OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT

Transcription

1 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT FLIGHT ENGINEER, PERFORMANCE QUALIFIED AFSC 1A1X1C OSSN: 2477 JUNE 2002 OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAM AIR FORCE OCCUPATIONAL MEASUREMENT SQUADRON AIR EDUCATION and TRAINING COMMAND th STREET EAST RANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

2 Report Documentation Page Report Date 01JUN2002 Report Type N/A Dates Covered (from... to) - Title and Subtitle Occupational Survey Report Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified AFSC 1A1X1C Contract Number Grant Number Program Element Number Author(s) Project Number Task Number Work Unit Number Performing Organization Name(s) and Address(es) Occupational Analysis Program Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron Air Education and Training Command th Street East Randolph AFB, TX Sponsoring/Monitoring Agency Name(s) and Address(es) Performing Organization Report Number Sponsor/Monitor s Acronym(s) Sponsor/Monitor s Report Number(s) Distribution/Availability Statement Approved for public release, distribution unlimited Supplementary Notes The original document contains color images. Abstract Subject Terms Report Classification unclassified Classification of Abstract unclassified Classification of this page unclassified Limitation of Abstract UU Number of Pages 55

3 DISTRIBUTION FOR AFSC 1A1X1C OSR AFOMS/OMYXI 2 CCAF/DFAX 1 DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 2 HQ ACC/DPPE 3 HQ AETC/DPSEO 3 HQ AFMC/DPEE 3 HQ AFPC/DPAADOM4 1 HQ AFPC/DPPAC 1 HQ AFR/DPTS 5 HQ AFSOC/DPPMT 3 HQ AMC/DPPET 3 HQ USAF/XOOT (ATTN: CMSGT SHANNON, 1480 AIR FORCE PENTAGON, 3 WASHINGTON DC, ) USMC TRAINING AND EDUCATION, STANDARDS BRANCH 1 AETC/DOF (ATTN: CMSGT JOLLY, 1 F STREET, STE 2, RANDOLPH 5 AFB TX, ) ii

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE NUMBER PREFACE...vi EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... vii INTRODUCTION...1 Occupational Analysis Program...1 Survey Development Process...1 Survey Administration...1 Survey Analysis...2 Uses of Survey Data...2 OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT (OSR) FLIGHT ENGINEER, PERFORMANCE QUALIFIED (AFSC 1A1X1C)...5 Career Ladder Background...5 SURVEY METHODOLOGY...6 Inventory Development...6 1A1X1C Survey Administration...6 Survey Sample...6 1A1X1C JOB STRUCTURE...9 Specialty Jobs...9 Members Not Grouped...10 Comparison of Current Specialty Jobs to Previous Survey...11 SKILL AND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS...11 Total Sample Job...11 Duties...11 AD...11 Duties...11 Tasks...12 AFRC and ANG...12 Duties...12 Tasks...12 iii

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE NUMBER TRAINING ANALYSIS...12 What Entry-Level Members Need To Know...13 First-Assignment Personnel...13 Task Factor Surveys...14 Flight Engineer Utilization and Training Workshop...15 JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS...16 RETENTION DIMENSIONS...17 Reenlistment...17 Separation...17 TABLE 1 MAJCOM REPRESENTATION OF TOTAL SAMPLE...7 TABLE 2 PAYGRADE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE...8 TABLE 3 TOTAL SKILL-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE...8 TABLE 4 COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS...8 FIGURE 1 IDENTIFIED JOB STRUCTURE AND PERCENTAGES OF TOTAL SURVEY SAMPLE (N=848) TABLE 5 FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB TABLE 6 TABLE 7...AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY F JOB PERSONNEL DISTRIBUTION OF 5- AND 7-SKILL-LEVEL DAFSC GROUPS MEMBERS ACROSS FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING) TABLE 8 DAFSC OF MEMBERS NOT GROUPED (NUMBERED) (N=16) TABLE 9 TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY MEMBERS OF AFSC 1A1X1C SKILL-LEVEL GROUPS TOTAL SAMPLE (PERCENT RESPONDING) TABLE 10 TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY COMPONENT SKILL-LEVEL GROUPS iv

6 ...(PERCENT RESPONDING) 22 TABLE 11 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AD DAFSC 1A151C PERSONNEL TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued) PAGE NUMBER TABLE 12 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AD DAFSC 1A171C PERSONNEL TABLE 13 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AFRC DAFSC 1A151C PERSONNEL TABLE 14 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AFRC DAFSC 1A171C PERSONNEL TABLE 15 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY ANG DAFSC 1A171C PERSONNEL TABLE 16 PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY AD FIRST-ASSIGNMENT PERSONNEL (1-48 MONTHS TICF) TABLE 17 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AD AFSC 1A1X1C FIRST-ASSIGNMENT PERSONNEL (1-48 MONTHS TICF) TABLE 18...BEST DESCRIPTION OF MISSION (S) FLOWN BY AD F AFSC 1A1X1C PERSONNEL (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING) TABLE 19 AIRCRAFT FOR WHICH AD FIRST-ASSIGNMENT AFSC 1A1X1C PERSONNEL HOLD PRIMARY QUALIFICATION RATING (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING) TABLE 20 AFSC 1A1X1C TASKS WITH HIGHEST TRAINING EMPHASIS RATINGS TABLE 21 AFSC 1A1X1C TASKS WITH HIGHEST TASK DIFFICULTY RATINGS TABLE 22 JOB SATISFACTION INDICATORS FOR FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB GROUP (PERCENT MEMBERS RESPONDING)...34 TABLE 23...COMPARISON OF CURRENT SURVEY AND PREV...BY TICF GROUPS (PERCENT MEMBERS RES v

