UNITED STATES AIR FORCE

I~ DTICS IELECTEAUG 15 18

CORROSION CONTROL

AFSC 427X1

AFPT 90-427-777

JULY 1988

OCCUPATIONAL ANALYSIS PROGRAMUSAF OCCUPATIONAL MEASUREMENT CENTER

AIR TRAINING COMMANDRANDOLPH AFB, TEXAS 78150-5000

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

DISTRIBUTION FORAFSC 427X1 OSR AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS

ANI TNG JOBOSR EXT EXT INV

AFHRL/ID 1 Im lni/lh1AFHRL/MODS ? Im lm IAFLMC/LGM 1 1AFMPC/DPMRPQ1 2ARMY OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY BRANCH 1CCAF/AYX 1DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFORMATION CENTER 2HQ AAC/DPAT 3 3HQ AFISC/DAP 2HQ AFLC/MPCA 3 3HQ AFSC/MPAT 3 3HQ ATC/DPAE 1 1HQ ATC/TTOA 2 1HQ MAC/DPAT 3 3HQ MAC/TTGT 1 1HQ PACAF/DPAT 3 3HQ PACAF/TTGT 1 1HQ SAC/DPAT 3 3HQ SAC/TTGT 1 1HO TAC/DPATJ 3 3HO TAC/TTGT 1 1HQ USAF/DPPE 1HQ USAF/LEYM 1 1HQ USAFE/DPAT 3 3HQ USAFE/TTGT 1 1HQ USMC (CODE TPI) 1NODAC 1WR-ALC/MMEM 1 1388 TFW/MAT 2 23300 TCHTW/TTGXW (CHANUTE AFB IL) 1 13507 ACS/DPKI 13700 TCHTW/TTGX (SHEPPARD AFB TX) 3 3 3 13700 TCHTW/TTS (SHEPPARD AFB TX) i 1DET 2, USAFOMC (CHANUTE AFB IL) 1 1 1DET 4, USAFOMC (SHEPPARD AFB TX) 1 1 1USAFOMC/OMYXL 10 2m 5 10

m = microfiche only k. O

h = hard copy only N IS CRA& IW(IC TAB

A. ,~~b!tyCodes

.........

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGENUMBER

PREFACE. . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iit

SUMMARY OF RESULTS .... .................. .. . . & . . . iv

INTRODUCTION ............ . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . 1Background . . . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

SURVEY METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

Inventory Development. . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . .. . 2Survey Administration. ......... . . . . . . . . . .. . 3Survey Sample......... ... .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Task Factor Administration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... 4

SPECIALTY JOBS (Career Ladder Structure) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Overview of Specialty Jobs ...................... 7Group Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9Summary ... . ........... . . .ou. .u. .y. ...... . 13

Comparison of Current Survey to Previous Survey. . . . . . . . . 14

ANALYSIS OF DAFSC GROUPS . ..................... 14

Skill-Level Descriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18Summary . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . . . . . 20 !

ANALYSIS OF AFR 39-1 SPECIALTY DESCRIPTIONS...... . . . . . . . 20

TRAINING ANALYSIS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

First-Enlistment Personnel . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . 21Training Emphasis and Training Difficulty Data . . . . . . . . . 21.Specialty Training Standard (STS). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29Plan of Instruction (POI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40

JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43

ADDITIONAL ISSUES. . . ......... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

IMPLICATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. .. 53

APPENDIX A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55,d.

PREFACE\

This report presents the results of an Air Force occupational survey of

the Corrosion Control career ladder (AFSC 427XI). Authority for conducting

specialty surveys is contained in AFR 35-2. Computer products used in this

report are available for use by operations and training officials.

Mr William C. Cosgrove, Occupational Analyst, developed the survey

instrument, analyzed the survey data, and wrote the final report. Technical

Sergeant Joe Seitz provided computer programming support, and Senior Airman

John Pratt and Mr Richard G. Ramos provided administrative support. This

report has been reviewed and approved for release by Lieutenant Colonel

Thomas E. Ulrich, Chief, Airman Analysis Branch, Occupational Analysis Divi-

sion, USAF Occupational Measurement Center.

Copies of this report are distributed to Air Staff sections, major com-

mnds, and other interested training and management personnel. Additional

copies may be requested from the Occupational Measurement Center, Attention:

Chief, Occupational Analysis Division (OMY), Randolph AFB, Texas 78150-5000.

RONALD C. BAKER, Colonel, USAF JOSEPH S. TARTELL

Commander Chief, Occupational Analysis Division

USAF Occupational Measurement USAF Occupational Measurement

Center Center

I- . , , ""I i

4 ( *' - / .

-

'4.J

SUMMARY OF RESULTS

1. Survey Coverage: Inventory booklets were administered worldwide to Cor-rosion ontrol (AM 427XI) incumbents during the summer of 1987. The 1,097respondents in the survey sample represent 65 percent of all assigned Corro-sion Control personnel. All major using commands are well represented in thesurvey sample.

2. Career Ladder Structure: Two clusters and four independent job typeswere identified in the analysis. Both clusters and one independent job typewere directly involved in the performance of various technical duties of thecareer ladder. The remaining independent job types were oriented towardsupervisory, administrative, supply, and quality assurance functions.

3. Career Ladder Progression: The 3- and 5-skill level jobs were quitetechnical in nature, with very limited responsibilities at the 5-skill levelfor supervision-type duties. Seven-skill level members, on the other hand,perform limited technical duties while reporting increasing responsibility forsupervisory and managerial duties.

4. AFR 39-1 Specialty Description: All descriptions accurately depict thecharacteristics of the respective jobs. Only two minor adjustments are sug-gested in the Corrosion Control Specialist description.

5. Training Analysis: Due to the planned RIVET WORKFORCE merger of AFSCs427X1 an47X5 into AFSC 458X2 in October 1989, two Specialty Training Stand-ards (STS) were analyzed. The current STS for AFSC 427X1 is generally wellsupported by survey data, with just a few elements requiring review due tononsupporting survey data. The same is true for the proposed STS for AFSC458X2, as it pertains to the corrosion control portion of that STS. The Planof Instruction (POI) for AFSC 427XI has seven units of instruction, with someobjectives which require review due to the low percentage of first-enlistmentairmen performing tasks trained. Some tasks not matched to training documentsrequire evaluation for possible inclusion in the training program.

6. Additional Issues: The request by training personnel for information onthe performance of sealing functions and advanced composite structure andhoneycomb core repair functions was accommodated by two duty sections in thejob inventory. Data reflect that very few airmen perform these functions,with relative time spent on these tasks only 1 percent or less. Informationrequested by the Air Force Corrosion Program Manager on annual industrialphysical examinations was gathered by background questions. The data reflectthat a high percentage of AFSC 427X1 personnel have had the required examina-tion during the previous year.

7. Implications: The training program is well grounded and appears to beoperating effectively. Only minor adjustments to the STS and POI appear war-ranted. Data from the survey should be of value in preparing for the proposedRIVET WORKFORCE merger.

iv

71

OCCUPATIONAL SURVEY REPORTCORROSION CONTROL CAREER LADDER

(AFSC 427XI)

INTRODUCTION

This is a report of an occupational survey of the Corrosion Controlcareer ladder completed by the USAF Occupational Measurement Center in May1988. The career ladder was previously surveyed in 1979, with the surveyresults being published in November of that year. The present survey wasrequested by the 3700th Technical Training Wing, Sheppard Technical TrainingCenter, to obtain current task and equipment data for use in evaluation ofcurrent training programs.

In addition to surveying active duty personnel, full-time Reserve Compo-nent personnel, including members of Reserve and National Guard units, werealso included in this survey. The purpose for including these personnel inthe survey was to gather data on them as a group and to determine whetherthere are discernible differences between active and reserve component cate- Sgories of personnel. Data gathered from Reserve Component personnel wereanalyzed separately, and the results will be published in a separate reportlater this year.

Survey data for active duty AFSC 427X1 personnel will provide much neededinformation to be used in the upcoming RIVET WORKFORCE-directed merger of AFSC427XI and AFSC 427X5, Airframe Repair career ladder. The newly created careerladder will be designated as AFSC 458X2, Aircraft Structural Maintenance Spe-cialty. The implementation date for the merger is tentatively set for31 October 1989.

Background

Since its creation as a separate career ladder in 1976 with the estab-lishment of AFSC 531X4 from AFSC 530X0, Metal Worker, the 427XI specialty hashad a fairly stable history. In 1977, the AFSC was changed from 531X4 to427X1, with no change in responsibility. AFR 39-1 specialty descriptionsstate that AFSC 427X1 personnel identify corrosion and apply preservativetreatment to metal surfaces of missiles, aircraft, and support equipment tomeet requirements for preservation, elimination of deterioration, and effectcorrosion control for Air Force equipment.

Entry into the career ladder is from Basic Military Training School(BMTS) through a Category A, 6-week, 1-day formal training course (3ABR42731)conducted at Sheppard AFB TX. A score of 51 in the mechanical part of theArmed Services Vocational Aptitude Battery (ASVAB) is currently required toenter the career ladder.

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMITED

I

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

Inventory Development

Data for this survey were collected using USAF Job Inventory AFPT90-427-777 (April 1987). The Inventory Developer reviewed pertinent careerladder documents, the previous OSR, and previous inventory, and then prepareda tentative task list. This preliminary task list was then refined and vali-dated through personal interviews with 81 subject-matter experts assigned tooperational locations selected to cover a variety of major commands (MAJCOM)and varying functions at the following bases:

BASE REASON FOR VISIT

Sheppard AFB TX Location of Technical Training Center

Little Rock AFB AR Recommended by SAC (MISSILES) Functional Manager,AFMPC Functional Representative, and MAC FunctionalManager as a base with varied missions and equipmentrequiring different corrosion control

Minot AFB ND Recommended by SAC and SAC (MISSILES) Functional Man-agers and AFMPC Functional Representative as a basewith varied equipment and weather conditions whichaffect corrosion control

Barksdale AFB LA Recommended by SAC Functional Manager because of highhumidity and age of aircraft, which has a bearing oncorrosion and its control

England AFB LA Recommended by TAC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with corrosion-causing climatic conditions

Travis AFB CA Recommended by MAC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with special air-craft that fly in and out of air bases located onor near salt water, thus creating a corrosion con-trol problem

Mather AFB CA Recommended by SAC and ATC Functional Managers as asmall corrosion control operation with threeorganizations working on different aircraft

Castle AFB CA Recommended by SAC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with two organiza-tions having different aircraft and missions

Whiteman AFB MO Recommended by SAC (Missile) and MAC Functional Man-agers as a base with two organizations responsiblefor missiles and helicopter corrosion control

2

MacDill AFB FL Recommerded by TAC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with climatic con-ditions which would require a great deal of work inthe corrosion field

Laughlin AFB TX Recommended by ATC Functional Manager as one of ATC'slargest corrosion control shops

Randolph AFB TX Recommended by ATC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with small, butdiversified, corrosion control functions

George AFB CA Recommended by TAC Functional Manager as a base withthree organizations performing corrosion controlfunctions in a desert environment on varied aircraft

Norton AFB CA Recommended by MAC and AFLC Functional Managers as abase with a refurbishment function not found atother bases

Nellis AFB NV Recommended by TAC Functional Manager and AFMPC Func-tional Representative as a base with two organiza-tions supporting different aircraft

The resulting inventory contains a comprehensive list of 918 tasksgrouped into 21 duty headings. There are standard background questions askingfor grade, duty title, functional level, duty AFSC, time in service, and timein career ladder. In addition, there are questions requesting such informa-tion as tools and equipment used, corrosion control materials used, job satis-faction, intent to reenlist, and a number of questions concerning annualindustrial physical examinations.

Survey Administration

From May through October 1987, Consolidated Base Personnel Offices inworldwide operational units administered the surveys to Corrosion Controlmilitary personnel. Participants came from a computer-generated mailing listprovided by the Air Force Human Resources Laboratory (AFHRL).

All individuals who filled out an inventory first completed an identifi-cation and biographical information section. Next, they answered questions inthe background portion of the inventory. They were then directed to gothrough the booklet and check each task performed in their current job.Finally, they were asked to go back and rate each task they had checked usinga 9-point scale reflecting relative time spent on each task compared to allother tasks. Ratings ranged from 1 (indicating a very small amount of timespent) to 9 (indicating a very large amount of time spent). The relative per-cent time spent on tasks was computed by first totaling all rating values onthe inventory. Then the rating value for each task was divided by this total

3

and the result multiplied by 100. The percent time spent ratings were usedwith the percent members performing values to help describe the various groupsin the career ladder.

Survey Sample

All eligible military personnel were provided survey booklets. Therespondents represent an accurate and proportional representation of MAJCOMsand paygrades for this career ladder. Table 1 reflects how the sample com-pares to the actual population of the career ladder in terms of the distribu-tion across MAJCOMs, while Table 2 shows the paygrade distribution. Thesedata indicate a good representation of the career ladder in the final surveysample.

Task Factor Administration

Job descriptions alone do not provide sufficient data for making deci-sions about career ladder documents or training programs. Task factor infor-mation is needed for a complete analysis of the career ladder. To obtain theneeded task factor data, selected E-6 and E-7 supervisors completed either atraining emphasis (TE) or task difficulty (TD) booklet. These booklets wereprocessed separately from the job inventories and the TE and TD data were usedin several analyses discussed later in this report.

Training Emphasis (TE). Training emphasis is the amount of structuredtraining that first-term AFSC 427X1 personnel need to successfully performtasks. Structured training is defined as training provided by resident tech-nical schools, field training detachments (FTD), mobile training teams (MTT),formal OJT, or any other organized training method. Fifty-one experiencedsupervisors completed TE booklets. They rated the tasks in the inventory on a10-point scale ranging from no training required (0) to extremely high train-ing emphasis (9). Interrater reliability (as assessed through components ofvariance of standard group means) for these raters was .94, indicating highagreement among raters.

