Aviation Maintenance: A Critical Vulnerability in the Marine Corps

The rate of innovation and development across the Marine aircraft fleet has accelerated rapidly over the past two decades—as evidenced by the F-35B and C and the MV-22 Osprey. During the same time, however, the development, training, and education of Marine aviation technicians and maintainers has waned. 

Background

The Marine Corps has a long, rich history in naval aviation that is tied to the Navy. However, Marine aviation varies in how, when, and why it trains its maintenance personnel. The Marine Corps relies heavily on initial accession training (A schools) and continuation training (C schools) to instill the basic principles and fundamentals of certain military occupational specialties (MOSs). For example, my initial MOS was Basic Avionics Marine (6300). In initial training, I learned electronics and radio-frequency theory, which gave me the foundation to understand how specific systems worked when I attended follow-on training at C School. That follow-on school was for the CH-53 Type/Model/Series (T/M/S) aircraft. There, I learned the electronic systems of that aircraft and gained an understanding of system integration on that platform. My subsequent redesignation was the 6323 MOS—CH-53 Aircraft Communications/Navigation/Electrical Systems Technician. That was nearly 22 years ago, and the pipeline from school check-in to fleet arrival was approximately nine months. Today, the training track is closer to six or seven months, and there are discussions in the fleet of shortening the schools even further. 

Much of the change is because the Navy is revising the training pipeline to what is referred to as Ready Relevant Learning (RRL).¹ Because the Navy oversees naval aviation training and the Marine Corps uses the Navy’s training pipeline, the Marine Corps is affected when the Navy changes its schools to fit its own manpower model. The Navy uses its manpower differently from the Marine Corps. With RRL, the Navy sought to shorten the accession pipeline to get sailors to the fleet faster; it would then provide more robust follow-on training later in the sailor’s career. Sailors do not begin to work on aircraft as early in their careers as Marines do. Marines are on the job learning the aircraft on day one. In addition, the Marine Corps does not have follow-on schools for their technical training; the baseline is received in A and C schools, supplemented with “hip-pocket” classes or on-the-job training (OJT).  

Impact Of The Problem

For the Marine Corps, if a technician’s educational foundation is not yet cemented coming out of accession schools, it is increasingly challenging for the technician to troubleshoot avionic systems or grasp the advanced avionic systems being fielded in the fleet. I have witnessed this lack of understanding from technicians on several T/M/S aircraft over the past decade. There are two reasons for this: 1) the number of students graduated to the fleet is considered more important than whether the students grasp the material; and 2) the curriculum is reduced to get the sailor or Marine to the fleet faster. In years past, Marines were allowed to fail just two tests before being placed on an Academic Review Board, but based on information from several instructors and my own participation in the RRL process, that number has ballooned to as many as eight failed tests. Lax standards exacerbate schoolhouse problems and result in maintainers with less knowledge and fewer technical skills being delivered to the fleet. 

The pace of Marine Corps operations combined with a manpower shortage at organizational-level (O-level) squadrons make it difficult to fit formal schooling into a technician’s career. The Marine Corps relies on technical representatives from Naval Air Technical and Engineering Service Command (NATEC) for training and troubleshooting in the fleet. Again, because of operational tempo, Marines often cannot be sent from their squadrons to NATEC for training. As a result, roughly 19 percent of all NATEC requests are for training, compared with 50 percent for assistance/troubleshooting.² This indicates the need for better foundational training at the beginning of a technician/maintainer’s career.

Using the example of CH-53 technicians, radio frequency transmission, propagation, theory, and fundamentals are not taught in their A school. When they arrive at their C school, they are taught how to operate the aircraft radios and how the electrical portion of those radios work, but the most critical aspect of radio communication has not been instilled in them. At one unit during my time as an avionics officer, I was told by some pilots that their top safety concern was “comms,” referring to the aircraft radios. That is alarming, and I attribute their concern to the lack of formal training for fleet Marines. That squadron flew CH-53Es, an old and sundowning platform set to be replaced by the CH-53K. The K model is primarily a digital platform with much more complex equipment, adding to the disparity between advanced aircraft and technician training.

