All things considered, maintenance in PAF has had its bad apples as well. From wrong screws/fastners going into an F-16 that led to an airframe loss.. to wiring control surface powers incorrectly that had aircraft disintegrating in mid air. All due to the idea of "letting it be".. or "doing with what is available".
Such attitudes have already led to the loss of multiple airframes in the past.. and will continue to do so. Wont be surprised if we lose another JF-17 due to some enlisted deciding to make do with whatever he has and skipping a step to get a jet airborne.. and the supervising officer accepting it so that he does not have to face the CO for telling him a jet cant go out that day.
There is a great difference between deficiency and neglect.
Deficiencies usually came from processes and procedures that while themselves came from studies and analyses, even extensive ones, those processes and procedures somehow failed to consider factors and variables that often does not exist at the time of those studies and analyses. Why did those factors and variable not exist ? Environment is one example. If an aircraft was not tested near salt water conditions, there will be no adverse corrosion issues to factor. That said, no aviation maintenance processes and procedures are ever 'bulletproof' and the greater the operational range an aircraft is designed and intended, the greater the odds of having some deficiencies in its maintenance processes and procedures.
Even the US military is
NOT immune from this, and that is why we try to document as many maintenance actions on every aircraft as possible. The data can be overwhelming, especially during my 'old days' where paper was the only mode of record keeping. If something happened to one jet at one base, that usually would be considered a one-off event until something happens to another jet at another base under similar institutional and environmental conditions. Then it will take months or even years before an analyst or some analysts somewhere in the bowels of the military institution to notice a commonality between events. A 'Class A' mishap will trigger accelerated investigations and record reviews, of course.
Deficiencies are usually widespread because processes and procedures are broad in adoption. Every F-16 or F-15 base have the same set of 'Technical Orders' (TO) and those TOs tries to cover as many situations in maintenance as possible. The more popular the aircraft, the greater the spread of undiscovered deficiencies, until something bad happens, then appropriate amendments to the TOs will be disseminated. As such, deficiencies in maintenance processes and procedures are usually quicker to be discovered and resolved with the SR-71, a rare aircraft, than on the hugely popular F-16.
Neglect is much more pernicious than technical deficiencies. Neglect depends more on individual personalities than on technical skills in applying those processes and procedures. Neglect are very nearly always from local, meaning to a particular unit, about professionalism and discipline. Basically: 'Do
YOU give a shit about what you are doing ?' To put the question bluntly to the airmen, whether he is an enlisted technician or an officer pilot or even up to the commander himself.
Neglect can be easily remedied on a case by case basis, but if the commander does not set the correct tone of professionalism, then neglect will be widespread and will require wholesale replacement, not merely discipline, of the unit, starting with the commander. It does not matter if the unit is a single squadron inside a wing or even a smaller section inside a squadron. If the unit's leadership does not set the tone of professionalism in a top down manner, wholesale replacement is the safest, but most institutionally traumatic, way to correct the problem. Basically: 'If the commander himself does not give a shit about what he is doing, then why should I give a shit about what I am doing ?' It is very tough, virtually impossible, for anything to spread from the bottom up, but if shit rolls downhill, so will easily anything else, including attitudes and professionalism.
ORIs get tougher, and more frequent | Air Force Times | airforcetimes.com
Get ready for more inspections and less time to prepare. Stung by inspection failures that have called attention to deficiencies in the way the Air Force has handled its nuclear weapons, major commands are turning to surprise operational readiness inspections and more frequent inspections as a way to keep airmen focused and war-ready.
Nobody in the USAF want to live under a commander whose unit either failed an ORI or received a pass but marginal rating. For a full colonel, a fail rating can kiss that brigadier star goodbye. Might as well punish the unit yourself before submitting your retirement papers.
An ORI is practically the best way to inspect and enforce discipline at the wing level, starting with the 'wing king' himself. An ORI basically asks: 'Are you ready for war ?' Then inspectors proceed to be intrusive into every aspects of the wing's mission, from the hospital to the airplanes to the mechanics to the military police and even to the cooks.
To give non-Americans an idea on how strict the USAF does an ORI...Everyone must be qualified for deployment. When I got to MacDill (F-16) back in 1987, there was a squadron that received a marginal rating from an ORI. The marginal rating was caused by a smaller unit whose members contains some enlisted engine techs and whose CO, a captain, failed to enforce
DENTAL APPOINTMENTS that caused the base dentists to disqualified some engine techs from deployments. Life was not easy for that squadron for a month under its Lt. Colonel CO even though there was no fail rating.
Of course, if there is a war, it would not matter. Everyone will be needed and will be deployed if necessary, rotten teeth or not. Dental appointments may sound petty but peacetime is the
ONLY time you have to properly prepare your forces for war. Not the best time, but the only time. We did not care about their personal finances whether these guys made their car/motorcycle/boat/alimony payments or not. We just want to know if their teeth are free of decay so they can be deployed where they might lose some or all of their teeth.
Our system is not perfect, but we believe we have a pretty good handle on discipline and professionalism to keep neglect down to a minimum and localized.
