• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Aging Air Force

MarkOttawa

Army.ca Fixture
Inactive
Fallen Comrade
Reaction score
146
Points
710
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.

"We have a relatively old workforce in the air force," he said.

The average age of the force is 36, with non-commissioned officers at 37 and officers at 38 years old.

"We are a young person's business, so it is a challenge for me to recruit enough young people to keep rejuvenating the ranks to keep that average age coming down," he said...

The air force, which currently has about 350 members in Afghanistan providing mostly transport duties, is also struggling to maintain its aging facilities such as hangars, control towers and runways.

"I have 13 wings, 10 of which have infrastructure and the replacement cost of that infrastructure is $6.5 billion," he said. "Fifty per cent of that infrastructure is 50 years old or older."

Canada's military aircraft are also feeling the strain of the years.

"The average age of the aircraft that I operate is 26 years," he said. "They are extremely well maintained, they are always safe but old technology comes with a price and the price gets higher because every year that passes it gets another year older."

But Watt did point to some progress.

The air force is planning to replace its fleet of aging C-130 Hercules transport planes purchased four decades ago.

"We are very close to signing a contract with Lockheed Martin for a new fleet of C-130Js [emphasis added], which will replace the C-130s that we have," he said. "It looks the same but is about four generations of technology newer which will serve us for the next 30 years very well."..

Mark
Ottawa
 
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!  :D
 
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.
 
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...
 
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!

 
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.
 
....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
 
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. 
 
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
 
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  ;)
 
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!










 
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?
 
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.

Let me set you (??) straight. There are over 4000 highly trained AVS, AVN, and ACS technicians in the CF who wear the same hat badge as aircrew do. Aircraft technicians make up the bulk of the air force. Without us, there would be no aircraft to fly, no air force. Period. We ARE the air force, not some support element. We are just as important as any operator on the team.

Suggest you create a group called Aircraft maintenance trades.

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]
 
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.
 
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...

 
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
 
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.
 
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.

 
Back
Top