When TE ratings are used with other information, such as percent membersperforming and task difficulty, they can provide insight into trainingrequirements and help validate the need for organized training for the careerladder.

Task Difficulty (TD). Task difficulty is defined as the length of timethe average airman takes to learn how to perform a task. Forty-six experi-enced supervisors rated the difficulty of the tasks in the inventory on a9-point scale ranging from 1 (easy to learn) to 9 (very difficult to learn).Ratings were adjusted so tasks of average difficulty would have a value of5.0. Interrater reliability (as assessed through components of variance ofstandard group means) was .95, indicating very high agreement among raters.

4

TABLE 1

COMMAND DISTRIBUTION OF AFSC 427X MILITARY PERSONNEL

PERCENT OF PERCENT OFCOMMAND ASSIGNED* SAMPLE**

TAC 31 31SAC 23 20MAC 20 22USAFE 10 8ATC 7 8PACAF 5 6SYS 2 2

AAC 1 1OTHER 1 2

Total Assigned : 1,698Total Eligible For Survey = 1,507Total In Sample = 1,097Percent Of Assigned In Sample = 65%Percent Of Eligible In Sample = 73%

* Assigned strength as of 21 April 1987

** Excludes those personnel in PCS, student, or hospi-tal status or with less than 6 weeks on the job '.

5

TABLE 2

PAYGRADE DISTRIBUTION OF SURVEY SAMPLE

PERCENT OF PERCENT OFGRADE ASS IGNED* SAMPLE

E-1 THRU E-3 36 35

E-4 21 23

E-5 25 25

E-6 11 11

E-7 7 6

Assigned strength as of April 1987

6L

1 '.

",'

'p

6

TD ratings, when used with percent members performing values and TE rat-ings, can provide a great deal of insight into training requirements, helpvalidate the need for organized training, and be used to evaluate plans ofinstruction for the career ladder.

SPECIALTY JOBS(Career Ladder Structure)

A USAF occupational analysis begins with an examination of the careerladder structure. The structure of jobs within the Corrosion Control careerladder was examined on the basis of similarity of tasks performed and the per-cent of time spent ratings provided by job incumbents, independent of otherspecialty background factors.

Each individual in the sample performs a set of tasks called a job. Forthe purpose of organizing individual jobs into similar units of work, an auto-mated job clustering program is used. This hierarchical grouping program is abasic part of the Comprehensive Occupational Data Analysis Progranm (CODAP)system for job analysis. Each individual job description (all the tasks per-formed by that individual and the relative amount of time spent on t~nsetasks) in the sample is compared to every other job description in terms oftasks performed and the relative amount of time spent on each task in the jobinventory. The automated system is designed to locate the two job descrip-tions with the most similar tasks and percent time ratings and combine them toform a composite job description. In successive stages, new members are addedto initial groups, or new groups are formed based on the similarity of tasksperformed and similar time ratings in the individual job descriptions.

The basic identifying group used in the hierarchical job structuringprocess is the job te. When there is a substantial degree of similaritybetween job types, They are grouped together and identified as a cluster.Specialized job types too dissimilar to fit within a cluster are labeledindependent job types. The job structure information resulting from thisgrouping process (tne various jobs within the career ladder) can be used toevaluate the accuracy of career ladder documents (AFR 39-1 Specialty Descrip-tions and Specialty Training Standards) and to gain a better understanding ofcurrent utilization patterns. The above terminology will be used in the dis-cussion of the AFSC 427XI career ladder structure.

Overview of Specialty JobsResponses from AFSC 427XI personnel in the survey sample indicate a

career ladder where most people perform a rather large number of common tasks.Even so, based on some variations in combinations of tasks performed, struc-ture analysis identified two clusters and four independent job types withinthe survey sample. Based on task similarity and relative time spent, thedivision of jobs performed by AFSC 427XI personnel is illustrated in Figure 1,and a listing of those jobs is provided below. The stage (STG) number shown

7

> I~ C14

M .LLJo OVDw

znR

ooU5 :3=)w

o0

o L0

01 0LL- LaJ-

C)v

Ockk

8) H

beside each title is a reference to computer printed information; the numberof personnel in each group (N) is also shown. The reader should be aware thatthe number of personnel in the subgroups does not always equal the total num-ber shown for a cluster. The jobs performed by those few not included areadequately described by the cluster description.

I. CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL CLUSTER (STG047, N=891)

A. Aircraft/Spray Painters (STG066, N=65)B. General Corrosion Control Personnel (STG156, N=125)C. Missile Corrosion Control Personnel (STG169, N=22)D. Experienced Corrosion Control Personnel (STGl96, N=461)E. Shift/Crew Leaders (STG201, N=142)

II. ASSISTANT SHOP CHIEFS (STGII3, N=13)

III. CORROSION CONTROL SHOP CHIEFS CLUSTER (STG096, N=70)

A. Missile Shop Chiefs (STG145, N=13)B. General Shop Chiefs (STG196, N=55)

IV. SENIOR CORROSION CONTROL MANAGERS (STGlOl, N=17)

V. SUPPLY/ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL (STGO9O, N=lO)

VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (STG049, N=12)

The respondents forming these groups account for 92 percent of the surveysample. The remaining 8 percent were performing tasks or series of taskswhich did not group them with any of the defined jobs. Job titles given byrespondents which were representative of these personnel included TrainingMaterial Manager, Destruction Inspection Manager, and Facilities Manager.

Group Descriptions

The following paragraphs contain brief descriptions of the clusters andindependent job types identified through the career ladder structure analysis.Selected background data for these groups are provided in Table 3. Represent-ative tasks for all the groups are contained in Appendix A.

I. CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL CLUSTER (STG047, N=891). Comprised offive different3Jobs and representing ihe largest groupiT-te career ladderstructure (81 percent of the total sample), these members form the technicalcore of the Corrosion Control career ladder. Personnel in this group performa wide variety of tasks comprising the full range of technical career ladderfunctions.

9

Vv~s T'I I

qc C.Jc V I' LC) Ln c C4 4 Lc) Lc) C ) 00ODx 0 D co C\1 'it . C, C%j COP) CY')

LUJ

LUI >- V)

0 Id

0L If0-- _jCr 4'. Wk' IP' 4' iOOLf IA l' O

LUI LU0CD0 di0m V) t 4L) M

Co0 I) IA4 * A vtb A 44-n 0 *L 0.O 4qr q C)~ 0co 41(D

u I-.L Cie Cl r-LlC r- OcJ

Pd) ))fL

CV) (iLhi La-

coU c)o cn Co o 0 4' cOV() 0 P. r..-4 LlVn CAl LL. koq' ~ W CiJ or)q G cnO

InZ=

'Ii

ul D ai r r~O- C O . D -~%a t 14i

=- -In4AV) co C

0= 0 4 LI

LUIheC-) 0 w

icLUI LL 0

La.. LUS 0

I.- LU Lai 2c I

-i 0 w0E

~.I~n -1In -4LA= V) C ) GA

000- cr. Z(D~CD CD ~L CD oo CV c

C1 --C 6 40 LZai r-LL Ix CL. E- L .LL.- 0C5r- " =UU-L =

LULUW uiJ.J' 4. #a aa~L

La La. IL < D. -wui :IN~a.a 0 a. dc CL

10

More than 73 percent of their relative job time is devoted to tasks asso-ciated with applying protective coating to surfaces, performing general corro-sion control functions, maintaining corrosion control equipment, removingcorrosion and protective coatings, and performln maintenance on safety equip-ment. Of the average 194 tasks performed, typical ones include:

preparing surfaces using pneumatic sandersapplying masking materials to surfacesremoving masking materials from surfacesmixing paintspreparing polyurethane coating for applicationcleaning equipment after applying protective coatinascleaning respirators

Although five jobs were identified within the cluster, three of them(Aircr3ft/Spray Painters, General Corrosion Control Personnel, and ExperiencedCorrosion Control Personnel) differed primarily because of the experiencelevel of the groups and the increasing average number of tasks performed. Ofthe two remaining jobs, the Missile Corrosion Control Personnel job was iden-tified as a result of the amount of relative time spent in the missile areas.The final job, Shift/Crew Leader Personnel, perform the broadest spectrum oftasks of any group in the survey. Their average of 334 tasks includes notonly the technical corrosion control tasks, but also tasks in the supervisoryfunctional area.

Members of this cluster report an average grade of E-4, with an averageof about 5 years in both the career field and TAFMS. Fifty-two percent arestill in their first enlistment, and 67 percent report holding a 5-skill levelDAFSC.

II. ASSISTANT SHOP CHIEFS (STGlI3, N=13). The 13 members (1 percent ofsample) forming this-n-depenn-d'ent7ob Fperform a rather broad spectrum of tasks,including many technical tasks. They are, however, differentiated from theother groups in the survey because of the relative time spent (54 percent)performing general corrosion control, administrative, and supply tasks,including the maintenance of safety and corrosion control equipment. Theaverage grade for these individuals is E-5, while they average 11 years in thecareer field. Typical tasks of the 194 average performed include:

maintaining AF Forms 2413 (Supply Control Log Forms)initiating AF Forms 2005 (Issue/Turn in Requests)reviewing priority monitor reports (D-18)inspecting face shields for condition and cleanlinessinspecting air hosesdriving government vehicles, such as sedans and trucks

•I

III. CORROSION CONTROL SHOP CHIEFS CLUSTER (STG096, N=70). This clusterof 70 indf iuals represents--percent 6 Feisurvey sample-. They perform awide range of tasks, averaging 220 per individual. A great deal of their dutytime is dedicated to organizing, planning, inspecting, evaluating, performingadministrative functions, directing, and implementing. In addition to theseduties, representing 60 percent of their relative duty time, they spendanother 26 percent of their time performing general supply and training tasks,plus tasks in the technical duties of general corrosion control, maintenanceof safety equipment, and inspection of aircraft, support eouipment, and mis-siles. This group has an average grade of E-6, with an average of 13 years inthe career field and 14 years TAFMS. Typical tasks performed by these super-visors include:

writing APRplanning work assignmentsevaluating individual job performanceestablishing work prioritiesdirecting shop maintenance activitiesassigning OJT trainersreviewing daily document registers (DO4)reviewing priority monitor reports (D-18)

Within the cluster are two different jobs, General Corrosion Control ShopChiefs and Missile Corrosion Control Shop Chiefs. The differences betweenthese two groups are that the General Corrosion Control Shop Chiefs report abroader range of tasks performed (average of 248 vs 113) and the Missile Cor-rosion Control Shop Chiefs perform missile-related tasks and are members ofmissile maintenance organizations.

IV. SENIOR CORROSION CONTROL MANAGERS (STGlOl, N=17). This independentjob type o-f-TT-individuals represents 2 percent o-f thesurvey sample. Theyperform an average of only 83 tasks in a rather narrow job. Seventy-eightpercent of their relative time is spent in the performance of organizing,planning, inspecting, evaluating, directing, implementing, and administrative-type tasks. This is the most senior group of the survey, with the averagegrade of its members being E-7. They have an average of 15 years in thecareer field and 17 years TAFMS. Typical tasks performed by these managersinclude:

counseling personnel on personal or military-relatedproblems

supervising corrosion control supervisors (AFSC 427Xl)interpreting directives for subordinatesestablishing performance standardsindorsing APRwriting special reports

1;"K~/ r w ' 'W;w v V v V '' ' r v~ 12

.Ii

V. SUPPLY/ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY PERSONNEL (STG090, N=lO). These10 members, representing 1 percent of the sample, haveItFe narrowest job ofany group in the survey, averaging only 65 tasks per individual. They spend80 percent of their relative time organizing and planning, inspecting, evalu-ating, directing, implementing, and performing supply and administrative func-tional tasks. The members have an average grade of E-6 and average 11 yearsin the career field. Typical tasks performed include:

planning work assignmentscounseling personnel on personal or military-relatedproblems

coordinating flightline dispatch work with job controlmaintaining AF Forms 2413 (Supply Control Logs)reviewing priority monitor reports (D-18)writing APR

VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL (STGO49, N=12). The 12 members (0 per-cent of sampleT formi ng this'independent job group are differentiated from theoverall sample because of their specialization on tasks pertaining to inspect-ing and evaluating. They spend 60 percent of their relative time on tasksinvolved in inspecting, evaluating, performing maintenance on safety equip-ment, performing administrative functions, and inspecting aircraft, supportequipment, and missiles. These comparatively senior personnel, with an aver-age grade of E-6 and an average of 10 years in the career fipld, perform arather narrow job, averaging only 91 tasks per individual. The title mostfrequently provided by these individuals was Quality Assurance Inspector.Typical quality assurance tasks performed by these personnel include:

performing inspections using technical orders (TO)evaluating compliance with performance standardsinspecting the condition and cleanliness of differentpieces of safety apparel

inspecting condition of protective coatingevaluating individual job performanceinspecting safety equipmentevaluating maintenance of equipmentevaluating administrative functions

Summary

Two clusters and four independent job types were identified in the careerladder structure analysis. The majority of career ladder incumbents (81 per-cent) grouped into one cluster (Corrosion Control Personnel), which performedthe full range of the technical corrosion functions. Other smaller job groupswere involved not only with technical aspects of the career ladder, but alsowere heavily involved with supervisory, supply, and administrative areas. Nonoteworthy degree of specialization within the career ladder was identified.The career ladder appears to be very homogeneous, with the vast majority of

13 5

personnel performing essentially the same basic job. Thus, the specialty liobanalysis and the survey data tend to support the current career ladderstructure.

Comparison of Current Survey to Previous Survey

The results of the specialty job analysis were compared to those of Occu-pational Survey Report (OSR) AFPT 90-427-385, CORROSION CONTROL, datedNovember 1979. Table 4 displays a comparison of the Corrosion Control spe-cialty jobs identified in each of the two studies. After reviewing the taskscomprising the jobs identified in 1979, it was determined that most of thegroups could be linked with similar task performances by 1987 sample groups.The appearance of differences (i.e., some of the specific job titles) is asurface difference only, and can be attributed to modifications to the tasklist or to the analysis and the analytical approach used.