Reliance on OJT in the fleet would never be allowed for those flying the planes. If pilot training were cut back to primary flight school followed by immediate placement in a fleet squadron for OJT, with no specific T/M/S fleet replacement squadron training, the results would be disastrous. No one would consider putting that course of action into play. Pilots need reps and sets and rigorous academic training to ensure their proficiency before being assigned to a fleet squadron. In addition, pilots and aircrew attend follow-on schools in the Marine Corps, the largest of which is the semiannual Weapons and Tactics Instructor course. Meanwhile, C1, a six-month, advanced avionics school that had been available to all avionics technicians from any T/M/S aircraft, was canceled a few years ago by the Navy.

Paths Forward

There are several ways the Marine Corps could repair and restore enlisted aviation training, although none would be cheap. One would be for the Marine Corps to take responsibility for its own aviation maintenance training. Marines often hear, “Follow the Navy; it pays the bill,” when it comes to aviation training, but the Marine Corps can either pay the bill now or pay it later with loss of life and damaged or destroyed assets. The problems and shortfalls are not just among avionics technicians. O-level airframe work increasingly has to be done by depot-level artisans, and even intermediate-level maintainers cannot do some of the repairs—such as on composite materials—that O-level maintainers used to be able to complete.

The Marine Corps’ Training and Education Command would be the logical command to assume responsibility for aviation maintenance training. Currently, under the Navy umbrella, the revision process for each T/M/S curriculum takes approximately 60 months.³ In the curriculum for the CH-53 schoolhouse, there are systems that have not been in the aircraft for years. If the Marine Corps owned the review process, it could more expeditiously review and update the curriculum Marines need to be ready for their respective fields and platforms.

Another difficulty with the current curriculum is that in A school technicians are taught how to document aircraft maintenance on an OPNAV 4790/60 visual information display/maintenance action form—a paper form that most Marines will use only a few times during their career—typically only when digital maintenance data systems fail. Although the Naval Aviation Logistics Command Management Information System and Optimized Organizational Maintenance Activity have been in use in the fleet for more than a decade, students are not taught how to use them in A School. Instead, they receive OJT on those systems from their squadron mates.

As far back as the 1940s, aviation electronics were introduced to military aircraft. Even though those early systems were relatively simple, avionics technicians and their skills were needed in maintenance departments across the fleet. Today, the naval aviation maintenance community is too focused on the technology and not enough on its maintenance and sustainability and training for maintainers. It seems that the Navy and Marine Corps forget that when forward deployed, young Marines and sailors must repair these complex systems, often without the help of technical representatives.

Another potential fix for the Marine Corps would be to add necessary C Schools into the specific T/M/S fleet replenishment squadrons (FRSs). Pilots and aircrews are taught how to fly specific platforms at the FRSs, so it would make sense to build maintenance training into those squadrons. Adding the maintainer MOS to the FRS would round out each platform’s training to include all members who will end up in fleet squadrons. An unofficial test of this concept was done at Heavy Marine Helicopter Training Squadron 302 (HMHT-302) from 2015 to 2018. Students waiting to class up at their C school, located on the same base at Marine Corps Air Station New River, were given OJT while they waited. The instructors observed a noticeable difference in the success rate for students who received OJT at HMHT-302 while waiting for their school to start. Those students grasped the classroom information better and faster because they knew where systems were on the aircraft and had a basic understanding of how they worked. Adding a C school to the FRS is a potential change that could be applied across all T/M/S.

If the Marine Corps took greater responsibility for its own aviation maintenance training, it would need to update or develop new curricula and ensure maintainers understand the science underlying each occupational field. This would prevent Marines from being just shotgun troubleshooters. This is an area in which the service cannot accept lower standards or shortchange the education Marines receive. Marines must be adequately trained to maintain current and future systems. Aircraft maintenance training should be as rigorous as training for pilots. If students do not grasp the material, they should be reassigned to an MOS in which they can perform. The Marine Corps will not be able to sustain its fleet of advanced aircraft and be prepared for future fights if this issue is not addressed.

Technicians vs. Riflemen

“Every Marine a technician” is a poor bumper sticker, and as a service we are right to call “Every Marine a rifleman.” But a rifle will not fix a Marine aviator’s weapon system—the aircraft. It takes well-trained maintenance technicians who understand the underlying science and the specific aircraft systems to keep those aircraft flying and providing the close air support the riflemen need.