Tribute to aircraft maintenance troops (Read 7,869 times)

Well, first, a 'pro super' is short for Production Superintendent. Below that person is the Expeditor(s). We never used the term 'Line Chief', but I'm guessing that may be close.

As far as QA goes, I'm sure the original intent was to make sure things were going safely, and by the book. Unfortunately, during my time - and to this day, as I work with active maintainers - it morphed into a bunch of vindictive, SOBs whose only thoughts are busting peoples chops. At NO time did I ever see a QA write-up turn into a positive experience where the AMU/flight/section came away better maintainers. When the QA all over the USAF is PROUD to use a frickin' VULTURE as their logo as opposed to, say, a professor, the entire program is a joke.

Oh, I was asked to join QA when I was at GFAFB. No sir, not this guy. I was more effective teaching troops on the flight line as a first-line supervisor.

So, that's why.

Oh geez, You don't have to say it. I get it!!

I teach new Airmen every day now. I take safety very seriously now, AND I DID THEN!!

What I'm saying is there has to be a balance, and if we all over-analyze every situation where the slightest potential for an injury could happen we would NEVER even bother getting out of bed; much less generate combat sorties. It's called Risk Management. (A 'Block I' lesson! Just taught that objective to my Airmen a couple days ago, in fact.)

May as well save your keystrokes Gary. I'm done, and sorry I brought it up.

I worked flightline MA-1 for first 8 years of my career. When I first hit 539thFIS McGuire we had 2 MA-1 SSgts who worked QA/QC. They were both 20 year career folks. They did their job, but didn't get much praise from Working troops. Why? because they were sent their so the AF could get some good use from them. They were two of worst MA-1 troops I ever saw. They did not do Tech School, instead were retreads from MG-10/MG-13. Two similar Weapons Systems from F-101/F-102. Neither were as complex as MA-1. So it wasn't really their fault that they couldn't work anything other than black box swappers.

When 539th disbanded I went to Tyndall. Slightly different issues with QA/QC there. They had a large Weapons System group that worked all types of Aircraft, not just MA-1. So you never knew who you would get to do the Inspections. Largest portion of write-ups were missing safety wire, hose frayed, and light bulbs burned out. They also performed over the shoulder reviews of techs working on aircraft. Those were also just MA-1 reviewing MA-1. These were better reviews and included the "Safety" errors. Biggest write-ups were typically failed to use Tech Data etc. I remember one mid shift that QA followed me around for couple hours. I remember one inspection I got written up as safety issue because I didn't use proper Tech Data when connecting the Power Cart and Air conditioner before starting to work. I was qualified to work those and many other Ground Support units. When my supervisor saw the write-ups he challenged the QA guy and ended going to DM who tore up the write-ups. Seems the Tech Data wasn't available on 90% of units on flightline. But because we recertified every year on use of equipment, that counted. I did check the Equipment's "781" list of write-ups.

After I cross trained into Flight Simulation QA/QC was an in-house thing. We were not assigned to maintenance Squadron, rather to DO. We were not governed by 66-1 Maintenance Procedures. But about halfway though my tour at Upper Heyford, the Flight Simulators were transferred from Ops to Maintenance. We got our orientation from Chief of Maintenance QA guys and found out how tough these guys were. Fortunately about 4-5 of us were retrainees coming from Avionics backgrounds and were very familiar with QA Process. So we held in-house training sessions and never really had an issue with it afterwards. We never had to supply anyone to QA shop and our inspections were rather high level as these QA guys were not familiar with our equipment. They were impressed and considered us more like base Computer Shop. They were not familiar with "Clean room" concept of our actual joint computer and Simulator cockpit set-ups. They also were not up to speed on our visual systems and Hydraulic Systems and Power Generations units.

I actually set up mini-training sessions for QA shop so they could better serve our needs. We did have a few "Pure Sim" types who had never worked Aircraft Systems and were hard to convince that the 66-1 Maintenance Program would work for us.

I never saw QA as "the enemy" but rather as someone who made us do our job better and safer.

Lorin

Since I retired in 1986 I never saw a patch like that. Was it a local design? Even though I retire in 1986 I continued to work with USAF and traveled to many bases. I even went to Saudi on a Tech Data Project. I don't remember seeing it . 
www.bing.com/images/search?q=usaf+qa+patch&id=DA40B2B4D7E3629FE10966B72AA54A2A92E8BF19&FORM=IQFRBA

I simple search showed a large number of different QA Patches, all with Vulture. So I believe these are Custom Patches approved locally. Back in ADC we had a ton of custom Patches and we wore them on fatigues/coveralls. Every squadron had address of Patch making Company in Asia. I remember we had F-106 arm patches in different colors. One for each Branch.   www.bing.com/images/search?q=usaf+f-106+patches&qpvt=usaf+f-106+patches&FORM=IGRE

Back when I first went to 539th FIS at McGuire AFB NJ we were a tenant organization on Military Air Transport Service (MATS) base. The big hangers on base had PRIDE, Professional Responsibility in Daily Endeavors. This was forerunner to QA/QC and a few other terms over my career.

While I was Assigned to Operations Branch in Flight Simulators several of us in each location became Stan/Eval Qualified to perform Mission and Operate the Instructor's Console. Stan/Eval also qualified us to conduct Engine Qualifications for Flight Line Troops. We usually ran an engine Qual once a week. On the F-111 all Crews and Engine Run people had to stay current. If a crew went on leave and had not started an engine in over 30 days they had to go through Sim to "Re-certify". That may have been limited to F-111 A and E as they had major issues with engines. They experienced a lot of compressor stalls. In fact they got so bad that crews had special take off routine to prevent stalls. They would take active runway, set the parking brake and light one engine to stage 1 burner, then #2, They would go through 4 stages of burner while\e sitting with parking brake on. Then release brake and go for normal takeoff. 
Can you imagine sitting on runway and trying to hold a six while in full A/B?  I can see the skid marks as it went sliding down runway with brake set. I remember back when I was runup/taxi certified I would always use Idle Thrust switch to prevent rolling away.
Lorin

 An interesting patch with a curious meaning.  Sure would like to know the origin and meaning of the Buzzard (scavenger?) sitting on the Rattlesnake (deadly?) and the icons for eyes?, ear and nose (sight, sound and smell?) and the pitch fork in the fire (devil?). The picture is low resolution and kind of fuzzy so the eyes in the red field may have other pictures inside them.

The creator of the patch may have used the words to tell how they should be regarded but the picture may mean how they are usually regarded by others.  Maybe I am missing the connection between the six words and the images?

Most of the official USAF approved squadron insignias were approved by the USAF back in WW II like the Luther octopus back in 1944.  They were later updated/modified through changes by Squadron/Wing Commanders without necessarily being approved by USAF.  Example below

Pat P. 

Jim, you experienced the "yo-yo effect" of decentralized to centralized squadron maintenance a number of times.  I was lucky to be in the 456th FIS when the fliers and fixers were together for flying, commanders call and beer busts.  We flew 106 WSEM sorties in 6 hours and 15 minutes with 16 birds and every one of them was code 1 after the event.  I left for Okinawa in '68 and never felt that camaraderie again.  The 456th FIS then transferred to Oxnard 437th FIS then 460th FIS in '68 but all the maintainers were in the Camron and hated it.  

I understand economics cycles and economies of scale but the smallest and best USAF combat unit is the combined squadron.
Pat P