Aside from some minor variations involving small numbers of personnel(i.e., the identification of the Supply/Administrative Supervisory Personnel),it can be stated that the vast majority of the current sample could be matchedto AFSC 427XI jobs identified in 1979, thus displaying a relatively stablecareer ladder over time.

ANALYSIS OF DAFSC GROUPS

DAFSC analysis identifies similarities and differences in task and dutyperformance at the various skill levels. This information may then be used toevaluate how well career ladder documents, such as AFR 39-1 Specialty Descrip-tions and the STS, reflect what career ladder personnel are actually doing inthe field.

Comparison of the duty and task performance between DAFSC 42731 and 42751personnel indicated that, while there are some minor differences, the jobsthey perform are essentially the same. These two groups have an 87 percenttime-spent overlap on common tasks, which supports the premise that they havethe same job. Therefore, they will be discussed as a combined group in thisreport. Survey data, if desired, will also be available for each separateskill level.

The distribution of skill-level personnel (AFSCs 42731/51 and 42771)across major specialty jobs is reflected in Table 5, while Table 6 shows therelative time spent on each duty for each skill-level group.

The AFSC 427X1 career ladder shows a very typical career progression pat-tern as one advances from skill level to skill level. As shown in Table 6,personnel in the 3- and 5-skill levels are spending the majority of their jobtime in technical duties (Duties G, H, I, J, K, L, M, Q, and R). At the7-skill level, percent time spent in these technical duty areas drops substan-tially, from 86 percent for 3- and 5-skill levels to 46 percent for the

14

-LJ

WLJLL.

%00

CD IL V'.0.

=- = cIC-IAJ) Li - -- us

CJ ) -ce C) U2: .: L&j -

f-S LL X ) C. 0. I.w) 0) 01 0

I- =W i = ) = U.C' LLZ . 0 C )

cc IX (n) V) C)W I0. V.J Cc U

- = =U U 0= - LL. u

cX l' x~0 Lic Cat U LL Lii a.4 0L 1-4-4

(A U().)- 0-) _j Cj c

La Mi C-. . I- V) Li< -. 1.>< ' i a. C) 'C4 < 0o

U.1 i X) V) (=Y z Ld-.

C> L Li U)0A . L.

V) -

- L co 'J r

C-) 0.0p.

-LJ

V) It C) -ji(A) LSJ -

co 0- c17) -1 0 .. J CV)

L Li)Lai LaiC.) -

oA U.. ::. mmLL

CL . tn C> IA

-5J C) -.1)

0)C 0 )

oX X 0 I ),r ~V 0. 09=4 ) 0 i

=1 V) co CA) (A .,

- 0 C) to - 0 C t C I c.

C.D U.1 (AC.

U) ~-.~ OZ Z 015

TABLE 5

DISTRIBUTION OF DAFSC MEMBERS ACROSS SPECIALITY JOBS

DAFSC 42731/51 DAFSC 42771

(N=794) (N=303)

SPECIALTY JOBS NUMBER PERCENT NUMBER PERCENT

I. CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNEL CLUSTER 730 92% 161 53%

II. ASSISTANT SHOP CHIEFS 7 1% 6 2%

III. SHOP CHIEF CLUSTER 6 1% 64 21%

IV. SENIOR MANAGERS 1 * 16 5% S

V. SUPPLY/ADMINSTRATIVE SUPERVISORS 4 1% 6 2%

VI. QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNEL 3 * 9 3%

NOT GROUPED 43 5% 41 14%

• Denotes less than .5 percent

16jj, ; jjij 1111),111

" +.,.u wqdv 'w~w+',.,,womwpj vV ,.w, - V,,--, + ,.. w, ., %'\%

TABLE 6

AVERAGE PERCENT TIME SPENTPERFORMING DUTIES BY DAFSC GROUPS

DAFSC DAFSC42731/42751 42771

DUTIES (N=794) (N=303)

A ORGANIZING AND PLANNING 3 10B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 2 7C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 3 10D TRAINING 1 5E PERFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 3 8F PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY FUNCTIONS 1 4G PERFORMING GENERAL CORROSION CONTROL FUNCTIONS 19 11H INSPECTING AIRCRAFT, SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, AND

MISSILES 4 5I TREATING AIRCRAFT AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 3 2J REMOVING CORROSION AND PROTECTIVE COATING 11 6K TREATING AND PREPARING METAL SURFACES 5 3L APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATING TO SURFACES 21 11M MAINTAINING CORROSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 12 8N PERFORMING MISSILE DISPATCH FUNCTIONS * *0 PERFORMING MINUTEMAN CORROSION CONTROL FUNCTIONS * *P PERFORMING TITAN MISSILE CORROSION CONTROL

FUNCTIONS * *Q PERFORMING MAINTENANCE ON SAFETY EQUIPMENT 10 8R PERFORMING SEALING FUNCTIONS 1 *

S PERFORMING ADVANCED COMPOSITE STRUCTURE ANDHONEYCOMB CORE REPAIR FUNCTIONS *

T PERFORMING AND PRACTICING DISASTER PREPAREDNESSFUNCTIONS

U PERFORMING CROSS UTILIZATION TRAINING (CUT)FUNCTIONS * *

• Denotes less than I percent

17

7-skill level group. Even with this rather large drop in percent time sperton technical tasks, there is still a 65 percent overlap between the twogroups. The overlap between the two groups shows the homogeneity of the AFSC,while the clear shift in relative time spent on the performance of supervisoryand managerial duties (Duties A, B, and C) at the 7-skill level reflects alogical and typical career progression for the career ladder. Table 7 pro-vides a different perspective by displaying representative tasks for eachgroup and showing differences in relative time spent between them.

Skill Level Descriptions

DAFSC 42731/51. The 794 airmen in the 3- and 5-skill level group (represent-Tog 72 percent of the survey sample) performed an average of 175 tasks, with50 percent of their time spent on 110 tasks. Performing a highly technicaljob, 51 percent of their relative duty time is devoted to performing generalcorrosion control functions, removing corrosion and protective coatings, andapplying protective coatings. An additional 22 percent of their time is spentin maintaining corrosion control and safety equipment. As shown in Table 5,92 percent of these airmen are included in the technically-oriented job ofCorrosion Control Personnel. Table 7 displays selected tasks representativeof those performed by a majority of these airmen (see highlighted column upperhalf of table) and compared with responses provided by 7-skill level person-nel. The arrangement of this table provtdes an easy method of comparing thecommonality and differences between the two groups. As can be quickly ascer-tained, tasks common to 3- and 5-skill level personnel are also performed byfairly high percentages of the 7-skill level members.

DAFSC 42771. Seven-skill level personnel (28 percent of the survey sample)perform an average of 196 tasks, with 157 tasks taking up over 50 percent oftheir relative time. Eighty percent of 7-skill level personnel report super-vising one or more individuals, but only 40 percent of their relative time isspent on tasks in the usual supervisory, managerial, training, and administra-tive duties (see Table 6). This relatively low supervisory activity is alsohighlighted by the fact that only 30 percent of the 303 people forming thisr oup are found in the four jobs which are clearly supervisory in natureAssistant Shop Chiefs, Corrosion Control Shop Chiefs, Senior Corrosion Con-trol Managers, and Supply/Administrative Supervisors) as discussed earlier inthe SPECIALTY JOBS section. Table 5 reflects that 53 percent of these peopleare in the technically-oriented jobs found in the Corrosion Control Personnelcluster. The highlighted portion of Table 7 clearly shows that the seniorpersonnel are responsible for supervision, while the upper portion of thetable reflects the wide range of technical tasks a high percentage of theseindividuals also perform.

18Vi

TABLE 7

DISPLAY OF REPRESENTATIVE TASKS FORAND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DAFSC GROUPS

(PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING)

42731/42751 42771TASKS (N=794) (N=303)

G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 91 67G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 91 64 IJ452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC

SANDERS 91 64G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 90 66 SG294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 89 63L585 MIX PAINTS 89 63L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 86 64L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 81 59L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 80 57G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 80 55 P

Q772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 79 55L538 APPLY LACQUERS TO SURFACES USING AEROSOL

SPRAYS 79 53 iK496 SCUFF UP METAL SURFACES 77 53K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 77 53J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 76 54 SM622 CLEAN PNEUMATICALLY POWERED TOOLS 75 50G277 PERFORM JANITORIAL DUTIES, SUCH AS CLEANING

LATRINES 65 30M621 CLEAN PAINTING EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS BRUSHES OR

ROLLERS 61 361343 CLEAN AIRCRAFT PARTS USING BRUSHES 56 32

C126 WRITE APR 23 80B76 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC

42751) 28 73 SB51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY

RELATED AREAS 22 721B71 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 31 70A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMMENTS 20 64A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 17 61C87 EVALUATE USE OF SUPPLIES 17 57B59 DIRECT UTILIZATION OF CORROSION CONTROL SHOP

EQUIPMENT 14 53F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 11 52IC86 EVALUATE USE OF EQUIPMENT 15 51D158 MAINTAIN TRAINING RECORDS 14 50E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 10 47D131 ASSIGN OJT TRAINERS 4 40

19

N IV %

Summary

Career ladder progression is evident, with personnel at the 3- and5-skill levels spending the vast majority of their job time performing techni-cal tasks. At the 7-skill level, although members spend more than half theirrelative duty time in the technical areas of the AFSC duties, the shift tosupervisory functions is still quite clear.

ANALYSIS OF AFR 39-1 SPECIALTY DESCRIPTIONS

Survey data were compared to the AFR 39-1 Specialty Descriptions for Cor-rosion Control Specialists and Supervisors, both dated 1 February 1988. Eachspeciality description will be discussed separately.

The description for the 3- and 5-skill levels is quite accurate indescribing the overall job performed by these personnel. There is, however,one item in the AFR 39-1 Specialty Description that needs to be reviewed. Thetask statements in paragraph 2a pertaining to determination of metal identityby subjecting it to chemical and mechanical tests need to be deleted or deem-phasized. The highest response for chemical testing methods identifying metalwas only 6 percent. The highest response for mechanical testing methods was12 percent of 5-skill level using the magnetic test, and no more than 5 per-cent using the other four testing methods.

The Corrosion Control Supervisor description accurately reflects both thesupervisory and technical aspects of the 7-skill level job. The high percentof members performing and the relative time spent in the technical areas isvery succinctly covered by the concise description for performing technicalcorrosion control functions section of the regulation.

TRAINING ANALYSIS

Occupational survey data are one of the many sources of information thatcan be used to assist in the development of a training program which is rele-vant to the needs of personnel in their first enlistment. Factors which maybe used in evaluating training include the overall description of the jobbeing performed by first-enlistment personnel and their overall distributionacross career ladder jobs, percentages of first-job (1-24 month TAFMS) orfirst-enlistment (1-48 months TAFMS) members performing specific tasks orusing certain equipment or materials, as well as TE and TD ratings (previouslyexplained in the SURVEY METHODOLOGY section).

To assist specifically in the evaluation of the Specialty Training Stand-ards (STS) and the Plan of Instructior (POI), technical school personnel fromSheppard Technical Training Center matched job inventory tasks to appropriatesections and subsections of the AFSC 427X1 STS, AFSC 45BX2 proposed draft STS,

20

t X. . V

and 3ABR42731 CO0 POI. It was this matching upon which comparison to thosedocuments was based. A complete computer listing displaying the percent mem-bers performing tasks, TE and TO ratings for each task, along with the STS andPOI matchings, has been forwarded to the technical school for their use infurther detailed reviews of training documents. A summary of this informationis presented below.

First-Enlistment Personnel

There are 481 DAFSC 427XI members in their first enlistment (1-48 monthsTAFMS), representing 44 percent of the total survey sample. The job performedby these personnel is very technically oriented and covers the gamut of corro-sion control technical activities. As reflected in Table 8, approximately 91percent of their duty time is devoted to technical task performance. Distri-bution of these personnel across the career ladder jobs is displayed in Figure2, which shows 97 percent of the respondents working in the Corrosion ControlPersonnel cluster, with less than 1 percent in the other job types and allothers ungrouped. Table 9 shows representative tasks performed by first-enlistment AFSC 427X1 personnel.

One of the objectives of this survey project was to gather data for thetechnical training center pertaining to types of tools or eouipment and corro-sion control materials used by personnel in the field. Tables 10 and 11 pre-sent percentages of first-term airmen responding to questions concerning theiractivities involving these items. This type of information is useful to boththe technical school and MAJCOM training personnel, to assist them in focusinglimited training time or other resources on the most appropriate types ofequipment and materials. This should also be of value during the mergerefforts.

