new mission, new infrastructure - afcec home · services directorates into a new a7 installations...

New Mission, New InfrastructureNew Mission, New Infrastructure

2 WINTER 2003

Maj Gen L. Dean Fox

phot

o by

Kei

th F

red

From The TopFrom The TopHAPPY NEW YEAR!

Well, here we are in the heart of winter�for some of you that meanssnow removal operations and nonstop service calls in order to keep our basesoperating. Sallie and I hope that your holidays were safe and filled with goodwill and cheer. As we all settle into the winter season, we must be even moreobservant of our actions and surroundings. It�s easy for us to let our guarddown in the dark and chilly months of winter; therefore, I�m asking each ofyou to be extra cautious when working and playing during the wintermonths.

Our Back to Bases Task Force finished up their base visits and hadtremendous praise for all the hard work and dedication they witnessed ateach base. I want to personally thank the participating squadrons for provid-ing the team with outstanding support and candid inputs. The results fromthe task force demonstrated�as expected�that we, your headquarterselements, have some work to do to better support the bases. In December,we briefed the Civil Engineer Senior Leaders on the results and we�ve alreadytaken steps to address the �issues� brought up by you and the task force.We�ve tasked the major commands and field operating agencies with organiz-ing and focusing support to their bases using the �gaps� identified during thetask force visits.

Among the issues we�re addressing are restructuring the format andcontent of our Base General Plans; updating as-built drawings; reviewingvehicle authorizations and how we execute the Pri Buy program; civilianprofessional development and retention; ACES connectivity and usabilityproblems; and providing assistance in updating real property records. Youand the team identified 57 individual issues, each of which has been assignedan OPR. We are tracking each issue to resolution and the major commandsand field operating agencies will report back during the Programmer�sConference in February; we�ll keep you posted on our progress.

This fall, I was fortunate to attend the Major Command Base CivilEngineer Conferences and, I must say, was impressed with all the initiativesand the progress each of you are making. Thanks to all who made my visitsso informative and productive. From our Guard, Reserve, and active dutybases, to our contingency bases throughout Southwest Asia, your drive anddedication to executing the mission is unparalleled and you all truly contrib-ute to ensuring we have a superior TOTAL FORCE. As my travels continue,I hope to be able to get �Back to Bases� myself, to witness firsthand all themarvelous work you all do each and every day.

Sallie and I wish you and your families continued health and happiness!

AIR FORCE CIVIL ENGINEER 3

Departments

Please send story ideas, articles, photos,comments and suggestions [email protected]

Air Force Civil Engineer is published quarterly as a

funded newspaper by the Professional Communica-

tions staff at the Air Force Civil Engineer Support

Agency, Tyndall AFB, Fla. This publication serves the

Office of The Civil Engineer, HQ U.S. Air Force, Wash-

ington, D.C. Readers may submit articles, photo-

graphs and artwork. Suggestions and criticisms are

welcomed. All photos are U.S. Air Force, unless

otherwise noted. Contents of Air Force Civil Engineerare not necessarily the official views of, or endorsed

by, the U.S. government, the Department of Defense

or the Department of the Air Force. Editorial office: AirForce Civil Engineer, AFCESA/PCT, 139 Barnes Drive

Suite 1, Tyndall AFB FL, 32403-5319, Telephone

(850) 283-6242, DSN 523-6242, FAX (850) 283-6499,

and e-mail: [email protected]. All submissions

will be edited to conform to standards set forth in Air

Force Instruction 35-301 and The Associated Press

Stylebook. Air Force Civil Engineer is accessible on

the Internet from AFCESA’s home page:

http://www.afcesa.af.mil.

Air Force Civil EngineerWinter 03 • Volume 11 • Number 4

The Civil EngineerMaj Gen L. Dean Fox

AFCESA CommanderCol Gus G. Elliott, Jr.

Chief, Professional CommunicationsDr. Ronald Hartzer

Chief, Public AffairsMSgt Michael A. Ward

EditorTeresa Hood

Graphic DesignerGuy Ivie4 Interview

28 Technology32 CE People38 Education & Training39 Unit Spotlight

FeaturesFeatures

ph

oto

by

1Lt

Jake

Mar

tinez

25 25

On the cover �A1C David Moses, crew chief of the 509thAircraft Maintenance Squadron, Whiteman AFB,Mo., marshals the “Spirit of Missouri” on March31, 2003. Whiteman AFB was revitalized when B2bombers replaced ICBMs as the base’s primarymission.

(photo by TSgt Michael R. Nixon)

8 AMC Implements A7 9 A Flag Of Their Own10 Special Efforts12 Renewable Energy14 BEAR Necessities16 PACAF Programs Cover

All Bases18 Back In Style22 One Installation...

One Map25 Fast-Track Restoration27 USAFE’s CE in the UK

1818

phot

o by

MSg

t M

icha

el A

. W

ard

1212

DO

E ph

oto

1010

phot

o co

urte

sy 1

6th

CES

4 WINTER 2003

InterviewInterview

AFCE: Air Mobility Command has gone through agreat deal of reorganization both at the headquarters andnumbered air force levels. What prompted the HQ AMCrestructuring and how did it change HQ AMC? Whatfuture changes are envisioned?

Brig Gen Eulberg: What is changing at AMC isreally a reflection of what is happening across the Depart-ment of Defense as we �re-look� at the traditionalwarfighting headquarters organizations. The objective isto organize in peacetime as close as we can to how wewill be organized when we go to war. Reorganizing on�day one of the war� is not the best way to prepare forfuture conflicts�especially when we face a small, highlymobile enemy�global terrorists. We need to streamlineour headquarters functions so we can quickly adapt andprovide maximum support to the joint warfighter.

It is also important to understand that this �re-look�is not new. Since becoming a separate service, the AirForce has taken pride in our ability to adapt to constantlychanging threats, as well as adapt our tactics, techniquesand procedures as a result of new technologies. We mustensure that we are organized, trained and equipped tomaximize our combat effectiveness (as well as how weprovide critical command and control). For example,

based on lessons learned in the Gulf War, the Air Forcemade significant and bold changes in how we areorganized, trained and equipped. Right after the conflict,the Air Force Major Commands were reorganized:Strategic Air Command, Tactical Air Command andMilitary Airlift Command stood down and Air CombatCommand and Air Mobility Command were established.This �streamlining� was key to how we present forces tothe Combatant Theater Commander. We also changedhow we train our warfighters. The Air Force begantraining in an �integrated fashion.� We now have an AirForce Weapons School instead of a Fighter WeaponsSchool at Nellis AFB. We also have integrated training atRed Flag on the Nellis Range. It�s not training for fighterpilots alone�the training now involves all weaponsystems in an integrated fashion, just like we fight. Thenext critical area that changed was how we providecommand and control of our operational forces. Thisimportant element can be seen with the establishment ofthe combined aerospace operations centers as a weaponsystem. The CAOC provides the Joint Forces Air Compo-nent Commander with all the disciplines necessary toconduct air operations, such as intelligence on potentialtargets, time-critical targeting, allocation of air assets,

Organizational restructuring at Air Mobility CommandHeadquarters recently unified the Civil Engineering andServices Directorates into a new A7 Installations & MissionSupport Directorate. Entrusted with leading the pioneerdirectorate, Brigadier General Del Eulberg is focusing effortson training, organizing and equipping AMC’s people for...


and finally, bomb damage assessments. An entire air war,from beginning to end, can be seen from a CAOC. Wehave been streamlining and evolving the operational sidefor some time.

What�s happening today at HQ AMC is a continua-tion of this evolution. Gen John Handy [Commander,AMC] stood down two numbered air forces, Fifteenthand Twenty-First, and combined them into a singlenumbered air force�Eighteenth Air Force. This willprovide a more streamlined operational chain of com-mand for AMC�s 12 wings. Gen Handy also made anumber of changes to the AMC A-staff headquartersstructure. One of the most significant changes occurredon Oct. 1, when we stood up the A7 (Directorate ofInstallations & Mission Support). Gen Handy�s visionwas to create a directorate that integrated combatsupport�not just �contained� traditional combat supportfunctions. This integration is an essential element instreamlining combat support at the headquarters level,just like we have done on the operational side.

AFCE: How did this reorganization change theheadquarters? You mentioned the A7. What makes that up?

Brig Gen Eulberg: The change at the headquartersin some ways mirrors what the Air Force accomplishedwhen we went to the combat wing organization a fewyears ago. One significant driving force for the combatwing organization was having the Mission SupportGroup Commander command all the combat supportfunctions that they would need to set up an expeditionaryair base (i.e., organize like we fight). Gen Handy�s visionwas to create a �Mission Support Group Directorate� atthe headquarters. The new A7 Directorate will beorganized at the major command level to provide thesame degree of focus that exists at the combat wingorganization; that focus must be combat support. Toaccomplish this objective, we started with a clean sheet ofpaper, knowing the organization would grow in thefuture. It wasn�t simply the integration of CE andServices�this was just the first step in integratingcombat support at the headquarters level. The new A7Directorate reorganization had two primary objectives:first, integrate the Civil Engineering and ServicesDirectorates, and second, create a new capability�standup the Expeditionary Combat Support Division.

To meet our first objective, we avoided the �easyanswer.� We did not want to just add a new managementlayer on top of the two organizations�we wanted to trulyintegrate CE and Services. The first task was to identifythose areas that were common to most headquartersstaffs. We identified and integrated three common areas:resources (funds management), readiness and plans/programs. So we now have a Readiness OperationsDivision that includes oversight/management of all CEand Services contingency operations, Prime BEEF andPrime RIBS management, and Explosive Ordnance

Disposal and Fire. We expanded the role of the Plans andPrograms Division by adding non-appropriated fundsplanning and programming, as well as moving theenvironmental planning function into this division. Wefully integrated CE and Services funds management intoone Resources Division. We also identified eachorganization�s core competencies because we wanted tomake sure we kept functional expertise intact andmaintained clear career paths. For example, we estab-lished a Services Operations Division with threebranches: 1) community support, 2) force support, and3) business support.

Our second objective was to create a new divisionthat would provide the capability to fully embraceExpeditionary Combat Support at the headquarters. Thenew division will play a lead role in working the combatsupport concept of operations, as well as formalizingcombat support tactics, techniques and procedures inconjunction with the Air Mobility Warfare Center. We�llalso work other cross-functional issues such as installationexcellence and force protection and we�ll be the staffadvocate for base operating support.

AFCE: Is the integration the main differencebetween what you have now and what the old engineer-ing and services directorate would have looked like?

Brig Gen Eulberg: There are several differences.The biggest difference has been the change in theServices career field since the early 1990s; Services nowincludes all traditional Morale, Welfare and Recreationsfunctions. Another difference is how we have organized thenew Directorate with an emphasis on integration in theareas of readiness, resources, and plans and programs.

AFCE: What is your role? Do you see yourself as anadvocate for the MSG Commander?

Brig Gen Eulberg: Gen Handy designated theDirector of Installations & Mission Support, the A7, tobe the single point of contact and advocate for MSGcommanders in AMC. This has already paid dividends forour command. In October, I had the opportunity to travelto five AMC bases in five days with all the AMC MSGcommanders. The focus of the trip was installationexcellence. We had an opportunity to see five initiatives ateach base that had potential to be benchmarked acrossAMC. This �Installation Excellence Orientation� tripgave new MSG commanders the opportunity to travelwith more experienced commanders to benchmarkselected MSG programs, to teach and help each other andto institutionalize established best practices. We also nowhave monthly video teleconferences with the MSG/CCsthat last no more than an hour and are open to the entireA-Staff as a means to open communication between theheadquarters and the field commanders.

6 WINTER 2003

Members of the 615th Air Mobility Squadron, Travis AFB, Calif., and a C-130 aircrew from the 34th Combat Training Squadron,Little Rock AFB, Ark., perform an engine-running onload/offload at night on Naval Air Engineering Station Lakehurst, N.J.,during the Air Force's newest contingency exercise, Eagle Flag. (photo by SSgt Jerry Morrison, Jr.)

AFCE: In the future, are otherfunctions going to be rolled into A7,and do you see the AMC structure asa model for other commands?

Brig Gen Eulberg: Gen Handyhas a clear vision, articulated in theGlobal Mobility CONOPS, whichthe Air Force has designated the leadCONOPS for expeditionary combatsupport. The new A7, as it wasestablished on Oct. 1, is the firststep. In the next year, additionalcombat support functions will berealigned under the Directorate ofInstallations & Mission Support,following the same philosophy thatwe used to integrate CE and Ser-vices. It will not just be another layer,but a real integration of like func-tions, so we can maximize supportfor the warfighter. Gen Handy has adeliberate timetable in mind, so you�llsee additional changes in the not-too-distant future. Air Force leadership isalso focused on changes at the

headquarters level in terms of combatsupport. This topic was specificallydiscussed at the last four-starCORONA meeting in October.

AFCE: The establishment ofExpeditionary Mobility Task Forceshas changed how AMC conducts itsmission. What will this mean forcombat support forces?

Brig Gen Eulberg: The EMTFswill provide greater focus for theGlobal Mobility CONOPS in supportof Combatant Commanders. TheEMTFs report directly to EighteenthAir Force, which is commanded by athree-star general here at Scott AFB.The EMTFs will provide additionalsupport to the two Air MobilityOperations Groups located at Travisand McGuire AFBs, as well as thetwo AMOGs located in the Pacificand Europe, working air mobility enroute infrastructure. The twocontinental U.S. AMOGs will

provide the initial assessment and lay-down capability for contingencyoperations at a forward base, just likewe did in Operations ENDURING

FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM.

AFCE: I understand Eagle Flagwill be an important part of Expedi-tionary Combat Support in thefuture. What is Eagle Flag and whatis the A7�s role in it? Who will go toEagle Flag?

Brig Gen Eulberg: Eagle Flag isa new integrated training programfor key and essential expeditionarycombat support leaders. The trainingwill be tied to our Air ExpeditionaryForce, or AEF, buckets and will belocated at McGuire AFB under theAir Mobility Warfare Center. EagleFlag is to combat support what RedFlag at Nellis AFB is to the opera-tors. This training will not duplicateskills proficiency training we receiveat home station and at Silver Flag.


The training will focus on theintegration required to support theinitial force modules: open theairfield, set up command and control,and establish the air base. The idea isto ensure we incorporate �LessonsLearned� in OEF and OIF into ourtraining plan. We want our warriorsready to deploy anywhere in theworld in support of any mission afterthey finish at Eagle Flag. They willknow what each functional brings tothe fight and won�t have to learn iton day one of the war.

AFCE: What toll has theongoing Global War on Terrorismtaken on AMC bases and CivilEngineer personnel?

Brig Gen Eulberg: Havingspent the last five years at base level,I saw firsthand the OIF and OEFdemands that were placed across allcombat support functions. Ourpriority was clearly on operations inthe war zone. To be successful inOEF and OIF, we needed to deploynot only Active Duty, but also Guardand Reserve Combat Support forcesand it did have an impact on homestation. The operations tempo wasincreased across all functions. Likeall commanders of Air Force bases,our commanders had to redefine thelevel of service we were going toprovide the people back at homestation�whether they�re active dutyor retired or family members. Howmany hours was the gym or thedining hall going to be open? In CE,how many work orders could wesupport? Under the Chief of Staff �sguidance, we would �break thebase,� if necessary, to support thewarfighter. The challenge for every-one was not to break the back ofcombat support functions back athome station in trying to keep thesame level of pre-contingencyservices. Identifying the �right� levelis probably worth further study as anumber of bases did it differently.

AFCE: You spoke of theReserves. AMC relies heavily on theTotal Force for its flying mission. Is

“One of the great things about the Guardand Reserve working alongside Active Dutyis that there is no detectable difference;they are completely interchangeable andtotally integrated...”

the same true for civil engineering?How important are the Guard andReserve components to the AMCCivil Engineer mission?

Brig Gen Eulberg: The Guardand Reserve civil engineering

support is vital to our ability toperform our mission here. OurMilitary Personnel Authorizationvolunteer support reached 28,000man-days in FY03. The Guard andReserves who were volunteersbrought expertise from their civilianjobs that proved invaluable. One ofthe great things about the Guard andReserve working alongside ActiveDuty is that there is no detectabledifference; they are completelyinterchangeable and totally inte-grated, particularly at the base andheadquarters levels. Although we areworking hard to demobilize most ofthe Guard and Reserve members, wewill still depend heavily on theirsupport as AMC MPA man-dayvolunteers. I think a future challengefor all of us in combat support,especially after OEF and OIF, is tolook at all areas and make sure wehave the right balance betweenActive Duty, Guard and Reserveforces. Do we have the right capa-bilities in all three components? Arewe organized for war, do we trainappropriately, and do we executeaccording to our plan?

