Remote sites pass AMMT inspection

By Bill Bartkus
NAVAIR Depot North Island

NAVAIR Depot North Island’s remote sites at Miramar, Camp Pendleton, and Lemoore, Calif., and Whidbey Island, Wash., came under the microscope for a week in January when the Aviation Maintenance Management Team (AMMT), headed by officer-in-charge Lt. William Lock, and the AIR 5.0 AMMT, inspected the Depot’s Integrated Maintenance Concept (IMC) and Field Service (FS) sites.

The remote site inspection was the second of its kind for the command and occurred only once back in November 2002. AMMT inspections are common at North Island and occur every 18 months. Future remote site inspections will be subject to regular interval-AMMT inspections as well.

Inspectors targeted aviation maintenance processes governed by CNO Naval Aviation Maintenance Policy (NAMP) OPNAVINST 4790.2H and included tool control, Foreign Object Damage (FOD), Electrostatic Discharge ESD), industrial safety, fuel surveillance, support equipment, training and certification, material management, quality programs and others.

Standard AMMT Computerized Self Evaluation Checklist (CSEC) audit criterion was used by the AMMT which is the same as Subject Matter Expert internal audit criteria used in the Teaming for Process Improvement (TPI) audits three times each year.

Virginia Lovell, AMMT/TPI program manager (Code 6.0A) said, “Overall, the inspection was a success. Although discrepancies were cited in various processes, there was dramatic improvement at each site.” Lovell warned “further improvements are necessary especially in areas of tool control, FOD, industrial safety, and Individual Qualification Records (IQRs). Activity Coordinators Gene Tolbert, Ron Cobb and Terry Timm and their remote site folks demonstrate conscientious efforts to assure compliance at each site.”

Remote site IMC/FS managers and supervisors involved included Dave Kelly and Matt Fort at Miramar; Tom Moore at Whidbey Island; Bill Johnson and Tony Araiza at Naval Air Station Lemoore; and Robert Hutchison, Pete Vickery, Robert Drew and Ron Senesac at Camp Pendleton.

Lovell conducted analysis of the remote site AMMT report and assigned two scores per site: one for the percentage of on track processes and another score involving both off track processes and processes with discrepancies. She said that 61 processes across seven sites were evaluated.

Whidbey IMC scored 100 percent for on track processes, up 14 percent from November 2002. Their second score for overall rate of compliance was also 100 percent, a 43 percent improvement from 2002. Seven process programs were audited. Whidbey IMC was the only site with zero discrepancies.

Miramar and Pendleton IMCs each rated 100 percent for on track processes, both dramatic improvements from 2002. “Although discrepancies were cited, neither site had off track processes,” Lovell noted. “Eleven processes were inspected at Miramar IMC and 12 at Pendleton IMC. Respective overall compliance scores with discrepancies factored in are Miramar at 82 percent and Pendleton at 75 percent.”

Lovell said that Miramar was second to Whidbey with two minor discrepancies; Pendleton had 12.
Most field service site comparisons were incomplete due to insufficient data from the November 2002 report.

Miramar Field Service showed a 9 percent improvement from 2002 in overall compliance and scored 92 percent for on track status - up 25 percent from 67 percent in 2002. Combined Lemoore IMC/Field Service rated 86 percent for on track status.

Lovell said, “Although we still have plenty of work to do, the inspection showed significant improvement and was a great success. The overall rate of on track compliance was 92 percent compared to 77 percent in November 2002, an outstanding 15 percent increase. Everyone involved worked diligently to improve, next time will be even better!”

The next remote site AMMT is expected in June 2006.