Training Emphasis and Training Difficulty Data

Tasks having the highest TE ratings are listed in Table 12. Included foreach task are also the percentage of first-enlistment personnel performing andthe TD rating. The tasks listed are all technical in nature. They should notbe considered as all-inclusive or the only ones to be reviewed. Table 13lists the tasks having the highest TD ratings. The percentage of first-enlistment personnel performing and the TE rating are also included for eachtask. The majority of these tasks are not technically-oriented corrosion con-trol tasks, nor are they performed by many first-enlistment personnel. Thelist should not be considered as all-inclusive. TE and TD data are secondaryfactors that can assist technical school personnel in deciding what tasksshould be emphasized in entry-level training. These ratings, based on thejudgements of senior career ladder NCO working at operational units in thefield, are collected to provide training personnel with a rank-ordering ofthose tasks considered important for first-term airmen training (TE), alongwith a measure of the difficulty of those tasks (TD). When combined with dataon the percentages of first-enlistment personnel performing tasks, comparisonscan then be made to determine if training adjustments are necessary. Forexample, tasks receiving high ratings on both task factors, accompanied by

21

TABLE 8

RELATIVE TIME SPENT ON DUTIESBY FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL

(1-48 MONTHS TAFMS)

PERCENT TIMEDUTIES SPENT

A ORGANIZING AND PLANNING ?B DIRECTING AND IMPLEMENTING 1C INSPECTING AND EVALUATING 2D TRAININGE PERFORMING ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS 2F PERFORMING GENERAL SUPPLY FUNCTIONS 1G PERFORMING GENERAL CORROSION CONTROL FUNCTIONS 20K INSPECTING AIRCRAFT, SUPPORT EQUIPMENT, AND MISSILES 4I TREATING AIRCRAFT AND SUPPORT EQUIPMENT 3J REMOVING CORROSION AND PROTECTIVE COATING 12K TREATING AND PREPARING METAL SURFACES 5L APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATING TO SURFACES 23M MAINTAINING CORROSION CONTROL EQUIPMENT 13N PERFORMING MISSILE DISPATCH FUNCTIONS * t0 PERFORMING MINUTEMAN CORROSION CONTROL FUNCTIONS *P PERFORMING TITAN MISSILE CORROSION CONTROL FUNCTIONS *Q PERFORMING MAINTENANCE ON SAFETY EQUIPMENT 10R PERFORMING SEALING FUNCTIONS 1S PERFORMING ADVANCED COMPOSITE STRUCTURE AND HONEYCOMB

CORE REPAIR FUNCTIONST PERFORMING AND PRACTICING DISASTER PREPAREDNESS FUNCTIONS 1U PERFORMING CROSS UTILIZATION TRAINING (CUT) FUNCTIONS *

* Denotes less than 1 percent

22

00

00

LUI

T- )

LUL

LLIU

Z V)"-D

LLIIz

V)

zLUI

V)--

LLI-

0 )

(I)C)-J

00Z,

23

TABLE 9

REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMEDBY 427Xl FIRST-ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL

(1-48 MONTHS TAFMS)

PERCENTMEMBERSPERFORMING

TASKS (N=481)

G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 95G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 930248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 92G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 91L585 MIX PAINTS 91L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 90J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 86G275 PAINT SIGNS 83J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 83L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 83L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 83G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 82K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 81L603 STRAIN PAINTS 81Q772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 80K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 79M619 CLEAN EQUIPMENT AFTER APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATINGS 78M622 CLEAN PNEUMATICALLY POWERED TOOLS 78L551 APPLY POLYURETHANE COATINGS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED

SPRAY GUNS 76M647 LAY DOWN AIRCRAFT BARRIER PAPER 75Q765 CHANGE RESPIRATOR FILTERS 75H331 INSPECT AREAS FOR CORROSION USING HAND EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS

FLASHLIGHTS, PROBES, OR MIRRORS 73L558 APPLY PRIMERS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED SPRAY GUNS 73L511 APPLY CAMOUFLAGE COATINGS TO AIRCRAFT 68M626 CLEAN SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT 681352 MIX ALODINE SOLUTIONS 42* Average number of tasks performed - 166

24

xU &MX IL -

TABLE 10

TOOLS OR EQUIPMENT USED BY 50 PERCENT ORMORE OF FIRST ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL

(1-48 MONTHS TAFMS)

PERCENTMEMBERSRESPONDING

TOOLS OR EQUIPMENT USED (N=481)

AEROSOL SPRAY CANS 96STENCIL CUTTING MACHINES 95CONVENTIONAL PAINT SPRAY GUNS 92HAND WIRE BRUSHES 92PAINT BRUSHES 92AIR COMPRESSORS 91ABRASIVE MATS 90FLASHLIGHTS 90PAINT SHAKERS 90ABRASIVE PAPERS 89ABRASIVE DISCS 87RAZORS 86PNEUMATIC SANDERS 86PAINT SCRAPERS 81CHEESECLOTH 80MAINTENANCE STANDS 79INSPECTION MIRRORS 78STENCIL KNIVES 78CARTRIDGE RESPIRATORS 77AEROSOL SPRAY POWER PACKS 75STRAIGHT EDGES 75STRAINERS 75PAPER CUTTERS 71AIR SUPPLY RESPIRATORS 69

DISPOSABLE RESPIRATORS 69PNEUMATIC GRINDERS 69PNEUMATIC DRILLS 66TACK RAGS 64ABRASIVE WHEELS 63

PAINT ROLLERS 63 "

STRIPPING TANKS 61

PAINT ROLLING PANS 60

PRESSURE POTS 58

ABRASIVE BLASTERS 57PHENOLIC SCRAPERS 52

AIRCRAFT MARKING PENCILS 50

MAGNIFYING GLASSES 50

25

TABLE 11

CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS USED BY 50 PERCENTOR MORE OF FIRST ENLISTMENT PERSONNEL

(1-48 MONTHS TAFMS)

PERCENTMEMBERSRESPONDING

CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS USED (N=481)

METHYL-ETHYL-KEYTONE (MEK) 96PRIMERS 93

THINNERS 93

LACQUERS 92ENAMELS 88

POLYURETHANE COATINGS 88

EPOXY 86ZINC-CHROMATE PRIMER 86WALKWAY COATINGS 75

NAPTHA 71

CORROSION PREVENTING COMPOUNDS (CPC) 69SOLVENTS 65

TOLUOL, TOLUENE 65

PAINT REMOVER, MIL-R-25134 59

RAIN EROSION RESISTANT POLYURETHANE 59

EDGE SEALERS 58

ALKALINE WATER BASE CLEANERS 56

2

26

V) LL. U) C* M C O D CD 0 r-. U) M) LO Vr-. "~ U) M CO ) CO Ce) ) LC) 0M co

I- 0 U) U)U U) U)C; Lc; U) U) U U) C; U) Le; U) Le L,; 4 ;

LLI

I- w -1LL P'- CJU 2C ~ l~ )U~U~))C~n%1U %C)IL LA-UC r-SOU C"QO)f ,

2! Xi. ! L. . . .

U)I w ) 4D %D %D %0 Ln U) U) U) U) LC) Ul) U) U) Lo U) U) U) U) U) U) LC) LO U) UO

CCL

I--

r- 2C

= C.-.

co U ) tn -

CA. U)J V) cciJ > (

Lii = C 3 ..

.- I -4 =.. x) V)4

COJ UL U) cc ". 0e 0:(A 4A ('C I-U) Lii U i( LI e U) C

Q- C-. ca (D =D <JU Ori C3LL P-<. 0= (D~ " L. = 00

V) LL <c =4. =iU CCi dc c 0 9 VLCJ Lii C.. M)i- C. U) = C -c ) 0j

U) (1L 'C U I) <U) CD -=) 0 L..J W i W C X LA.. =-... P- 6-4i ~ 0

Id~~ C)V) c CD) UC - - C O - I Ctn- = ix ) = ..- V)C -C ( -' " c C ~ UIC

CD V) L i V) >)--U). LJ Lai M !"CC-- ZUxc)CC " ::I-f-- =0- - C-~) < "=XLIJUW

=U)I- ac V-)LL -4. w0~ I-LJ~ j 0.ZLV oV)0 cc4c 0 9-.u ia2 L ) C C)-1-1 ~ 0-9a.- CDW1c =

U) (iC QV I "C- L6.X.-. (1=U).C'( c =CDcc C) cz U ) = (DC Z - J I- . 0-i Z 9.CM0ac -- a0 = 0. =- < -CD 01 = w C)a9 w <= EL)VLai< =a1iU) (

oD CoC 0 (A Lw. -4L) U I0- LW C #-> Li- "C1-4 C

L>~~ UA CW V LWV)0 e-ZLCi Lii0 W oi V -J .)u >- m .19 W L.i U L ) =0-~ - ' t.4U ( c u) -

Li.ii- = U ) ~c o U Lim "C , LL. 1-- C..) u I-- .J U) U 0 '

ui :I. V) a.U3 ) .. U) W w W00-w4 " P-4 O0O9-()-X QCL. w <V - wC)=-m CD w m LL.CJ 0"C (C CD U)> =

UZI-w..JLLJZ9=O. -ccJ>i.u1L1 W= 2C-" CC W wUJ ZE

zL&..wa Q>. = u o. w wOC CD CD w = w00- (.. a w

I- CD .. JC)Z< .w CD kC. I. 0cc>-W D- i.CD.L..=JC

LL C L i -j m w zo L -jC C.CDC 9.C7 L

. . . . . . . .

LI

SIf

IL.LaiJ

leLA_ M F- * I l L(V F- qdO M d ) 40000 U0 -

V)co)

W nCD

SM~V 0 aJ.. UF- . I- 4U) I

C) 06 < =WCD6I In I=0mQU)

w0 U)d L. C

= 04 2: Wt- CLC

I- P-4 Mi I 2 CJ 0A

3c x Qu I-U) (0 1.- ) = =UUa - ci I- -V)= '- - ILL. I-

V) ~ ~ V~)- ) L . 9I- - 3 < V) WWUi ) -40dN I V 4cO QI _j D.4 < C ccI- )

V) U)-C)j =Z- WI- I. V -LhJ z V

LL <.. II I.-La C V(A >_ U cx 4 I- J LI M I- JL I-- I

C) CD 0- .j Cj .J LI-0 L. C x '- I.1Z"C

2ro. (A Z 1-0 L0 L. 1, 1 I-C) 0-~ U)=0

U) ~ ..-.4 Aju-1 - eU C - _I-=wi

6.4= 14 wQ wCD w mCDO u L)KDwD4UA C 0= tdnCA r V :0 = C. "Ir C6&. P4 .) 2r. . - - V) Q 0. L 41 L

UJI C) LLJ We-.4 4A U i W ~W CI a I.O ) o-49

WI- C - 0- WW~I0 Q.=C0^IUDw .V) 00I-~

I- CO WU)C Q)I.)U)" C)U) OUX w .

I.L. ~ ~ D cLiL . - i, j C " L. _j < w n'-VU.=

p

moderate to high percentages performing, may warrant resident training. Thosetasks receiving high task factor ratings, but low percentages performing, maybe more appropriately planned for OJT programs within the career ladder. Low Ptask factor ratings may highlight tasks best omitted from training for first-term personnel, but this decision must be weighed against percentages of per-sonnel performing the tasks, command concerns, and criticality of the tasks.Various lists of tasks, accompanied by TE and TD ratings, are contained in theTRAINING EXTRACT package and should be reviewed in detail by technical schoolpersonnel. (For additional information on TE and TD ratings, see Task FactorAdministration in the SURVEY METHODOLOGY section of this report.)

Specialty Training Standard (STS)

Due to the upcoming RIVET WORKFORCE merger and the availability of boththe present AFSC 427X1 STS (dated June 1977 w/ch 4, August 1986) and the pro-posed draft AFSC 458X2 STS (dated 20 November 1987), both documents were usedIn the analytical process. Both documents were subjected to a comprehensivereview and compared to survey data. STS paragraphs containing general knowl-edge information, subject-matter knowledge requirements, or supervisoryresponsibilities were not evaluated.

AFSC 427X1 STS. Overall, the AFSC 427X1 STS provides comprehensive coverageof the work performed in the field, with survey data supporting each of thesignificant paragraphs and most of the subparagraphs.

Table 14 reflects six areas that require review by training personnel andsubject-matter experts. Paragraphs 3a and 3d have 3-skill level proficiencycodes requiring task knowledge and performance proficiency. Although they aresupported at the 7-skill level by at least 20 percent members performing, thevery low percent members performing (7 percent) for first-job and first-enlistment personnel, plus low to average TE and TD ratings, indicate a pos-sible dash (-) proficiency coding for 3-skill level personnel would be moreappropriate. Paragraphs 8c(2), 8c(3), 8c(5), and 14d are similar to the pre-vious two, with the exception that the paragraphs are not supported at anylevel. These four paragraphs should be reviewed to determine if retention inthe STS is warranted.

Tasks not matched to any element of the STS are listed at the end of theSTS computer listing. These were reviewed to determine if there were anytasks concentrated around any particular functions or jobs. No particulartrends were noted. Examples of technical tasks performed by 20 percent ormore respondents of the STS target groups, but not referenced to any STS ele-ment, are shown in Table 15. Training personnel and subject-matter expertsshould ieview these and other eligible unreferenced tasks to determine ifinclusion in the STS is justified.

AFSC 458X2 Draft STS. Due to the fact that the proposed draft AFSC 458X2 STSincludes information from two separate AFSCs merged into a single AFSC, manyportions of the STS have no tasks matched. Paragraphs to which the technicaltraining personnel matched tasks were reviewed to determine whether they aresupported by the survey data. Table 16 lists two paragraphs (5a and 5f) that

29

C> -d~ .- o %D

co -cn I- m m m .

CQ

U- C 1 C' 'h4

w CA el..t

La U Lf .

0. L I-- C

w i LaLa- 4 4,IOW 4

Lal Z ~ -'La

cr Ii

:mJ u - .C~tlI-~ c. C)5 A 93-L(1

- -wIV) ----

0' c

IaJ 0-4 oL& .

I-V U M -u a :ai W

1- ul ca La. A )

.~CD U /

I-..I to~ (~LJE

CC~ w~ U) (- x1-V &

c) -CC u2 w) C) 0J W D c

Do (Ds E Z: w ) fa)S.

I- acc <C & - CCaDcCL 1 V) (n4 C CAJL)C' 1- IZ

Lii u 00 -t .. LMC~ i< w c

-1 0. 4 1- (Ai Zu ) i wU

ui > w l t 9t -

X. 0U U)U Lii W i ::I c V cLii -'- I a.IaJIJ C) I ~ Z I i wn-

w ID - C - w CD- E Ii C

"-U Z I0 -0 iI 0 LaJI W 001

V-'') _j- 1-EQ

Iii u)i~ ' = WI~ co I Q c

V) Iaa - r I " .AI qLa uj u ui 14

U) ~~c c ~ IIco I

30

..... .......

to0 to L) to

u- C) 1.01. Ui o

C- L l- i

4/)

2l:

1= CAJ~ L .C.

w LLa

w ):I-.LI Oc

"t tfZ 0v)Q-LLa x L

ZL Lar_% :C) .0IL - 0. %La L IH L

I-- La9-

ca -. 1LJ <d a-L~ C> 4J

5-~U. IL- V.J00 -

m La C'D 0..ro

-. 1 +)

~~~U U.1I a -Ll- U- 0: Id 1 )

p..- u) a- w.

LiU1 .u 2: La 0.ad.. < I- 0

-n CDJ C.. (.1 0Mtl'IdC) u4 I Ia L

W L- l- U. I- La I(.)

I- I-- - I-- CD -, < -. "=J =: I'U =: uu " 1 0.-

4n0 LUc V/)I 0 I-- wd C-L 0

0 La I-- C3In- La uiI w U 4I.. iI- A i w C

fn. a- ( O LCD to 4

Lai d -it. I-li OL) Oc

CV) '- 1I-0n

V) ) Go ~ cI)La I L

31

MI 00~ r- C c %j 0l r- rs 4m .- M" I'l

I-C~C. (\J C4) 4 ; cz V; 4" '~c

-LCA qw O)LDAc CO U) ()- ko LA) ImiA.1 4 CV) LC) m t 4, co' v

(A '%Cl C')J C' C) . C')% r-. C'J ' C) C%5 C'J co

ul) C-) M A LA% LA C?) CJ CJ u C-j LA) Cl-j (v)

'-4

0 L)c

I--- ed U-L L LA Lin~C" C'~j CV) LA Cr) CJ C~

L) U

Li.. LLI.

LI I--Go 0) r LA C%j wA Cr) '- c') 0n qd LA CA CV)U)* LA LA) .- WW m Cy) C. LA C) C14 C%j

o L&I hLI

in Lii a. 0NE 1- C in *A % Cf) CO r-- 0) 0 Ill r- .1- 160 0

oe 4A C% .li m 1 CV) CV) m" C'. W)L CV) C'J m'

-j~ LL.

41C II-C.

U) -

I- 0z *1>

dc 'C I I.-I

< .. = 20 " .

L)I 0) 04-Lii 0 I- U.1 CL )I-

Pi.. w LI I .- -j 'C I.0) C2E -JO CDD (n 0 (D 0 c

2: s-1 - -4 L -. 1 - LAc )tn4)C LA-0Lii 0m 0 01. M =c"a -1

CD4 I- -~ 4C >- <) 'Ci L- U - = -LAV). - 0 (-4C 0L Lx LaL ~ Zl- m OCC 0c P- I --.

dc- iV" Dc C) 0..J D -CLA < 0 dc0m Lm ccf co Li w ) W

CD C V) 'CO >- (DIh (A 0. La W(0 .L Q- 1-'- 'C )e - 'C = I- C, 2c 0L

LAI U.1 =i = in a t -I 0C LA =- LA .JCJzCZ M-' toJ' "~ (1 a.. LA a= _-9 V) '

0 C " 39h LA L ) x - U400 X LLAO to OLA a.

0 0c La.. = D 143 = - D- x- 0' V-~ULa Lii W- CD. 0 oc -JO UL s G ~ s 1L )- <Ce0)

r-C. s-DC to LO %0U %D I-'C

oo co U '-' CCV )Li'C 'C. 1=0 kwo ik 'C 'CN C -0 - .Z

Li Li O -J C Li J' L.5 ' '3L2'"

Lii- * * If *;

cnr-0 ~ O

o ~U)L Cl Uc

LLo 4n .) n L

U- U - %

W 11w 0l

'-4 I

CDP = tflOC

4- w

-1 Li cai0 1 ' \

C Li A~ 0. U

>4-UIn =-

In I.- U)

I ) =L >. = =

V) I - 0 0 I"CDI I- I- La.Li U- u- .4-

Li L) 4 ~ <n ui V) miJ4J(/) 0 Lii =n- -i = w-

U =' In CO L. C -1

". CD Z: = 0 I L A - CDr_0LM 1/a I-- JL '-4 uJ i-.4

F- 91. U I - I =w Li..UCl( C C

w w I- <-I mci L~n CO

-i tn-4.x i ui- =) Lii w0w www D W-4C..Le- .. jl 0.0. m -act. CCa0

W iw. Ix C (D Li w ad~ u ) Ir 'C wm, <)Lf I-i i wceC

=- m~ V) 01 0 4J ~ ) I-I~ w

==0. OWtv4cc CV qd IcE C ) 05 i C

: LW F- co c Oil. 0D 0D 0ow AA n I- 'r I Lii w . C% CS

I- w W L n w W iiO

V) *n In -

33

CD C) %D LO)

010 tCt U" 4

V). fV) t Cot LO C

* P.%

i-I0 cle~ W&~ v

LL . LL. t

L %I im.d

LL LI t

La r-W I

W .in)

-:N L

#4 w 0. U

(.3 tn LnL LUI. 0 0Go La Cn. 0n 0IC" Cl CD

un c- i m

i-4 b-4 I-- Ll6) 9

=- wC s,1/ 4- M/ < 1 = I j0 -VC)4) U0 0c 0x

91 11-o- LUI)I C)C-Um = -, .I 4== La

VI)L p--4L 610 0n" UV0i Li fn4 (A w (n (A CL c(A4

CL CD. Q. .4 4n 40.

LU ~ ~ ~ ~ c $.-4 '--*/4I44 L s-U..- i~~~~ LA-/)U aUU6) 01/) * /

U. 0- cm- ~ U ' ~ (Li XL (n

- LA- U/ >- < I.-

LU . LA- LULI 'n LU 11I-~~P %-IZ LUZoL

Li Zi 4n b0= w- I.L ca Q-L ac CD- ca QC

LU ~ ~ 6- La.a-- LiI'' U-Ij- -L "-.'A-I-C4.I .- ~ L .-6j

~ LULU ~ LU L Z L '~ /) -LU )Coc LU10 LUO LI 0 )00

u4 0 w w& 0: co- -4 L I L

tn l l'I U I

34

I= Le;

CD

4cr

cfl r.% 0D 0 ID

0) (A LD LA 0)\

S LUJ

LU .UJ11CD XC0

LA)

LUJw CD ~ CDC. 0

LUJ LUJ ILU - I'D If LU

CD4 LAS

I-. I Ito LUI A =

U .L.U J

I-- XGo LU ..

LUc 1- =1 V

:m J - 1- U1 <4

CeU acc. IJ mU 4-'tca V) LJ 1-- m 0LUJ CA I wLu LUJ CD 0>qA CD Zw 0 l c0D v) uJf- =I ILu0.. CA a I- Cm OLUI OLUI-oD d w = cou LUJCD jcn P-4CD "a-

Q: n LLU L M I= Ot LUJ e < %

ILL. L>-I V) coC3() <~ x cLUI x LI 040

9: LL. W D U LL. x LUL Laca) c0 V)0 u0~ V

m~1 in >- (^~l >- -.. L I CI

a-L CD D LUU W LU. ~ <. LL a- LU0<

LU >)- :5C0 O CL.)CD 0uin =O .0~ cn I0U I-C

U. ClU M- =mO M) =m C.- -r < = <I- <=)

LA cc" C=0- DW4

1 4 I- CC ui WA P-- (n 00cc I CL. CX CJ I a

J- CIO)) CL) C'l

-j CD w - C) u U. C) u p

w 1- 1.

<" 11

0 (U U 0C 0 0L-. if%. %D

La

wIZo. LU

W~ 110

4.) C-) 0 '

03 0D' 9= 4 D C.J

Lu LL. wU ~

0~ QU

- WU).OO

U ) a

co 1.-4 L I I wiCD CDd tn C

GoW0 '- 4LLO w cc I-' L I~ u

C3 Cc. LU W0 co Q -C

cn U- 4< C >i.- Lii IL G

0D Q~ 10 =o tn w ca

ID UI CDU w01 a0LU '-4- a. 0 CoZ

cc **- " cr. IZO D. . rea. QUO LU CDO LL 4

i..41 _ I- =.) c-.) 4 D 41a- wCo w. ) w -

0-U (nW LU I w)- L IV) V) cc ~ U~ LU

Cl "-a CD Ca. P- W-jL a. -Im c M.4 < W w "C4 CD cn -. I I CL

L OO a WO (n L.O t= c )i w CD0C

w cn..) wa ~ cr D )W =V I u 4CD U D Cc 0 - Iao -

(4 W z . W 4 C2 4

Go Go Q A.I )

36 .

cv) LLA O'

Im-

LLLA

CD V) U- ' C4C

La.. LLI'-I.W

CL0

LLU -- J 0L 01

Ln

- Cv$- LUI

m5 CD =.) 1-C 0 004

LUJ LU Lai 13 ' i LUJ

o~ C)-

ko LUJ ACLU

4/) I.-

Go0 =~ ..- f C0UC) 62. uC. 0-L9 C) jLJ .

"t "3 m C. x 43 LLU L )9. l =1-CD

V/) LU V) V) LU 0 LuZ X ~ .

1.-< <DUI1 - w CD

... JC =.9 U I- .. EO .

oCD P-.. 0-/ C1- - 93-i Dt<I =~- Ln ; C0- X 4J

C. 04/ LCD C 0 i L) w C V) CDP~

Wi 0-4 < 06- Ck = -4

V). --L- IA C) wj1 0"-~ 4L 61-4 CLL) AmL I LaO 0-L u dcJ V)W I

-i =' < <~ = L0) -r

Ei d:C _j 0:W<LJ= VLU U 1= I w C) w 4 4-(n ix C>) in - 4/D $-- = / 4

L-'-4 -~ U. C) I I

4/) 1 9- L Q- Ii -- C Ix

04- CC '. 'i4/c v'

37

Go Cr))PJ *-C-

(cvr CV)ini-00 A

o L urum C V)

'-4 - -

w (j - CCD (A 0r c - % )r

La V))

cc -j Go CD 0~l C'

11-t~

o La -J N

- La 00

CO ~ - CDS =V

CDC

cn CA n .

x~ (n wL" CD Laco CD I- I- I- co iJ In -cc0 I .)Ln 0. 0j t- a. Ct)

a. wia CDLa La >4nEI L) 10 CD-~I CD 0. 0

CD La W- tj Za ' Z " :00. n 1-4J La .la ICD -CDE) ~ U

< I-- I C> 10 01 wu I =

w = 0..l C.) 00 0J >- CD w wLa Za. x an - co i Ed o CD -) CJ

a- a. uid' . LU La V)u- w~ I i La)' .. i a I- L)~ =-a = La Cl

V) 4 L) 2. 1a. W . LaW a< . -j a "- -i CL cm C

La L3 10 In 10 u 0 *

I. acl I C) I= = ICD

ui m

5-C C>1 x'. to)in I- 9 ) P- I L CL I -

< % < ar GC =w c l38

dcv,

Lu-

(D C:

o) V) 0oUL- LL r t

CL.

Lur

uu co-~J

CD u-ul -

UU

uLu

c0 0 /0~InI. r-

zl+CD cc

1-- I- *>

4o LuCD, w.Lu

CDL . 0w~0

uu I-V) LO i

La uu

I- ( uu W) 4

0 <~

C. I-

In 0o

o CO r $-I

Lu

a. Lufl 39

should be reviewed and evaluated to determine if the 3-level proficiency codeshould be changed to a dash. Although supported at the 7-skill level, thefirst-job and first-enlistment percentages are way below the recommended 20percent members performing. Table 16 also provides an additional 19 subpara-graphs (5d(3), llc(2), llc(3), llc(5) 12c(2), 12c(5), 12d(2), 12e(2), 12e(3),L2e(4), 12e(5), 12f(2), 12f(3), 12f(4), 12f(5), 12g(2), 12g(3), 12g(4), and12g(5)) that should be reviewed for possible deletion from the STS for thecorrosion control functional area of responsibilities due to low percent mem-bers performing. If, however, they are items which will be performed by allpersonnel in the restructured AFSC, then retaining them in this proposed STSmay be essential. This also provides information on areas where personnelpresently holding AFSC 427X1 would require upgrade training because they pres-ently are not performing these tasks.

Tasks not matched to any element of the STS are listed at the end of theSTS computer listing. Potential task concentration around specific functionsor jobs was reviewed and no particular trends were noted. In Table 17, exam-ples of technical tasks performed by at least 20 percent of the target grouprespondents that had not been referenced to any STS elements are shown.Training personnel and subject-natter experts should review these and othereligible unreferenced tasks to determine if inclusion in the STS Is justified.

Plan of Instruction (POI)

Technical school subject-matter experts, as previously mentioned, alsomatched the inventory tasks to the 3ABR42731 000 course POI, and a computerproduct was generated displaying the results of this match. The informationpresented includes the learning objectives, tasks matched, percent 1-24 and1-48 months TAFMS respondents performing, TE, TD, and Automated Training Index(ATI) values.

Review of tasks matched to the POI reveals that most POI blocks and unitsof instruction are well supported by survey data, based on percentages offirst-enlistment personnel performing tasks or high TE or TD ratings for per-tinent tasks. There are seven units of instruction, however, which containobjectives that apparently are not totally supported by survey data andrequire further evaluation by training personnel and subject-matter experts(see display in Table 18). While the tasks for the first two units shown (13aand 13b) have comparatively high TE ratings, first-enlistment personnel reportonly 7 percent of them perform the tasks and both have a below average TD rat-Ing. Although unit 13e has tasks with above average (5.00 or higher) TD rat-ings, the TE ratings are very low and the percent members performing forfirst-enlistment individuals does not exceed 4 percent. Each of the threeunits of block II have tasks which are performed by less than 13 percent ofthe first-term personnel. While TD ratings for these tasks are above average,the TE ratings are comparatively low. The task for the final objective(IV2h), though having above average TE and TD ratings, reflects that less than20 percent of the criterion groups perform the task and thus does not supportthe objective. These objectives should be reviewed to determine if retentionof these 9 hours in the ABR course is justified.

40

NA"~ ' V,.-~

CD=z r- Lc C-) C~ co I- -lA

LLJ CV) LA CA LO C) CV) fl.

C4 C

MC () ( LA; LA U;A

)pCD CL4 LO e'J LO %J 0% C U)

LL )O= V) VLn Lf (:o i- LA r-% co co

La J Lii 1J. to LA ) LA mA C q) CY r- LA) N- LA

*JJ LiJLi cc

w- x- r-O Oi0

In 2CLAL C C) L C) r.Ln 00LOr- u I 11 C0

LAJO

V) = Li I- C C ~ LAt %D Nrc) t-% Co coI . a C" V ODC4 Rr ew LO mV Co LA co qw

IL.

-J LA L

CO c .J LA

LncJ Co ) A

wA. 0= 00--i z- -

C. C) 4-)*1

Z: -j > 4

C0 0 V) ac CD 0Co u.

U)S C) 0 0 w u Mga., U) CD '-L (a0 ii C.

UC- c- M/S ii I-- Z: (n 0 CD CD go '

wi 0 w V)i C.) %CD Z -Lii &n CD'4 -

im 0) CD C LO .- UC.. (Z 0- L Lf

=i C) uSCD CXJ CD I-a~ - ---C. 0-4 0

0 m Ci V ) -CD CD c c<.) <- 0 0-. CL.LJ .

46 d . 6.-. L n t n UO t. LDk C

%D CD Mb Qa L

C.)-

c/ o . N 0 V ) gC. OIC '0 I. o

F- 0-a

am an. 41 = -

go D CD 5

'-. 1- I. -4 i%I.- Co I- 4/) W 4V/& c n

I- U- Co =4

-i~ 4c LA. 0.C> -jt

wU L = (D CD x I--tn I-

CA 0) V) 4. 0JLa [a- a- CD tnU - U . a

0 LU V) I- I- = ". ".. -)ILU Z j . O I.- cm ) - I- -- >

bi-. (n < i -i" =w = =I- )a= Cp) PCJI) w wW- CD mwm QD LaC 0 )=

.... JU -LU OC. CL' CD.~i V) -0 Z .

0~L m-a m, cn alC' m - 1 .-i La o 1-0 Cl'- a / 4/o c /) c /U L-P%

Do* 0- 9- " t .. J4 .t 4 t

0U w/ '-LL u-Li Ne 4/) le) u/ 4/~~~~~~~e~~~~~C C.l.J aa0 .. .. .J .... -DU4/) 0 0 La-~ CD

CD~~~~ ~~~~ L C C O - I- - I

I.- .Z aZ 1- O LU LU L LUL co- - a-I-- Z Z X >-4

I-U)~~~~~~# LU L-) J./)4)i-*

CJU)~~~~~~~r -J .- cm- ) -> U -LULUa. LJU) a- a- U Li-i- aL4

-i-iE LJU) L~d)~ '- '-4 '-* C.

cn I-L -U c U IUnIUI -- / -

LU4/ .J~.. aLim4 LU Z-Z ~ .CDa-00. I. ca- L0. LO LU)U LLU .

0 0-' O.- ~ U 0 O O OL42.

Additionally, some apparently significant tasks with high TE ratings,sufficiently high TD ratings, and 30 percent or more first-job or first-enlistment personnel performing were not matched to any POI blocks of instruc-tion. This combination of factors indicates formal training may be requiredand resident technical training could be supported. Table 19 lists a samplingof a number of such tasks. Subject-matter experts and training personnelshould perform in-depth review of these and other qualifying tasks containedin the "Tasks Not Referenced" section of the previously mentioned computerprintout to determine the necessity for training and the most effective methodto accomplish it.

JOB SATISFACTION ANALYSIS

Examination of the job satisfaction indicators for various groups givescareer ladder managers a better understanding of some of the factors which mayimpact on Job performance of airmen in the career ladder. Attitude questionscovering job interest, perceived utilization of talents and training, sense ofaccomplishment from work, and reenlistment intentions were included in thesurvey booklet. The information from these questions is provided in Table 20for the specialty jobs discussed in the SPECIALTY JOBS section of this report.An examination of the data may show how overall job satisfaction may be influ-enced by the type of job performed. In Table 21, another view of job satis-faction data is presented, showing data for TAFMS groups matched with similardata for a comparative sample of Mission Equipment Maintenance career ladderssurveyed in 1987. These data can give a relative measure of how job satisfac-tion of AFSC 427XI personnel compares with that of other similar specialties.An indication of how job satisfaction perceptions personnel within the careerladder have changed over time is provided in Table 22, where data for TAFMSgroups from this survey is compared to those of the previous survey conductedin 1979.

