding!



Kidding or not, you sure show your colours.  Not what i expect from a maintenance manager with 30+ years of experience.  Perhaps you would like to fly the plane as well. I'm sure you would enjoy the 10 hour patrols in horrible weather. or maybe its just that you tried to become aircrew and didnt make it.....i dunno 

Anyways....

How would you organize the maintenance trades ? Back to  pre-amalgamation or something competely different ?











[/quote]


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (26 Nov 2007)

Aircrew isn't some secret club like Skull and Bones where you have to have current members initiate you in some dark ritual involving goats blood and a smoking cauldron. Anyone is free to apply and join if they want to.


----------



## dapaterson (26 Nov 2007)

niceasdrhuxtable said:
			
		

> Aircrew isn't some secret club like Skull and Bones where you have to have current members initiate you in some dark ritual involving goats blood and a smoking cauldron. Anyone is free to apply and join if they want to.



Yes.  It's after you join that the goats blood and smking cauldrons come out...


----------



## niceasdrhuxtable (26 Nov 2007)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Yes.  It's after you join that the goats blood and smking cauldrons come out...



Shh, no one's supposed to know that!

 ;D


----------



## Northernguardian (26 Nov 2007)

FYI,  I have never been interested in becoming aircrew. I would rather repair equipment than be an operator. 

As for the structure of the maintenance trades, I don't think we should go back to the old ones. No need for that extreme degree of specialization. We do need to break up the AVN trade, the scope is just to great. Perhaps 3 specialties would do (prop, airframe, ALSE-AirWeapons). All trades would need to know the applicable electrical/electronics. 

AVS does not need to be broken up, but training is inadequate. Unfortunately, the "first-to-third" line maint concept has led to this belief that AVS techs only need general training in avionics. 

The ACS trade should create a separate machinist trade, leave the rest alone.


----------



## Greymatters (27 Nov 2007)

What's your opinion on the 'aging air force'?


----------



## ashleyw (15 Dec 2007)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I retired a few years ago as an AVS tech and live in the Greater Toronto Area. I presently am involved in hiring technical contractors for maintenance of an apartment building.
> Remember that old adage you used to get in high school, study hard so you can go to university and make a good living. Well I get to hire the technical trades that didn't go to university, HVAC systems, elevator maintenance and electricans to name a few. Many of them are making as much as a GP in a Family medicine clinic. The point is I can sure see why it must be hard to keep well trained technical personnel in the military. Let's compare a MCpl AVS trade posted to Cold Lake, $ 65K ? annual, versus a senior elevator or HVAC tech living in the GTA making close to $90k.
> Perhaps my numbers are outdated but is there anything wrong with my basic point?



well, from what I've researched, being NCM the salary is lower regardless the trade, especially for the first 3 to 4 years. And the promotion opportunity is not always guaranteed. (7 yrs to become a Mcpl, if lucky!) I am not surprised people just use the maintenance trade as stepping stone for better pay civic job.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2007)

ashleyw said:
			
		

> well, from what I've researched, being NCM the salary is lower regardless the trade, especially for the first 3 to 4 years. And the promotion opportunity is not always guaranteed. (7 yrs to become a Mcpl, if lucky!) I am not surprised people just use the maintenance trade as stepping stone for better pay civic job.



I don't know how much or how accurately you did your research, but I would say that you have come to the wrong conclusions.  What pay does a person joining as an NCM under one of the plans to train Tradesmen make, compared to an OCdt?  I would say that a good guess would be close to twice as much.  Both are getting Rations and Quarters.  The NCM, however, is getting a Trade that will also give him Spec Pay.  Have you done any research into what Spec Pay is?  I didn't think so.  There are Cpls making Spec Pay, who are making more money than MCpl and Sgts in other Trades.  Many Air Force Trades are receiving Spec Pay.

So you figure it takes 7 years to become a MCpl?  How long do you figure it takes an OCdt making $13,000, Plus or minus, a year to become a Capt?  

Perhaps, it would be best to leave the speculation on who makes what for Pay to the Financial people or at least someone who can explain the Pay Tables a little more accurately than you.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Dec 2007)

:

Maybe you should analyse things just a little bit more. No, really, i mean it.




			
				ashleyw said:
			
		

> well, from what I've researched, being NCM the salary is lower regardless the trade, especially for the first 3 to 4 years.



Different level of responsabilities have different levels of pay. And, at any rate, as an NCM, i currently make more than alot of the officers that i work for.



> And the promotion opportunity is not always guaranteed.



And what exactly makes you think that promotions are guaranteed in the Officer world ? I'm sorry but i know just as many "career captains" as i do "career corporals" Anything beyond corporal (NCM side) and Captain (officer side) is based on performance, potential and merit. There's no f*****g guarantees either way.



> I am not surprised people just use the maintenance trade as stepping stone for better pay civic job.



Again, you dont know what you are talking about. How many civvy aircraft technicians do you know travel with the airplanes everywhere around the world ? How many of them have the advantages and bennefits that military technicians do ? Next time that there is a down-turn in the aviation industry, you will be singing a very different tune.


----------



## ashleyw (15 Dec 2007)

As a DEO officer cadet still makes like almost $45k to 50k a year, as a private only makes $30k below. That's the different.
or ceopt, rmc or rotp, these officer cadet don't make much but their living, education, books are paid for.


----------



## George Wallace (15 Dec 2007)

ashleyw said:
			
		

> As a DEO officer cadet still makes like almost $45k to 50k a year, as a private only makes $30k below. That's the different.
> or ceopt, rmc or rotp, these officer cadet don't make much but their living, education, books are paid for.



Your point?

Are we comparing apples to apples or Horses to Turtles?

A DEO officer has either a Degree or in the last year of his Degree program.  So you are comparing him to a private who has just joined off the street with no training.  You are comparing a "Semi-Skilled" officer candidate with an "Unskilled NCM".  

Perhaps you would like to compare a "Semi-Skilled" DEO officer with a Degree coming in as a 2Lt Infantry officer to a "Semi-Skilled" NCM Tradesman/Journeyman with a College Deploma, Spec Pay, a Signing Bonus and a entry rank of Cpl?

Please get your ducks all in a row first, before posting things that are not necessarily true.


----------



## dimsum (15 Dec 2007)

ashleyw said:
			
		

> *As a DEO officer cadet still makes like almost $45k to 50k a year*, as a private only makes $30k below. That's the different.
> or ceopt, rmc or rotp, these officer cadet don't make much but their living, education, books are paid for.



I wish I made $45k when I was an OCdt!  I'm a DEO LT right now, and still haven't broken $50k.  The first time I made close to $45k was when I finally got my Subbies (LT in the Navy) a few years ago.  When I was on the ships (Reserve, mind you, but the pay's the same for us), I was the Div O of a department where every LS and above made more than me.  The only person who made less than me was an AB...and even then, not by much.

Just my $0.02.


----------



## aesop081 (15 Dec 2007)

I end up with about $68k or so as a MCpl. Plus all the TD on top of that.


----------



## childs56 (15 Dec 2007)

I was in the Airforce, I was one of those new age techs that some of the expieranced guys say are the problem. 

The way I seen it for the most part the guys with 20 years in and had all the knowledge in the world about the airframe were the problem. Most of them sat in a office checking their emails and complaining about the newer generation and how stupid we were. Yes I heard them even though they thought different. 

For the most part the recruiting system has failed the system in who they hire when they hire and how they hire. Right now no matter what industry you go into it is the same. From Mcdonalds up to the computer net workers. 
Society has fallen to the wayside in deep reguards to work ethic. Most want a cushy most money for the least amount of work. We all do, the difference is some are willing to work to get there. I am not talking about going to University and doing more schooling. I am talking about getting your hands dirty, sweating your butt off, freezing your butt off then getting even dirtier. 
We seem to have forgotton what work is. This has come back to kick us in the butt and will continue to untill society realizes that more and better education is not readily availible in a classroom. But in the field that we conduct operations in.
 For the Airforce that field is the hangers the Aircraft get maintained in, the DLZ's where they get loaded with ordanance. Then the classroom to learn the specific aspects of maintanance. 

Higher education does not mean higher amount of schooling. It means a higher amount of knowledge about the subject at hand. To bad to say the subject at hand is how to fix a machine and keep it flying. A limited amount of trainnig can be had in a classroom for the most part. But the actual understanding and the actual placement of tools and parts can only be done on the Aircraft itself. No matter how you look at it. 

As for the pay from the Military it is pretty good. Every two weeks you have a check, and you can rely on that till you retire. 
Where I work now I make good money but only when I work. lately that has been rarly. 

I worked with a few expieranced guys who I would never hesitate to work with


----------