AFCE: Given your previousassignments as a support groupcommander and wing commander,coupled with your new role as theA7, has your perspective of civilengineering changed?

Brig Gen Eulberg: One of themost exciting things about serving inour great Air Force is the opportu-nity to work with great Americansdedicated to something larger thanthemselves. The dedication I saweveryday as a commander was trulyamazing. Every career field brings aunique capability to the fight, as wellas its own set of limitations. But,everyone worked hard for the samething�to make sure we remainedthe most powerful aerospace force inthe world. As a support groupcommander and a wing commander,I had the opportunity every day tosee how we all work together, inboth peace and war. We all rely oneach other as we bring our ownspecialties to the fight. There is nodoubt in any commander�s mind thatcivil engineering is a key member ofthe team. However, when we growfuture leaders, the larger the combatsupport �lens� we give our team andthe earlier we can give it to them intheir careers, the greater theircontributions will be to our Air Forceand to our nation.

8 WINTER 2003

The new construct creates a HQ AMC organizationalstructure … establishing an “A7” Installations & MissionSupport Directorate (consolidating AMC/CE and AMC/SV into the A7 Installations & Mission Support Director-ate), … [and] provides a single focal point … for MissionSupport Group/CCs to vet their mission support issues.HQ AMC Programming Plan 03-07, 15 Sep 03

When Air Mobility Command began its reorganiza-tion in February 2002, Gen John Handy, Commander,AMC, saw inconsistencies between the organizationalstructures at wing-level and that at major commandheadquarters. As the U.S. Air Force Combat WingOrganization refined the base-level Mission SupportGroup organization, the major command structurelagged behind and further complicated combat support.Drafted in Spring 2003, HQ AMC Programming Plan03-07 contained guidance from Gen Handy on reducingthe headquarters� organizational inconsistencies.

An A7 organizational proposal by Brig Gen DelEulberg applied Gen Handy�s guidance and centered ona theme of integration. It was readily cleared for imple-mentation in July 2003. The proposed A7 organizationincluded two types of integration�internal and external.

The internal integration was a rejoining of an oldpartnership, �Engineering and Services.� Rather thanmerely combining the CE and SV directorates withminimal interface, the proposed A7 organization unitedthem by preserving functionally unique, core businessprocesses, and merging similar readiness, programmingand resources functions. Internal objectives seek toenhance CE and SV functional excellence and promotean integrated emphasis on installations and quality of lifethroughout A7 and AMC, in areas such as DormManagement and Non-Appropriated Funds Construc-tion, for example.

The A7 organization was also designed for externalintegration�to be the single point of contact for theMSG commander and Expeditionary Combat Supportissues. An ECS Division was chartered for A7; this

integral new division consolidates efforts to convergeECS functional programs and processes.

AMC�s ECS Division intends to develop synergisticsolutions for both expeditionary and peacetime environ-ments. The ECS Division will handle areas where theGlobal Mobility mission interfaces with Air Force ECSinitiatives for strategic planning, operational in-garrisonmatters, and Air Expeditionary Force/Functional AreaManager issues. One branch of the division will workwith Air Force combat support agencies to developseveral articles: ECS concepts of operations; proceduralteamwork integration with ECS tactics, techniques andprocedures; comprehensive command and controlsystems; integrated equipment modernization priorities;and cross-functional training/exercising, such as EagleFlag. Another ECS branch will champion garrison issuesfor such things as MSG and Base Operating Supportresource requirements, Force Protection Integration, andmanaging MSG integration of readiness training,equipping and reporting.

Importantly, the new division will ultimately be staffedwith experienced officers, senior enlisted and civilians froma variety of functional areas, to focus on combat supportsynergy in doctrine/TTPs, organization, training/education,materiel, leadership, and personnel. Integrating the 22functional areas in combat support under a commonframework is an exciting step for the division whose mottois �Closing Seams and Building Teams.�

In the past, functional excellence has not necessarilytranslated into successful results for the whole MSG orECS team. The AMC A7 organizational plan applies the�single focal point� charter as a means of integrating goalsand procedures to overcome persistent barriers, closingcross-functional seams and breaking new ground forcombat support teamwork and results.

Lt Col Mike Hutchison is chief of the ECS Strategic Plan-ning Branch, HQ AMC/A7IP, Scott AFB, Ill. He initiallyresearched and authored a paper on integrating CombatSupport functional areas and led the AMC A7 Reorganiza-tion Tiger Team.

AMC Implements A7 PAMC Implements A7 PAMC Implements A7 PAMC Implements A7 PAMC Implements A7 Proposalroposalroposalroposalroposalby Lt Col Mike Hutchison, HQ AMC/A7IP

New

Mission Support IntegrationECS Strategic PlanningECS Garrison Support

Services OperationsBusiness OperationsCommunity SupportForce Support

Unchanged

ConstructionCE OperationsHousing

HQ AMC Directorate of Installations and Mission Support—A7 Divisions

Modified

Readiness OperationsPlans and ProgramsResourcesEnvironmental


Air Force Combat Support professionals now havetheir own �flag� exercise�Eagle Flag. As the Air Force�snewest flag-level exercise, Eagle Flag is designed to testthe skills of expeditionary combat support personnel tothe maximum extent in a dynamic setting. The exercise ismanaged by its creator, the Air Mobility Warfare Center�s421st Training Squadron at Fort Dix, N.J.

Applying some lessons learned from operationsaround the world, including Operations ENDURING

FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM, Eagle Flag challenges ECSpersonnel from across the Air Force to open and establisha bare base to an initial operating capability, regardless ofmission or aircraft type, using the force module concept.

During a seminar at the 35th Airlift/Tanker Associa-tion convention on Nov. 1, Col Joan Cunninghamdescribed Eagle Flag as �an opportunity �what I call adress rehearsal�prior to actually having to perform thatactual (ECS) mission.�

Col Cunningham, special assistant to the AMWCcommander for Eagle Flag, presented an overview of theexercise and gave a glimpse of how Eagle Flag will evolvein the coming years.

According to Col Cunningham, three key forcemodules�open an air base, set up initial command andcontrol, and establish the air base�are necessary to get anaustere airfield to initial operating capability, ready tolaunch and recover military air missions. All threemodules take place within 72 hours of the word �go.�

Eagle Flag is important so that those who provideECS support can practice their unique functional skill setsin a coordinated, realistic manner. The time to practicethis isn�t �when bullets are flying over your head, so tospeak,� she said.

The inaugural Eagle Flag, which took place at theNaval Air Engineering Station, Lakehurst, N.J., over 10days this past October, is just a start, said ColCunningham. �We have a potential to increase the eventsin (Fiscal 2005); expand it to more ECS functions ...integrate flying operations into the exercise. We�d like toexpand the number of scenarios,� she said.

Also in the works is to take Eagle Flag on the road,to different climates and operating locations. �I�m notsure that we could ever get a simulated desert environ-ment there at New Jersey,� Col Cunningham said. They�dalso like to pair Eagle Flag with other flying exercises,including Red Flag, to add to the realism.

During the inaugural exercise, Air Force Chief ofStaff Gen John P. Jumper said, �The whole idea behindthe expeditionary Air Force is to be able to plan andexecute air and space power anywhere on the globe, and[Eagle Flag] allows us to do it in the way we train. Nowthat we are in a different world, it�s time to start trainingour mission support elements that get us to where weneed to go, that set up in distant places and keep [the AirForce] operating.�

Compiled from Air Force News stories by 1Lt Jeffrey M. Bishopand MSgt Paul Fazzini, AMC/PA, Scott AFB, Ill.

Above: Members of the 615th Air Mobility Squadron, TravisAFB, Calif., erect tents on Naval Air Engineering StationLakehurst, N.J., during the first Eagle Flag exercise. (photo bySSgt Jerry Morrison, Jr.)

A FA FA FA FA Flag oflag oflag oflag oflag ofTTTTTheir Oheir Oheir Oheir Oheir OwnwnwnwnwnA FA FA FA FA Flag oflag oflag oflag oflag ofTTTTTheir Oheir Oheir Oheir Oheir Ownwnwnwnwn

New combat support exercise preps commanders for battle

10 WINTER 2003

Special Effortsby Capt Michael Dunlap, 90th CES

SMSgt Charles A. Dewar,16th CESMSgt Robert Stewart, 16th CES

Air Force Special Operations CEs respondquickly and expertly to OIF missionsGiven short notice for a big task

in a U.S. Central Command area ofresponsibility, a team of Air ForceSpecial Operations engineers got thejob done ahead of schedule and thenquickly redeployed to Turkey as partof a bigger task in support of Opera-tion IRAQI FREEDOM.

Requested by name for the job,the 16th Civil Engineer Squadron,Hurlburt Field, Fla., sent a team tothe AOR to build an Air OperationsCenter for the Combined JointSpecial Operations Area Commandthree days after notice of the tasking.

On January 8, 2003, a 13-member team from the 16th CESarrived to start building the AOC tobe used by coalition forces duringOIF. Given three weeks for the task,the CE team took only 17 days tofinish the job: 5,000 square feet ofoffice space and a 4,100 square-foot,5-level theater with stadium seating, awork area and a 1,400 square-footscreen�all completely finished andcarpeted. A 14-member communica-tions team from the 16th SpecialOperations Wing flew over with thecivil engineers and installed all thetechnical equipment and wiring forthe theater.

With the job at the primarylocation still in progress, preliminarywork began on a bigger task given tothe 16th CES�constructing a specialoperations site at an existing air basein Diyarbakir, Turkey. SMSgt ChuckDewar, chief of the 16th CES heavyrepair section, left the rest of the

team in early February to meet withLt Col Jeffrey Pitchford, commanderof the 16th CES, at Aviano AB, Italy.Both were members of the advanceon-site team sent to Diyarbakir to doinitial site surveys and evaluations forneeded equipment and manpower.

Plans for Diyarbakir were for abeddown of 7,700 soldiers to providenorthern support for OIF. Based onsite characteristics, plans were madefor three tent cities. The 16th CESwas tasked to be the lead CE teamand given responsibility for the basicexpeditionary airfield resources. Planscalled for two 25-person CE teamsfrom Langley AFB, Va. and LittleRock AFB, Ark., to join the 16thCES at Diyarbakir.

Leaving four members behind atthe primary deployment site, eight

members of the original 13-personteam from the 16th CES joined LtCol Pitchford and SMSgt Dewar inDiyarbakir. They were the first CEforces at the Diyarbakir site, arrivingin mid-February to begin theirmission. A joint team composed ofthe 16th CES crew, Brig Gen MikeWorden (the deployed base com-mander) and 11 members of his staff,began initial work at the site. The AirRapid Response Kit, or ARRK (seesidebar), was used for the first timefor the command and control areaand part of the beddown.

Meanwhile, back home atHurlburt Field, the 16th CES wascoordinating people, equipment andsupplies in order to send the rest ofthe lead CE team to Diyarbakir forthe mission. Stringent clearance

A1C Dan Thompson trimmed molding atthe CAOC.


When push came to shove, everyone atDiyarbakir, Turkey, pitched in, includingCol Thomas Griffith, Commandant andDean, SAAS, Maxwell AFB, Ala., whodeployed as MSG Commander.

procedures created some difficultiesfor quick movement of people andequipment. Traveling on commercialaircraft and carrying whatever toolsthey could fit in their A-3 bags, theteam from Langley AFB and 20members of the 16th CES large teamfinally arrived in mid-March. Al-though the new arrivals reinforcedthe team already on site, a completeteam never materialized.

The expanded CE teams contin-ued work on the air base site,including preparing land for theanticipated additional 7,000-plussoldiers and handling all readinessresponsibilities and most of theservices tasks. The base eventuallyincluded 77 TEMPER tents withwood floors and environmentalcontrol units, a 750-kilowatt powerplant and distribution systems, twoshower and two latrine units, and afield kitchen. Personnel had begun toarrive and only one services memberwas on the site, but CEs pitched in toprovide at least one hot meal�a realboost to morale.

Because local policies did notallow bringing in heavy equipment,plans for well and ramp constructionby RED HORSE teams werechanged. Much of the equipment,supplies and labor had to be con-tracted out locally; the Air ForceContract Augmentation Program wasused to provide any assets that couldnot be brought into the country.

Some problems occurred whencontracted assets arrived beforethey could be used.

Before work on the base atDiyarbakir could be finished, theTurkish Parliament voted to refusethe United States permission tobase OIF forces in Turkey. Butbefore leaving Diyarbakir, CEteams had to �un-do� all of theirprevious hard work�the newfacilities were torn down andreconstituted in less than sevendays. Events prevented themission from being completed asplanned, but didn�t stop the 16thCES commando engineers fromdemonstrating their capability andflexibility in a contingencysituation.

Capt Michael Dunlap is chief ofMaintenance Engineering, 90th CES,F.E. Warren AFB, Wyo. SMSgt ChuckDewar is chief of Heavy Repair, andMSgt Robert Stewart is superintendentof Heavy Vertical Repair, 16th CES,Hurlburt Field, Fla. The authors weremembers of the 16th CES EA teamdeployed to Diyarbakir during OIF.

The Air Rapid Response Kit,or ARRK, gives Air Force SpecialOperations Command a light, leanand clean, ready-to-go kit forbeddown and three- to four-weeksustainment capability. The ARRKprovides interim, minimum shelterand sanitation assets for up to 100“first in” deployers, bridging thegap between initial force arrivaland arrival of Air Force HarvestEagle or Harvest Falcon assets orArmy Force Provider kits.

The ARRK is a hybrid ofmilitary assets and commercial

off-the-shelf items. It consists ofmilitary tents; a commercialshower/shave unit; a waterbladder; a diesel water heater;generators; expeditionarylatrines; and ancillary assets suchas housekeeping items, fireextinguishers, and smokedetectors. The ARRK packagecan be evenly dispersed amongthree or fewer pallets, excludingwater and rations. A tailoredsupport team of two to 13 peopleis needed to set up the system,depending on the mission.

12 WINTER 2003

by Mike Santoro, HQ AFCESA/CESM

Renewable Energy�An Investment Renewable Energy�An Investment

Air Force tops federalagencies in renewableenergy purchases

FY03 Renewable Energy Purchases

Base megawatt hoursDyess AFB, Texas 78,000Edwards AFB, Calif. 74,760Spangdahlem AB, Germany 8,950Ramstein AB, Germany 8,152Fairchild AFB, Wash. 7,818Sheppard AFB, Texas 6,300Laughlin AFB, Texas 4,200Minot AFB, N.D. 4,000Ellsworth AFB, S.D. 2,200FE Warren AFB, Wyo. 2,160Goodfellow AFB, Texas 2,100Cannon AFB, N.M. 1,800Grand Forks AFB, N.D. 1,800Schriever AFB, Colo. 1,800Lackland AFB, Texas 1,800Randolph AFB, Texas 487


In July 2001, with the help of the Air Force CivilEngineer Support Agency�s Utility Rates ManagementTeam, Edwards AFB made the Air Force�s first majorpurchase of renewable energy (33 gigawatt-hours). AirForce bases now make more than half of the U.S.government�s renewable energy purchases (207 gigawatt-hours). By doing so, they are hedging against energyprice volatility, enhancing energy security and investing inour nation�s future by encouraging further developmentof non-polluting energy sources. Because of its reputationas a leader, the Air Force is sought out by the renewableindustry and offered ever-decreasing prices.

Renewable power purchases help the Air Force meetfederal directives to increase the use of renewable energy(2.5 percent renewable use by 2005) and to reduce totalenergy usage (35 percent reduction by 2010). Renewablepower purchases net a one-for-one credit in achievingenergy usage goals.

What is renewable energy? It is power derived fromsustainable resources; the most popular sources are wind,biomass (e.g., landfill gas, wood chips, agricultural andanimal waste), geothermal and solar. Energy fromrenewable sources offers a feasible alternative to powergenerated from fossil fuels, which is the single largestindustrial source of air pollution in the United States.

