As we settle comfortably into the 21st century it has become apparent it is time for a new aviation rate. Now you can not find an aircraft that is not dependent on a computer system. If we as a community want to avoid the burden of co-dependence to money hungry contract maintenance companies (i.e. Lockheed Martin and friends) we must demand the creation of a new Aviation Rate. AIT = Aviation Information system Technician. This rate that would consist of characteristics from AET, OS, and IT. As of now we are taking our AET’s out of their norm and away from their practical factors to complete this mission. With the insufficient training/publications for these programs we are leaning heavily on companies like Lockheed Martin, Rockwell Collins, and FLIR to assist in troubleshooting software/hardware problems. In the end I can see one of two scenarios playing out: 1. The Coast Guard ditching our tradition of Fixers and Flyers, and just hand over our maintenance plans to commercial companies that will bleed us for funds. Ultimately this would reduce our understanding of these new software based systems, and make repair on deployment almost non-existent. 2. Develop our own Rate and arm all our personnel with the tools needed to keep the Coast Guard smart.
The information age now rules this world, and it goes well beyond the use of cell phones and the internet. These sensor systems are in their infant stages right now, and with the proper care we can insure the programs mature into productive aircrafts in Coast Guard society. Regardless of what anyone says, these Sensor Systems are the future of the Coast Guard, lets not be a “late bloomer”.
I think it would be more fun to name them Aviation Network Technicians and then squash that rate all at once. beside we have bigger problems with the new systems than being able to trouble shoot them. like that fact that we have no spare parts to repair the discrep no matter who figures it out and we won't have any for a very very long time. Now get back to work.
Funny you started this thread. This has been discussed.
If I was king for the day, I would start a new rating (or bring back the AT rating) to address the highly technical sensor/data/comms direction CG aviation is heading. Being a Monday morning quarterback, 1998's AWR hurt us in this area. Back then we didn't know the technical tidal wave that was to come and IMO....I suspect the politics of govt steamlining were in play too.
Having said the above, we can't dwell on what happened in 1998. We have to move forward and work with what we know today.
From my perch, I would lean towards names like Aviation Ops Technician (AOT) or Aviation Intel Tech (AIT). I would go with Aviation Sensor Tech but AST is already in use. It would likely have to be a resource neutral startup. In HQ speak...that means things like no-cost in new billets. There are alot of other considerations involved if we ever went down this road. For example...an A School would have to spool up.
I suppose if anyone has any legit, thought-out ideas they could send them up thru their LCPO to the RFMC's. The LCPO Conference is coming up, so this might be a good time to develop ideas. Maybe there will be something in the Red Rag Times one of these days.
Making a new rating is a solution looking for a problem.
The problem is timely delivery of skill development for specific platforms. The CG training program has always been a day late and a dollar short. I know, I was one of "them."
Ever since the Gilbert Study from the 1980s, the CGs Training Empire has been underfunded and populated by too many Skinnerian true believers. Getting training support has been like pulling teeth. Last thing funded, first thing blamed.
True, good training money has been pee'd away on frivolous activities, but most "systems" are not supported by robust, and flexible training support. Historically, when programs buy systems the last thing they worry about is life cycle training support. In the CG, that is someone else's job. Especially for training not involving Officers.
Aviation tried to fix the problem by trying to steal Enlisted Maintenance Training from the old W-T. The coup almost made it. It took some high level Admiral(s) to finally suppress the insurrection. Having "the program" take responsibility (ownership) for the cost and accountability of training is the only way to fix these problems. Unfortunately, it will never happen as long as O-6 and up billets are possibly threatened.
Too many third and fourth parties involved to provide timely, flexible support, unless you hire contractors.
So many ideas, not enough money. I know that we will spend more time re-thinking our jobs in aviation and hopefully align our practical factors to blend todays need for computer hardware/ software technicians.