7 TABLE 24...COMPARISON OF CURRENT SURVEY AND PREV...BY TICF GROUPS (PERCENT MEMBERS RES TABLE 25 COMPARISON OF REENLISTMENT FACTORS BY TICF GROUPS (AVERAGE RESPONSE SCORE)...37 TABLE 26 COMPARISON OF SEPARATION FACTORS BY TICF GROUPS (AVERAGE RESPONSE SCORE)...38 vi

8 PREFACE This report presents the results of an Air Force Occupational Survey of the Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified career ladder (AFSC 1A1X1C). Authority for conducting an occupational survey is contained in AFI Copies of this report and pertinent computer printouts are distributed to the Air Force Career Field Manager, technical training school, all major using commands, and other interested operations and training officials. Second Lieutenant Toni L. Agnew, Inventory Development Specialist, developed the survey instrument. Christine (Chris) G. Garcia, Occupational Analyst, analyzed the data and wrote the final report. Ms. Karen Tilghman provided computer-programming support and Ms. Dolores Navarro provided administrative support. Major Jose Caussade, Chief, Airman Analysis Section, reviewed and approved this report for release. Additional copies of this report may be obtained by writing to AFOMS/OMYXI, th Street East, Randolph AFB TX , or by calling DSN For information on the Air Force occupational survey process or other on-going projects, visit our website at EUGENE H. HENRY, Lt Col, USAF Commander Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron JOHN L. KAMMRATH Chief, Occupational Analysis Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron vii

9 OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT (OSR) FLIGHT ENGINEER, PERFORMANCE QUALIFIED (AFSC 1A1X1C) EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1. Survey Coverage: The Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified career ladder was surveyed to obtain current task data for use in evaluating current training programs. The data will also be used to support Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) development. Surveys were sent to 1,166 Active Duty (AD), 863 Air Force Reserve Command (AFRC), and 384 Air National Guard (ANG) personnel. Survey results were based on 848 total members. 2. Specialty Jobs: One job was identified in the career ladder analysis. The job identified was the Flight Engineer Job. 3. Career Ladder Progression: Skill-level progression for members of this AFSC is not typical of most career ladders. Personnel at the 5- and 7-skill-levels perform many tasks in common, and both groups spend the vast majority of their relative job time performing general flight engineer activities. Although 7-skill-level members still spend a substantial amount of time on technical tasks, a slight shift toward supervisory functions is evident. 4. Training Analysis: In order to support the merger of the Flight Engineers, Helicopter (1A1X1B) and the Flight Engineers, Performance Qualified (1A1X1C), a comprehensive review of the major aircraft specific courses that Flight Engineers attend is under analysis. This data will be reported in an annex to this report upon completion. 5. Job Satisfaction Analysis: Job satisfaction for the Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified career ladder is good. The job satisfaction ratings for the three time-in-career field (TICF) groups improved or remained the same from the previous survey. The first-assignment group (1-48 mos TICF) had the higher job satisfaction ratings. Reenlistment intentions for the three TICF groups remain relatively low. 6. Retention Dimensions: Members in all three TICF groups agreed on several factors potentially influencing their decision to reenlist or separate. Top factors for reenlistment include retirement benefits, military lifestyle, pay and allowance, and job security. The common top factor agreed upon by the TICF groups influencing their decision to separate was pay and allowances. viii

10 INTRODUCTION Air Force Occupational Measurement Squadron (AFOMS) Occupational Analysis Program Simply put, our mission is to provide occupational data for decision makers, allowing them to make informed personnel, training, and education decisions based not on opinion and conjecture, but on empirical, quantitative data. Survey Development Process An occupational survey begins with a job inventory (JI) -- a list of all the tasks performed by members of a given Air Force Specialty Code (AFSC) as part of their actual career field work (that is, additional duties and the like are not included.) We strive to ensure that every function career field members perform is included by working very closely with technical training personnel, the Air Staff, and operational subject-matter experts (SMEs) to produce a task list that is complete and understandable to the typical job incumbent filling out the survey. The SMEs also ensure the task list is written to the same level of specificity across duty areas and that each task is mutually exclusive, that it is not covered in the task list more than once. In addition to this comprehensive task list, job inventories include a number of background questions that deal with demographic information, job satisfaction, equipment usage, and any other area that our customers may desire to focus on. Furthermore, the JI is only one of the surveys that AFOMS produces. The JI task list is used in creating several other surveys that are important for developing and refining career field training programs and for developing career field promotion tests; these surveys and how their results are used will be described shortly. Survey Administration The sample of members who receive the JI primarily depends on the size of the career ladder. We typically survey 100% of all eligible members in career ladders numbering 3,000 members or less. For career ladders larger than 3,000 assigned members, we typically select a random sample of half of the eligible members. Return rates (the percentage of surveys we receive back from the field) generally run 70% or greater. All this combines to produce very large and very representative samples in almost every study we conduct, compared for example to the samples obtained by private commercial surveying and marketing firms, and this in turn leads to highly accurate information about the work and demographics of the career field. 1

11 When the number of tasks is large, responding to the JI can be somewhat time-consuming for the Air Force member, but it is a simple process. Respondents are asked to examine each task and indicate whether they do or do not perform that task in their current job. They are then asked to rate each task they marked on a scale of 1 to 9 based on how much relative time they spend performing that task in their present job. Survey Analysis Survey responses are processed using a set of computer programs called the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Programs (CODAP). We are able to calculate some important basic information about each task from the information that respondents provide in the JI: the Percent Members Performing (PMP) and the Percent Time Spent (PTS). CODAP groups survey respondents according to their similarity of task performance, and our analysts study these groupings to identify distinct jobs. Further, we can provide PMP and PTS information for any subgroup. For example, we can easily determine the percent of E-5s or 3-skill-level or first-term airmen who perform each task, and estimate the average amount of job time they spend performing it. This is important because many of the applications of our data target particular subgroups within the career ladder. Uses of Survey Data Survey results are formally reported in an Occupational Survey Report (OSR) -- what you are currently reading -- but the OSR is by no means the only product of an occupational survey study. The OSR provides a high-level "snapshot" of an entire AFSC in a compact package, but it is not intended to provide the comprehensive information needed to support important decisions about a career field. That is the purpose of data extracts, which are comprehensive, detailed sets of CODAP-generated reports designed for particular applications. The Training Extract -- AFOMS survey data are essential to technical training professionals. The Training Extract provides information about what career ladder incumbents are actually doing in their jobs at each stage of their career, along with supporting information regarding when and how members should be trained to perform their jobs. The data found in the Training Extract regarding first-job, firstterm, and 3-skill-level members are the primary source of empirical information available to support such decisions. In addition to the JI, AFOMS produces two other surveys that directly support the training community. Depending on the size of the career ladder, a sample of at least 50 and frequently 100 or more 7-skill-level craftsmen is selected to complete a Training Emphasis (TE) survey. A similar-sized sample of other 7-skill-level craftsmen is selected to complete a Task Difficulty (TD) survey. The TE survey, like the JI, contains the complete career ladder task list, and, like the JI, respondents are asked to rate tasks on a 0 to 9 scale. Unlike the JI, however, respondents are asked to rate tasks based on how much emphasis they believe should be placed on that task for entry-level structured training. A "0" indicates the respondent's belief that no structured training is required for that task, while 2

12 a "1" indicates the respondent's belief that very little emphasis be placed on providing structured training on that task. A rating of "9" indicates that it is essential to provide structured training on the task. Structured training is defined as resident technical schools; field training detachments, mobile training teams, formal on-the-job training (OJT), or any other organized training method. The responses of the entire sample of raters are averaged for each task resulting in a TE rating for each task. The TD survey also contains the full task list and requests that respondents rate each task on a scale of 1 to 9 ( 1 is low, 9 is high); but this time, respondents are asked to rate the amount of time needed to learn to perform that task satisfactorily. In other words, as the name implies, TD is an indicator of how difficult the task is to learn to do. The sample's average TD for each task in the inventory is standardized with a mean rating of 5.0 and a standard deviation of 1.0. When used in conjunction with the PMP and PTS for first-enlistment members, average TE and TD ratings provide insight into the appropriate training requirements for new personnel in the career ladder. These four indices (PMP, PTS, TE, and TD) are used to compute a composite index, the Automated Training Indicator (ATI), for each task. The ATI expresses in a single number between 1 and 18 ( 1 is low, 18 is high) the importance of including training for that task in the initial resident technical course. ATIs allow training developers to quickly focus attention on those tasks that are most likely to qualify for resident course consideration. Further information concerning TE and TD ratings and ATIs for the entire task list can be found in the Training Extract that accompanies this OSR. The major users of Training Extract information are attendees at Utilization and Training Workshops (U&TWs). The U&TW is a summit of representative career ladder, training, and classification leaders whose purpose is to evaluate current training efficiency and effectiveness in order to propose and approve changes to the Specialty Training Standard (STS) or Course Training Standard (CTS), particularly with regard to 3-skill level training, and to address utilization issues. The AFSC s job description in Attachment 6 of AFMAN , Enlisted Classification, is reviewed in light of the survey data and appropriately revised to reflect the jobs being performed by the career ladder members. Part of the process of compiling the Training Extract involves the STS matching process, during which technical school personnel match JI tasks to STS elements; that is, they tell us what particular task or tasks correspond to each STS element when it is covered in training. This is especially useful when STS performance codes are being reviewed for the 3-skill-level course. For example, the U&TW attendees might be asked to consider adding a task performance code to an STS element that has only been trained to a knowledge level previously. Occupational survey data are an important input in determining the appropriate proficiency code. Separate Training Extracts are produced for AD, ANG, and AFRC component members. The Specialty Knowledge Test (SKT) Extract -- AFOMS survey data are key to ensuring that SKTs are valid. SKTs are an important part of the Weighted Airman Promotion System (WAPS). Because an airman's test score is frequently the deciding factor in determining who is promoted, SKTs must be valid, fair, and credible. 3

13 In terms of SKTs, valid means that every question on the test is tied to a task which has been shown to be important to successful performance in the specialty. This tie is crucial to documenting the validity of SKT content. AFOMS surveys provide test writers with information on what percentage of airmen are performing tasks (PMP), an estimate of how much job time they spend performing tasks (PTS), how difficult tasks are to master (TD), and the importance of formal training on tasks (TE). This information is combined to produce a composite index called the Predicted Testing Importance (PTI). Those tasks that are rated highest in PTI are ones that are high in all four of our primary indices -- PMP, PTS, TD, and TE - - exactly the kinds of tasks that one would consider job-essential and critical for incumbents to know and thus be tested on. PTI information is used for minor test revisions; how it is used will be explained shortly. Field-validated testing importance (FVTI) data are produced for major test revisions. Approximately 6 months before the start of test development, a sample of 100 senior career field NCOs are sent a survey containing a list of tasks rated highest in PTI. Respondents are asked to provide a 1-7 rating ( 1 is low, 7 is high) of how important they believe it is to include a question concerning that task on the SKT. The responses are averaged for each task, yielding the FVTI index -- a direct measure of the opinions of career field experts as to what constitutes "job-essential" knowledge. PTI and FVTI information is included in the SKT Extract which is specifically tailored for use by the SKT teams who come to AFOMS to write the promotion examinations. Two sets of reports are prepared -- one set uses only data for E-5s and the other uses combined data for E-6s and E-7s. Each report gives the SKT team information on every task's PMP, PTS, and PTI, and, for major test revisions, FVTI data. Occupational survey data are thus the only objective source of information available to the team regarding how to make the test they write meet legal requirements for validity and fairness. The Analysis Extract -- The Analysis Extract is an archive of all the data collected in the course of a study that are not incorporated in one of the other extracts. We typically produce separate Analysis Extracts for AD and ANG/AFRC members. The Analysis Extract is usually an enormous document, a compilation of the many reports that "slice and dice" the data in virtually every potentially useful way. Just about any question anyone has regarding career ladder work, personnel, or training and utilization issues can be answered by consulting one or another of the reports in the Analysis Extract. The OSR This document, the OSR, captures survey data and analysis both in breadth and depth. For ease of reading, the first half of the OSR concentrates on breadth with compelling factors and implications across the specialty. The ensuing appendices show depth with regard to these factors and implications primarily in tabular format. Where appropriate, highlights of the tables are contained in the body. The reader will find tables in their entirety in the appendices. 4

14 OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORT (OSR) FLIGHT ENGINEER, PERFORMANCE QUALIFIED (AFSC 1A1X1C) This is a report of an occupational survey of the Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified career ladder, conducted by the Occupational Analysis Flight, AFOMS. The OSR reports the findings of current data that are available for use in guiding the development and evaluation of training and support planned changes within this career ladder. In addition, the data are used to support SKT development. The previous OSR was completed in June Career Ladder Background As described in the AFMAN , Enlisted Classification, dated 31 October 1998, Flight Engineer personnel in this career ladder perform aircraft visual inspections and in-flight duties. They operate and monitor engine and aircraft systems controls, panels, indicators, and devices. They compute and apply aircraft weight, balance, and performance data. They determine and verify passenger, cargo, fuel, and emergency and special equipment distribution and weight. They organize flight engineering standardization, qualification, and other required fight engineer logs, reports, and records for accuracy, completeness, format, and compliance with current directives. Further responsibilities include evaluation of flight engineer activities and technical problems encountered by operating units. Primary entry into the career ladder is lateral after achieving the 5- or 7-skill-level in the following specified AFSCs: 1A0, 1A2, 1A5, 2A1, 2A3X1/X3, 2A4X1/2, 2A5, 2A6, 2A7, or 2M0; or by possession of a valid Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Flight Engineer certificate with a jet or turboprop rating, or valid FAA aircraft and power plant license. Initial 3-skill-level training for AFSC 1A1X1C personnel is currently provided through the Basic Flight Engineer (BFE) Course taught at Altus AFB OK. This course is 5 weeks, 4 days in length and provides the airman with ground instruction on mathematics, atmosphere and physics, aerodynamics, aircraft performance and performance log, engine theory, weight and balance, basic chart reading, winds, critical field length, and inflight and nonstandard landing data. Entry into AFSC 1A1X1C requires a General Armed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) General score of 55 and a Strength requirement of K (weight lift of 70 lbs). 5

15 SURVEY METHODOLOGY Inventory Development The data collection instrument for this occupational survey was USAF Job Inventory (JI) Occupational Survey Study Number (OSSN) 2477, dated August During the development of the comprehensive task list, 42 subject-matter experts were interviewed from six operational bases and two training units. In addition to the standard background questions, the survey requested the following information: base of assignment; command of assignment; standard background questions, including job satisfaction and reenlistment intentions; number of deployments and days TDY; job title; types of flying missions, and aircraft qualification ratings. The inventory listed 674 tasks grouped under 22 duty headings and a background section. (The complete task list is available on the CD-ROM containing the products from this study.) BASE Altus AFB OK REASON FOR VISIT Basic Flight Engineer apprentice-level training Little Rock AFB AR Training for C-130 ANG Basic Flight Engineer (ANGBFE) Course Tinker AFB OK Airborne training for E-3 Hurlburt Field FL McGuire AFB NJ Operates and maintains the AC-130H and the MC- 130E Combat Talon I Operates and maintains C-141 and KC-10 aircraft MacDill AFB FL Unique mission; Central Command (CENTCOM) Operators 1A1X1C Survey Administration From August 2001 to January 2002, the survey control monitors at the technical training school and operational bases administered the inventory to all eligible DAFSC 1A151C and 1A171C AD, AFRC, and ANG personnel. Members ineligible to take the survey included the following: (1) hospitalized members; (2) members in transition for a permanent change of station; (3) members retiring within the time the inventories were administered to the field; and (4) members who had been in their present jobs for less than 6 weeks. Participants were selected from a computer-generated mailing list obtained from data tapes maintained by the Air Force Personnel Center, Randolph AFB TX. 6

16 Survey Sample The data on survey returns were examined to ensure that the final sample reflected an accurate representation across major commands (MAJCOMs) and paygrades. Table 1 shows the distribution of the survey sample by MAJCOM, while Table 2 reflects the survey distribution by paygrade groups. Table 3 reveals the final sample distribution by skill level. Table 4 displays the component characteristics for the AD, ANG, and AFRC members in the final sample. TABLE 1 MAJCOM REPRESENTATION OF TOTAL SAMPLE PERCENT OF PERCENT OF COMMAND ASSIGNED* SAMPLE AETC 5 7 AMC ACC 6 9 AFMC 1 1 USAFE 1 3 PACAF 1 4 AFSOC 5 4 AFRC ANG EUR 1 0 TOTAL ASSIGNED* 2,684 TOTAL ELIGIBLE 2,335 TOTAL SURVEYS MAILED 2,335 TOTAL IN SAMPLE 848 PERCENT OF ASSIGNED IN SAMPLE 32 PERCENT OF ELIGIBLE IN SAMPLE 36 PERCENT OF MAILED IN SAMPLE 36 * As of Aug 01 Note: Columns may not add to 100 percent due to rounding 7

17 TABLE 2 PAYGRADE DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE PERCENT OF PERCENT OF PAYGRADE ASSIGNED SAMPLE E E E E E TABLE 3 TOTAL SKILL-LEVEL DISTRIBUTION OF SAMPLE PERCENT OF PERCENT OF SKILL LEVEL ASSIGNED SAMPLE 1A131C * 0 1A151C A171C * Indicates less than 1 percent TABLE 4 COMPONENT CHARACTERISTICS AD AFRC ANG ASSIGNED 1, SURVEYED 1, SAMPLE % OF SURVEYED

18 The Command, Paygrade, and Skill-Level distributions of the survey sample are close to the percent assigned indicating that the sample is a true representation of the career ladder population assigned to the MAJCOMs. 1A1X1C JOB STRUCTURE The first step in the analysis process is to identify the career ladder structure in terms of the jobs performed by the respondents. CODAP creates an individual job description for each respondent based on the tasks performed and relative amount of time spent on these tasks. The CODAP automated job clustering program then compares all the individual job descriptions, locates the two descriptions with the most similar tasks and time spent ratings, and combines them to form a composite job description. In successive stages, CODAP either adds new members to this initial group or forms new groups based on the similarity of tasks and time spent ratings. Human analysis of the final output, aided by additional measures of similarities and differences between groups, determines the final job structure of the career field as described here. The basic group used in the hierarchical clustering process is the Job. The job structure resulting from this grouping process can be used to evaluate the changes that have occurred in the AFSC since the previous OSR. It can also be used to guide future changes in the AFSC. The above terminology will be used in the discussion of the AFSC 1A1X1C career ladder. Specialty Job Based on the analysis of tasks performed and the amount of time spent performing each task, one job was identified within the Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified career ladder. Figure 1 shows this job structure. A written outline of the Flight Engineer Job (STG10, N=831) follows. The stage (STG) number shown below beside the job title refers to computer printed information. The letter N indicates the number of persons in the group. Table 5 provides a detailed job description, including demographic information and a listing of representative tasks for this job. FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB (STG 10, N=831) Table 6 displays average time spent on duties by Flight Engineer Job personnel. Listed below are the MAJCOMs represented within the Flight Engineer Job: USAFE PACAF ACC AFMC ANG AETC AFSOC AMC AFRC 3% 4% 9% 1% 18% 7% 4% 27% 27% 9

19 AFSC 1A1X1C CAREER LADDER SPECIALTY JOB TOTAL SURVEY SAMPLE (N=848) Not Grouped 2% Flight Engineer Job 98% FIGURE 1 Members Not Grouped The remaining 16 members (2% of survey sample) did not group with any job Eight of these members are AD Seven are these members are AFRC One of these members is ANG Survey respondents sometimes do not fall into an identified job because they perform fewer tasks or mark the same tasks but give considerably different time spent ratings for those tasks In addition, there may not have been enough individuals performing the same combination of tasks to warrant identification of a job Members not grouped into this job held job titles such as Special Air Mission Flight Engineer and Flight Engineer Scheduler 10

20 Comparison of Current Specialty Jobs to Previous Survey The current job structure was compared with the previous OSR (January 1999). This is a very homogenous career ladder, with no new jobs identified. The job description of the Flight Engineer in this report is essentially the same as in the previous report. SKILL AND EXPERIENCE ANALYSIS An analysis of DAFSC groups in conjunction with the analysis of the career ladder structure is an important part of each OSR. This information may be used to evaluate how well career ladder documents, such as AFMAN Enlisted Classification, reflect what career ladder personnel are actually doing in the field. TOTAL SAMPLE Job Table 7 Displays the distribution of 5- and 7-skill-level DAFSC group members across the Flight Engineer Job Table 8 Displays the DAFSCs of 16 members not grouped within the Flight Engineer Job Duties Table 9 Time spent on duties by members of 5- and 7-skill-level groups for the total survey sample Members spend the largest percentage of their job time performing General Aircrew Activities (Duty H), Performing Environmental or Cooling Systems Activities (Duty H), and Performing Power Plant Systems Activities (Duty N), regardless of their skill-level Table 10 Time spent on duties by component skill-level groups The three components on average spend approximately the same amount of job time on duties AD Duties Table 10 Time spent on duties by skill-level groups 11

21 There is no substantial differences between AD skill-level groups Tasks Table 11 Tasks performed by AD 1A151C members Table 12 Tasks performed by AD 1A171C members AD 5-skill-level member perform 305 tasks in comparison to 351 performed by their 7-skill-level counterparts Tasks which best differentiate between 5- and 7-skill-level members are dealing with supervisory and management activities AFRC and ANG Duties Table 10 Members of the AFRC and ANG 5- and 7-skill-level groups spend similar amount of time on duties Tasks Table Representative tasks performed by AFRC and ANG skill-level groups AFRC 5- and 7-skill-level members on average perform approximately the same number of tasks Like their AD counterparts, tasks which best differentiate between 5- and 7-skill-level members deal with supervisory and management activities TRAINING ANALYSIS Occupational survey data are a source of information that can assist in the development or evaluation of training programs for both entry-level and advanced members. In particular, the factors used to evaluate entry-level member training include the jobs that are being performed by firstassignment personnel (1-48 months TICF), the overall distribution of first-assignment personnel across career ladder jobs, the percent of first-assignment members who perform specific tasks, and ratings of relative training emphasis (TE) and task difficulty (TD). (TE and TD ratings are discussed in the Task Factor Administration section of this OSR.) 12

22 WHAT ENTRY-LEVEL MEMBERS NEED TO KNOW First-Assignment Personnel (1 48 months TICF) N=169 (20% of sample) Job Figure 1 All first-assignment personnel work in the Flight Engineer Job Duties Table 16 Relative time spent on duties by AD first-assignment personnel First-assignment personnel spent the largest amount of job time on the same duties as the other members of the specialty: Performing Environment or Cooling Activities (Duty H), Performing General Aircrew Activities (Duty A), and Performing Power Plant System Activities (Duty N) Tasks Table 17 Representative tasks performed by first-assignment personnel Reflects technical nature of jobs being performed Mission(s) and Aircraft Qualification Table 18 Best description of mission(s) flown by first-assignment personnel Transport Cargo had the largest percentage of first-assignment performing (63%) Table 19 Aircraft for which first-assignment members hold primary qualification rating The aircraft for which first-assignment personnel primary hold qualification for is the C-130 (46%) 13

23 TASK FACTOR SURVEYS Job descriptions alone do not provide sufficient data for making decisions about career ladder documents or training programs. Task factor information, along with data from the Specialty Training Standard (STS), Course Training Standard (CTS), and Plan of Instruction (POI), is needed for a complete analysis of the career ladder. To obtain the needed task factor data, selected DAFSC 1A1X1C members (generally E-6 or E-7 craftsmen) completed either a training emphasis (TE) or task difficulty (TD) survey. To obtain the needed STS, CTS, and POI data, STS 1A1X1C was reviewed by comparing survey data to STS elements. Task Factor Administration TE and TD data can help training development personnel decide which tasks to emphasize for entry-level, structured training (resident technical schools, field training detachments, mobile training teams, formal OJT, or any other organized training method). For example, tasks receiving high TE and TD ratings generally warrant resident training if they are also performed by a moderate-to-high percentage of first-assignment members. Tasks receiving high TE and/or TD ratings but being performed by relatively low percentages of first-assignment members may be more appropriately planned for structured OJT programs within the career ladder. Low TE and/or TD ratings may highlight tasks best omitted from training for new personnel. These task factors are, of course, not the only ones to weigh in making training decisions; the percentages of personnel performing the tasks, command concerns, the criticality of the tasks, and other important factors must also be carefully considered. Training Emphasis (TE) degree of emphasis that should be placed on each task for structured training of entry-level members Thirty DAFSC 1A1X1C senior noncommissioned officers (NCOs) rated tasks in inventory on a scale from 0 (no training required) to 9 (extremely high training emphasis) Average TE rating was 3.58 with a standard deviation of 1.70 If a task has a TE rating at least one standard deviation above the mean, that is, of at least 5.28, it is probably important to provide new personnel with formal training on that task Table 20 Tasks with highest TE ratings 14

24 One hundred and forty-four tasks had high TE ratings Most tasks with high TE ratings are from Duty N (Performing Power Plant Systems Activities), Duty H (Performing Environmental or Cooling Systems Activities) and Duty E (Performing Auxiliary Power Unit or Gas Turbine Compressor Systems Activities) Task Difficulty (TD) amount of time needed to learn to perform that task satisfactorily Twenty-nine DAFSC 1A1X1C senior NCOs rated difficulty of tasks in inventory using a scale from 1 (extremely low difficulty) to 9 (extremely high difficulty) TD ratings are normally adjusted so that tasks have an average difficulty of 5.00 and a standard deviation of 1.00 Any task with a difficulty of 6.00 or greater is therefore considered difficult to learn Table 21 Tasks with highest TD ratings Also lists percent members performing these tasks by groups of 1-48 months TICF members, 5- and 7-skill-level groups High TD ratings were spread throughout the duties, with the largest percent in Duty N (Performing Power Plant Systems Activities), 17 percent Twenty-four tasks had both high TE and TD ratings Of these tasks, 58 percent were in Duty N (Performing Power Plant Systems Activities) These tasks also had a high percentage of first-assignment members performing; therefore, they should be considered for inclusion into the 3-skill-level course Flight Engineer Utilization and Training Workshop (U&TW) Data from this occupational survey were used to support a Flight Engineer U&TW in February The purpose of this U&TW was to discuss pipeline management of the specialty, updating the Career Field Education and Training Plan (CFETP) and the merger of the Flight Engineer, Helicopter (AFSC 1A1X1B) and Flight Engineer, Performance Qualified (AFSC 1A1X1C) career ladders. 15

25 Survey data compiled in the form of a special U&TW Extract was provided to workshop participants. This U&TW Extract included information relating to survey sample, job structure, skill level progression, first job and first-assignment utilization, job satisfaction, reenlistment and separation factor analysis. The decision to merge the two specialties was made. The 1A1X1 STS was revised to address only the generic items that would apply to both the helicopter (B-shred) and fixed wing (C-shred) flight engineers. The AETC Training Manager CMSgt Michael Jolly requested that AFOMS help support the merger by providing additional analysis on aircraft specialty courses. This would be accomplished by performing a comprehensive review of these courses (C-130 Initial, C-130 Mission, C-141, C-5, E-3, E-4B, E-8, EC-130, and KC-10). Technical school SMEs with the help of the OMS occupational analyst will conduct a match of the JI tasks to the objectives within each aircraft course syllabus. This analysis will help identify such items as duplication of training within courses, and course objectives that may need to be added, strengthened or eliminated. JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS An examination of job satisfaction indicators can give career ladder managers a better understanding of factors that may affect the job performance of career ladder airmen. The survey included attitude questions covering job interest, perceived utilization of talents and training, sense of accomplishment from work, and reenlistment intentions. Job Satisfaction Overall = Good Table 22 Job satisfaction data for the Flight Engineer Job identified in the 1A1X1C JOB STRUCTURE Results are summarized below: Overall job satisfaction is good Over 95% of the all members rated Perceived Use of Talents and Perceived Use of Training as Excellent to perfect Lower satisfaction ratings were in the area of reenlistment intention 16

26 Table 23 Comparison of job satisfaction indicators for AD AFSC 1A1X1C TICF groups Results are summarized below: The 1-48 months TICF group had the highest job satisfaction ratings Higher job satisfaction indicators were in the area of Expressed Job Interest Table 24 displays job satisfaction data between the current study and the previous 1A1X1C study by TICF groups Overall, job satisfaction ratings for the current 1A1X1C survey were slightly higher than those of the previous 1A1X1C survey RETENTION DIMENSIONS JIs also routinely collect information about factors that affect reenlistment and separation decisions. That is, respondents who say that they are likely to reenlist at the end of their present term (and those not eligible for retirement) are asked to indicate whether each of 31 different factors will have any effect on their intended decision and, if so, the degree to which each factor may influence their decision to reenlist. Respondents who indicate that they are likely to separate at the end of their present term (and those not eligible for retirement) are asked to indicate whether each of 31 different factors will have any effect on their intended decision and, if so, the degree to which each factor may influence their decision to separate. The degree is indicated on a 3-point scale ranging from slight influence to strong influence. Reenlistment Table 25 Lists the 31 factors in the order they appeared in the survey. The percent selecting each factor and the average rating for each factor by TICF group based on how much each factor may influence their decision to reenlist are also shown. Top 5 reasons members may choose to reenlist based on the highest percentages selecting each factor are listed below Table 25 Retirement benefits, military lifestyle, pay and allowances and job security were identified by each of the TICF groups as influencing their decision to reenlist Separation 17

27 Table 26 Displays the percentage of the members for each TICF group indicating that their plans to separate may be influenced by each factor as well as the average ratings by TICF group for the 31 factors based on the influence each factor may have on the respondents decisions to separate Top 5 reasons members in each TICF group may choose to separate based on the highest percentages selecting each factor are listed below Table 27 Pay and allowances were major influences identified by each of the three TICF groups 18

28 TABLE 5 FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB (STG 10) N=831 (98% of TOTAL SAMPLE) DEMOGRAPHICS Average Time in Present Job 43 months Average Time in Career Field 85 months Average TAFMS 174 months Paygrades E-5 28% E-6 35% E-7 34% E-8 2% Skill Levels 1A151C 32% 1A171C 68% TASKS AVERAGE NUMBER OF TASKS PERFORMED 349 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING A0042 Perform preflight inspections of cockpit or cabin compartments 99 A0053 Review AFTO Forms 781-series, Aircraft Discrepancy, Inspection, and Maintenance 99 Records N0447 Monitor engine instrument systems operations 98 A0040 Perform preflight inspections of aircraft panels, locks, or fasteners 98 N0453 Operate or monitor bleed-air systems 98 H0266 Operate or monitor pressurization systems 98 A0025 Participate in maintenance debriefings 98 B0060 Coordinate maintenance requirements with crew chiefs 98 C0100 Compute takeoff and landing data (TOLD) using charts, fuel savings advisory systems 97 (FSAS), or computers N0456 Operate or monitor engine fuel systems 97 A0003 Brief aircraft commanders or maintenance personnel or aircraft systems malfunctions 98 N0460 Perform preflight inspections of bleed air systems 96 H0280 Perform preflight inspections of oxygen systems 96 N0445 Monitor engine exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) or turbine inlet temperature (TIT) 97 sections operations H0258 Operate or monitor air-conditioning systems 97 A0039 Perform preflight inspections of aircraft for fluid leakage 97 N0446 Monitor engine fire or overheat detection systems operations 97 A0058 Verify safety pins and streamers are removed prior to flight or installed after flight 97 E0148 Operate or monitor APU or GTC bleed-air systems 97 19

29 TABLE 6 AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB PERSONNEL DUTIES STG 10 (N=831) A PERFORMING GENERAL AIRCREW ACTIVITIES 10 B PERFORMING GENERAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 4 C PERFORMING MISSION PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE DATA COMPUTATIONS 4 D PERFORMING AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 3 E PERFORMING AUXILIARY POWER UNIT (APU) OR GAS TURBINE COMPRESSOR (GTC) SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 F PERFORMING COMMUNICATION OR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 G PERFORMING ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 5 H PERFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL OR COOLING SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 11 I PERFORMING FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 4 J PERFORMING FUEL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 K PERFORMING LANDING GEAR (LDG) AND BRAKE SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 8 L PERFORMING MALFUNCTION ANALYSIS DETECTION AND RECORDING (MADAR) SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 1 M PERFORMING PNEUDRAULIC OR HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 3 N PERFORMING POWER PLANT SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 10 O PERFORMING PROPELLER SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 2 P PERFORMING SPECIAL MISSION ACTIVITIES 1 Q PERFORMING EMERGENCY PROCEDURE ACTIVITIES 6 R PERFORMING EVALUATION ACTIVITIES 1 S PERFORMING GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL ORDER (TO) SYSTEM ACTIVITIES 1 T PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT ACTIVITIES * U PERFORMING TRAINING ACTIVITIES 2 V PERFORMING MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES 3 * Indicates less than 1 percent 20

30 TABLE 7 DISTRIBUTION OF 5- AND 7-SKILL-LEVEL DAFSC GROUP MEMBERS ACROSS FLIGHT ENGINEER JOB (PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING) (N=831) AD AD AFRC AFRC ANG 1A151C 1A171C 1A151C 1A171C 1A171C (N=230) (N=240) (N=42) (N=189) (N=146) TABLE 8 DAFSC OF MEMBERS NOT GROUPED (NUMBER) AD AFRC ANG (N=7) (N=8) (N=1) 5-SKILL-LEVEL SKILL-LEVEL

31 TABLE 9 TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY MEMBERS OF AFSC 1A1X1C SKILL-LEVEL GROUPS TOTAL SAMPLE (PERCENT RESPONDING) 1A151C 1A171C DUTIES (N=273) (N=575) A PERFORMING GENERAL AIRCREW ACTIVITIES B PERFORMING GENERAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 4 4 C PERFORMING MISSION PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE DATA COMPUTATIONS 5 5 D PERFORMING AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 2 3 E PERFORMING APU OR GTC SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 7 F PERFORMING COMMUNICATION OR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 6 6 G PERFORMING ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 5 5 H PERFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL OR COOLING SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES I PERFORMING FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 4 4 J PERFORMING FUEL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 7 K PERFORMING LANDING GEAR (LDG) AND BRAKE SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 7 7 L PERFORMING MADAR SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 1 1 M PERFORMING PNEUDRAULIC OR HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 3 3 N PERFORMING POWER PLANT SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES O PERFORMING PROPELLER SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES 3 2 P PERFORMING SPECIAL MISSION ACTIVITIES 1 1 Q PERFORMING EMERGENCY PROCEDURE ACTIVITIES 6 6 R PERFORMING EVALUATION ACTIVITIES * 1 S PERFORMING GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL ORDER (TO) SYSTEM ACTIVITIES 1 2 T PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT ACTIVITIES * * U PERFORMING TRAINING ACTIVITIES 1 2 V PERFORMING MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES 2 3 * Indicates less than 1 percent Note: Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding 22

32 TABLE 10 TIME SPENT ON DUTIES BY COMPONENT SKILL-LEVEL GROUPS (PERCENT RESPONDING) AD AD AFRC AFRC ANG 1A151C 1A171C 1A151C 1A171C 1A171C DUTIES (N=230) (N=240) (N=42) (N=189) (N=146) A PERFORMING GENERAL AIRCREW ACTIVITIES B PERFORMING GENERAL MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES C PERFORMING MISSION PLANNING AND PERFORMANCE DATA COMPUTATIONS D PERFORMING AUXILIARY SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES E PERFORMING AUXILIARY POWER UNIT (APU) OR GAS TURBINE COMPRESSOR (GTC) SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES F PERFORMING COMMUNICATION OR NAVIGATION SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES G PERFORMING ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES H PERFORMING ENVIRONMENTAL OR COOLING SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES I PERFORMING FLIGHT CONTROL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES J PERFORMING FUEL SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES K PERFORMING LANDING GEAR (LDG) AND BRAKE SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES L PERFORMING MALFUNCTION ANALYSIS DETECTION AND RECORDING (MADAR) * SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES M PERFORMING PNEUDRAULIC OR HYDRAULIC SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES N PERFORMING POWER PLANT SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES O PERFORMING PROPELLER SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES P PERFORMING SPECIAL MISSION ACTIVITIES Q PERFORMING EMERGENCY PROCEDURE ACTIVITIES R PERFORMING EVALUATION ACTIVITIES * 1 * * 1 S PERFORMING GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE AND TECHNICAL ORDER (TO) SYSTEMS ACTIVITIES T PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY AND EQUIPMENT ACTIVITIES * * * * 1 U PERFORMING TRAINING ACTIVITIES V PERFORMING MANAGEMENT AND SUPERVISORY ACTIVITIES * Indicates less than 1 percent 23

33 Note: Columns may not add to 100% due to rounding 24

34 TABLE 11 REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMED BY AD DAFSC 1A151C PERSONNEL TASKS AVERAGE NUMBER OF TASKS PERFORMED 305 PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING (N=230) A0042 Perform preflight inspections of cockpit or cabin compartments 98 A0040 Perform preflight inspections of aircraft panels, locks, or fasteners 98 A0025 Participate in maintenance debriefings 98 A0003 Brief aircraft commanders or maintenance personnel on aircraft systems 98 malfunctions A0053 Review AFTO Forms 781-series, Aircraft Discrepancy, Inspection, and 97 Maintenance Records B0060 Coordinate maintenance requirements with crew chiefs 97 H0266 Operate or monitor pressurization systems 96 C0092 Compute aircraft emergency performance data 96 N0447 Monitor engine instrument systems operations 95 N0445 Monitor engine exhaust gas temperatures (EGTs) or turbine inlet temperature 95 (TIT) sections operations N0456 Operate or monitor engine fuel systems 95 H0258 Operate or monitor air-conditioning systems 95 N0453 Operate or monitor bleed-air systems 95 H0259 Operate or monitor anti-ice systems 95 A0058 Verify safety pins and streamers are removed prior to flight or installed after 95 flight C0100 Compute takeoff and landing data (TOLD) using charts, fuel savings advisory 94 systems (FSAS), or computers A0039 Perform preflight inspections of aircraft for fluid leakage 94 N0446 Monitor engine fire or overheat detection systems operations 94 C0096 Compute climb, cruise, or descent data 94 J0320 Monitor fuel consumption 92 H0262 Operate or monitor environmental bleed-air systems 90 N0448 Monitor engine thrust or torque indicating systems operations 88 F0184 Operate or monitor interphone systems 86 F0188 Operate or monitor radios 83 25