With one exception, greater than 50 percent of the members in each spe-cialty job report positively, finding their jobs interesting (See Table 20).The Assistant Corrosion Control Shop Chiefs, with only 46 percent expressingthat their jobs are interesting, represent only 1 percent of the survey sam-ple. Perhaps of more interest is the indication that only 50 percent of thelargest job group, representing 81 percent of the sample, indicate they foundtheir job interesting.

When comparing the data for the respondents of this survey against thoseof the composite 1987 sample (see Table 21), AFSC 427XI respondents are con-sistently lower in all categories, with the exception of intent to reenlist.No explanation was found for what appears to be comparatively lower job satis-faction indicators for Corrosion Control personnel. A possibility may be theuncertainty and concern over potential merger of the career ladder, but nodata is available to support or negate this theory.

43

CD c t % 0G t Drf

"I' I-. C', to co. c'.i 'o 00 co

Lai4 0: a: 0o co Ch %D U', %0 qi) L.O

I.oq w r *d- C) (M)*d- C4 V; 14 ; C4 -W 4 .

V) cc a)J CO C.C N- C) 0 m, LO LCA -a- LAj qw'0q14- NL 0) I,- c o LA a) ko ) %0 LC A I0 -t N-CV

C-) ca I-

taj 02 w' ND A - L P%. N- Cf) %o 40 al m~IM CM co I- r- N- N- %V I LA U LA 41c Rt CV)

iI0 I.-

926 V) CD

-A A Lii a)

a-- U.D It ~ -

00 U, i'-

a.S 0Cci

fl(V UI co

L D I-) V GO I, -li

fte CD Get,~ - , Lai

a. E" ii oc0 , 0(n CD u aa- CD CDi

a. 0 Lii u~n- - a-Li< I-- >-0 (a 0

L-L- CD X-U .0 0~ ~ U ,CD CD. CD '0-I L. 0a

(a (a Uj IL '4 i UI-C W LI-. CD n .J Li , tu

Q w -L. 0i -i- Ia go

wa I I- (a . I-- U, 0 ) a-40-)- io to U, a. CD U, < LC Li D Li NC

'-4 bU a. CL . "

-CD LoU,0: a. w a. 40 (aLioo U, cn U, (D CD (a)(D .

(a 9-4 0 C Li ..J i U.1 CL (D uJ ccw W IX >- V) der oa. D w w

CDi *-- < La D _j wi C .(l

wi 4ii i d u a- a- ".w~ U.1 CD wD ~- LU I- Of 6-4~- -

a. u 0 < .... 40 IM IONa~ c a i. - 0Liic w~ a.Li . ~a a.ui ) m m

U , .1 U.1 wf -r- a) U A-

U, act I%. 0 U, ::I Q.. w U,. U w CA cm

U.N N N A C) N~ LA () A a-t Ln

W- 4.0' C w 1d, o to CD a cm -it a~ co

44

LLI -I

WLAIJ2!:Li

V) w~V

tn C)4 C)r-- rCJ CD C ) C) C C l *

I0- 0O Ii'

C)V)

ccLii

co "n -) r~- p- .a -~-

o( L)ICi - I- ~4n x O-~ ~ r L

mJ U4Li %0 lI CO-

I-a Ouico Cl-

in1 0o CD=

=/ C..) Li ) uC.

0>C)c P O0V.:)) w to '-

[a A. W

0 b-4_-=

4A)

co-

P-40C

LU~~~ L&... .i hiLnU

U-- -J U-C

0.1- 0.1 _- v bv.j

0 0D 0D 0D a.<1-- I -1-- z 1- GA c

tn 0i (n 0j 0i 0 00

9z :a C) .. J 3.J CD . b4 V

w :.>-- : >- 0i CD. Uii .. ix

w - 8- _jO_ 0 -0 Lj/ CA 01I-LvI U 4A / wi wU Li. I-w - - -i QJ

CD =0 W -c4 .-4 M 'LU1- Lai'v-.-

45

_j ...J CO !%1 -- eC -. r - ~ - -.

o .

% CI

CY)

C-)

C-)

tc

La a -WO CV) -r W0C* U)i c c ) r

C) u

o oC 00ii

low Ile

LM co P, C m pV

o a. co (n .t

CD

to - O ..

w, cn

w- X

c 0 Xa

o~~ > aC

I- act -j.CcJtI.-- >~I- C o0 ~

In >- tC. w.J Q0o- p--

L" Do. W)La 4 U-

lX CD w wl x CD #a J46M I" .. '-i Ix.~ La 0

:11. >- w - La CD ~..J.CD1 "~ Lu _-j. _j _

C La.. w r c I-- w "n 40-i -i

0 0 06 W) c

i-i i-I K

V) r-O W N L LO

+ LLJr% -'

V) ON ) La rD

X: r-. co LO - O

%D La. n ~ -

£n V11

I,-J,

ClA0.

cc~ I-- c - I

Oi %* oeII%

I--a

coa

La. a.I

cc LA

'C ~ ~ ~ L U-~a~ Os Ci '

La..: LU a

-(z

U--c

Do -LD Co

'-4 47

When there are serious problems in a career ladder, survey respondentsare usually quite free with write-in comments to complain about perceivedproblems in the field. Thirteen percent of the survey sample used the write-in feature to convey some type of information, yet only 2.8 percent of thecomments (representing only .4 percent of the survey sample) could be charac-terized as complaints. There was no particular trend noted among the few com-ments received.

Further, as reflected in Table 22, the responses of the first-enlistmentpersonnel from this survey show many more individuals were satisfied with allareas than those of the previous survey. Of special note is the positive per-ception of a great number of respondents that their talent and training arebeing used fairly well or better when compared to those first-termers in 1979.Additionally, those individuals who, in 1979, were first-enlistment personnelare now in the 97+ month TAFMS group, and reflect much higher percentage ofpersonnel with favorable indicators than they reflected in 1979 (see Tables 21and 22).

The data in the job satisfaction tables shows the Corrosion Controlcareer ladder to be one where a majority of the personnel indicate they aresatisfied with their jobs, the use of their training and talents, and feel asense of accomplishment in what they do. They also indicate more of a will-ingness to reenlist than others in jobs similar to theirs.

ADDITIONAL ISSUES

Technical Training personnel requested data concerning the performance byCorrosion Control personnel of sealing functions and advanced composite struc-ture and honeycomb core repair functions. Indications at that time were thatthe performance of these functions was widespread, and data was sought to con-firm or refute the indications. Rather than use a background question togather data, tasks were written on each area and placed in the survey instru-ment under two separate duty sections, Duty R (Performing Sealing Functions)and Duty S (Performing Advanced Composite Structure and Honeycomb Repair Func-tions). As shown in Table 6, the survey reveals that performance of theseduties is not widespread. Corrosion Control personnel spend aproximately 1percent of their relative time performing sealing functions (Duty R) and lessthan I percent of their relative time performing advanced composite structureand honeycomb core repair functions (Duty T). Another indication of the lackof performance of these duties is shown in both Tables 23 and 24, which listthe tasks found in Duties R and S with percent members performing each taskfor the total sample and MAJCOM. There are only two tasks in Duty R (R816 andR819) and one task in Duty S (S828) where the percent members performing forthe total sample exceeds 20 percent. Overall, the other tasks in these areasreflect a very low percentage of performance by those surveyed. One MAJCOMhowever, does have a good percentage of its personnel reporting performance inDuty R tasks. Military Airlift Command has more than 20 percent of its per-sonnel performing half of Duty R tasks. There are no real differences for

48

I-un

-it-

C%%J

L0i UlCU ;I" ) CI ka4 U)' viiO IN C)0 om Rd %

L(D Int %CC.JU

(DO 10r 4-, l

. -j to ~ II

... _DLj 0I CJ C

~~it

L~JOm

w V) I-LJn /

(A m-4O( CDLL-/ C/) U. M Alw- O L

w aJLJ) 4/)=W w-6-

> -CD OOOL(5 = J

w w WO-4f W 1 - - olI-

I-- im c .C C)C)~. l La= " r. a

U) U- U- -a. C- '- Cc'j- eI- jiIUW =W 1A 12

49 <<- ml- r-i wa. a a. .a.a. U

CV).R. e(-- .v) q Ul) qd- e'.4 4cK ' 4

ccJ

C-

LUIC%j

U- CA F- - e C)0

LU I U. 11 CAI-- *-4Un

36 d= LU '.LL.L.. cc H

C..) IxVCe LI =D

CY LU -

CIO Z-LA m ~ -

Z LLU

CD L) w uc 0

X =LUI I-lwCDL) 0D

LL LUI

o n ' J w 0 c CD~ L

caL "- W- "- LUL LUZ'I=A"

V)D m- I 0 D 4) L) 06 CL. < V) DUi t/L. LUJ UL LU. XU< uL. < NL

u -w I- zWMc L

< Ci LU4)4/ C-) xLo z 4 -C.D -I-. CD LU = ~ I- -< CV a

= CD V) CC " V) 0"C:2m- W 9:6 UJ w u

cnU u0 2M0 LU 4n LU6 C I CC.J0 = uCLon 0D V) "L 0m CD I-- l LLaZ'auw w C-) L&L L V) 03 d 92. L I L S4a w = I- LC

Z1 L. ) t L Cl W<() >- L40')

i% WW V C C C C2 0 -4Z U' M

)-0.f U U WO LL " =<=<U- I :-b

CD I- I I- < w=~ " a- C (n CL u) . C.) = . 0. 0.

>- C36 (A c,.. i = = = CL . ccDC36 C C " ~ W ~ " ~ W ~ 9-C'OM ) V) W~ =) W

cn cn C" cn mc m C11 m cnI- (A) en cn tn V) V) 4) V) CA) C) p

50

L'

-d- i' ic 4 - 4 4 ' 4

LL-

t -J 4 4 4'j mc -. r- LO4 '

El

L)J

(#)LLI. LL.I

Q- W- LL x1

9= CLZ Lu

WLLLI. C14 ' icoZ

co 2)CL# 1.O

4c X. -PCu CD~a u___1

LL La.I- - inC

LLI Li

0-4.I (1 V)S -< -

Cflmc -4 CCLJL CfD "fb400-i Li. L&I f LL (n J = i

w ..a P"WLi )LJ r>-V <c L) a-J .cCJJ - CL LfL

W 40 0 (..A-.C= I-- LC'LJfLJ~ ) 4.m-L.) Q- -CC s- I- cnI-J E - CIn I I 00La. LI '4JI4I 1-- U;

()L1J >.Wa 0D Q j0i L 0IL n Dou 02M.*im " .. I-- <I~. I--U-0=a-0 Lii mV =

4n M ) LL. 0 U ~ ~ Z V) P-4 aC.U -4 C

LAJUj>.(n 2ma. 9 0 A n.) Vi ) -4 L) I-La<(i O =~I- 0i ixO 0i a AJC )c C D4 - (

act om C 6..- 0 CD .p-m C sa L C w.J LLIi C>'-A~- O~i0 < CEu14 ixx. m =c ~ LI4 4 LJ 4-'

QC ZL 0LLJ C L.. - w (D C ZCD x- 0xC..-i U--V-J LZ'- V)Z#-4 = U* 0 im L.) CD >-

< w )-W W(.W L i LL> P-i'u-.i00

a- A (t -a M. a-I C.-W) CD=C DLJ u i A i LJLA C)CD a. 0 l CL 0C-i 06 4L~ Co -1 02 @3( n m2 ALIV

4U Z~ - X 4 4 4 4 4A c :96mV )51- Q . 0-= l .C D C :-C Z o0 3c =o "C -

X K idc( LJ U DC)w cOc o i e51ew -I-- LA. = ( = t " M M C C3 .t

WE VZP-== Z La P" -- A V w < #A

4L)cM

ic~I

4' 4' r C.

uC4

4'. . 4,cc to qt

LIII

Of C. ~ L j

La Q LL .O

P- CLLa Iac

<a CDC. LaO

=L

I- =o: P- -AlC ~ l

**.JU I-

LL.a LaS

P- CD MU

am1- w~ : V)U -. c:1- 0. -2 I=

0.O ICD 0 (..)L&WL)LJ

w 0 =~ La =a =L V)u

SL)4 CL. 40L(1 CL. ICK

LM 3 > (J~ LaC6 " c00..i Ll 0..J - - . X

V)( 6 6- DaA

w V L7 a'

4:= a. ~ C. IU j = Aw L)( a

6.4 w b- 0-4 (c ) WU)C U) 4) -4 U) d U U)

I-U) 0 U)IxLV 9 LOxw 4

5?:V)p

MAJCOM reflected in Duty S. Although few Corrosion Control personnel, over-all, presently report performing the tasks in Duties R and S, they will berequired to perform these tasks as part of the new 458X2 AFSC.

The Air Force Corrosion Program Manager requested data be gathered onfour areas concerning annual industrial physical examinations and one on car-diopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) training. The technical training personnelwere interested in the proliferation of Combat Oriented Maintenance Organiza-tion (COMO) procedures. Table 25 provides the data for the total sample,first-job, first-enlistment, and DAFSC groups. In some cases, the percent ofpersonnel having a part of the industrial physical examination, such as anaudio exam, exceeds the percent members actually reporting having had takenthe physical examination. This can be accounted for by the fact that thosereporting positive on an audio exam, for instance, are indicating they hadthat exam as part of their last physical, no matter when they had taken thephysical, while positive response on the physical examination question indi-cates that the physical itself had been taken within the last year.

IMPLICATIONS

The survey was requested by training personnel to obtain current task andequipment data for their evaluation of the current training programs and toprovide information to be used in the merger of this AFSC and AFSC 427X5 tocreate a new AFSC 458X2. The current STS for AFSC 427X1 generally is wellsupported by survey data, with just a few elements requiring review due tononsupporting survey data. Additionally, some tasks not keyed to any part ofthe STS require review for possible inclusion in the document. The same istrue for the draft STS for AFSC 458X2 as it pertains to the corrosion controlportion of that STS. Comparison of the survey data to the POI for the ABRcourse for the AFSC 427XI career ladder, revealed that seven units of instruc-tion (9 hours of class time) include some objectives which are not supportedby the survey data. There are also a number of tasks performed by sufficientnumbers of first-enlistment airmen and reflecting high TE ratings, that shouldalso be reviewed for possible inclusion In the ABR course. Data from thissurvey, concerning high usage of equipment by first-term personnel, should beconsidered in establishing the equipment requirements of the ABR course forthe new AFSC.

53

L) CV) .

0- * C%% C

w) P.- M o o - CD %p

I.- If

CV0=

InJ GO cn m NI. If co Il r- co It0 m1

"aa

LI)

r- 96w % V

W LA

a.

U) 0

0C ) j d g.9

aL. 11. w w w C

W~ _j WJ~

dcK

Ulf*~0~

- ~aell.

I- (.) 0 054

APPENDIX A

SELECTED REPRESENTATIVE TASKS PERFORMEDBY CAREER LADDER STRUCTURE GROUPS

TABLE I

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG047, CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 891 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 81%AVERAGE GRADE: E-4 AVERAGE TAFMS: 64AVERAGE TICF: 59 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 194