Who are the Air Force�s renewable energy leaders?For FY03, Dyess AFB, Texas, topped the list (see box)with purchases of 78 gigawatt-hours, which is 100percent of the base load. However, by July 2005, thisamount will be dwarfed when Edwards AFB, Calif., willbe buying 132 gigawatt-hours (60 percent of the baseload; the other 40 percent is Western Power Administra-tion hydropower). This will be the largest purchase ofrenewable electricity in North America and will save upto $46 million over five years.

How can renewable energy be purchased? There aretwo major ways to purchase renewable electricity: 1)generation from the source and 2) renewable energycredits or �green tags� attributed to the power generation.

Purchasing generation is preferred because itencourages development directly on or near militaryinstallations. Purchase of renewable generation candepend on several factors, including the availability oftransmission equipment or lines for power delivery, theinherent variability of the energy supply (i.e., wind andsolar are intermittent), and any ancillary services needed,such as shaping of the power using supplemental sourcesto meet base load characteristics.

Purchasing power generation is also dependent onwhether a state�s electric utility structure is deregulated.In regulated states, renewable energy generation must bepurchased from the local utility company having thefranchise right to serve the base�a problem in somestates where generation is available from third-partydevelopers. Currently, only 16 states are deregulated.

Purchasing green tags provides many of the samebenefits but eliminates the need for power delivery, supple-mental power and ancillary services. A green tag certifiesthat the purchased energy was generated from renewableor �green� sources. One green tag is equal to 1 kilowatt-hour of renewable energy. Green tags can be purchasedfrom a local utility company with an established greenpower program or from any third-party supplier ormarketer. In the latter case, the purchase must complywith the government�s competition-in-contracting rules.

What is the Air Force�s current strategy for purchas-ing renewable energy? Starting in FY04, AFCESA�sUtility Rates Management Team began developing a newpurchasing strategy. Instead of purchasing just for one ora few interested Air Force bases at a time, the URMTwill now join with the other services to aggregate loadsby region, and then advertise for a single, regionalcontract. Twenty regions have been established andprioritized.

The URMT�s goal is to purchase generation at a costcomparable to current electrical costs (first choice) or topurchase green tags at little or no premium by takingadvantage of the aggregated loads and better load pro-files. In FY04, the URMT hopes to increase purchases byan additional 674 gigawatt-hours at 22 additional bases.

This new strategy requires coordination and agree-ment between all of the DoD installations, coordinationbetween several utility transmission grids, and a multi-service contract that allows for transfer of funds betweenservices. Not an easy task, but one the URMT thinks canbe accomplished. The Air Force has been very successfulin purchasing renewable power and will continue aggres-sively when possible and feasible.

Contact the author for more information on renew-able energy:

DSN 523-6462 or commercial [email protected]

Mike Santoro is a registered professional electrical engineerand the lead engineer on the Utility Rates ManagementTeam, HQ AFCESA, Tyndall AFB, Fla.

in Our Futurein Our Future

14 WINTER 2003

The mission of the 49th MaterielMaintenance Group is to advise,assist and train deployed units onhow to set up, operate, maintain andtear down Basic ExpeditionaryAirfield Resources Base sites. Whilethe primary responsibility for this lieswith civil engineer units, the 49thMMG is the only Air Force unit taskedon a daily basis with BEAR Basebeddown mission support. We store,maintain, deploy, repair and reconsti-tute all of the BEAR assets (e.g.,Harvest Eagle and Harvest Falconsets) for Air Combat Command.

In the past 10 years our missionhas spanned the globe with deploy-ments to support numerousoperations. We have deployed wellover 850 people with more than5,400 tons of equipment to helpestablish expeditionary camps in 27different countries.

Roles and ResponsibilitiesThe 49th MMG has two sepa-

rate, yet equally important,squadrons. The 49th MaterielMaintenance Squadron comprises CEand aerospace ground equipment andaircraft structural maintenancespecialists, who do routine mainte-nance and repair on BEAR assets.The 49th Materiel Maintenance

Support Squadron is composedprimarily of logistics readinesspersonnel, who manage procurement,receipt, storage and deployment ofthe individual HE and HF set assets.

As BEAR asset specialists, the49th MMG frequently providestechnical expertise and training onthe setup, maintenance and operationof BEAR Base assets to units deploy-ing to remote locations. We alsoensure that BEAR Base assets remaincurrent by testing and evaluating newequipment.

The 49th MMG has other specialtasks: We store and deploy TwelfthAir Force counter-drug sets andSpecial Operations Command sets.Should the Space Shuttle land at itsalternate site, White Sands MissileRange, we provide recovery support.The 49th MMG has also supportedthe President of the United States ontrips to austere locations abroad, byproviding, for example, a DomeShelter for the emergency evacuationhelicopter.

Role in a BeddownTo achieve our primary mis-

sion�helping expeditionary forcesestablish individual tent cities�technicians from our primary setup/maintenance teams break out andwork with their respective specialty

counterparts, helping them set upvarious components of a BEARBase�s infrastructure. The 49thMMG�s primary teams consist of twopower production technicians; twoheating, ventilation, air conditioningand refrigeration technicians; twoutility technicians; two electricaltechnicians; six structural specialists;one air-ground equipment technician;one logistical support specialist; and ateam chief. In addition to theirspecific trades, each team member isfully trained on construction of thevarious flightline and industrialoperations facilities.

We establish power plants andelectrical grids, remote-area lightingsystems, and water systems andplants. Because our specialists workand train daily with the differentsystems that make up a fully inte-grated BEAR Base, they are able toprovide excellent guidance on how tobest set up each system and avoidpitfalls. Once the main tent city isunder way, structural experts fromour primary team begin workingwith CE structure personnel to guidelayout and placement of the largeflightline and industrial operationsassets.

The rest of our team membersthen begin to set up the large facili-ties, such as HF Aircraft Hangars,HF Dome Shelters, HF FrameSupported Tension Fabric Structures,General Purpose Medium Shelters

by 1Lt Michael E. Crosse, 49th MMS

BEAR NecessitiesBEAR Necessities

14 WINTER 2003


and California Medium Shelters. Aswe construct these different facilities,we train the expeditionary CEpersonnel, advising them on construc-tion techniques and, moreimportantly, on the sustainment andinspection requirements necessary toensure that the facilities can enduremonths or years standing and remainsafe. Once these tasks are completedand the mission is into sustainment,the team chief coordinates with theCE commander and U.S. CentralCommand Air Forces and the teammoves forward to the next beddownmission.

Contingency SupportOur contingency support in

Southwest Asia has been ongoingsince the start of Operation DESERT

SHIELD, but with the shocking eventsof Sept. 11, 2001, the deploymenttempo increased significantly. Insupport of Operation ENDURING

FREEDOM, we deployed eight teams tothree different countries in the SWAarea of operations. The BEAR Basebeddown lessons learned there wereinvaluable for the successful buildupof bases used in OIF.

In direct support of OIF, the49th MMG deployed a total of 16teams. CENTAF set priorities andcoordinated intra-theater airlift forour teams. One of our biggestchallenges was helping to establishcamps that sustained, on average,more than 3,000 U.S. and coalition

personnel. For the first six bases, weaveraged 20 days per beddown. Fromthe expeditionary air bases that wehelped establish, coalition forces flewdirect interdiction missions againstIraqi forces and provided support forconventional forces and Army andMarine Special Operations forces.

I had the privilege of leading thefirst BEAR Base team into Iraqshortly before the conflict ended. Weworked with the 407th ExpeditionaryCivil Engineer Squadron, establishingthe first operational joint combat airbase in Iraq at Tallil AB. CMSgtReuben Gomez led the second teamforward�they were first on theground at Baghdad InternationalAirport, Iraq, with the 447th ECES,successfully securing and reestablish-ing air operations. BaghdadInternational was a crucial air hub fortransiting C-5s, C-17s, C-141s andheavy commercial transport aircraftto support both the ongoing war andthe growing humanitarian efforts.During OIF, our two teams weredeployed in the AOR for more than150 consecutive days, to four separatecountries, where we set up anunprecedented eight separate BEARBase camps.

Another BEAR Base team, leadby 1Lt Ryan Anderson helpedestablish beddown operations atKirkuk AB, Iraq, a joint combat airbase critical to providing close airsupport for U.S. and coalition groundforces. In total, the 49th MMG teamshelped bed down more than 30,000

U.S. and coalition forces, set up morethan $250 million in HE and HFassets, and supported multiple F-16,F-15, A-10 and C-130 squadrons thatflew more than 12,000 combat sorties.

Was it exciting work? The best!Each beddown presented new anddiverse challenges, from preparingthe different areas for the tent cityand operations and maintenancetowns, to working with the range ofCE personnel, contractors and othermilitary service professionals neededto make an operation of this magni-tude work. The job was grueling attimes�fighting dust storms, andliving in extreme heat conditions andin open K-spans with more than 400people all around us. We primarilysurvived off Meals, Ready-to-Eat,because about the time the diningfacility was finally established, we hadorders to move on to the nextbeddown site.

What Keeps Us Motivated?Knowing that the value our

warriors add to the fight is absolutelycritical and necessary to accomplishBEAR Base beddowns quickly andefficiently. It�s exhilarating to be oneof the first teams to arrive at a BEARBase site, having nothing more than arunway and potable water source andcreating a fully integrated air base,capable of sustained air operations ofall sizes and scopes.

1Lt Michael E. Crosse was ElectricalFlight Commander, 49th MMS,Holloman AFB, N.M.He is now with the820th RHS, Nellis AFB, Nev.

49th MMG brings home comforts to the field


16 WINTER 2003

by Maj Gregory J. Rosenmerkel, HQ PACAF/CEOO

In keeping with AF/ILE�s vision and Maj Gen L.Dean Fox�s personal challenge to get �Back to Bases,� theHeadquarters Pacific Air Forces Civil Engineer is work-ing on several initiatives. �Because of the uniquelocations, climates, and short toursassociated with many of our bases,this headquarters is often thesource of continuity and is lookedto for help with training,� said LtCol Dave Funk,PACAF/CE Opera-tions SupportBranch Chief andmember of AF/ILE�s Back to BasesIntegrated ProcessTeam. Three key pro-grams� InfrastructureAssessments, the CivilEngineer ManagementAssistance Team, orCEMAT, and the Vendor Training Program� form thebackbone of PACAF CE�s direct support to their basesand provide that continuity.

Infrastructure Assessment ProgramIn the mid-90s, PACAF sought a solution to the

command�s problems of failing, 50-year-old infrastruc-ture systems combined with a small budget, problemswhich were affecting mission readiness and quality of lifeon its bases. As a first step toward creating a strategicimprovement plan, the PACAF created the CE Infra-structure Assessment team to identify and rank problems.The team moved quickly; in only one year, it assessed allnine main operating bases.

PACAF�s IA team continues to focus on key infra-structure systems that have direct mission impact: airfieldpavements and lighting; fuel storage and dispensing;primary electrical power; water; wastewater; and centralheating and cooling systems. By sticking to this originalcharter, the team is able to compare system conditionsand funding require-ments over time andbetween bases. Otherinfrastructure areas,such as storm water,roofing, roads and fireprotection, are nowadded on request butare treated as specialinterest areas.

The team�s primary duties have remained the same:assessing conditions and validating and prioritizingproject requirements so that funds are directed to themost pressing needs. Its assessments provide the PACAF

Commander, Gen William Begert,with get-well or stay-well road maps,programming and funding strategies,and the justification needed to defendcommand budgets and advocate for

additional resources.�General Begert hasmade infrastructureone of his top PACAFfocus areas, and thatsure helps us in ourpursuit of improve-

ments,� said Col Tim Byers,PACAF Civil Engineer.

As it has since 1995, theIA team pairs expert engi-neers from PACAF�s

Engineering Division with the Operations Division�sexperienced shop technicians in each functional area toget a balanced assessment of the conditions and problemsat each base, as well as the projects needed to fix them.Programmers have been added to the team so that allrequirements are captured in the Automated CivilEngineering System, or ACES, and programmingdocuments for top priority projects can be developed.PACAF�s Logistics Directorate has included its petro-leum, oil and lubricants facilities� manager on every teamto evaluate POL systems. Today�s team size ranges fromfour to 20, depending on the assessment scope andexpertise required. If necessary, the team is augmentedwith CE personnel from Det. 1 �554th RED HORSE,other PACAF CE squadrons, the Air Force Civil Engi-neer Support Agency, or the Guard and Reserves.

Much time with base personnel is devoted totroubleshooting problems and ensuring that they aresolved using the right technologies, emphasizingsustainability and reliability. Because PACAF is a diverse

command stretchingfrom frigid Alaska to thesweltering tropics, whatworks well at one base isnot always right foranother and the �right�technology may notalways be the newest orleast expensive. Servingas a command continu-

PACAF ‘dirt boys’ get crane operator certification training at Osan AB.


ity tool, the team also crossfeeds �lessons learned� andinnovations among the bases, looks for areas where basesmay need assistance, and provides vector checks for theHQ PACAF staff on issues of manpower, training,equipment, new mission beddowns, military and hostnation construction, readiness, and contingency plan-ning.

CE Management Assistance TeamIn 2000, HQ PACAF resurrected and renamed the

old Civil Engineer and Services Management EvaluationTeam program. The CEMAT was designed to support allCE flights, but mainly the operations and engineeringflights. Some problems were identified with the newprogram. For example, teams were too large and tried tocover too many items in one visit; training and assistancewere hampered.

After working to identify problems and improve theprogram, HQ PACAF is testing a new concept ofoperations beginning this year with visits to the KoreanColocated Operating Bases; Osan and Kunsan ABs,ROK; Yokota AB, Japan; and Eielson and ElmendorfAFBs in Alaska. The CEMAT visits are now on an 18-month cycle, arranged opposite the IA schedule forconsistent headquarters visibility, less disruption andbetter follow-up.

Although the team is available to help with all CEoperations, during the week team members focus on twoor three main areas, and can actually make improvementsin these areas while on site. �Now we�re really there tohelp and we�ll follow up with the tools or resources forthe bases to fix their most pressing issues.� said ColByers. The team publishes a report of items that could beimproved, items the headquarters needs to deliver in thefuture, and like the IA team, provides a crossfeed of thesuccesses and �benchmarks� for other bases throughoutthe command to emulate.

Vendor Training ProgramPACAF�s unique Vendor Training Program, begun in

1995, fills the void between technical school trainingand the needs of PACAF�s craftsmen in the field, whowere overwhelmed with new technologies and tasks, buthad few specialized technical training opportunities orinstructions. Lack of commercial training support in thelocal economy and foreign-manufactured systems andequipment also posed problems.

Although additional schoolhouse training slots weremade available to PACAF, temporary duty costs andextended travel distances and times proved prohibitive,especially for troops in Korea. For the price of six studentTDYs back to the continental United States, a commer-cial vendor could come to the theater and teach up totwenty-five students. With statistics and rationale inhand, PACAF was able to garner dollars for commercialvendor training from an incredibly tight FY95 budget,and the rest, as they say, is history.

PACAF�s Vendor Training Program belongs to thebases, and base input to improve the program has beencritical to success. The program�s students now includecivilian employees, both U.S. and local nationals, animportant factor during frequent military personnelabsences. For FY04, PACAF has created a Web-based,comprehensive, five-year training plan that will enable thebase civil engineer to plan classes around deployments,inspections and planned exercises, and give predictabilityfor future training.

Force MultipliersPACAF�s Infrastructure Assessment Team, CEMAT

and Vendor Training Programs have been real forcemultipliers. Moreover, in a command where personnelturnovers are high and technical expertise is often noteasily accessible outside the gate, the HQ providescontinuity for its bases and delivers expert assistanceright to their doorsteps. Col Byers is justifiably excitedabout these programs: �We are proud of these initiativesand the statement they make about our commitment toour units in the field.�

Visit the PACAF CE website for information on any ofthese programs:Infrastructure assessments�https://www.hqpacaf.af.mil/ce/cecindx/CECI/ceci_new_index.htmCEMAT and Vendor Training�https://www.hqpacaf.af.mil/ce/ceoindx/ceoo/ceoo_index.htm

Maj Gregory J. Rosenmerkel is Chief, Infrastructure SupportBranch, HQ PACAF/CEOO, Hickam AFB, Hawaii.

PACAF structures troops learn how to erect K-span facilitiesduring vendor training at Osan AB, Republic of Korea.

18 WINTER 2003

Back in StyleBase planners fashion new look for Whiteman AFB

By MSgt Michael A. Ward, HQ AFCESA/PA

18 WINTER 2003


It doesn�t take much prodding for members ofWhiteman AFB�s base planning team to admit that, just afew years ago, the installation was seriously in need of amajor makeover.

Whiteman, it seems, was still wearing a Cold War�era look, long after that style had gone out of fashion.

It took 15 years and almost a billion dollars, but themakeover is almost complete. Instead of settling for �off-the-rack,� designers created a customized look that notonly brought the base up-to-date, but made it a fashionleader.

Like most Air Force bases, Whiteman was builtduring World War II. Wooden barracks and hangars thatwere only supposed to last about 10 years got a new leaseon life as that war ended and the United States settledinto a cold war with the Soviet Union.

�Those old wooden shacks were meant to be tempo-rary, and they were still here after 50 years,� said FredPeters, chief of facility managers, 509th Civil EngineerSquadron.

Whiteman, a Strategic Air Command base, gotmoney for a new look in 1961 when it transitioned froma B-47 bomber mission to a nuclear missile mission.Millions of dollars poured into the western Missouri base,but the bulk of it went to build and maintain the Minute-man missile launch facilities that would dot themidwestern countryside.

�The missile sites were maintained in perfect condi-tion,� said Sara Kelchner, Whiteman real estate officer. �Buton base nothing changed, everything was old.�

Whiteman was responsible for 150 Minuteman missilesilos buried in 14 counties throughout Missouri. Most of themissile crews, security police, missile maintenance,logistics and other support functions worked in a missilefield that covered more than 10,000 square miles throughoutthe state.

�When you talk about visual-audio stimulus, well,when you came on base there was none,� said TonyMuelmeister, interior designer and base architect. �It wasalmost like a deserted base. You would drive on and youreally didn�t see anybody.�

With mission focus aimed squarely outside the base,the core of the installation continued to age and deterio-rate. Renovations kept buildings functional, but paint andsiding were just extra layers of makeup on facilities longpast their prime.

�When I got here in 1988 the thing they had most inthe self-help store was ceiling tile,� said Eldon Hix,deputy base civil engineer. �That was the roofing man-agement program. Every time it rained, they gaveeverybody ceiling tiles. That�s what they had money for.�

Whiteman was in danger of becoming irrelevant.Poor facilities, an upcoming round of base closure studiesand a thaw in the Cold War threatened the base�s viability.


20 WINTER 2003

In 1987, Missouri Rep. Ike Skelton pushed for, and won,a new mission for the base. In addition to its missiles,Whiteman would be the exclusive home to the newestaircraft in the Air Force inventory�the B-2 bomber.

�Let�s face it, with the age of the facilities we had andthe condition of the infrastructure, Whiteman probablywould have been a BRAC closure base had it not been forthe B-2 mission,� said Ed Lenz, deputy chief of operations,509th CES. �So, as a civilian living in the area and workinghere, it certainly didn�t hurt my feelings to see the newmission.�

Whiteman began preparations for a dual mission, butjust three years later, the United States and the SovietUnion signed the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty andboth nations began significantly reducing the number ofICBMs in their inventories. For Whiteman, that meantthe end of its missile mission.

With attention now focused inward on the B-2mission, base officials were forced to take a hard look atwhat they had. In addition to becoming old, the base hadtaken on a cold, industrial look. It had concrete alertfacilities from the early Cold War days, a hodgepodge ofbuilding designs, power lines everywhere and a spiderweb of aboveground steam lines that stretched around thebase and over roadways.

�The steam pipes where everywhere. That really wasour landscaping at the time,� said Muelmeister.

The newest and most unique aircraft in the Air Forcewas due to arrive in 1993. Planners knew it would drawlots of attention and visitors to the base. They also knewit would bring military construction dollars. Instead ofdressing up old facilities, they decided to start fresh.Almost every building and facility on base would be torndown and replaced over the next 10 years.

�You can�t get everything at once, and you can�tafford everything at once,� said Hix. But he added, �It�salways easier to get money than to execute it. So basicallywe had to build a team that could actually execute moneyand execute it smartly and in a timely fashion.�

Whiteman�s Military Construction budget averaged$3-4 million before the B-2 announcement in 1987. Theyear after, it skyrocketed to about $40 million andaveraged $40-60 million for about 10 years.

With funding secured, planners began developing amaster plan to turn Whiteman into a premier base with apremier mission. But coming up with a look everyone couldagree on was easier said than done. In addition to base-planning committee members, input was provided by the airstaff, the Army Corps of Engineers, SAC and Air CombatCommand after it succeeded SAC in 1992.

�It was kind of tough initially because everybodyhad an opinion,� said Hix. �A good example was comingup with curbs. We didn�t have any curbs on the base at all,but there are a lot of curb shapes you can go with. For

“ ‘The steam pipes were everywhere...’ ” but now the base has a “campus look with buildings that [are] modern, stylish and functional...”


something that seems relatively mundane now, weprobably spent 20 hours debating the right angle ofattack for the snowplow.�

By 1989 the master plan was completed. Whitemanwould have a campus look with buildings that weremodern, stylish and functional, but at the same time easyto maintain.

�I bought into what they were planning because Ihad spent enough time fixing things that needed to befixed a long time ago,� said Peters. �I could see wherethis thing was going. We could all see where this thingwas going.�

That year, the makeover of Whiteman began.Construction started on the north end of the base andmoved south in block-by-block increments, focusing firston the mission, then on the infrastructure.

Most of the flightline area was redone and all but onehangar was torn down and replaced by new ones built tohouse and support the fleet of 21 bat-wing bombers.Fortunately, Whiteman still had a viable runway, althoughit required $12 million in repairs.

On the main base, shabby chic was out and coordi-nated earth tones were in. �We certainly didn�t wantapples, oranges, lemons and limes stuck everywhere,�said Muelmeister.

Buildings were constructed with brown and reddish-brown brick and metal roofs and trim. �Whoever made thedecision about the brick and metal made it in the interest ofmaintenance,� said Peters. �I think they made a gooddecision and that�s coming from a maintenance guy.�

Planners also cleaned up the overall look of the baseby straightening roads to create long thoroughfares,planting trees and adding subtle landscaping.

Above: A representative of the base’s new mission, the B-2 bomber “Spirit of Alaska” sits in its hangar at Whiteman AFB, Mo.Inset: This award sign for the 351st Missile Wing stands in testimony to Whiteman’s previous mission.

�Once we started having some success and meetingand exceeding the customer�s expectations, everyonestarted giving us more and more local jurisdiction,� saidHix. �That allowed us to get more creative and executeeven better.�

Since 1988, more than $700 million has gone intoWhiteman�s makeover and about 99 percent of thefacilities on base are new. The largest project remainingis a $100-million program to replace old base housing.Construction began in 2002 and should be completed by2007. �The frosting on the cake is to get that finished,�said Hix.

Now that Whiteman is sporting a brand new look, itgets plenty of attention. But planners may have done theirjob too well. �That�s our main detractor in getting moremoney,� said Hix. �They say we�ve got nothing here that�sbroke.�

But they keep asking anyway because they knowfirsthand what will happen if facilities aren�t kept up. �Ifwe do our job in expressing that to the command andmaintaining our credibility, we won�t let this infrastruc-ture and these facilities deteriorate to the point where youhave to spend millions,� said Lenz.

Fashions are fickle, but the Whiteman team isconfident they have a look that will stay in vogue for along time.

MSgt Michael A. Ward is the Chief of Public Affairs forHQ AFCESA, Tyndall AFB, Fla.

22 WINTER 200322 WINTER 2003

Air Force basing operations continue to rely on civilengineers, especially when missions call for maps. And,as they have since the early 1950s, when the �InstallationEngineer� role was created, CEs continue to rely onsurveying and mapping as key tools to manage complexinstallation infrastructures. Now, with the Air ForceGeoBase Program, the traditional processes for surveyingand mapping have been transformed into invaluableinformation resources for larger, home- and deployed-installation missions.

What is GeoBase?GeoBase is a very different and surprisingly practical

capability that allows Air Force organizations to makelong-term, shared use of geospatial information or digitalmaps for basing missions. It integrates new informationwith existing knowledge bases to develop one compre-hensive, coherent geospatial information resource thatdetails installations worldwide and can be used bymultiple mission sectors at all installations (see �The ThreeDomains of GeoBase� on p. 24).

It is important to note that GeoBase is not a pack-aged, purchasable information technology system. Rather,it is an innovative program with an opportune arrival,given the rapidly expanding demands for situationalawareness within and around operations on Air Forcebases following the events of 9/11.

The Path to GeoBaseA number of factors have contributed to the creation

and progression of GeoBase. Its modern concept owesmuch to advances in surveying and mapping methodsover the past 20 years. In 1996, a change in IT manage-ment policy gave a logical framework for its creation.Most importantly, academic research in the late 1990s

showed the rationality of a strategy joining the new technol-ogy with the new IT management framework.

In the mid-1980s, computer-aided design anddrafting tools replaced manual drafting techniques in bothmilitary and civilian architecture and engineering offices.Following close on the heels of CADD came GeographicInformation System software, which lent more artificial�intelligence� to the CADD data. GIS was able to moreprecisely answer three important questions: What is it?Where is it? What�s around it? GIS also allowed data to bequickly overlaid on georeferenced photographs or images.

Mapping technology also began advancing above theearth during the 1980s. Cameras and sensors in airplanesand in commercial satellites collected exceptional imagesin the microwave, infrared and visible light bands. Theconstellation of satellites known as the Global PositioningSystem was circling the earth, feeding information toanyone with a handheld GPS receiver.

In 1996, the Information Technology ManagementReform Act was passed after billions of taxpayer dollarswere poorly spent on information technology under thetenet of �buy it and they will come.� The act requiredfederal agencies and military services to appoint chiefinformation officers to regulate IT investments�allpurchases had to be strategically planned and linked tospecific mission goals. Databases, hardware and softwarebecame the �information resources� in an organization�sIT portfolio.

In the late 1990s, researchers at the U.S. Air ForceAcademy conducted a three-year study into why so manygroups had invested in the new GIS systems only toabandon them shortly thereafter. Sponsored by the Tri-Services CADD/GIS Technology Center, the study�s keyfinding was simply that organizations had unrealisticexpectations of how easy it would be to put GIS/GPS toolsto effective use, underestimating the time and effort neededfor organizations to adopt new information behaviors.

Based on the study�s findings, a strategy incorporat-ing new mapping tools with the new IT managementmandates was proposed. It called for a mission-centered,practical, planned approach to acquiring geospatial informa-tion resources with balanced attention to both the IT and theorganization (see �Building a Strong GeoBase Foundation�on p. 24)

Progress of GeoBaseIn 1998, the concept of GeoBase was formalized at

the USAFA�s Institute for Information TechnologyApplications, headed by Gen James McCarthy (USAF,Ret). The IITA�s charge was to find fast, new ways tointegrate IT solutions with the Air Force mission. Toprototype the new GeoBase system, representatives fromIITA and the CADD/GIS Technology Center teamed

A Vision of �One Installation�One Map�:


SSgt George Dollenger (above) and SSgt Juan Orozco (below left), both with 332nd ECES, obtaindata from multiple GPS satellites to make a map of Tallil Air Base. (photos by SSgt Chenzira Mallory)

with public works officers and CEs onU.S. Marine Corps and Air Forceinstallations in Japan.

Following two years ofprototyping, Lt Gen Michael Zettler,Deputy Chief of Staff for Installationsand Logistics, introduced the GeoBasestrategy to senior Air Force leaders atthe Fall 2000 CORONA conference.In 2001, prompted by the traditionalrole of CEs in base mapping, Lt GenZettler directed that the new Head-quarters Air Force Geo IntegrationOffice be aligned under The Air ForceCivil Engineer at that time, Maj GenEarnest O. Robbins III (USAF, Ret),who restructured his staff to accom-modate the HAF GIO.

Now, two years later, theGeoBase program has becomeintegral to Air Force basing. Byendorsing the GeoBase IT architec-ture, concept of operations, andFY03 investment plan, the Air ForceCIO, Mr. John Gilligan, joinedLt Gen Zettler in guiding GeoBaseintegration across the broad AirForce basing front. GeoBase capabili-ties were also included in the conceptsof operations for homeland securityand for global mobility.

GeoBase is now decentralizedacross all the major commands andsix field operating agencies. The listof Air Force FOAs with new GIOsinclude the Air Force Civil EngineerSupport Agency, the Air Force Centerfor Environmental Excellence, andthose FOAs supporting securityforces, communications, commandand control, and safety missions; allbenefit from reduced operating coststhrough shared use of the GeoBasecommon map. Ms. Kathy Ferguson, theDeputy Air Force Civil Engineer, wasrecently named as the new Air Forcemember on the Tri-Service CADD/GIS Technology Center�s board ofdirectors, where she can effectivelyadvocate for the needs of not just theCE mission, but for those othermissions that make up the newGeoBase community.

Civil Engineers Mappingthe Way Forward

Because The Air Force CivilEngineer hosts the GIO, the CEmission has made first use of theGeoBase program for their garrisonand expeditionary needs. For ex-ample, the AFCESA GIO has quicklyintegrated Expeditionary GeoBaseSite Mapping tools at all three of theSilver Flag exercise sites and ledefforts to add new GIS/GPS tools toall of the Prime BEEF 4F9EA UnitType Code Equipment Supply Lists.The head of AFCESA�s GIO, SMSgtPat Abbott, has also guided theinclusion of GeoBase skills within the3E5X31/3E5X51 Engineer Assistanttechnical training course at FortLeonard Wood, Mo., where the HQAir Force GIO helped build aGeoBase training facility. TheAutomated Civil Engineer System, orACES, software suite will soon beginmaking use of the GeoBase map aswell, thanks to a GeoBase presence inthe AFCESA Information SystemsIntegration Division.

U.S. Air Force GeoBase

Requests for GeoBase support arenow coming from other DoD agencies.The U.S. Northern Command will beincorporating all of the GeoBaseinstallation maps to build their com-mon operational picture for theirhomeland defense mission. The DoDInfrastructure Steering Group hasdirected the Air Force to extend theGeoBase strategy to lead all theservices in building an installationvisualization tool for the upcomingbase realignment and closure activi-ties. Finally, The Air Force CivilEngineer was recently appointed tothe new Office of the Secretary ofDefense Installations and Environ-ment Domain Governance Board,which looks at new ways to transformI&E operations across the defensesector.

Col Brian Cullis is Chief of the Head-quarters Air Force Geo IntegrationOffice in Arlington, Va. For moreinformation on the Air Force GeoBaseprogram, please visit:

http://www.geobase.hq.af.mil


by Col Brian Cullis, HAF GIO

24 WINTER 2003

In keeping with the Air Force’s rapidly growing expectations for GeoBase, guidelines were developed to helporganizations integrate GeoBase into their programs, through the areas of information architecture, financialmanagement, policy and guidance, education and training, and people and workflow. Based on Department ofDefense, Air Force or other federal directives, as well as accepted principles of information management, theseguidelines include the following points and recommendations:

Building A Strong GeoBase Foundation

! Geospatial information resources are vital AirForce mission assets that warrant investment,marketing and exploitation; establish a full-time,skilled GeoBase team to identify, organize andapply these resources.

! Cultural change issues, such as users’understanding and acceptance, are more criticalthan any specific technology in securing thelong-term success of GeoBase.

! Strategically plan the development andassessment of GeoBase investments, and makethose investments in phases to reduce risk andallow for adaptation to new ideas and methods.

! Adhere to the Air Force-approved informationtechnology and data standards, as outlined inthe GeoBase technical architecture, and strive tooperate GeoBase programs in the common Air

Force Integration Framework and Air ForcePortal.

! Use current data, metadata and qualityassurance standards to maximize GeoBaseprogram functions while minimizing costs.

! Avoid wasteful redundancies and costs byensuring that inventories of GeoBase informationare current, accurate and shared as much aspossible; search existing geospatial data beforecollecting new data.

! Provide all mission elements with controlled,ready access to needed geo-referencedcommon installation pictures.

! Assign geospatial information stewards tomaintain and protect their respective functionalinformation.

other force beddown requirements, such as aircraft parking,and fuel and munitions storage. Command GIOs workwith operational planners in their areas of responsibility tooptimize combat support and force deployment. Becauseof the GeoReach process, fewer airmen go forward prior todeployment, reducing the number of people exposed topotentially hostile conditions.

Strategic GeoBaseThe Strategic GeoBase program was launched in

2002 as a practical means of using imagery and key datafrom Garrison GeoBase sources to satisfy strategicquestions, such as proximity of installations and ranges tourban areas, national parks, and other areas of politicalinterest. Strategic GeoBase is designed to serve as thesingle installation visualization tool by incorporatinglegacy Air Force geospatial information, such as therange database maintained in Airspace and Ranges(AF/XOO-RA). Strategic GeoBase will also blend withemerging mapping solutions tied to homeland defense,force protection and base realignments. Thanks to theAssistant Secretary of the Air Force for Installations,Environment and Logistics, the first Air Force-widelibrary of imagery acquired from commercial satelliteswill be lending situational awareness to senior leaders inearly 2004.

Garrison GeoBaseThe Air Force uses the term �Garrison GeoBase� to

describe one of two modes of Air Force basing. GarrisonGeoBase enhances command and control by providing aCommon Installation Picture that securely deliverscurrent situational awareness over a base network. TheCIP is a high-quality picture that allows viewers toquickly see complex, built-up infrastructures from theirdesktop computers using �point-and-click� steps. The AirForce CIO approved the Garrison GeoBase IT architec-ture in October 2002, and current and emerging ITsolutions across the civil engineer, command and control,security forces, weapons safety, environmental manage-ment, and communication sectors were able to make useof the common installation picture.

Expeditionary GeoBase (GeoReach)Expeditionary GeoBase supports the second mode of

Air Force basing. GeoReach is the name given to theexpeditionary site mapping capability that shares classi-fied and unclassified information of forward operatinglocations. Expeditionary GeoBase also uses a CIP,compiling all expeditionary site survey data into one view.Imagery is acquired from the National GeospatialIntelligence Agency and other branches of the military.Additional software tools aid logisticians and CEs with

The Three Domains of GeoBase

24 WINTER 2003

The Three Domains of GeoBase


FFFFFastastastastast-----TTTTTrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restorationby Mr. Peter Smith

HQ USAFE

Engineers from USAFE and theUnited Kingdom complete airfieldrestoration in record time

Aerial view of restored RAF Fairford Airfield. (photo by 1Lt Jake Martinez,424 ABS/CCE)

(photo by Philip Lane Company, Orpington,Kent, United Kingdom)

On May 29, 2000, the United States Air Forces inEurope handed the entire RAF Fairford airfield over tothe United Kingdom to begin a NATO-funded, $80million renovation that would take almost two years tocomplete. Engineers from the U.K.�s Defence Estates(see companion article on RCE-UK) and its contractorjoined representatives from HQ USAFE, a constructionmanagement team and principal sub-contractors on anintegrated project team to immediately begin the restora-tion work.

This project was the largest single airfield contractfunded by NATO since the end of the Cold War andinvolved the upgrade of the 10,000-foot runway, theaprons and the taxiways with both rigid concrete pave-ment and flexible asphalt pavement. The entire airfieldpavements, lighting, jet fuel system, drainage, and highvoltage electrical feeds were refurbished during the21-month project.

Construction PhasesTo get back to operations quickly, first-phase con-

struction included the main runway and northern taxiway,with associated airfield ground lighting and drainagework. The old runway friction course was removed andreplaced with Marshall asphalt, then finished with newfriction course. The concrete thresholds were removedand replaced with runway-strength concrete. After themain contractor satisfactorily completed all work, theDefence Estates formally handed the phase-one site overto USAFE on schedule, on June 7, 2001. The runwayopened for aircraft operations on June 15, 2001.

The integrated project team then focused on com-pleting the project�s second phase, which included the

construction of a jet-fuel storage installation, togetherwith taxiways and aircraft hardstands in the southwesternarea of the airfield. Handover of this phase was inDecember 2001. The third and final phase of the projectcomprised similar work in the southeastern area of theairfield and was finished in April 2002.

Construction DetailsDuring the course of the restoration project, over

400,000 cubic meters of concrete was batched on-siteand laid for pavement reconstruction. This amountequates to 1,000 tons of concrete every day for nearly sixmonths or one truckload every 14 minutes, with coordi-nated aggregate deliveries every 90 seconds. At theproject�s peak, concrete placement reached 2,500 cubicmeters each day, which is equivalent to paving 1 kilome-ter of highway. The contractor achieved this high volumeusing three huge slip-form paving machines capable oflaying up to 475 millimeters, or 19 inches, of concrete ina single pass (see photo below).

by Mr. Peter SmithHQ USAFE

FFFFFastastastastast-----TTTTTrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restorationrack Restoration

26 WINTER 2003

Above right: Preparing reinforcement cagefor 2,500-cubic-meter tank base. Belowright: Welding steel sections of 5,000-cubic-meter tank. (photos by Philip LaneCompany, Orpington, Kent, UnitedKingdom)

The main contractor, in consultation with the localhighway authority, also assumed traffic management ofthe main access route to the site and ensured mainte-nance of the public right-of-ways. There were in excess of45,000 deliveries of fill material to all sites. However, thisfigure is significantly less than the original estimates of60,000 deliveries because of extensive on-site recyclingand reuse of removed materials. Broken-out airfieldconcrete was crushed and screened for reuse in newconcrete production and for backfill.

Potential problems with drainage of rainwater off theairfield were solved with 12 miles of slot-drainage andfour miles of oversized pipes to store runoff, allowingcontrolled release of water that would otherwise over-whelm local streams. To ensure that the quality ofdischarge from 22 kilometers of surface water drainageto the main outfall is in accordance with current environ-mental standards, five large oil/water interceptors wereconstructed after extensive consultation with the U.K.Environment Agency

Additional fuel storage, filters and pumphouses were also required. Five new bulkstorage fuel tanks were constructed, increasingcapacity by 20,000 cubic meters. The steeltanks were surrounded with concrete andpartially buried. They now supply fuel to 29 newhardstand hydrants through six miles of pipe.

Environmental and HistoricalChallenges

Great crested newts, a European-protectedspecies, were discovered in the constructionarea before the contract was awarded. Afterextensive liaison with the U.K. watchdogagency, English Nature, and the Department ofEnvironment, Transport and Regions, alicensed handler relocated the colony to aspecially created habitat at another location onbase. The colony is now spawning successfullyin their new home.

In keeping with the Defence Estates�policies, archeology specialists from the Mu-seum of London extensively monitored the sitethroughout construction. Surprisingly, few items

of significant historical interest were found: one skeletondating to the Roman occupation and four others fromthe early Bronze Age.

Tight SchedulesThe need to return the base to operational status as

quickly as possible meant the integrated project team hadtight schedules to meet. The team adopted the latestcomputerized design and planning techniques and heldregular partnering workshops to foster effective commu-nication and understanding to move the vast projectahead on schedule, despite construction during one of thewettest autumns on record.

Peter Smith is the senior British engineer, RCE-UK, HQUSAFE. He was lead project manager for the RAF FairfordRestoration Project.


The Regional Civil Engineer-United Kingdom is theU.S. Department of Defense�s design and constructionagent for the British Isles and is the single point ofcontact with the U.K.�s designated design and construc-tion agent, the Defence Estates. The RCE-UK iscollocated and works in close partnership with theDefence Estates-U.S. Forces, or DE-USF, business unitin Waterbeach near Cambridge.

The RCE-UK�s staff of 20 provides the full spectrumof professional project management, from conceptdevelopment through design and construction to financialcompletion. Professional engineers and architects at theRCE-UK are hand-selected from both the United Statesand the United Kingdom for specific expertise andexperience.

MissionThe RCE-UK office oversees all U.S. military

construction program-funded projects in the UnitedKingdom. U.S. public law and the Secretary of Defensegive the RCE-UK its foundation and authority, which isdelegated through directives of the DoD, HQ EuropeanCommand and HQ United States Air Forces in Europe.More commonly known as USAFE�s Civil Engineer inWaterbeach, or USAFE/CEW, the RCE-UK answersdirectly to USAFE�s Command Civil Engineer.

Two prominent �customer-supplier� agreements havedefined the RCE-UK�s role over time: the North AtlanticTreaty Organization�s 1951 Status of Forces Agreementand the 1973 Department of State-level �Cost-SharingArrangement.� The 1973 arrangement delineates therelationship between the United States and the UnitedKingdom as it applies to land, facilities and constructionand works services for U.S. visiting forces in the UnitedKingdom. All construction work proceeds through theDE-USF business unit as the designated authority of Her

Majesty�s Govern-

ment for design, contracting, supervision and generalexecution of engineering works requested by the U.S.visiting forces.

NATO Security RoleThe office of the RCE-UK has a unique role because

of its presence in a NATO nation�the responsibility foroverseeing the execution of the NATO Security Invest-ment Program on behalf of the U.S. forces in the UnitedKingdom. The NSIP provides infrastructure needs to allvisiting NATO forces, which include many U.S. visitingforces in Europe. As advocate and overseer of theprogram, the RCE-UK works with the NATO militarycommands and the U.K. Ministry of Defence to advocatefor NSIP funding. Program administration for NSIP-funded projects differs from that of MILCON, but thecombined RCE-UK and DE-USF management teamensures the results appear the same to customers.

Present and Future WorksThe RCE-UK manages $938 million of construction:

about 160 projects, either in design, construction or post-construction, or awaiting financial completion. Aboutone-third of the projects are for USAFE military andfamily housing construction and renovation (see photobelow), one-third are for NATO, and the remaining thirdare for other DoD customers. The program has grownby 50 to 60 percent over the last four years for tworeasons: 1) the post-Cold War stabilization of the U.S.overseas force structure in Europe, and 2) modernizationand re-capitalization of installations where the UnitedStates and NATO anticipate a long-term presence.

The joint RCE-UK and DE-USF team was recog-nized by HQ U.S. Air Force as the top DoD/HostNation Design and Construction Agent for 2002. Whennominating the joint team for the USAF-level award, theformer USAFE Command Civil Engineer, Col GlennHaggstrom, stated, �This team epitomizes the true

meaning of partnering between the United Statesand our host nations.�

by Lt Col (USAF Retired) Martin D. Lewis, Ph.D., P.E.

USAFE’s CE in the UK

Lt Col (USAF Retired) Martin D. Lewis, Ph.D., P.E., wasthe RCE-UK from July 1998 to October 2002.

He now is the European OperationsManager for Parsons based

in London.

Renovated RAF Alconbury housing (photo by David Spetch)Renovated RAF Alconbury housing (photo by David Spetch)

28 WINTER 2003

Mold, a type of fungus, has become a costly problemin public and private buildings across the country. Becausemolds can cause a range of effects on human health, moldgrowth must be prevented in Air Force facilities.

The factors and conditions that allow germinationand growth�mold spores, moisture or high humidity,and an organic food source kept together for 48�72hours�cannot be simultaneously controlled very easily.Mold spores move continuously through the air and aredifficult to eliminate. Organic material�including finedust particles�is present as a food source for mold onalmost all surfaces. The only factors that can be effectivelycontrolled are humidity and moisture: relative humidityshould be kept below 60 percent and there should beadequate air movement to prevent condensation.

Prevention of mold must start during initial buildingconstruction. Specifications should include requirementsto protect building materials from conditions leading tomold growth, not only during site storage but also duringbuilding contruction.

As construction materials and techniques changedover the decades, moisture and mold problems increased.Newer materials that are less permeable to water hinderdrying of structural components. The new techniques andmaterials result in structures with a tighter envelope; thebuildings are more energy-efficient, but moisture evapo-rates more slowly due to the decreased exchange of airwith the outside atmosphere.

Whether new or old, buildings contain many sourcesof moisture and humidity: water leaks in the structure(roof/walls), plumbing leaks, moisture from water use(cooking/bathing), moisture in ventilation air fromoutside, and moisture vapor infiltration through thestructure. Proper site drainage and sealing of penetrationsand intersections of walls, roofs, floors, and foundationwalls can help keep water out. Leaks should be repairedand wetted materials dried as quickly as possible.

Air-conditioning systems are critical to preventingmold growth. They must be designed, maintained andoperated to perform two key functions�lower themoisture content of ventilation air and remove moisturegenerated inside buildings�not only seasonally, butthroughout the year. AC systems have been traditionallydesigned to maintain comfortable indoor temperaturesduring peak outside temperatures. But, during off-peakconditions, moisture content in ventilation air may still begreater than designed for because outside temperaturesare cooler but the air is still very humid. In many cases, asystem�s cooling capacity may be �oversized��spacetemperatures are achieved quicker and the system cyclesoff before enough moisture is removed from the air.

In humid areas, off-peak conditions occur for longerperiods during the year. If AC systems do not properlydehumidify during these periods, interior relative humid-ity will rise to well above 60 percent, creating poorindoor air quality and promoting mold growth. In non-arid locations (e.g., mid- to southern-Atlantic and GulfCoast states), AC systems may work in all seasons tolower the moisture content in buildings.

Routine maintenance is essential to maintain ACsystem performance, dehumidification capability andgood indoor air quality. Regular air filter replacementhelps keep system components clean. Coils shouldperiodically be cleaned of dust and dirt deposits, whichreduce heat transfer, dehumidification capability andsystem efficiency. Cooling-coil-condensate drain-pansmust be kept clean and must drain properly to preventstanding water. System ventilation airflow must bemaintained to the quantities recommended by theAmerican Society of Heating, Refrigerating and Air-Conditioning Engineers Standard 62.

Gerald Doddington is a mechanical engineer at HQAFCESA, Tyndall AFB, Fla.

by Mr Gerald Doddington, HQ AFCESA/CESM

Preventing in Air Force Facilities

Design guidance for all Air Force facilities is in “Engineering Technical Letter 04-3: Design Criteria forPrevention of Mold in Air Force Facilities,” which can be found on the AFCESA Web site athttp://www.afcesa.af.mil/Publications/ETLs/ETL%2004-3.pdf.

Emphasis is given to dorms and other types of lodging because of significant mold problems in these AirForce facilities. For bases with mold problems within a building, remediation guidance is available in thereference “Mold Remediation in Schools and Commercial Buildings (EPA, 2001), available at http://www.epa.gov/iaq/molds/graphics/moldremediation.pdf.

For questions on mold-related issues, contact the AFCESA POC, Mr. Quinn Hart, DSN 523-6343 [email protected]. AFCESA also has mold specialists available through the Indefinite DeliveryIndefinite Quantity contract. Bases are also advised to consult with their Bioenvironmental Engineer, orcontact AFCESA for further assistance.

TechnologyTechnology


Funding a Joint Offensive Against RustEven during peacetime, military forces are under

attack� by corrosion. The Department of Defensemaintains infrastructure and equipment valued in thebillions of dollars, much of it in environments wherecorrosion shortens its useful life and takes critical systemsout of action, thus reducing mission readiness. Govern-ment-sponsored studies estimate the direct costs ofcorrosion at $10 to $20 billion dollars annually; it is oneof the largest life-cycle costs for weapon systems. Livesare at stake: several Air Force F-16 aircraft went downdue to corrosion of electrical contacts that control fuelvalves, and corrosion contributed to landing gear failuresin Navy F-14 and F-18 aircraft. Closer to home, jet fuelpipeline failures cause costly contamination of the soiland affect missions while natural gas line failures createdangerous situations.

LegislationIn December 2002, Congress passed a law requiring

the Office of the Secretary of Defense to provide policyguidance and oversight throughout the DoD to fight thispervasive problem. In 2003, the Government AccountingOffice published a study of DoD efforts against corro-sion, and recommended the development of a DoD-widestrategic plan with clearly defined goals; measurable,outcome-oriented objectives; and performance measures.

Corrosion TeamAir Force representatives specializing in facilities;

weapons and equipment; and research and developmentare members of the DoD Corrosion Prevention andControl Integrated Process Team. The CPCIPT providesstrategy, policy and guidance to prevent and mitigatecorrosion of equipment and infrastructure throughoutthe DoD. The CPCIPT has set up teams to focus onspecific areas related to corrosion: policy and require-ments; impact, metrics and sustainment; science andtechnology; communication and outreach; training anddoctrine; facilities; and specifications/standards andproduction qualification.

Funds to be ProvidedFunding is being budgeted for this program. Antici-

pated levels being budgeted for DoD facilities are $13.5million in FY05 and $50 million each FY06-11. The AirForce will share a third of these dollars with the otherservices. There is also the promise of small amounts offunding for specific fast-payback corrosion preventionactions starting as early as FY04.

Planning Ahead for FundingWhat does this mean at base level? First, there will be

more visibility for your corrosion prevention program. Ifyou don�t have one, you need to start one. Second, youneed to identify projects, both in-house and by contract,that are primarily for corrosion-related repairs or forcorrosion prevention. Third, identify your program needsto your major command.

What You Should Already Be DoingThere are a few things you can and should already

have in place:� Steel underground tanks holding fuel or other

hazardous substances are required to be testedevery 60 days by certified cathodic protectiontechnicians. (40 CFR 280)

� Cathodic protection sacrificial anode systems onbulk fuel storage tanks, underground metalpipelines, and other protected equipmentshould be tested annually.

� Establish a Base Corrosion Control OperatingInstruction (see UFC 3-570-06 Appendix A)and a corrosion control committee to maintainemphasis on corrosion prevention and to usescarce manpower more effectively.

� Send your corrosion engineer and CP technicianto courses offered throughout the year withNACE or M.C. Miller, or at the AppalachianUnderground Short Course in Morgantown,W.Va., Sheppard AFB, and the Air ForceInstitute of Technology.

� Perform bi-annual boiler inspections in accor-dance with AFI 32-1068.

� Maintain industrial water treatment systems forboilers, cooling towers and equivalentequipment.

Bottom LineCorrosion prevention is one of the most important

things we can do to preserve scarce resources. We mustreverse the philosophy that says, �We have the dollars torepair the results of corrosion but lack the pennies toprevent it.�

Nancy Coleal is a corrosion control engineer at HQAFCESA, Tyndall AFB, Fla. She is one of the Air Force’srepresentatives to the joint task force to develop the DoDaction plan on corrosion.

by Ms Nancy Coleal, HQ AFCESA/CESM

Corrosion occurs in pipe without cathodic protection. (photocourtesy of ACC/CEOI)


30 WINTER 2003

During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, the 332nd AirExpeditionary Wing launched more than 6,000 sorties,with an average of 500 a day during peak periods.During night operations, coalition pilots probably didn�tnotice that the taxiway system lighting came from solar-powered light-emitting diode, or LED, lights.

The 332nd ECES was given the new taxiway projectfor the airfield in December 2002. War plans called formore than 150 coalition fighter aircraft to be based at theairfield, which had an established primary runway and analternate, parallel runway used strictly as a taxiway. Tosafely support the projected sortie rate, both runwayswould have to be used as primaries and a new, paralleltaxiway system built.

Airfield lighting was necessary to make the newairfield surfaces fully mission capable for night opera-tions, but lighting was not included in the contract fortwo reasons. The project�s urgency meant inadequatetime to design a traditional airfield lighting system, letalone get it constructed and commissioned in time forOIF. Moreover, a traditional taxiway lighting systemprobably would have exceeded the $3 million fundingapproval level. �We simply had to push the airfieldlighting portion of the project to the back burner becauseit was more important to get the paving started� saidMike Berkes, the contract project engineer.

Unable to obtain an Expeditionary Airfield LightingSystem kit from the war reserve materiel inventory, the332nd ECES explored a solution that was at first unset-tling: using solar-powered LED lights on a wartimetaxiway. These lights had been used successfully oncivilian airfields, but never for such a large-scale militaryapplication in a situation with so much at stake.

The engineers conducted a demonstration for the332nd Expeditionary Operations Group on an unlit roadwith two lights on the ground at distances of 60 and 120meters. Lt Col Robert �Ricky� Ricarte, commander ofthe 332nd Expeditionary Operations Support Squadron,summed up the test�s results, �We were impressed with

the brightness and clarity of the lights, and surprised thata solar-powered light could be that effective.�

The 332nd ECES found two sources for solar-powered LED lights that met all relevant FederalAviation Administration standards. Delivery from bothcompanies was quick and 350 lights were completelyinstalled five days after they arrived. The last light wasinstalled approximately 20 hours prior to the start ofOIF. Luckily, the 332nd ECES never had to use theirbackup plan�using fabricated plastic posts covered withhighly reflective material.

The lights exceeded all expectations for use in thissituation. During use of the airfield, only 20 lights had tobe replaced because they malfunctioned or were crushedby emergency response vehicles. Because each LED lightis an independent, self-contained unit, they were veryeasy for personnel to handle, install and maintain. Theexcess solar-powered lights were sent to support combatoperations at Tallil and Kirkuk ABs after they werecaptured and converted into expeditionary airfields. Thelights� small size and low weight made them ideal fortransportation into Iraq.

The true testament of the lights� performance,however, came from the pilots. �We had zero groundsafety incidents during the war largely because thetaxiways were well lit. Our coalition pilots were able tokeep their minds focused on the business at hand, whichwas to project lethal aerospace power,� said Lt Col Ricarte.

Capt Derek Ferland is the Engineering Flight Commander forthe 100th CES, RAF Mildenhall. He was the EngineeringFlight Chief with the 332nd ECES.

Author’s note: While the LED lights used in the settingdescribed in this article are appropriate for use in somecontingency situations, such as the one recounted in this article,they do not meet Air Force requirements for permanent fixedbase operations.Should the need for blackout arise, the LEDlights described in this article must be individually turned offand reactivated manually, using a magnetic device.

Solar Power Lights the NightSolar Power Lights the NightSolar Power Lights the NightSolar Power Lights the NightSolar Power Lights the Nightby Capt Derek Ferland, 100th CES

The photos above display the round (left) and flat (right) solar-powered LED lights employed in Iraq. The inset in each photoshows how the lights look after dark. (large photo on left by Mike Berkes; all others by the author)

LightsLightsLightsLightsLights


While civil engineer squadrons routinely monitor andmaintain safe conditions on the ground for aircraftoperations at their bases, not everyone is aware that theseresponsibilities extend into the skies above the airfields.One of the less visible�but highly important�roles ofCE Environmental Flights is conducting bird behaviorstudies in order to prevent bird strikes.

The importance of this role is well understood atElmendorf AFB, Alaska, where bird strikes in 1995caused an E-3 AWACS crash that killed 24 American andCanadian servicemen. Shortly after that tragedy, a studyat Elmendorf evaluated the use of bird radars to reducebird strikes. Radar was found only marginally useful forground-based bird detection and dispersal activities, butheld promise for providing real-time bird-hazard adviso-ries and for development of a bird avoidance model.

In 2002, the Elmendorf conservation team success-fully petitioned to become one of five DoD participantsin a Navy bird radar project developed by Dr. SidGauthreaux at Clemson University, S.C.

The modified marine X-band radar first scanned theskies over Elmendorf in August 2003. The mobile systemis contained in a small utility trailer. A revolving satellitedish, atop a wheeled cart and attached by a 100-footumbilical cord, can be quickly set up outside the trailer.The technology inside enables Elmendorf �s wildlifeexperts to observe patterns of bird activity.

According to the Base Wildlife Biologist, HermanGriese, the system can detect sparrow-size birds out toone-and-a-half miles and larger birds as far as three miles,allowing complete coverage of Elmendorf �s immediateflightline air space. However, frequent rain duringAlaska�s fall bird migration has a negative impact on thesystem.

The system not only reinforced, but greatly ex-panded, previous information regarding bird migrationsthrough Elmendorf �s airspace. �In spite of weatherconflicts this fall, we were able to observe much higherbird densities than those reported in 1996,� said Griese,who collected data during many evenings and earlymornings from Sept. 24 to Oct. 14, 2003. The numberof bird targets peaked at around one hour after sunsetand then declined by almost 40 percent within the nexthalf hour. Bird densities generally declined throughoutthe night, and all but disappeared at sunrise.

According to Griese, the extrapolated number ofbirds in the air observed at peak densities should be agrave concern for pilots. �These numbers are a fractionof the actual numbers of birds in the air,� said Griese.�The radar is designed to sample less than five percent ofthe airspace out to the limits of bird detection.�

Griese plans to routinely collect information duringspring and fall migrations. The goal is to have enoughinformation to predict trends in bird migration patternsand create a bird-avoidance model, which will be usefulin developing flight plans and in operations and exerciseplanning.

Capt. Nate Vogel, Elmendorf �s Bird/Wildlife AircraftStrike Hazard, or BASH, Officer in the 3rd Wing SafetyOffice, is encouraged by recent developments in birdradar. �Although we are in the early phase of incorporat-ing the bird radar into our BASH program, it has alreadydemonstrated great potential in helping to create a saferairfield environment for our aircrews and aircraft,� saidCapt Vogel. The information collected so far has beenshared with the Bird Hazard Working Group and hasalready earned praise from flight operations personnel.

The current bird radar system can�t detect birds lowerthan 100 feet above ground level and would not haveprevented the 1995 AWACS tragedy. According to Griese,the immediate benefit to the flight safety is improvedunderstanding of bird movement patterns; the improvingtechnology could eventually provide real-time advisories toaviators. �The real strength of the current system lies in itsability to detect birds outside the visual detection zone,�said Griese. �It will easily complement our current ground-based bird detection and dispersal activities, and ultimatelyenhance overall flight safety.�

Allen P. Richmond is chief of Conservation and Environmen-tal Planning, 3rd CES, Elmendorf AFB, Alaska.

by Mr. Allen P. Richmond, 3rd CES/CEVP

Bird Scouting for Safer Skies

Editor’s note: Small mobile radar systems capable of providingreal time pilot advisories are operational now. For moreinformation, contact the Air Force Bird/Wildlife Aircraft StrikeHazard (BASH) program at HQ Air Force Safety Center [email protected] or DSN 246-5679/5674.

Mr. Herman Griese adjusts the radar system for anothersession of bird-tracking. (photo by SSgt David Donovan)

32 WINTER 2003

CE PeopleCE People

Two CEs Win 2003 Sijan AwardsThe Lance P. Sijan award annually recognizes senior and junior officers and enlisted members assigned to

organizations at the wing level or below who demonstrate outstanding leadership abilities. The award was createdin 1981 to honor the first Air Force Academy graduate to receive the Medal of Honor. Sijan was shot down overVietnam in 1967, and successfully evaded capture for 45 days despite severe injuries. He died in 1968 while aprisoner of war, and was awarded the medal posthumously for his heroism.

Civil engineers recently received two of the four Lance P. Sijan U.S. AirForce Leadership Awards given in 2003. Lt Col Robert Moriarty, commander ofthe 314th Civil Engineer Squadron, Little Rock AFB, Ark., won in the seniorofficer category. MSgt Christopher May, superintendent of facilities maintenancefor the 305th CES, McGuire AFB, won the junior enlisted category award.

From July 1, 2002, to June 30, 2003, Col Moriarty lead a 350-person CEsquadron supporting an infrastructure for more than 1,900 base facilities andreal property assets valued at 1.1 billion dollars for the world�s largest wing ofC-130s. Col Moriarty deployed as the 447th Air Expeditionary Group vicecommander in support of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He successfully led thebuild-up and base operations for two bare bases. The first location supportedmore than 4,500 join forces/coalition personnel 34 miles from the Iraqi border.After tearing down this site, he led a 1,000-person group in setting up andrunning three camps in the second location, Baghdad International Airport.

�He applied career knowledge and experience of combat support at theright time, at the right place, where others would have failed,� said Col RogerBick, 314th MSG commander. �He is simply �poetry in motion.� �

MSgt May led 43 military and civilian craftsmen intwo work zones comprising heating, ventilation and air-conditioning/refrigeration, and also directed a base-widepreventive maintenance program. He successfully led a$95,000 project to install new HVAC units at basetelephone centers, which prevented critical system failure.MSgt May also successfully planned and executed a five-year, predictive infrastructure repair plan for $500,000 inmechanical assets that enhanced quality of life in thedormitories.

�The biggest challenge of my job is managing timefor personnel, customers and leaders, while the bestaspect of my job is working with all those people andhaving the opportunity to mentor subordinates andfuture Air Force leaders,� MSgt May said.

According to SMSgt William Ferenc, 305th CESOperations Flight superintendent, �MSgt May is anoutstanding leader and manager. He works diligently to

accomplish the mission and take care of his people. Without a doubt, he does an extraordinary job balancing both.��My advice to my troops is to know your wartime and peacetime job inside and out,� MSgt May said. �Learn

everything you can, especially training that makes you a well-rounded Air Force warrior. Seek out opportunities toexcel and have initiative to take on added responsibility; be a volunteer instead of being volunteered.�

Compiled from articles by SrA Jason Neal, 314th Airlift Wing Public Affairs, Little Rock AFB, Ark., and A1C Ashley Casas,305th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs, McGuire AFB, N.J.

TSgt Jose Dicupe, HVAC NCOIC; TSgt Bradley Warren, FacilityMaintenance NCOIC; and MSgt Christopher May, Super-intendent of Facility Maintenance Element (photo by CarlosCintron)

Lt Col Robert Moriarty


CE’s Heroism Earns Airman’s MedalIt was just another day in the life of an Explosive

Ordnance Disposal technician when MSgt Joseph Beangrabbed up a 120-millimeter white phosphorus projectilethat was on fire, then carried it to and submerged it in anearby pond in Kirkuk, Iraq, on April 24, 2003.

�Every day, a hundred crazy things happened andthis was just another one of them,� he said.

For his quick action, MSgt Bean was awarded theAirman�s Medal. Though he says he did what any otherEOD technician would have done in his place.

�It�s not uncommon in the EOD community toencounter risk-of-life situations,� he said. �Everybodydeserves a pat on the back because everybody takes therisk.�

After removing unexploded ordnance from theairfield at Kirkuk to reopen it, MSgt Bean and his teambegan removing ordnance caches from the local areas. Amunitions consolidation area was established on base tohold the large numbers of ordnance retrieved. During asurvey of this holding area, a 120-millimeter white phos-phorus projectile at MSgt Bean�s feet began smoking.

�A team member yelled that a round near my feet wassmoking,� he said. �By the time I looked down it wasalready on fire. I remembered a pond nearby and grabbedit and ran over to the pond, lowering it into the water�it seemed to be the only thing to do at the time.�

More than 19 years as an EOD technician hadtrained MSgt Bean for moments like this. He knew thatthe ordnance contained white phosphorous, which can

liquefy in the hot sun and spontaneously ignite whenexposed to air, causing an inadvertent explosion. Bykeeping the mortar round from exploding, MSgt Beanavoided a possible chain reaction of explosions.

�A detonation may have set off other surroundingmunitions,� he said. �It certainly would have killed us.�

MSgt Bean is retiring from the Air Force in a month.He would like to continue working with explosiveordnance in the civilian sector, either in research anddevelopment or in cleaning up old military ranges.

�I came into the military specifically to do this,� hesaid. �I think what inspired me was the excitement andthe element of danger. I enjoy the challenge of it. I can�tsay that I would want to do anything else in the AirForce. It�s not for everybody. It takes a certain type-Apersonality to be a good EOD tech and I�ve thoroughlyenjoyed it.�

Jennifer Brugman, 60th Air Mobility Wing Public Affairs,Travis AFB, Calif.

MSgt Bean leads an UXO sweep line, identifying and clearingordnance from a field near the flightline at Kirkuk AB, Iraq.

MSgt Bean’s quick action prevented the detonation of munitions inthis CAHA at Kirkuk AB, Iraq.

Excerpts from the Citation to Accompany the Award ofthe Airman’s Medal:

“Master Sergeant Joseph O. Bean III distinguishedhimself by heroism involving voluntary risk of life atKirkuk Air Base, Iraq, on 24 April, 2003....WithoutSergeant Bean’s quick action, the [120-millimeter]round would have detonated, setting off the entirestockpile, including SA-2 surface-to-air missiles, highexplosive mortar rounds, and rocket propelled gre-nades, causing serious injury, if not loss of life, to all ofhis team members and sixty United States Army andother non-governmental organization personnelworking in the area....With a conservative estimate of anet explosive weight in excess of 300,000 pounds forthe munitions stored in the stockpile, the significance ofthis selfless act cannot be overstated....”

34 WINTER 2003

Fire instructors from the Depart-ment of Defense Fire Academy tookthe top U.S. spot at the 12th annualFirefighter World Challenge Nov. 4-8in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.

The team, composed of soldiers,sailors, airmen and Marines (knownas the SAM Squad), won the TumsGrand National Championshipawards for the best overall U.S. teamand top U.S. relay team. SAM Squadmember Eric Aker took home tophonors in the U.S. individual malecategory. The SAM Squad receivedthe awards by accumulating the mostpoints during various regionalfirefighter competitions held through-out the year.

In the world competition, DaveChiodo from the Travis AFB, Calif.,team was named World ChallengeRookie of the Year and placed fourthin the individual male over-50 category.

Firefighter Challenge is known as�the fastest two minutes in sports.�

Competitors, dressed in fullfirefighting gear, rush through aseries of physically demanding fire-fighting activities for a timed score.

Almost 200 fire departmentsfrom 31 states, Canada, Italy,Germany and England participated inthe competition. In addition to Travisand the firefighter academy, 10 othermilitary firefighter teams participatedin the competition.

Ten military teams competed inthe Streamlight Survivor Relay andmade it to the final field of 64. TheSAM Squad, Travis and Mildenhallmade it to the elite eight andMildenhall advanced to the final four,ultimately placing fourth overall.

In other world competitionevents, the Travis team placed fifthoverall and Mike Melton, fromTravis, finished sixth in the individualmale category.

ESPN2 covered the firefighterchallenge for broadcast in December

and January (check local listings forpossible repeats).

MSgt Michael A. Ward, HQ AFCESA/PA, Tyndall AFB, Fla.

Members of the RAF Mildenhall, UK, teamrush through the relay event during the12th annual Firefighter World Challenge.Pictured (L-R) are A1C Christopher T.Jones, SSgt Roderick D. Wiggin, SSgtRichard G. Henderson and SrA JamesCook. (photo by MSgt. Craig Hall)

Firefighters Up to Challenge

The 2003 Civil Engineer Senior Leaders� Meetingwas held in December at Randolph AFB, Texas. Maj GenL. Dean Fox, The Air Force Civil Engineer, presided overthe annual meeting of major command and field operatingagency Civil Engineers with representatives from the AirStaff. A major item discussed was the review of the �Backto Bases� taskforce, which visited civil engineering units

at six bases to study the level of support the majorcommands give to their bases. Other discussion topicsincluded homeland security and force protection, as wellas updates on military construction, family housing,readiness, environmental programs, and operations andmaintenance.(Photo by Chuck Brewer)

2003 Senior Leaders’ Meeting


General OfficerHQ USAF Maj Gen Fox, L. Dean Pentagon The Air Force Civil EngineerHQ ACC Brig Gen Burns, Patrick A. Langley AFB Command Civil EngineerHQ AMC Brig Gen Eulberg, Del Scott AFB Director, Installations and Mission Support

ColonelMD ANG Albro, William P. (ANG) Martin State Airport Civil Engineering Staff Officer, 235 CEFHQ AFCEE Alston, Lavon Brooks AFB Executive DirectorAETC Amend, Joseph H. III Wright-Patterson AFB Vice Commandant, AFITACC Anderson, Benjamin Hurlburt Field Commander, 823 RHSHQ ACC Angel, Edward (AF Res) Langley AFB IMA to the Command Civil EngineerAETC Astin, Jared A. Wright-Patterson AFB Dean, CE and Services School, AFITHQ USAF Barnum, Wayne J Pentagon IMA to Chief, Environmental DivisionHQ AFSPC Bartholomew, Richard Peterson AFB Commander, Civil Engineer FlightHQ CENTAF Baughman, James D. Shaw AFB CENTAF A7 Civil EngineerHQ AFSPC Bednar, Bryon J. (AF Res) Peterson AFB IMA to Commander, 30th CESHQ AETC Bird, David F. Jr. Randolph AFB Command Civil EngineerHQ ACC Borges, Scott K. Langley AFB Chief, Base Support DivisionHQ AMC Bousquet, Roy V. (AF Res) Scott AFB ARC Advisor to the Director, Installations & Missions SuptAMC Brackett, James S. Andrews AFB Commander, 89 MSGODUSD/I&E Bradshaw, Joel C. III Pentagon Chief, Air Force Programs61 ABG Brendel, Lance C. Los Angeles AFB Base Civil EngineerHQ AETC Brewer, David C. Randolph AFB Chief, Programs DivisionHQ PACAF Bridges, Timothy K. Hickam AFB Chief, Programs DivisionHQ AMC Brittenham, Larry W. Scott AFB Chief, Planning and Programs DivisionHQ PACAF Byers, Timothy A. Hickam AFB Command Civil EngineerAETC Carter, Theresa C. Maxwell AFB Commander, 42 MSGPACAF Cassidy, Wilfred T. Osan AB Seventh Air Force Civil EngineerACC Chisholm, Maryann H. Minot AB Commander, 5 MSGAMC Coker, Gregory W. Pope AFB Commander, 43 MSGMO ANG Cole, Larry (ANG) Lambert IAP Operations Branch, 231 CEFPACAF Correll, Mark A. Yokota AB Commander, 374 MSGHQ USAF Corson, William M. Pentagon Chief, Programs and Analysis BranchOASD/RA Coughlan, Michael (sel) Pentagon Deputy Director of Environmental ManagementPACAF Crummett, Thurlow E. Jr. “Terry” Andersen AFB Commander, 36 MSGUSAFE Cruz-Gonzalez, Carlos R. Ramstein AB Commander, 435 CEGHQ USAF Daly, Patrick R. “Lou” Pentagon Chief, Environmental DivisionACC Dinsmore, Raymond E. Holloman AFB Commander, 49 MSGHQ AFCESA Elliott, Gus G. Jr. Tyndall AFB Commander, AF Civil Engineer Support AgencyHQ USAF Fadok, Faith H. (AF Res) Pentagon IMA to The Air Force Civil EngineerAFMC Falino, Michael Hill AFB Commander, 75 CEGHQ AETC Fink, Patrick T. Randolph AFB Chief, Environmental DivisionMD ANG Fischer, Kevin J. (ANG) Martin State Airport Civil Engineering Staff Officer, 235 CEFHQ AFSPC Fisher, Marvin N. Peterson AFB AFSPC Command Civil EngineerCO ANG Flood, Michael E. (ANG) Buckley AFB Commander, 240 CEFHQ USAFE Floyd, William R. “Randy” Ramstein AB Director of StaffSAF/IEI Formwalt, William A. Pentagon Director, Installation PolicyPACAF Fryer, Richard A. Jr. Elmendorf AFB Commander, 3 CESHQ AMC Gaffney, Timothy P. Scott AFB Chief, Expeditionary Combat Support DivisionCO ANG Gann, Sharon M. (ANG) Buckley AFB Deputy Commander, Readiness, 240 CEFHQ AETC Green, Gordon S. Randolph AFB Chief, Operations DivisionUSAFE Green, Timothy S. Aviano AB Base Civil EngineerUSAFE Greenough, William T. Spangdahlem AB Commander, 52 MSGHQ USAF Griffin, Bobbie L. Jr. Pentagon Chief, Housing DivisionAFRC Groskreutz, Paul Dobbins ARB Commander, 622 RSGOSD/RA Hart, Thomas H. (AF Res) Pentagon ESGR Chief of Staff and Director Current OperationsHQ USAFE Hartford, Stuart Ramstein AB Chief, Programs DivisionUSAFA Hayden, Thomas F. III USAF Academy The Civil Engineer/Commander, 10 CESAFRC Hegler, Max March ARB Commander, 604 RSGHQ ACC Hicks, Otis L. Jr. Langley AFB Chief, Operations and Infrastructure DivisionHQ PACAF Hoarn, Steven E. Hickam AFB Chief, Operations DivisionHQ PACAF Holland, James P. Hickam AFB Deputy Civil EngineerAMC Howe, David C. McGuire AFB Commander, 305 MSGHQ ACC Howell, Richard C. Langley AFB Deputy Civil EngineerHQ ACC Ibanez, Juan Jr. (sel) Langley AFB Chief, Readiness DivisionAFRC Ippolito, Jeffery Carswell ARS Commander, 610 RSGACC Jeter, Drew D. Langley AFB Commander, 1 MSGHQ AFCESA Johnson, Wilson III (AF Res) Tyndall AFB IMA to Director, Operations SupportHQ USAF Kanno, Neil K. Pentagon Chief, Readiness & Installation Support Div.HQ AFSOC Keith, Edmond B. Hurlburt Field Command Civil EngineerPACOM Kirschbaum, Max E. Yongsan Garrison Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, Engineer, CFCPACAF Knapp, Andrew Q. Hickam AFB Commander, 15 CESSAF/IEI Kohlhaas, Karen D. (AF Res) Pentagon IMA to the Ass’t Secretary of the Air Force, Installations

CE Senior Officers and Civilians

36 WINTER 2003

PACAF Kopp, Robert D. Osan AB Commander, 51 MSGHQ AFCEE Korslund, Per A. Brooks AFB Assistant to Director for Special ProjectsHQ AFCEE Krnavek, Ronald (AF Res) Brooks AFB IMA to the DirectorACC Kuhlmann, Bryan L. Shaw AFB Commander, 20 MSGHQ AFCESA Kuhns, James E. (AF Res) Tyndall AFB IMA to the CommanderHQ AMC Lally, Brian J. (AF Res) Scott AFB IMA to the Director, Installations & Mission SupportHQ AETC Lancaster, Louis K. Randolph AFB Chief of Engineering DivisionAMC Lee, Irvin B. MacDill AFB 6 MSG CommanderHQ AFCESA Leptrone, Jeffrey L. Tyndall AFB Director, Technical SupportHQ AFMC Lifschitz, Gabriel (AF Res) Wright-Patterson AFB IMA to Chief, Operations DivisionPACAF Lillemon, Steven K. Kadena AB Commander, 18 CEGHQ AFMC Loomis, Paula J. (AF Res) Wright-Patterson AFB IMA to the Command Civil EngineerHQ PACAF Lyon, James D. Hickam AFB Chief, Readiness DivisionAFRC Mack, Francis Scott AFB Commander, 932 SPTGAFMC Macon, William P. Eglin AFB Commander, 96 CEGHQ ACC Macri, Charles L. (AF Res) Langley AFB IMA to Chief, Readiness DivisionHQ ANG Maida, Anthony T. II (ANG) Andrews AFB Chief, Readiness DivisionHQ AMC Martin, William H, Jr. (sel) Scott AFB Chief, Environmental Programs DivisionAFELM DIA McClellan, Richard G. Bucharest, Romania Air Attaché RomaniaUSAFE McElhannon, Neal B. RAF Lakenheath Commander, 48 MSGPACAF Medeiros, John S. Hickam AFB Commander, 15 MSGHQ AMC Miller, Brian L. Scott AFB Deputy Director, Installations & Mission SupportPACAF Moes, Steven J. Elmendorf AFB Eleventh Air Force Civil EngineerCO ANG North, Robert D. (ANG) Buckley AFB Operations Division Chief, 240 CEF/CEOHQ AFCESA Norton, William E Tyndall AFB Reserve/ANG AdvisorAMC Patrick, Leonard A. Travis AFB Commander, 60 MSGANG Perkins, Dewey Camp Perry ANGS Commander, 200 RHSSAF/IEI Pokora, Edward J. Pentagon Director for Facility ManagementAFMC Purvis, Quincy D. Arnold AFB Director of SupportHQ AFMC Quinn, William R. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, Engineering DivisionAETC Rojko, Paul M. Cambridge, Mass. Commander, AFROTC NortheastAFMC Romano,Sebastian V. Hill AFB Commander, 75 ABWHQ ACC Rumsey, Kevin E. Langley AFB Chief, Programs DivisionAFRC Russell, John P. Jr. (AF Res) Lackland AFB Commander, 307 RHS HQAFMC Sanchez, Mark A. (AF Res) Eglin AFB IMA to Commander, 96 CESHQ USAF Saroni, Vincent M. (AF Res) Pentagon IMA to Readiness and Installation Support Division ChiefHQ AFMC Saunders, William R. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, E-Business Project ManagementACC Schluckebier, Thomas J. Offutt AFB Commander, 55 MSGHQ USAF Scrafford, Andrew R. Pentagon Chief, Engineering DivisionUSAFA Seely, Gregory E. USAF Academy Dept. Head, Civil EngineeringHQ USAF Seitchek, Glenn D. (AF Res) Pentagon IMA to Chief, Housing DivisionOSD Selstrom, John P. Jr. Pentagon Special Assistant for UXO MattersPACAF Shelton, Kenneth P. Yokota AB Fifth Air Force Civil EngineerANG Shick, Gary Ft. Harrison USA Post U.S. Property and Fiscal OfficerMO ANG Sivewright, Sam (ANG) Lambert IAP Commander, 231 CEFAMC Smiley, Charles P. Dover AFB Commander, 436 MSGACC Smith, Keith E. Nellis AFB Commander, 99 CESMO ANG Smith, Larry (ANG) Lambert IAP Deputy Commander, 231 CEFAFSPC Snyder, Cynthia G. Peterson AFB Commander, 21 MSGHQ USAF Snyder, Neil K. (AF Res) Pentagon IMA to Chief, Engineering DivisionHQ PACAF Sohotra, Joyce F. Hickam AFB Chief, Environmental DivisionHQ AFMC Somers, Paul W. “Wes” Wright-Patterson AFB Deputy Civil EngineerHQ USAFE Speake, Nancy L. Ramstein AB Deputy Civil EngineerACC Staib, Robert J. (Sel) Malmstrom AFB Commander, 819 RHSACC Stingham, Steven (AF Res) Nellis AFB IMA to Commander, 99 CESHQ ANG Strandell, William J. (ANG) Andrews AFB Deputy Civil EngineerHQ ANG Stritzinger, Janice M. (ANG) Andrews AFB Command Civil EngineerHQ AFCEE Strom, Randie A. Brooks AFB Director, Technical DirectorateHQ AFRC Sweat, David A. Robins AFB Command Civil EngineerHQ USAFE/XP Thady, Randall J. Ramstein AB Chief, International Relations, Bases, and Forces DivisionHQ AFCESA Thorpe, York D. Tyndall AFB Director, Operations SupportACC Tinsley, Hal M. Holloman AFB Commander, 49 MMGAFMC Torchia, Linden J. Robins AFB Commander, 78 CEGPACAF Tucker, Douglas K. Kunsan AFB Commander, 8 MSGANG Turlip, Thomas Va. State ANG HQ Director of PersonnelSAF/IEI Vazquez, Luis A. (AF Res) Pentagon Assistant for Reserve AffairsHQ USAFE Verlinde, Jon D. Ramstein AB Command Civil EngineerHQ AFMC Wallington, Cary R. Wright-Patterson AFB Deputy Director of Mission SupportHQ PACAF West, James D. (AF Res) Osan AB IMA to the PACAF Civil EngineerAFRC West, Robert G. (AF Res) NAS/JRB, Texas 301 FW Office of the Inspector GeneralHQ AFSPC Whalen, Daniel P. (AF Res) Peterson AFB IMA to the AFSPC Civil EngineerAETC White, Arvil E. III “Bobby” Sheppard AFB Commander, 782 Training GroupAFMC White, Robert L. (AF Res)(sel) Robins AFB IMA to 78 CEG CommanderUSCENTAF Wilbur, Eric J. (sel) Al Udeid AB CENTAF-CMO



OASD Willert, Carl R. (ANG) Pentagon Deputy Director, ConstructionHQ AETC Wilson, Robert C. (AF Res) Randolph AFB IMA to Command Civil EngineerHQ AFCESA Worrell, Josuelito Tyndall AFB Director, Contingency SupportHQ USAF Wright, Mark D. Pentagon Chief, Programs DivisionACC Zander, Steven W. Seymour Johnson AFB Commander, 4 MSGHQ AFSPC Zelenok, David S. (AF Res) Schriever AFB IMA to Commander, 50 Space Wing

Senior Executive ServiceSAF/IEB Aimone, Michael A. Pentagon DASAF (Basing and Infrastructure Analysis)HQ USAF Ferguson, Kathleen I. Pentagon The Deputy Air Force Civil EngineerAFRPA Lowas, Albert F. Jr. Arlington, Va. Director, Air Force Real Property AgencyHQ AFCEE Parker, Paul A. Brooks AFB Director, Air Force Center for Environmental ExcellenceHQ AFMC Pennino, James R. Wright-Patterson AFB Command Civil EngineerAFMC Stephens, Eric L. Brooks AFB Dir., AF Inst. for Env., Safety and Occup Hlth Risk Analysis

