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!

Advertisements

Eliminate ATOC

For my typical readers, this article will depart from my usual leadership centered topics and will instead focus on a functional role.  My professional community (Port Dawgs) are a wild bunch that will no doubt eviscerate me if this article is dumb, so I must approach this topic like I do everything else…just spit it out and see what happens.  My best-case scenario is it provides a viewpoint that creates conversations and that conversation turns into action.  Worst-case scenario is they will call me an idiot (which is not the worst thing I’ve been called). Either way, let’s get rid of ATOC.

The internet is a game-changer.  Or at least is was a game-changer in 1990 but somehow, I don’t believe we have fully taken advantage of this monumental opportunity.  It is long overdue for us to do so.  ATOC is something the internet could have replaced with some shifting in tasks and a little flexibility.  Not the ATOC flight (cape forecasting, load planning, etc.), the section.  The first charge of ATOC is to be the command and control (C2) of the Aerial Port.  It has been ages since this was the case in reality.  We have established SOEs that the sections adhere to and for the majority of the time they are autonomous.  They need very little C2 from ATOC.

Let’s start with the inbound and outbound controllers.  Keep in mind these are general functions found at most large ports.  All squadrons would need to adjust it a bit to make it work.  Each section in the port has a dispatcher if they work on the flightline.  And everyone has access to GATES.  Because of this, all sections usually skip ATOC and get aircraft info on their own.  This has been happening for a long time and now we have GATES that will usually feed us this info.  Easily we can eliminate these functions.

Senior Controller.  The senior controller position used to be quite valuable, especially in the absence of the Duty Officer (DO).  They run the control center and ensure all the controllers are doing what they are supposed to do.  But if we eliminate the other controller positions the senior controller position is pointless.

Duty Officer.  The duty officer position is important.  We do need a position with actual authority to make decisions and advocate on behalf of the Aerial Port.  Provide two or more depending on local needs to ensure they are not overwhelmed with the additional work.  Put them in a mobile workstation inside a truck with a radio, smartphone, tablet, and laptop so they are always connected to the unit’s needs.  We also need a 24/7 point of contact for the 618 AOC or APCC to contact for emergent requirements such as MICAP, HRs, etc.  Additionally, we would transfer the Ramp controller’s responsibilities to the DO.  They would take the paperwork to the crew, brief them, and ensure the uploads are going well.  They would also be responsible to coordinate with Command Post and Maintenance.  Times will need to be input by the section dispatchers and ATOC will no longer need to deal with the Form 77.  Data Records will be responsible for checking the 77 (if we even need a 77).  This will put the pressure on the dispatchers to ensure they have quality dispatchers.  On a side note, why don’t we have a formal dispatcher’s course?  I’ll look into that…

Local management will determine where to align the DO and the few other sections in the ATOC flight operationally and administratively.

Clearly, there are many items I haven’t addressed but this isn’t intended to be an all-encompassing solution.  It is intended to start the conversation.  It’s time to put a working group together so we can talk about how to actually utilize the leaps in technology we are seeing instead of simply converting paper documents to electronic documents and leaving our processes the same.

 

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

Leadership Lessons from a Racist Rant

Everyone has covered the story of the Technical Sergeant at Nellis Air Force Base that went off on a racist fueled rant about her black subordinates.  This is a popular story, and the official response from the base was to not only look at the individual but to take a more in-depth look into the base and its subcultures to see if this type of thinking is common.  I don’t know the typical behavior on Nellis, so we are going to look at the lessons a leader can learn from her behavior.

A good leader can look past the things that most racists, sexists, and bigots cannot.  The young women the Sergeant referenced could very well have bad attitudes, and they may not be behaving per the core values the Air Force champions.  A good leader will realize that it is not because they are black; there are other reasons for it.

The first thing we must address is ourselves.  So, is this attitude she experienced caused by her? Perhaps her approach is off.  Maybe she is projecting her personal biases on others and anticipating a disrespectful behavior.  If a leader takes this approach, you are sure to get that reaction.  Judging by the video, it does not seem like she is taking a soft or empathetic approach with her subordinates. Nobody likes to be treated like they are less than others.  Even when they know they are subordinates in the organizational structure, they don’t like to be treated like minions.  A positive and understanding approach is most likely to garner the best results.

Perhaps it is the subordinates.  In this sentence, I do not mean to say “black women” are a problem.  What I do mean is, people will gather based on their similarities; negative attitudes bring people together like moths to a streetlight.  And once they have come together they start to build an internal group culture that has nothing to do with race or sex, and everything to do with leadership.  They continue to reinforce each other’s poor attitudes and behavior until they believe they are doing the right thing.  It takes someone with a very developed set of leadership skills to help them see the truth in their actions.  This was clearly not the case in this issue.

The video was bad, but the fact that she believes this is an issue with black women is much worse.  What kind of culture can she be capable of creating as a leader if she harbors such small-minded beliefs? The Air Force will be wise to understand how it failed to equip her with the leadership skills necessary to deal with conflict and how she could harbor these types of hidden biases even after seeing the value of diversity in our military.  If they take the time to study her behavior, we can then begin to eradicate it from the Air Force.

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