Eliminate Loadmasters

I decided to stick with the “eliminate” theme for this string of articles even though it causes a little more drama than is necessary.  It is an excellent way to determine if the person responding has read the article, or merely read the headline.  Much like my last article, I do not seriously mean to eliminate all loadmasters.  They play a vital role in the Air Force’s global mobility mission.  What I propose is that we significantly alter when and how they perform the loading/unloading functions.

There has been a program in the Air Transportation world called APEX or Aerial Port Expeditor for many years and the Phase II program before that.  It is quite simply a program that trains a 2T2 to perform the role of the loadmaster.  This ability provides an aerial port the flexibility to load aircraft long before the aircrew arrives and to start right away once maintenance gives the green light.  But the program is showing secondary effects that are beginning to play out.

Loadmasters are losing opportunities to load at aerial ports with the APEX program which is reducing their proficiency.  Additionally, it is becoming somewhat difficult for them to maintain their qualifications or currency because the port is loading many of the aircraft.

To solve this, I have heard discussions about potentially limiting the amount of aircraft the port can APEX, or only uploads that meet weight or pallet minimums will be eligible.  To be blunt, these are dumb solutions, and I hope we discuss them just long enough to discover how this would not make the Air Force better but how it serves to maintain the status quo.  So, what is the solution?

This is a difficult problem to fix, but I think it is essential to move forward instead of staying the same.  We can automatically eliminate the options of getting rid of the APEX program or limiting it.  The solution I see as being the most beneficial is by creating a Flying Port Dawg program.

The FPD would be modeled after the Flying Crew Chief program.  Why recreate the wheel if someone has already completed the work?  This should use the program only for air-land operations.  No air-drop missions yet!  And only for C5 and C17 aircraft.  We could start with simple channel missions to more robust ports to build the program and then expand it from there to support contingency missions and SAAMs.  There would be a need for additional training to ensure they perform any loadmaster responsibilities performed while in flight, but it would also be an excellent opportunity to look at those tasks to determine if they are still important.  And much like the FCC program, when they are at home station, they are working in their assigned section.  Hopefully not ATOC, since I’ve already tried to reimagine its functionality.

There is a manpower cost to this program, but if implemented, there would be an excess of loadmasters to realign.  This is not meant to start a battle of who is more important, but to highlight that much of the tasks performed by these two AFSCs overlap and the difference in who does the work between a 1A2 or a 2T2 is impossible to distinguish.


Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium, and Facebook!


Compliance or Commitment

Quality Assurance is everywhere, and it is undoubtedly useful.  The rules that govern our processes are also there for a reason, and we should follow them.  It has most likely taken many years of trial and error to figure out what works and what doesn’t.  But in many organizations, there is a focused effort on compliance and little discussion about commitment.

Most managers or leaders would agree that commitment is better than compliance, but rarely do we talk about commitment.  I have heard the phrase, “culture of compliance” so much that it is clear to me these leaders do not think about commitment and perhaps do not even realize that compliance does not make things great.  It merely makes them acceptable.  When people agree to take a job that does not equal commitment.  Enlisting in the military does not equal commitment.  I suppose it is a form of commitment, but not the commitment I’m referencing.  Organizational commitment is when members of the organization not only comply but look for ways to push the organization forward.

We want members of our organizations to want the organization to succeed.  We need them to invest their time and effort to see that it does succeed.  We have all seen these employees before.  The question is how do we get people to be committed instead of merely compliant?

The first solution is to start asking for commitment instead of compliance.  When we focus on compliance, that is what we get.  We cannot expect commitment when we only ask for compliance.

Someone very close to me recently went through an issue that highlights this problem.  She worked in a small organization as the number two in charge.  The organization was a mess, and there were problems everywhere.  But she was committed to the cause and worked tirelessly.  She put in at least 60 hours a week and received phone calls constantly when she was away from the facility.  She stayed at this organization for only 3-4 months.  She was eventually burned out, but not from the hours or hard work.  She worked for people that wanted compliance, not commitment.  The people in charge of the budget would not approve additional staff to cover severe gaps in service, and she could not fire poor performing employees because that meant she would have to cover those holes.  Once there were not enough people to cover the functions, complaints increased, staff became frustrated, which caused more complaints, which prompted management to approach the issue as if there were a compliance problem.  This approach caused more employees to quit, which meant employee turnover increased.  The staff that resigned were those with options, the ones that stayed, were the poor performers that didn’t want to take the risk of a new job.

To focus on her employees and create an environment that showed them the organization would care for them helps foster a culture of commitment.  It starts at the top; if leaders do not engage the supervisors and managers, then the managers and supervisors will not engage the lower level employees, and problems will surface.  They mask themselves as compliance issues, but they are commitment issues.


Follow us on all platforms! LinkedIn, Twitter, Instagram, Medium