GS/GM-15HQ AFCESA Anderson, Myron C. Tyndall AFB Chief, Civil and Pavements DivisionAFRPA Antwine, Adam Kelly AFB Senior RepresentativeHQ AFCEE Bakunas, Edward J. Brooks AFB Chief, Program Support DivisionHQ ACC Barrett, Robert C. III Langley AFB Chief, Environmental DivisionAFRPA Beda, Carol Ann Arlington, Va. Program ManagerHQ AFMC Bek, David J. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, Programs DivisionUSSOCOM Bosse, Harold MacDill AFB Command Civil EngineerHQ AETC Bratlien, Michael D. Randolph AFB Deputy Civil EngineerAFRPA Brunner, Paul G. McClellan AFB Director, Environmental ManagementHQ AFCEE Campbell, Darrell Brooks AFB Chief, Design Group DivisionHQ AMC Carron, Norman Scott AFB Chief, Engineering DivisionAFMC Clark, Michael J. Eglin AFB Deputy Base Civil EngineerHQ ANG Conte, Ralph Andrews AFB Chief, Programming DivisionAFRPA Corradetti, John J. Jr. Arlington VA Program Manager, Division AAFMC Coyle, Stephen Robins AFB Director, Environmental ManagementHQ AFRC Culpepper, Hilton F. Robins AFB Assistant Civil EngineerCCDP Daugherty, Patrick C. Mons, Belgium Senior Staff Engineer, HQ SHAPEHQ AFCESA Day, Alvin L. Tyndall AFB Chief, Mechanical/Electrical Engineering DivisionSAF/AAF Dittamo, Hector Pentagon Director, Facility SupportHQ USAF Domm, Jeffrey Pentagon Chief, Quality Branch, Environmental DivisionHQ USFK Einwaechter, James R. Yongsan Garrison Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff, EngineerHQ USAF Eng, William Pentagon Chief, Plans and Policy Branch, Programs DivisionHQ ACC Firman, Dennis M. Langley AFB Chief, Engineering DivisionAFMC Gray, William G. Arnold AFB Technical DirectorAFRPA Halvorson, Kathryn M. Arlington, Va. Deputy Director, Air Force Real Property AgencyAFMC Harstad, Richard D. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, Acquisition ESH DivisionAFMC James, W. Robert Hill AFB Director, Environmental ManagementAFRPA Jenkins, Richard Arlington, Va. Chief, Real Estate DivisionAFMC Johnson, Gary K. Wright-Patterson AFB Director, Civil Engineer Directorate, 88 ABWAFRPA Johnson, Gerald A. Pentagon Chief, Environmental DivisionAFRPA Kempster, Thomas B. McClellan AFB Senior RepresentativeHQ AFCESA Lally, Brian J. Tyndall AFB Executive DirectorHQ AFCEE Leighton, Bruce R. Brooks AFB Technical Ass’t, MAJCOM & Installation Supt—Supt CmdsAFMC Lester, Ronald J. Wright-Patterson AFB Director, Environmental Management, 88 ABWAFCEE Lopez, Ed Dallas, Texas Director, Central Region Environmental OfficeHQ AFSPC Maher, Gary Peterson AFB Chief, Engineering DivisionHQ USAF Maldonado, Rita Pentagon Chief, Resources DivisionSAF/IEE McCann, Robert W. Pentagon Environmental Resource ManagerAFCEE Mendelsohn, Clare San Francisco, Calif. Director, Western Region Environmental OfficeHQ USAF Moore, Robert M. Pentagon Chief, Program Management Branch, Housing Div.HQ AFMC Mundey, Karl J. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, Environmental DivisionHQ AFCEE Noack, Ed Brooks AFB Director, Financial Management and Mission SupportHQ AMC Potter, Perry D. Scott AFB Chief, Housing DivisionAFMC Preacher, Vicki Tinker AFB Director, Environmental ManagementAFRPA Reinertson, Kenneth Arlington, Va. Program Manager, Division DAFRPA Reynolds, Jean A. Arlington, Va. Base Realignment and Closure OfficerHQ AFCEE Ritenour, Donald L. Brooks AFB Director, MAJCOM & Installation Supt—Combatant CmdsHQ AFCEE Russell, Thomas C. Brooks AFB Director, MAJCOM & Installation Support—WorldwideHQ AFMC Sculimbrene, Anthony F. Wright-Patterson AFB Exec. Director, Dayton Aviation Heritage CommissionHQ USAFE Shebaro, Bassim D. Ramstein AB Chief, Engineering DivisionAFCEE Sims, Thomas D. Atlanta, Ga. Director, Eastern Region Environmental OfficeAFMC Sirmans, James D. Eglin AFB Director, Environmental ManagementHQ AFCEE Smith, Ian Brooks AFB Chief, Housing PrivatizationSAF/IEI Smith, John Edward B. Pentagon Deputy to the Deputy Assistant SecretaryHQ USAFE Thompson, John D. Ramstein AB Program Manager, Rhein-Main Transition PMOAFMC Tuss, Margarita Q. Wright-Patterson AFB Chief, Engineering Division, 88 ABWHQ ANG VanGasbeck, David C. Andrews AFB Chief, Environmental DivisionHQ ANG Whitt, William B. Andrews AFB Chief, Engineering Division


38 WINTER 2003

EducationCourse No. Title Off Start Dates Grad DatesENG 460 (S) Mechanical Systems for Managers 04A 05 Apr 08 AprENG 464 Energy Management Technology 04B 07 Jun 11 JunENG 466 Energy Management Policy 04B 14 Jun 18 JunENG 470 (S) Electrical Systems for Managers 04A 21 Jun 25 JunENG 520 Comprehensive Planning Dev. 04A 14 Jun 18 JunENG 550 Airfield Pavement and Maintenance 04A 10 May 21 MayENV 020 (S) Environ. Compliance Assessment 04B 17 May 20 MayENV 022 (S) Pollution Prevention Program O&M 04B 07 Jun 11 JunENV 220 (S) Unit Environmental Coordinator. 04B 24 May 28 MayENV 222 Hazardous Material Mgmt. Program 04B 11 May 13 MayENV 418 Environmental Contracting 04B 03 May 14 MayENV 521 (S) Hazardous Waste Management 04B 21 Jun 25 JunENV 531 Air Quality Management 04B 14 Jun 18 JunENV 541 Water Quality Management 04B 12 Apr 16 AprMGT 400 CE Commander/Deputy 04A 26 Apr 07 MayMGT 412 Financial Management 04B 05 Apr 16 AprMGT 423 (S) Project Programming 04B 03 May 14 MayMGT 426 (S) SABER Management 04A 13 Apr 15 AprMGT 438 (S) Logistics Management 04A 24 May 28 MayMGT 484 Reserve Forces AB Combat Eng. 04A 12 Apr 23 AprMGT 585 Contingency Engineer Command 04B 21 Jun 25 Jun

36

6 T

rain

ing

Sq

uad

ron

AFI

TC

ivil

En

gin

eer

and

Serv

ices

Sch

oo

lRegistration for resi-

dent courses, which

are offered at Wright-

Patterson AFB, OH,

begins approximately

90 days in advance.

Students should

register for CESS

courses through the

new online registra-

tion process.

Registration for the

satellite offerings

(marked with an ‘S’)

closes 25 days before

broadcast. For satel-

lite registration, course

information, or a

current list of class

dates, visit the CESS

website at: http://

www.afit.edu.

Course No. Title Start Dates Grad DatesJ3ARR3E453-002 Pest Management Re-Certification 26 Apr/10 May/07 Jun 30 Apr/14 May/11 JunJ3AZR3E051-003 Cathodic Protection 05 Apr/06 May/07 Jun/28 Jun 16 Apr/19 May/18 Jun/12 Jul

J3AZR3E051-007 Airfield Lighting 15 Apr/16 Jun 26 Apr/25 Jun

J3AZR3E051-008 Electrical Distribution Sys. Maint. 19 Apr/21 May/25 Jun 14 May/18 Jun/23 Jul

J3AZR3E051-010 Bare Base Electrical Systems 23 Apr/02 Jun 06 May/15 Jun

J3AZR3E051-012 Fire Alarm Systems 12 Apr/06 May/02 Jun/28 Jun 05 May/01 Jun/25 Jun/22 Jul

J3AZR3E051-013 Intrusion Detection Systems (IDS) 23 Apr/02 Jun/12 Jul 12 May/21 Jun/29 Jul

J3AZR3E052-013 CE Advanced Electronics 26 Apr/07 Jun 21 May/02 Jul

J3AZR3E071-001 CE Adv. Elec. Troubleshooting 22 Apr/20 May/18 Jun 19 May/17 Jun/16 Jul

J3AZR3E072-002 Troubleshoot. Elec. Power Gen. Eq. 28 Apr/09 Jun 19 May/30 Jun

J3AZR3E072-113 Bare Base Power Generation 03 May/07 Jun 27 May/01 Jul

J3AZR3E151-013 HVAC/R Controls Systems 04 May/10 Jun 08 Jun/15 Jul

J3AZR3E151-014 Direct Expansion Systems 21 Apr/24 May 21 May/24 JunJ3AZR3E151-015 Indirect Expansion Systems 12 Apr/07 Jul 29 Apr/26 Jul

J3AZR3E451-004 Fire Suppression Systems Maint. 12 Apr/03 May/25 May/21 Jun 30 Apr/21 May/15 Jun/12 Jul

J3AZR3E471-101 BB Water Purification & Distr. Sys. 07 Apr/21 Apr/05 May/02 Jun/16 Jun 16 Apr/30 Apr/14 May/11 Jun/25 Jun

J3AZR3E472-000 Liq. Fuels Storage Tank Entry Spvsr. 12 Apr/26 Apr 22 Apr/06 May

J3AZR3E472-001 Liq. Fuels Sys. Maintenance Tech. 17 May 28 May

Course No. Title Start Dates Grad DatesJ3AZP3E571-003 Engineering Design 05 Apr/07 Jun 16 Apr/18 Jun

J3AZP3E971-003 Advanced Readiness 03 May 07 MayJ3AZP3E971-005 NBC Cell Operations 05 Apr/26 Apr/21 Jun 09 Apr/30 Apr/25 Jun

Course No. Title Start Dates Grad DatesJ5AZN3E871-001 Adv. Access and Disablement 19 Apr/10 May/02 Jun/21 Jun 30 Apr/21 May/11 Jun/02 JulJ5AZN3E871-002 Advanced EOD Course 19 Apr/10 May/21 Jun 30 Apr/21 May/02 Jul

Course No. Title Start Dates Grad DatesJ3AZP3E351-001 Low Slope Maint. & Repair 05 Apr/26 Apr/17 May/07 Jun 15 Apr/06 May/27 May/17 Jun

J3AZP3E351-002 Fabrication Welded Pipe Joints 05 Apr/10 May/14 Jun 16 Apr/21 May/25 JunJ3AZP3E351-003 Metals Layout Fab. & Welding 19 Apr/24 May 06 May/11 Jun

Additional course information is available at https://webm.sheppard.af.mil/366trs/default.htm or https://etca.randolph.af.mil.Students may enroll on a space-available basis up until a class start date by contacting their unit training manager.

Ft. Leonard Wood, MO

Indian Head, MD

Gulfport, MS

Sheppard AFB, TX

Wright-Patterson AFB, OH

ContinuingContinuing


Parent Unit:305th Air Mobility Wing

Location:McGuire AFB, N.J.

Commander:Lt Col Mike J. Smietana

Assigned Personnel:308 military and 142 civilians

Squadron Nickname:Jersey Devils, Down & Dirty

The 305th CES sustains 13,700 personnel at McGuire AFB with support tothe 305th Air Mobility Wing’s C-141/KC-10 missions and numerous basetenant organizations, including the Air Mobility Warfare Center, the 21stExpeditionary Mobility Task Force, and the 621st Air Mobility OperationsGroup. The “Jersey Devils” provide a full suite of CE services for a $1.8billion physical plant covering 3,660 acres, with over 1,000 facilities, 10utility systems, and 3,045 housing units.

Recent Accomplishments: The 305th CES is working hard to transformMcGuire AFB. Quality of Life funds—the only such funds awarded by AirMobility Command—were used to renovate an old firehouse into anAirman’s Center. Several other new facilities—a dining hall, visiting quarters, agolf course clubhouse, and a fire station—have recently opened, and a fitnesscenter and a freight terminal will open next year. An $85 million MilitaryConstruction C-17 beddown program will also be completed in 2004.

During Operations ENDURING FREEDOM and IRAQI FREEDOM, the 305th CESdeployed 115 troops and supported the war in classified locations for sixmonths. At home, as they do every year, the 305th CES managed OperationStand Down in Philadelphia, Pa. for more than 300 veterans. As this year’s“go to” squadron on McGuire, the Jersey Devils put on USO shows, a ChefEmeril Show, and a Comedy Central show, and the Readiness Flightwarfare training troops were featured in a live MSNBC interview.

Recent Awards: The 305 CES garnered “Excellent” ratings for a back-to-backNuclear Surety Inspection and a Unit Compliance Inspection in August—thefirst UCI inspection in 10 years. In 2003, the squadron also included an AirForce Lance P. Sijan Award winner (see pg. 32), two AMC 12 OutstandingAirmen of the Year nominees and two John L. Levitow Award winners.

Individual flights also collected many honors in 2003. The AMC CommunityPlanner Award winner and the AMC Military Manager Award runner-up aremembers of the Engineering Flight. Keeping McGuire AFB open during theworst winter in 30 years earned the Operations Flight the Air Force Balchen/Post Award. The Fire Protection Flight won McGuire’s “Top Wheels” award fora third time. AMC’s Inspector General team recognized 16 members of theExplosive Ordnance Flight as Exceptional Performers during the NSI/UCI,earning the flight an Excellent rating while having a high deployment rate of650 man-days. The flight was also AMC’s runner-up for the SMSgt Gerald J.Stryzak Award. The Environmental Flight’s timely cleanup of a contaminatedsite planned for a hangar location kept the C-17 beddown on track. The flightwas recognized as Outstanding by the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the AirForce for Environment, Safety and Occupational Health, Ms. Maureen Koetz.


40 WINTER 2003A member of the Air Force team demonstrates hisskill at personnel rescue with the aid of a dummy.

On a cool October morning in a Midwest field dampfrom early morning dew, four Air Force electrical instruc-tors huddled to survey their equipment, their competitionand the seemingly endless rows of poles that stood likeoversized stalks of wheat.

They were in Bonner Springs, Mo., for the 20th annualInternational Lineman’s Rodeo, an event that drawsmore than 1,000 linemen from around the world.Linemen compete in a series of timed events that testtheir skill, knowledge and dexterity.

“It usually takes us 10-15 seconds to climb a 40-foot pole, then do work most people would dostanding at a bench,” said MSgt Shaun Rohmiller,366th Training Squadron, Sheppard AFB, Texas.“You’ve only got a quarter-inch of steelsticking into the pole and a thin leather strapbetween you and destiny.”

But the biggest challenge forthe Air Force team was not theclimb to the top of the pole,but the climb toward paritywith their civilian counter-parts. Line work is not afull-time specialty for Air Forceelectricians, yet they competeagainst the cream of the cropfrom each municipality,company or utility.

“The guys that are hereare not just everydaylinemen, these are the bestin the country,” said MSgtTed Roberts, 366th TRS. “Evenbeing competitive with theseguys speaks highly of our team.”

“You can learn more out herein a day by competing and talkingto other linemen than you can bysitting in a school for a month,” said MSgtRohmiller. “Not that the Air Force doesthings wrong. We do things differently.We do things that are driven by mission,and our mission is different than that inthe private sector. But we use a lot of thelessons we learn here back at the school-house.”

The Air Force team scored higher than ithad in the past, but was not in contentionfor any of the awards. Their prize cameinstead in knowing they had narrowed thegap. “We can actually say we were competitive thisyear and that’s something I couldn’t say the last twoyears,” said MSgt Rohmiller.

Note: The Air Force will hold its own Lineman’s Rodeo atSheppard AFB, Texas, May 15.

Text and photo by MSgt Michael A. Ward, HQ AFCESAPublic Affairs, Tyndall AFB, Fla.

new mission, new infrastructure - afcec home · services directorates into a new a7 installations...

Documents