Why register? ...To Enhance Your Experience
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 18 of 18
  1. #1
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,422

    Default Air Force Staffing Levels

    I was emailed the following today-interesting to see where this goes-sounds like 24 hr shifts may become less popular in the military.


    Subject: U.S. Air Force Staffing Levels

    FYI... Interesting reading and "A Scary Concept" for all of us.


    WASHINGTON (AFPN) --

    The Air Force's Top Civil Engineer wants to change the way Air Force
    Firefighters do business.

    As a "Force-shaping Measures", decrease the overall numbers of Firefighters
    in the Air Force by more than 900 people, Maj. Gen. Del Eulberg said he has
    had to find new ways to maintain their MISSION capabilityy to make a
    streamlined firefighting force more efficient and more effective. "The
    Secretary of the Air Force challenged us to look at ways to get the MISSION
    done with fewer people,"

    General Eulberg said. "For Firefighters, it means changing from a "Risk
    Avoidance Stance" to a "Risk Management Mindset".

    It means looking at everything we do and asking if that's the way we should
    still do it. To solve the manpower issue, General Eulberg said his people
    adopted several principles laid out by Air Force Smart Operations for the
    21st century, or AFSO 21, an Air Force-wide program where organizations
    re-examine their own procedures and business processes to find ways to save
    time and money.

    What they found were several ways to update and change their own business practices, policies, on-duty staff requirements and other "old ways of doing business" that did not allow for risk considerations. There are many things the Firefighter career field can change to help them increase their MISSION performance, while still taking better care of people.

    For example, Installation Civil Engineer Squadrons currently require a "Full
    Crew of Firefighters" on duty every single day, whether there are flying
    operations or not, whether it's a weekend or a holiday or not, General
    Eulberg said. "We did a five-year study and found that 70 percent of calls
    are during duty hours, 17 percent on the weekends and only 1.3 percent on
    holidays," the General said. "Further, we respond to an aircraft fire about
    once every 611 days and a structural fire once every 108 days.

    We don't need to have the same number of people constantly on duty 24 hours a day for that. By varying the number of Firefighters on duty, we could
    provide the level of Fire Protection we need to protect people and property
    with fewer Firefighters. "Other than Fire Prevention, the key to fighting a
    fire is speed, not necessarily numbers," he said.

    "The ability to intervene early at a fire is the essential element to
    minimizing damage and injury. The earlier intervention occurs; the fewer
    Firefighters will be required. "Our Firefighters exceed Department of
    Defense (DoD) Standards when it comes to response time," the General said.

    "In addition, there are new technologies we're testing to make firefighting
    more efficient. With all of this in mind, we'll not only maintain our
    current level of capability, we'll actually exceed it."

    Also, the Air Force spent more than 99,000 man-hours in 2006 with a Fire
    Crew overseeing supposed hazardous operations, most of which involved
    aircraft maintenance procedures. Yet, experts could not find a single
    incident when they've had to put out a fire in five (5) years, General
    Eulberg said. "We're challenging the way we do things and 'because we've
    always done it this way' is no longer an excuse to do something that may not
    make sense to do anymore," he said.

    All of this adds up to being able to staff a Fire House with fewer people
    during low risk periods and more Firefighters during higher risk periods. It
    will mean more time for Firefighters to spend with their Families. And
    because these principles will also be applied at deployed locations, it will
    mean fewer Firefighters will have to be deployed as well, General Eulberg
    said.

    "There will be no change in our ability to respond and no reduction in
    response time standards,"General Eulberg said. "Our Firefighters will be
    better trained and have more effective equipment. Change in the Air Force
    isn't new, and after all of these improvements, we'll still get our MISSION
    accomplished."


  2. #2
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia
    Posts
    519

    Default

    Excuse my language, but WTF??? Typical Gov't BS. I love the speed vs. numbers line, that's just awesome. So as long as it LOOKS like you are doing something, the Gov't is ok with it, nevermind the fact that you can't do your job effectivly with minimum staffing. I guess that's why my unit's getting Riffed!!

  3. #3
    Forum Member sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    397

    Default

    1.3% of calls occur on Holidays, so yeah, that makes sense to have a skeleton crew on duty.