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 97G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 95L585 MIX PAINTS 94G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 94G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 94L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 93J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 87L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 87K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 87G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 85L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 85L603 STRAIN PAINTS 85G275 PAINT SIGNS 85G286 PREPARE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB PERFORMANCE 84J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 84L538 APPLY LACQUERS TO SURFACES USING AEROSOL SPRAYS 84K496 SCUFF UP METAL SURFACES 83L589 PREPARE EPOXY COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 83M619 CLEAN EQUIPMENT AFTER APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATINGS 83Q772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 83G283 PLACE PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS IN STORAGE 83J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 83G312 STENCIL SIGNS 82G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 82J417 REMOVE CORROSION USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 82K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 82G242 ASSEMBLE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB

PERFORMANCE 82G258 DISPOSE OF PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS 82L551 APPLY POLYURETHANE COATINGS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED

SPRAY GUNS 82Q764 CHANGE RESPIRATOR CARTRIDGES 80

Almmm ilt11 mI

TABLE I-A

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG066, AIRCRAFT/SPRAY PAINTERSGROUP SIZE: 65 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 6%AVERAGE GRADE: E-3 AVERAGE TAFMS: 57AVERAGE TICF: 53 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 77

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFOR4ING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 94L585 MIX PAINTS 89G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 89G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 89G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 88L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 77L538 APPLY LACQUERS TO SURFACES USING AEROSOL SPRAYS 77L558 APPLY PRIMERS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED SPRAY GUNS 75J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 74K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 74Q764 CHANGE RESPIRATOR CARTRIDGES 74L601 SET UP SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT FOR USE 69Q772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 69L551 APPLY POLYURETHANE COATINGS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED

SPRAY GUNS 68M619 CLEAN EQUIPMENT AFTER APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATINGS 68K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 68L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 68L603 STRAIN PAINTS 66M626 CLEAN SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT 63M633 DISASSEMBLE SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT FOR CLEANING AND

STORAGE 63Q765 CHANGE RESPIRATOR FILTERS 63G258 DISPOSE OF PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS 63G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 63G259 DRIVE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, SUCH AS SEDANS AND TRUCKS 60L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 58J417 REMOVE CORROSION USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 58K496 SCUFF UP METAL SURFACES 58J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 58G242 ASSEMBLE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB

PERFORMANCE 57L589 PREPARE EPOXY COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 57

A2

TABLE I-B

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG156, GENERAL CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 125 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 11%AVERAGE GRADE: E-4 AVERAGE TAFMS: 49AVERAGE TICF: 44 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 119

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 99G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 99L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FCR APPLICATION 98L585 MIX PAINTS 98G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 96G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 95L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 91L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 88J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 84K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 84L589 PREPARE EPOXY COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 82M619 CLEAN EQUIPMENT AFTER APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATINGS 81L603 STRAIN PAINTS 81L538 APPLY LACQUERS TO SURFACES USING AEROSOL SPRAYS 81G312 STENCIL SIGNS 81G275 PAINT SIGNS 80K496 SCUFF UP METAL SURFACES 79K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 78J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 78G286 PREPARE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB PERFORMANCE 77L513 APPLY DECALS TO AIRCRAFT 77G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 760772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 76G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 76L575 FABRICATE STENCILS BY MACHINE 75G276 PERFORM FOREIGN OBJECT WALK TO PREVENT FOREIGN OBJECT

DAMAGE (FOD) 75L511 APPLY CAMOUFLAGE COATINGS TO AIRCRAFT 74J417 REMOVE CORROSION USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 74J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 74G258 DISPOSE OF PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS 74

A3

TABLE I-C

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG169, MISSILE CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 22 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 2%AVERAGE GRADE: E-3 AVERAGE TAFtIS: 33AVERAGE TICF: 31 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 196

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

L524 APPLY ENAMELS TO SURFACES USING ROLLERS 100J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 100G318 WASH GOVERNMENT VEHICLES 100G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 1003396 REMOVE CORROSION USING ABRASIVE PAPER OR CLOTH 100J411 RE4OVE CORROSION USING NEEDLE DE-SCALERS 100H334 INSPECT SHELF LIFE OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 100G259 DRIVE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, SUCH AS SEDANS AND TRUCKS 95L521 APPLY ENAMELS TO SURFACES USING BRUSHES 95G266 LOAD SUPPLIES ON VEHICLES 95G286 PREPARE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB PERFORMANCE 95G242 ASSEMBLE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB

PERFORMANCE 95G243 ATTACH RESTRAINT OR SAFETY HARNESSES 95J444 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING NEEDLE DE-SCALERS 95H332 INSPECT CONDITION OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 95G283 PLACE PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS IN STORAGE 95G241 APPLY WALKWAY COATINGS 95G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 910696 APPLY CORROSION PREVENTIVE COMPOUND (CPC) TO PYLONS 91G280 PERFORM PREOPERATIONAL INSPECTIONS OF GOVERNMENT VEHICLES 91N687 DESTROY CODE MATERIALS 91L557 APPLY PRIMERS TO SURFACES USING ROLLERS 91L555 APPLY PRIMERS TO SURFACES USING BRUSHES 91G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 91M644 INSPECT SAFETY EQUIPMENT 91G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 91N690 OBTAIN CODES FROM SECURITY CONTROL CENTERS 91N691 OPERATE COMMUNICATION EQUIPMENT 91K502 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH SOLVENTS PRIOR TO PAINTING 91G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 91

A4

TABLE I-D

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG196, EXPERIENCED CORROSION CONTROL PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 461 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 42%AVERAGE GRADE: E-4 AVERAGE TAFMS: 57AVERAGE TICF: 51 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 197

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 98G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 97G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 97G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 97L585 MIX PAINTS 96G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 95J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 94L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 93L603 STRAIN PAINTS 93K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 92J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 92L551 APPLY POLYURETHANE COATINGS TO SURFACES USING SUCTION FEED

SPRAY GUNS 91G286 PREPARE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB PERFORMANCE 91G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 90K496 SCUFF UP METAL SURFACES 90L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 90J417 REMOVE CORROSION USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 90L601 SET UP SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT FOR USE 90M622 CLEAN PNEUMATICALLY POWERED TOOLS 89G275 PAINT SIGNS 89J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 89L538 APPLY LACQUERS TO SURFACES USING AEROSOL SPRAYS 89G283 PLACE PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS IN STORAGE 89M619 CLEAN EQUIPMENT AFTER APPLYING PROTECTIVE COATINGS 88K497 SCUFF UP PAINTED SURFACES 88L589 PREPARE EPOXY COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 88G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 88M633 DISASSEMBLE SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT FOR CLEANING AND

STORAGE 88Q772 CLEAN RESPIRATORS 88G312 STENCIL SIGNS 88

A5

TABLE I-E

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG201, SHIFT/CREW LEADERSGROUP SIZE: 142 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 13%AVERAGE GRADE: E-5 AVERAGE TAFMS: 104AVERAGE TICF: 97 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 334

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

L585 MIX PAINTS 100L591 PREPARE POLYURETHANE COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 99G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 99G283 PLACE PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS IN STORAGE 97G294 PREPARE SURFACES USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 96G297 REMOVE MASKING MATERIALS FROM SURFACES 96L589 PREPARE EPOXY COATINGS FOR APPLICATION 96L592 PREPARE PRIMERS FOR APPLICATION 96G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 96G275 PAINT SIGNS 96M640 INSPECT AIR HOSE FITTINGS 96G278 PERFORM MAINTENANCE USING TO 95H332 INSPECT CONDITION OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 95L575 FABRICATE STENCILS BY MACHINE 95G286 PREPARE CORROSION CONTROL MATERIALS PRIOR TO JOB PERFORMANCE 95G258 DISPOSE OF PROTECTIVE COATING MATERIALS 95L574 FABRICATE STENCILS BY HAND 94H334 INSPECT SHELF LIFE OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 94J408 REMOVE CORROSION USING HAND WIRE BRUSHES 94G264 INVENTORY COMPOSITE TOOL KITS (CTK) 94J452 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PNEUMATIC SANDERS 94L510 APPLY AIRCRAFT MARKINGS USING STENCILS 94K503 WIPE DOWN METAL SURFACES WITH THINNERS PRIOR TO PAINTING 94G312 STENCIL SIGNS 94H325 IDENTIFY CAUSES OF PROTECTIVE COATING FAILURES 94M641 INSPECT AIR HOSES 94M625 CLEAN STENCIL MACHINES 94J445 REMOVE PROTECTIVE COATINGS USING PAINT REMOVERS 93M644 INSPECT SAFETY EQUIPMENT 93G287 PREPARE SURFACES BY HAND SANDING 93

A6

TABLE VI

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG113, ASSISTANT SHOP CHIEFSGROUP SIZE: 13 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 1%AVERAGE GRADE: E-5 AVERAGE TAFMS: 144AVERAGE TICF: 137 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 194

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

F224 MAINTAIN AF FORMS 2413 (SUPPLY CONTROL LOG FORMS) 100F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (D04) 100G264 INVENTORY COMPOSITE TOOL KITS (CTK) 100F232 PREPARE DD FORMS 1348-6 (DOD SINGLE LINE ITEM REQUISITION

SYSTEM DOCUMENT (MANUAL - LONG FORM)) 100G248 CLEAN WORK AREAS 100Q785 INSPECT FACE SHIELDS FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 100F222 INITIATE AF FORMS 2005 (ISSUE/TURN IN REQUEST) 92F226 MAINTAIN MASTER BENCH STOCK LISTINGS 92F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 92G259 DRIVE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES, SUCH AS SEDANS AND TRUCKS 92Q781 INSPECT CARTRIDGE RESPIRATORS 92M641 INSPECT AIR HOSES 92M670 REPLACE AIR HOSES 92M663 REMOVE AIR HOSE FITTINGS 92H334 INSPECT SHELF LIFE OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 85C87 EVALUATE USE OF SUPPLIES 85E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 85G265 INVENTORY OUTSIDE STORAGE FACILITIES 85B64 ESTABLISH BENCH STOCK REQUIREMENTS 85F238 UPDATE MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 85F235 REVIEW DD FORMS 1348-1 85G281 PLACE CORROSION REMOVING COMPOUNDS IN STORAGE 85F221 INITIATE AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 85Q782 INSPECT COVERALLS FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 85L585 MIX PAINTS 85L601 SET UP SUCTION FEED SPRAY EQUIPMENT FOR USE 85Q764 CHANGE RESPIRATOR CARTRIDGES 85Q765 CHANGE RESPIRATOR FILTERS 85M640 INSPECT AIR HOSE FITTINGS 85G239 APPLY MASKING MATERIALS TO SURFACES 85

A7

O*

TABLE IV

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG096, CORROSION CONTROL SHOP CHIEFS CLUSTERGROUP SIZE: 70 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 6%AVERAGE GRADE: E-6 AVERAGE TAFMS: 178AVERAGE TICF: 169 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 220

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS.

TAtKS PERFORMING

C126 WRITE APR 100B71 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 97B51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY-RELATED PROBLEMS 96F221 INITIATE AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 96A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 94A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMENTS 94F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (D04) 94A45 SCHEDULE LEAVES 93ClOl EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 91876 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC 42751) 91Al ASSIGN PERSONNEL TO DUTY POSITIONS 91F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 90D131 ASSIGN OJT TRAINERS 90A2 ASSIGN SPONSORS FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 90B65 ESTABLISH WORK PRIORITIES 89E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 89A9 COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH JOB CONTROL 89B58 DIRECT SHOP MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 87B59 DIRECT UTILIZATION OF CORROSION CONTROL SHOP EQUIPMENT 87AlO COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH MAINTENANCE 87A31 PLAN DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 87C87 EVALUATE USE OF SUPPLIES 87A44 SCHEDULE DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 87E210 REVIEW AFTO FORMS 349 86D158 MAINTAIN TRAINING RECORDS 84C119 INDORSE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS (APR) 84A28 ESTABLISH REQUIREMENTS FOR TOOLS 84D140 DEMONSTRATE HOW TO LOCATE TECHNICAL INFORMATION 83B64 ESTABLISH BENCH STOCK REQUIREMENTS 83

G264 INVENTORY COMPOSITE TOOL KITS (CTK) 83

A8

AWB

TABLE IV-A

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG145, MISSILE SHOP CHIEFSGROUP SIZE: 13 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 1%AVERAGE GRADE: E-6 AVERAGE TAFMS: 159AVERAGE TICF: 134 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 113

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (DO4) 100C126 WRITE APR 100B71 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 100F221 INITIATE AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 100B58 DIRECT SHOP MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 92A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 92A45 SCHEDULE LEAVES 92B51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY-RELATED PROPI.EMS 92E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 92ClOl EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 85B65 ESTABLISH WORK PRIORITIES 85A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMMENTS 85A9 COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH JOB CONTROL 85E210 REVIEW AFTO FORMS 349 85F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 85A2 ASSIGN SPONSORS FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 85A1O COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH MAINTENANCE 77E190 MAINTAIN TO FILES 77A44 SCHEDULE DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 77F222 INITIATE AF FORMS 2005 (ISSUE/TURN IN REQUEST) 77B76 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC 42751) 77D158 MAINTAIN TRAINING RECORDS 77Al ASSIGN PERSONNEL TO DUTY POSITIONS 77B59 DIRECT UTILIZATION OF CORROSION CONTROL SHOP EQUIPMENT 77D131 ASSIGN OJT TRAINERS 77A37 PREPARE BRIEFINGS 77B66 IMPLEMENT SAFETY PROGRAMS 69A6 COORDINATE DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIALS WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE

MONITORS 69F238 UPDATE MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 69A31 PLAN DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 69

A9

TABLE IV-B

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG196, GENERAL SHOP CHIEFSGROUP SIZE: 55 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 5%AVERAGE GRADE: E-6 AVERAGE TAFMS: 185AVERAGE TICF: 167 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 242

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

C126 WRITE APR 100A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMMENTS 96B51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY-RELATED PROBLEMS 96A45 SCHEDULE LEAVES 96871 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 96A28 ESTABLISH REOUIREMENTS FOR TOOLS 96A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 95B76 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC 42751) 95Al ASSIGN PERSONNEL TO DUTY POSITIONS 95D131 ASSIGN OJT TRAINERS 95F221 INITIATE AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 95C101 EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 93F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (DO4) 93A7 COORDINATE FLIGHTLINE DISPATCH WORK WITH JOB CONTROL 93C119 INDORSE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS (APR) 93F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 93C87 EVALUATE USE OF SUPPLIES 93C86 EVALUATE USE OF EQUIPMENT 93C83 CLEAR RED X CONDITIONS 93E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 91A1O COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH MAINTENANCE 91A31 PLAN DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 91

A44 SCHEDULE DETAILS OR ADDITIONAL DUTIES 91H325 IDENTIFY CAUSES OF PROTECTIVE COATING FAILURES 91A2 ASSIGN SPONSORS FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 91B65 ESTABLISH WORK PRIORITIES 89B77 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SUPERVISORS (AFSC 42771) 89

B59 DIRECT UTILIZATION OF CORROSION CONTROL SHOP EQUIPMENT 89G264 INVENTORY COMPOSITE TOOL KITS (CTK) 89A9 COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH JOB CONTROL 89

A1O

TABLE V

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG1O1, SENIOR CORROSION CONTROL MANAGERSGROUP SIZE: 17 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 2%AVERAGE GRADE: E-7 AVERAGE TAFMS: 205AVERAGE TICF: 160 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 83

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

B51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY-RELATED PROBLEMS 100C126 WRITE APR 94Al ASSIGN PERSONNEL TO DUTY POSITIONS 94B71 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 94A2 ASSIGN SPONSORS FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 94B65 ESTABLISH WORK PRIORITIES 82B70 INTERPRET DIRECTIVES FOR SUBORDINATES 82A25 ESTABLISH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 82C119 INDORSE AIRMAN PERFORMANCE REPORTS (APR) 82E212 REVIEW MAINTENANCE PERSONNEL LISTINGS 82C83 CLEAR RED X CONDITIONS 82B77 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SUPERVISORS (AFSC 42771) 76A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMMENTS 76E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 76A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 76C128 WRITE SPECIAL REPORTS 76ClO1 EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 71B76 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC 42751) 71B58 DIRECT SHOP MAINTENANCE ACTIVITIES 71A45 SCHEDULE LEAVES 71F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 71A6 COORDINATE DISPOSAL OF WASTE MATERIALS WITH HAZARDOUS WASTE

MONITORS 71A5 COORDINATE CORROSION PROBLEMS WITH DEPOTS 71E218 WRITE CORRESPONDENCE 65C96 EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 65C87 EVALUATE USE OF SUPPLIES 65F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (D04) 65A23 ESTABLISH OFFICE INSTRUCTIONS (01) 65A29 ESTABLISH STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES (SOP) 65B75 SUPERVISE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 59

All

TABLE III

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STGO90, SUPPLY/ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISORY PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 10 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 1%AVERAGE GRADE: E-6 AVERAGE TAFMS: 146AVERAGE TICF: 136 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 64

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

B76 SUPERVISE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC 42751) 100A36 PLAN WORK ASSIGNMENTS 100B51 COUNSEL PERSONNEL ON PERSONAL OR MILITARY-RELATED PROBLEMS 100A7 COORDINATE FLIGHTLINE DISPATCH WORK WITH JOB CONTROL 100A46 SCHEDULE WORK ASSIGNMMENTS 90C126 WRITE APR 90B71 ORIENT NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 90A2 ASSIGN SPONSORS FOR NEWLY ASSIGNED PERSONNEL 90F224 MAINTAIN AF FORMS 2413 (SUPPLY CONTROL LOG FORMS) 80A1O COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH MAINTENANCE 80C83 CLEAR RED X CONDITIONS 80Al ASSIGN PERSONNEL TO DUTY POSITIONS 80E204 PREPARE AFTO FORMS 349 TO INCLUDE USE OF APPLICABLE -06 CODE

MANUALS 70F222 INITIATE AF FORMS 2005 (ISSUE/TURN IN REQUEST) 70F234 REVIEW DAILY DOCUMENT REGISTERS (D04) 70E215 REVIEW PRIORITY MONITOR REPORTS (D-18) 70B74 SUPERVISE APPRENTICE CORROSION CONTROL SPECIALISTS (AFSC

42731) 70A9 COORDINATE IN-SHOP WORK PROGRESS WITH JOB CONTROL 70C81 CLEAR RED DASH CONDITIONS 70C82 CLEAR RED DIAGONAL CONDITIONS 70E193 MAKE ENTRIES ON AFTO FORMS 781A (MAINTENANCE DISCREPANCY

AND WORK DOCUMENT) 70F221 INITIATE AF FORMS 1297 (TEMPORARY ISSUE RECEIPT) 70B59 DIRECT UTILIZATION OF CORROSION CONTROL SHOP EQUIPMENT 60F226 MAINTAIN MASTER BENCH STOCK LISTINGS 60B75 SUPERVISE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL 60E186 MAINTAIN AF FORMS 2430 (SPECIALIST DISPATCH CONTROL LOG) 60F237 REVIEW MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 60F238 UPDATE MONTHLY DUE-OUT VALIDATION REPORTS 60E210 REVIEW AFTO FORMS 349 60C101 EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 60

A12

TABLE II

GROUP NUMBER AND TITLE: STG049, QUALITY ASSURANCE PERSONNELGROUP SIZE: 12 PERCENT MEMBERS OF SAMPLE: 1%AVERAGE GRADE: E-6 AVERAGE TAFMS: 130AVERAGE TICF: 130 AVERAGE TASKS PERFORMED: 91

TASKS ARE LISTED IN DESCENDING ORDER OF PERCENT MEMBERS PERFORMING:

PERCENTMEMBERS

TASKS PERFORMING

C124 PERFORM INSPECTIONS USING TECHNICAL ORDERS (TO) 100Q795 INSPECT RESPIRATORS FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 92Q786 INSPECT GOGGLES FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 92Q785 INSPECT FACE SHIELDS FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 92E185 LOCATE TECHNICAL ORDER (TO) INFORMATION USING TO INDEXES 92C96 EVALUATE COMPLIANCE WITH PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 83Q797 INSPECT RUBBER GLOVES FOR CONDITION AND CLEANLINESS 83H332 INSPECT CONDITION OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 75C102 EVALUATE INSPECTION PROCEDURES 75Q781 INSPECT CARTRIDGE RESPIRATORS 75H327 IDENTIFY TYPES OF PROTECTIVE COATING FAILURES 75H325 IDENTIFY CAUSES OF PROTECTIVE COATING FAILURES 75H326 IDENTIFY TYPES OF CORROSION 75M644 INSPECT SAFETY EQUIPMENT 67ClOl EVALUATE INDIVIDUALS JOB PERFORMANCE 67C105 EVALUATE MAINTENANCE OF EQUIPMENT 67R824 INSPECT FOR MISSING SEALANTS 67R823 INSPECT FOR DETERIORATED SEALANTS 67H333 INSPECT CONDITION OF PROTECTIVE COMPOUNDS 67H331 INSPECT AREAS FOR CORROSION USING HAND EQUIPMENT, SUCH AS

FLASHLIGHTS, PROBES, OR MIRRORS 67C97 EVALUATE CORROSION CONTROL CONTRACTS 67C91 EVALUATE ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES 67H334 INSPECT SHELF LIFE OF PROTECTIVE COATINGS 67H323 DETERMINE SEVERITY OF CORROSION 67K472 DETERMINE METAL SURFACE CLEANLINESS BY VISUAL INSPECTIONS 58E175 COMPILE RECORDS FROM INSPECTIONS SURVEILLANCES 58C86 EVALUATE USE OF EQUIPMENT 58Q788 INSPECT HARNESS CONDITIONS 58D151 EVALUATE TRAINING METHODS 58D153 EVALUATE TRAINING TECHNIQUES 58

A13