    Didn't Travis burn a C-5 up one Christmas years ago when they only had afraction of the assigned personnel on duty?

    Ahh... what are the odds of THAT happening again?

  4. #4
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    126

    Default

    Typical Gov't BS
    Damn right. General **** head wants to cut cost so bad, get rid of all his fancy office furniture, GSA vehicles to cruise in (let him ride in an old M-1008) and whole bunch of other perks they have. I recall a fire many years ago at an AFB in Nebraska in a barracks. It was my sister's barracks, and on a weekend. I didn't hear the whole story, but I was informed the firefighters there had to make some rescues of trapped AF personnel. That was on a weekend - when he wants to cut staffing.

    MUTT

  5. #5
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    1.3% of calls occur on Holidays, so yeah, that makes sense to have a skeleton crew on duty.

    Didn't Travis burn a C-5 up one Christmas years ago when they only had afraction of the assigned personnel on duty?

    Ahh... what are the odds of THAT happening again?

    Devil's advocate-how much has the AF spent on staffing every holiday at every base? How many A/C could they buy with that money? What was the amount saved by the response?

    I've seen enough pictures of A/C and buildings that burned despite the best efforts of fully manned departments-we have to have better arguements than pure emotion or one time events.

  6. #6
    Forum Member sfd1992's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Wa
    Posts
    397

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by gunnyv View Post
    Devil's advocate-how much has the AF spent on staffing every holiday at every base? How many A/C could they buy with that money? What was the amount saved by the response?

    I've seen enough pictures of A/C and buildings that burned despite the best efforts of fully manned departments-we have to have better arguements than pure emotion or one time events.
    I understand playing devil's advocate, the problem is that the bean counters will use that thought process too. They will play the odds and count on these being "one time events". How many of these "one time events" would have been nothing, but for adequate staffing? How many buildings and A/C didn't burn, didn't make the news, because of adequate staffing?

    The USAF already saves $$ on fire protection by using military personnel, at criminally low wages, and a brutal 2-platoon system. Now they want to save even more by decreasing staffing after hours and on weekends and holidays. Where does it stop? Fires and emergencies aren't a 9-5, M-F occurance, no matter where we work. The fact is that the majority of fires happen at night, when this General wants reduced staffing.
    Asinine , IMO.

  7. #7
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    I understand playing devil's advocate, the problem is that the bean counters will use that thought process too. They will play the odds and count on these being "one time events". How many of these "one time events" would have been nothing, but for adequate staffing? How many buildings and A/C didn't burn, didn't make the news, because of adequate staffing?
    I feel your pain Brother. You just outlined the problem-are our reports adequately describing our ability to save the gov't money? Do we have anyone at the DoD level who can argue the need for proper staffing, not only for our safety but also for effectiveness of suppression efforts?

    I always liked the following example:

    City A's FD submits its annual report and states they had total fire losses of $10 million, their FD budget was $14 million. City councilman says it will be cheaper to just replace the buildings than maintain an FD.

    City B's FD's annual report states that real property in the city is estimated at $950 million. Fire protection of $940 million in property was successful. Only 2 fires extended beyond the building of origin, both prior to FD notification. 97% of fire incidents were contained to the area of origin. The FD's insurance rating saved taxpayers an estimated $50 million this year. More than 15000 people received service from the FD this year, including 3 who were rescued from fires. Over 5000 citizens received fire safety education or CPR classes.

    We need to tell them what impact we are having on the bottom line.

  8. #8
    Forum Member Bones42's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Pt. Beach, NJ
    Posts
    10,646

    Default

    Just throwing thoughts out...

    Would it be cheaper to fully sprinkler all their buildings than to keep full staffing that is not being utilized? Leaves a light crew to make the initial response with others available for call-backs?

    And I have some agreement with what GunnyV is saying. The stats are not in the guys favor. Would have to come up with some honest/detailed arguments against this...and that may be tough.
    "This thread is being closed as it is off-topic and not related to the fire industry." - Isn't that what the Off Duty forum was for?

  9. #9
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Outside Philadelphia
    Posts
    519

    Default

    The whole thing in a nutshell:

    The Gov't doesn't give a rat's ***** about human beings!!!!!

    10 years in the military has taught me an important lesson. The soldier/sailor/airman/marine's are the most expendable items in the military!!

  10. #10
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    54

    Default

    I wonder how much money they wasted on the study? Let's do a study on wasting money on something silly (in their minds) like fire protection and then have another study on the last study. Also, let's form a committee to discuss the study.

  11. #11
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    74

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AFFDSUCKS View Post
    I wonder how much money they wasted on the study? Let's do a study on wasting money on something silly (in their minds) like fire protection and then have another study on the last study. Also, let's form a committee to discuss the study.
    Or we can create more jobs for 9 hour employees.... no money loss there... ha ha

  12. #12
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    421

    Default

    If they want speed, why don't they put a firehouse in every neighborhood of base housing with a staffed engine company? Here at Mountain Home, I think we have 6 housing areas. And we still need a heavy rescue and all of the crash rigs on the flightline.

    The head CE might have just given an argument for more firefighters on shift rather than less...
    -Bozz

    Air Force Medic

  13. #13
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Colorado Springs
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Yeah...cutting these positions is really going to save cahola.... gimme a break.

    I happened to be on an AF base last weekend and picked up an Air Force times for sh*ts and giggles. It had an article that talked about how the AF just cut 40,000 military slots to buy A/C. This process is over and Guess what.... it didnt' work.... sooo.. the article said NOW WHAT!

    How bout we cut medical benifits to illegals and pay our troops what THEY deserve... while we at it, lets protect them and their families just like they do for us....and the illegals

    Why is it... as soon as you make over 100K you become a moron.

  14. #14
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    China Lake, California
    Posts
    2

    Default 2 In - 2 Out? Rit??

    This guy has clearly never had is *** in a rear facing seat. Ok, so they can get there faster... but with minimum staffing, they now don't have enough personnel to safely make entry to affect rescue and fight fire.

    Get out the marshmallows.

    The bean counters need to see this video:

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...arch&plindex=0

    I encourage everyone to show it to everyone they know responsible for making Public Safety budget decisions.

  15. #15
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sfd1992 View Post
    1.3% of calls occur on Holidays, so yeah, that makes sense to have a skeleton crew on duty.

    Didn't Travis burn a C-5 up one Christmas years ago when they only had afraction of the assigned personnel on duty?

    Ahh... what are the odds of THAT happening again?


    my instructor was at that base. he told me the only reason it burned in the first place was low staffing. but the bottom line is its cheaper to let sh*t burn every now and then. at least in the generals eyes. maybe when its his kid we can't save, he will look at it differently

  16. #16
    Forum Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Posts
    205

    Default

    I realize that it depends on the base, but what is the typical staffing of the crash rigs, structural engines, truck companies, rescues, etc? Or what is the minimum staffing for those companies?
    Thanks,
    Andrew

  17. #17
    Forum Member gunnyv's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    SE MI
    Posts
    1,422

    Default

    At most of the bases I've been at, DoD wide:

    Engine/Truck-4
    Rescue-3
    Crash-2

    Often the same crew crossmans crash and structural rigs-if they need the crash, they'll ride 2 on each.

    Marine bases run 3-4 on crash, 2-3 on ARFF rescue

  18. #18
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Colorado Springs, CO
    Posts
    93

    Default

    The Travis C-5 fire had a lot more problems than just staffing.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Air Force FF Layout
    By wffire520 in forum Federal & Military Firehouse Forum
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 10-28-2008, 07:55 PM
  2. High pressure air bag question
    By domi411 in forum University of Extrication
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 08-25-2007, 04:08 AM
  3. Is There A Meth Lab In Your Neighborhood? and so on
    By eleanorcaddell in forum Hazardous Materials General Forum
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 12-21-2004, 10:48 PM
  4. ? about Air Force Fire Fighting
    By vaFFPM in forum Federal & Military Firehouse Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-08-2003, 10:34 PM
  5. RFP's
    By D Littrell in forum Apparatus Innovation
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2000, 06:36 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts