EURO-NATO JOINT JET PILOT TRAINING (ENJJPT)
STEERING COMMITTEE (SC) MEETING NUMBER 68
8-13 September 2014
Izmir, Turkey
1. WELCOME AND OPENING REMARKS
1.1. Brigadier General Recep Unal, Turkish Air Force Headquarters, welcomed
participants to Izmir, Turkey. The Turkish Air Force A3 stressed how important it is to
train to NATO standards and consider all aspects of the pilot training such as the training
timeline and type of training. He thanked everyone for coming to Turkey and looked
forward to working with the SC in the future.
1.2. The SC Chairman provided opening remarks by welcoming participants to SC 68
and requested introductions from each SC Member.
1.3. SC Members introduced their delegations. Nations attending SC 68 were BE, CA,
DE, GE, GR, IT, NL, NO, RO, SP, TU, UK and US. PO was not in attendance. (See SC
68 Attachment 1: Participants List)
2. ADMINISTRATIVE MATTERS
2.1. The administrative matters were briefed by Capt. M. Onur Dikmen.
3. AGENDA APPROVAL.
3.1. The SC 68 Agenda Items were approved as presented. (See SC 68 Attachment 2:
SC 68 Agenda)
4. SC 67 MINUTES REVIEW
4.1. The SC 67 Minutes was approved with recommended revisions and comments.
4.2. NL was concerned the SC 67 Action Item List agreed upon on the last day of the SC
67 was modified without SC approval. The SC 67 Minutes were coordinated through an
“out of cycle” process. The SC Chairman tasked the SC Secretary to confirm the two
discrepancies in preparation for the SC 68 Minutes review.
4.2.1. ERROR 1: NL explains Action Item 65-11: OG Commander Candidates was
deleted and should have been kept open.
4.2.2. The SC 67 Action Item 65-11 was originally kept open during the last day of the
review of the minutes. However, paragraphs 5.4-5.4.2 which originally kept the action
item open during the “out of cycle” process was inconsistent with the PRS
recommendation in paragraph in 11.6.26.; and the SC decision to close Action Item 66-2
in order to create Action Items 67-4 tasking all Users to come prepared to discuss CAT I
eligibility criteria at SC 68. (Ref. SC 65 Minutes 13.1; SC 66 5.13.1-5.13.3; SC 67 5.45.4.2; 11.6.1-11.6.27; SC 68 Action Item List) (OPR: All Nations)”.
4.2.3. The SC Chairman explained the CAT I position has two issues that need to be
addressed by the subcommittees. One is to identify procedures and the other is eligibility.
4.2.4. GE recommended we defer it to the PRS for review.
4.2.5. The SC took note and deferred it to the PRS. (Ref. SC 68 Minutes 11.9.1)
4.3. ERROR 2: The Action Item 67-10 was originally developed to address the accession
voting process and was deferred to the FLS. The FLS recommended the MOU
Amendment 6 would revert back to Amendment 5 accession language, and did not pursue
the details for an Executive Session. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 10.2.21-10.2.25; 12.7.112.7.3; SC 68 Minutes 11.9.7)
4.3.1. The SC decided to resurrect the issue and deferred it to the FLS and PRS to
consider proposing recommendations to explain the details of an Executive Session.
4.3.2. The Action Item 67-10 was originally developed to address the accession voting
process. While the SC decided MOU Amendment 6 would revert back to Amendment 5
accession language, the SC did not define the details for an Executive Session nor did the
PO Working Group. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 10.2.21-10.2.25; 12.7.1-12.7.3; SC 68
Minutes 11.9.7)
4.3.3. The SC Chairman recommended this issue be revisited by the FLS and PRS.
4.3.4. The SC took note and deferred it to the FLS and PRS for review. (SC 68 Minutes
11.9.6-11.9.10; 12.8-12.8.2.
5. SC 67 ACTION ITEMS REVIEW
5.1. Action Item SC 62-1: T-X Acquisition Plan. SC requested to be updated on the TX Acquisition Plan annually. The US will brief update at SC 69. (Ref. SC 62 Minutes
5.1.-5.1.4.; SC 65 Minutes 5.1-5.1.4; SC 66 Minutes 5.1-5.1.4; SC 67 5.1.1.-5.1.4.; See
SC 67 Attachment 3: AETC/A3F explained the brief is non-releasable) (OPR: US).
5.1.1. The SC took note. The US will provide a detailed update at SC 69.
5.2. Action Item 64-3: ADS-B Update. The US will update the SC on the waiver for
the ADS-B requirement for T-38C. (Ref. SC 66 Minutes 5.2.-5.2.4.) (OPR: US)
5.2.1. The Action Item was deferred to the T-38 Briefing.
5.3. Action Item 66-9: MOU Amendment Initiation. The SC tasked the SC Secretary
to execute the initiation of the conformed Amendment 6 for national staffing as outlined
in the ENJJPT Directive 45-1 NLT May 1, 2014. (Ref.15.1-15.6.) (OPR: SC Secretary)
5.3.1. The MOU Amendment 6 was distributed during the FLS Prep Meeting in
Rome on 27 May 2014. (See SC 68 Attachment 3: E-mail distributing the FLS
MOU Amendment 6)
FW EXTERNAL .msg
5.4. Action Item 67-1: Romania SC68 Invitation. The SC tasked the SC Chairman to
send correspondence to Romania inviting them as an observer to the SC 68. (Ref. SC 67
Minutes 10.4.2.) (OPR: SC Chairman)
5.4.1. The Romanian Invitational letter was given to the Romanians during their
visit to Sheppard AFB on 7-9 July 14. (See Attachment 4: Romania Invitational
Letter from SC Chairman)
Antwort FW
Romania ENJJPT Invitation Letter.msg
5.4.2. The Romanians accepted the invitation and attended SC 68.
5.5. Action Item 67-2: Romania’s Legal and Financial Accession Options. The SC
tasked the FLS to explore legal and financial options allowing Romania to join the
Program. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 10.4.3.; SC 68 Minutes 12.15-12.15.6) (OPR: FLS)
5.5.1. The Romanians are still observing their options and have not officially
decided they will join the ENJJPT program.
5.5.2. The SC deferred the issue to the FLS.
5.6. Action Item 67-3: CAT II Change of Commands. The SC tasked the ENJJPT
Wing to work with SNRs to spread out CAT II change of commands. (Ref. SC 67
Minutes 11.6.23; SC 68 Minutes ENJJPT CC Brief Slide 39-40; SC 68 Minutes PRS
Out-brief 11.5.-11.5.6, See Attachment 5: Memo, Ref. Attachment 12: SC 68 ENJJPT
Wing CC Brief, Slide 39-40) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
5.6.1. The Action Item was deferred to the ENJJPT Wing Commander Brief
5.7. Action Item 67-4: CAT I Position Eligibility. All Users come prepared to discuss
CAT I eligibility criteria at SC68. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.24; SC 68 Minutes 11.611.6.3) (OPR: All Users)
5.7.1. The Action Item was deferred to the PRS.
5.8. Action Item 67-5: Squadron Validation. The SC tasked the ENJJPT Wing to
reevaluate the need for two squadrons for each UPT phase and present recommendations
at SC 68. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.13.; (Attachment 6; Ref. Attachment 12: SC 68
ENJJPT Wing CC Brief, Slide 39-40) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
5.8.1. The Action Item was deferred to the ENJJPT Wing Commander Brief.
Action Item 67-5 Response.pdf
5.9. Action Item 67-6: TU IP Training Request. The SC tasked TU to provide a formal
request for IP only training and a proposed PO change at SC68. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes
11.12.-11.12.7.; 12.16.1.-12.16.5.; (Ref. Attachment 7; Attachment 12: SC 68 ENJJPT
Wing CC Brief, Slide 39-40; SC 68 Minutes 11.7-11.7.7; 12.16-12.16.35) (OPR: TU)
5.9.1. TU submitted a PO Change request on 12 May 2014 requesting their IPs
return to home station after PIT training.
5.9.2. GE inquired if other SUPTs sent their IPs back to home station.
5.9.3. The ENJJPT Wing CC deferred the question to the ENJJPT Wing/EP. The
ENJJPT Wing/EP explained the 12th Wing Commander was trained at Sheppard
AFB and return to Randolph AFB. This was the only case.
5.9.4. The Action Item was deferred back to the PRS and FLS for review.
Action Item 67-6
Response.pdf
5.10. Action Item 67-7: ENJJPT Wing Protocol Office Budget. The SC tasked the
FLS to review the ENJJPT Wing Protocol Office’s funding requirements. (Ref. SC 67
Minutes 11.13.-11.13.4.) (OPR: FLS)
5.10.1. The US fiscal law does not allow this. The US has non-concurred with this
line item to be included.
5.11. Action Item 67-8: SNR SC Attendance. The SC tasked the ENJJPT Wing to have
the Wing’s PO Working Group include wording in its PO proposal for SNRs attending
Steering Committee meetings. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.14.-11.14.7.; Attachment 12 :
Slide 39; SC 68 6.7.3.-6.7.3.3; 11.7.4; 12.17-12.17.5; Labeled INCORRECTLY ON MEMO
POSTED ON THE APAN) (OPR: ENJJPT Wing) (See SC 68 Attachment 8: SNR
Attendance PO Proposal)
5.11.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the SNRs discussed this issue at
length and send to PO Change to the SC concluding SNRs should attend SC
Meetings at the User’s expense.
5.11.2. The ENJJPT Wing Commander request the SC to defer to the FLS for
another review.
Action Item 67-7
Response.pdf
5.12. Action Item 67-9: T-38 Track A& B Proposal. The SC tasked IT to propose a
change to PO paragraph 7.6.2 to be reviewed at the FLS Preparation Meeting in May2014
and to present recommendations to the next SC. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes11.16.-11.16.5.; SC
68 Minutes 5.12.-5.12.1; 12.18.1.-12.18.3) (OPR: IT)
5.12.1. Italy discussed their proposal sent to the SC on 21 August 2014. The FLS
Chairman requested to propose a recommendation as part of the FLS Out-brief.
(See SC 68 Attachment 9: Track A&B E-mail and Proposal)
RE AI 67-9 T-38 Action Item 67 T38
Track A&B Proposal.msg
tack A&B proposal.doc
5.13. Action Item 67-10: AETC’s Letter of Integrity. The SC task the ENJPT Wing
to develop a method to meet the intent of AETC’s Letter of Integrity. (Ref. SC 67
Minutes 11.17.1.-11.17.7; ENJJPT Wing Commander Brief Slide 39; SC 68 Minutes
6.7.4-6.7.4.3; 11.9.5; 12.19-12.19.3) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
5.13.1. The Action Item was deferred to the ENJJPT Wing Commander’s Brief.
5.14. Action Item 67-11: Aircraft Sustainment Costs. The SC tasked the US to
address why aircraft sustainment costs are increasing. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 12.5.3.)
(OPR: US)
5.14.1. The Action Item was deferred to the T-6 (SC 68 Attachment 10, Slide 12
–Cost Drivers) and T-38 Briefs (SC 68 Attachment 11, Slide 19).
5.15. Action Item 67-12: ENJJPT FM PO Change Proposal. The US will present a
PO Change regarding ENJJPT FM duties at the next FLS meeting. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes
12.11.1.-12.11.4.) (OPR: US)
5.15.1. The ENJJPT FM PO Change proposal memo (get signed copy and post on
APAN) was presented at the FLS Prep Meeting in May 2014.
5.15.2. The SC approved and closed AI 67-12.
6. WING COMMANDER PROGRAM STATUS BRIEF/ENJJPT FM BRIEF/ENJJPT
CAPACITY UPDATE BRIEF
6.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander thanked the SC for giving him the opportunity to
brief the SC on the ENJJPT Program. The ENJJPT Wing Commander Program Status
Briefing (See SC Attachment 12) included the UPT and IFF Mission Status, Aircraft
Maintenance, ENJJPT Wing Commander Projects, ENJJPT Wing Action Items: Action
Items SC 67-3; Action Item SC 67-4, Action Item SC 67-6, Action Item SC 67-11,
Topics of Interest and Closing Remarks. (See SC Attachment 12, Slides 36-50).
6.1.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the historical attrition rate
comparison between AETC and ENJJPT (See SC 68 Attachment 12, ENJJPT
Wing Commander Brief-Action Items, Slide 9). He attributes ENJJPT’s low
attrition rate to high quality instructors and well screened students.
6.1.2. DE inquired if the ENJJPT Wing Commander would comment on the two
squadron issue to include IP manning versus the forecast training task. DE also
inquired if the two issues (low attrition and the metrics involved for two
squadrons) were going to be compared.
6.1.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained it will be addressed during the
review of Action Item 67-5 (Squadron Validation).
6.2. ENJJPT Wing Commander FY14 Projects (See SC 68 Attachment 12, Slides 2837).
6.2.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the ENJJPT Wing has an
opportunity to complete a maintenance composite clean room with the available
year end funds. However, it will require the SC to grant the ENJJPT Wing
Commander approval to overspend his $2M authorization by $55K.
6.2.2. US requested the cost per nation analysis.
6.2.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander requested the FLS conduct an analysis.
6.2.4. GE insisted the SC be specific on what the FLS needs to provide to the SC.
6.2.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander reiterated he is not asking for additional
funding due the funding already being in the current year budget, but needs the
SC to give him authorization to exceed his limit of $2M directed by the PO.
6.2.6. The AETC/FM explained the funding is already available; it is End of Year
funding from the US. It is more of a procedural issue where the PO limits his
spending authority to $2M per year. The ENJJPT Wing Commander will
overspend his allocated budget, but the source of funding will be coming from the
US.
6.2.7. The US further reiterated there is no cost to the nations.
6.2.8. GE requested the issue to be reviewed by the FLS.
6.2.9. The AETC/FM provided the SC more details by stating the $55K is already
in the budget. Each country has already provided that funding to the US in the
LOAs. The AETC/FM explained those dollars have not been executed. The
ENJJPT Wing CC will need approval from the SC to spend above the designated
$2M threshold. The funding is not in the correct budget line. It is currently in
budget line where it is under-executing.
6.2.10. GE recommended the FLS identify how much of the funding in question
belongs originally to all our partners. GE explained each partner has to agree this
funding will have to be spent on different lines within the budget; and understand
where the funding is originating.
6.2.11. The ENJJPT Wing Commander agreed and is prepared to discuss the issue
within the FLS.
6.2.12. The SC to took note and deferred it to the FLS.
6.3. ENJJPT Wing Commander FY15 Projects (See 68 Attachment 12, Slides 33-34).
6.3.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander briefed in FY15, the ENJJPT Wing will
repair its paint barn with its $2M budget.
6.3.2. The ENJPT Wing Commander clarified to the SC, the previous project was
to repair the paint barn doors. The new request involves other paint barn repairs
that need to be completed.
6.3.3. The ENJPT Wing Commander provided the SC some historical data to
support his repair request. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the facility
was originally constructed in 1972 and the last evaluation of the system
determined the facility was coded “red” or system failure is highly likely. Issues
such as the HVAC, Electrical and Plumbing exist.
6.3.4. The ENJJPT Wing Commander stated that over 100 aircraft are in dire need
of paint. After contemplating whether to wait or year or two for the repairs, the
ENJJPT Wing Commander could not guarantee the facility would be operable
during that timeframe. They ENJJPT Wing would have to do constant reactive
maintenance to maintain the facility.
6.3.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander illustrated the repairs in his briefing. (See
SC 68 Attachment X (Slide 34).
6.3.6. The ENJJPT Wing Commander requested to allocate the Wing Commander
Fund towards the paint barn repairs.
6.3.7. The SC took note and the issue was deferred to the FLS and PRS for
review.
6.4. FY16 ENJJPT Wing Commander Projects
6.4.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander requested the SC to approve $6M in the
FY16 Budget to upgrade the ENJJPT Dorm (Bldg. 280). (ENJJPT Dorm
Renovation-See 68 Attachment 12, Slides 35).
6.4.2. The primary effort is to change the heat from a two pipe to a four pipe
system. This allows individual rooms to control their heating and cooling.
Currently, the rooms are set a temperature contingent on the forecasted daily
temperatures which are most times out of alignment with each other.
6.4.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander also highlighted the plumbing, windows,
and other interior fixtures will be repaired.
6.4.4. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the plan is to phase the
renovation for the ENJJPT dorm so that our NATO partners (Non-US) who are
the primary residents of that dorm are allowed to occupy the dorm. The ENJJPT
Wing is reviewing which part of the dorm to shut down first to minimize any
disruptions.
6.4.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander requested the SC to task the FLS to
consider this project as a separate piece to the FY16 Budget. The SC should
anticipate roughly eighteen months for completion of the dorm. The ENJPPT
Commander will provide a tour of the ENJJPT Dorm.
6.5. ENJJPT Wing Future Facility Projects
6.5.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander discussed future facility projects that are
generally targets for the $2M ENJJPT Wing Commander fund. The facility
project list included: Replace Cooling Tower (Building 2320) $400K; Aircraft
Composite Maintenance Clean Room (Building 2320)$250K; Repair and Upgrade
Electrical Systems, Shop Areas (Building 2320) $210K; Replace CASS
Underground Air Lines (ENJJPT Ramp) $810K; Replace Roof on Building 2325
(Engine Shop) $880K; Paint hangar floors with CRU (2404, 2406, 2408 &
2410)$380K; Paint shop floors with CRU (2325, 2407, 2412, 2414 & 2416); Paint
Barn Renovation ($2M). (See SC 68 Attachment 12, Slide 35).
6.5.2. The ENJJPT Wing Commander already discussed the cooling tower in
Bldg. 2320. It is the ENJJPT Wing Commander’s goal to receive funding and take
the Aircraft Composite Maintenance Cleaning Room off of the list this year.
6.6. ENJJPT Wing Future Airfield Projects
6.6.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander’s future airfield project list included:
Repair T-6 Run-up Apron $400K; Repair Asphalt ENJJPT Apron (East
Shoulders) $260K; Repair West ENJJPT Apron Roadway $1,200K; Repair
Runway 15L/33R (Cooter) $5,000K; Taxiway J Shoulder Repair $400K; Repair
Overruns, Runway 15C/33C $150K; Reseal Runway 15R/33L$ 1,200K. (See SC
68 Attachment 12, Slide 35).
6.6.2. The ENJJPT Wing Commander reminded the SC, the Taxiway building
project was approved during SC 67. This project will begin renovations in
October.
6.6.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained to the SC the intent of briefing
the future airfield projects is not to request funding, but to increase awareness on
projects that will need to be addressed over the next five years.
6.7. ENJJPT Wing Action Items
6.7.1. Action Item 67-3: CAT II Change of Commands. The SC tasked the
ENJJPT Wing to work with SNRs to spread out CAT II change of commands.
(Ref. Attachment 5; SC 67 Minutes 11.6.23.; SC 68 Minutes 5.6-5.6.1; 11.511.5.6; SC 68 Wing CC Brief Attachment 12, Slide 39-40) (OPR: ENJJPT
WING)
Action Item 67-3
Response.pdf
6.7.1.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander discussed the issue with the SNRs on 2
June 2014. The ENJPT Wing’s objective is to have a T-6 squadron change of
command each summer. Therefore, the ENJPT Wing is not changing all of the
squadrons each year; offsetting the senior T-6 squadron commander and junior T6 squadron commander rotation.
6.7.1.2. The ENJJPT Wing will implement the same rotation for the T-38
squadron commanders.
6.7.1.3. The ENJJPT Wing is ultimately pursuing the same solution for IFF and
OSS.
6.7.1.4. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained the overall cycle will include
three squadron commanders changing in one year and three changing the
following year. This will produce continuity in leadership within the ENJJPT
Wing.
6.7.1.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander further elaborated the ENJJPT Wing is
able to do that; it produces some near term actions because it takes 24 months +/2 months window of what command needs to be.
6.7.1.6. The ENJJPT Wing Commander appreciated the flexibility nations have
been able to provide when their squadron commanders had to extend two months
to make the new rotation plan work.
6.7.1.7. Action Item 67-5: Squadron Validation. The SC tasked the ENJJPT
Wing to reevaluate the need for two squadrons for each UPT phase and present
recommendations at SC 68. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.13.; SC 68 Minutes 5.8.5.8.1.) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
6.7.1.8. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained, the task was to validate the
need for two squadrons in each phase.
6.7.1.9. The ENJJPT Wing Commander and his team reviewed previous SC
Minutes that explained why the squadrons were split. They concluded the
squadrons were split in the past because it had to do with span of control; focus
the leadership on the mission; and both reasons remain valid. These rationales
behind the squadrons being divided in the past have not changed. The ENJJPT
Wing submitted those reasons to the Action Item previously.
6.7.1.10. DE commented by stating that DE re-entered the program over a year
ago. DE explained they track their IPs average of hours per week. The ENJJPT
PO states the ENJJPT work standard for instructor pilots is 45 hours per week, but
realistically it is more like 55 hours a week. DE continued to explain the average
of 45 hours per week is based on the 256 student load per year. DE explained
they would have to finance the gap between 55 and 45 hours per week which
created a challenge for DE. DE recommended the PRS analyze the situation and
develop ways to analyze why we work 45 hours and what is incorporated in those
45 hours.
6.7.1.11. The ENJJPT Wing Commander registered DE’s concerns and reiterated
the tasking was to validate the split. The ENJJPT Wing reviewed the taskings
directing the split originally and those reasons remain the same. Therefore,
squadron validation and overhead manning are two different discussions.
6.7.1.12. GE interjected by stating if the SC reviewed the language of Action Item
67-4, it states to re-evaluate or investigate the justification. GE remembers last
year the ENJJPT Wing was to conduct a more detailed evaluation. GE explained
the decisions supporting the squadron split in SC 57 should be reconsidered or
discussed in a way with the intent of providing new recommendations. This
suggestion was based on the actual working hours being higher than they
currently are in the manning formula. GE explained the ENJJPT Wing student
load is roughly below 200. It was one of the pre-requisites during the squadron
split calculation during SC 55 and SC 57. The manning formula has to be cost
neutral. The decision on whether the working hours should be 8.5 hours or 8.0
hours became an issue when developing the manning formula. The manning
formula of the squadrons was approved by changing the actual working hours 8.0
hours to 8.5 hours to make it appear cost neutral. GE recommended it is legal to
re-evaluate if 8.5 hours was the right decision after a couple of years. GE
suggested the SC get a more detailed number on the line item issue and the
amount of overhead, and etc.
6.7.1.13. GE concluded the memo sent to the SC regarding the issue on 20 August
lacks details.
6.7.2. ENJJPT Squadron Split Analysis Brief.
6.7.2.1. The ENJJPT Wing Commander registered GE’s comments and provided
a detailed brief behind the squadron split validation (Ref. SC 68 Attachment 13).
6.7.2.2. The ENJJPT Wing Commander brief provided data to support ENJJPT’s
response to the task; the methodology utilized to include review of decisions
made in the past; and recommendations.
6.7.2.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander covered the overhead perception and
more details are provided in the ENJJPT Wing PO Brief (See SC 68 Attachment
X). The ENJJPT Wing Commander registered GE’s comments and provided a
detailed brief behind the squadron split validation (See SC 68 Attachment X). The
ENJJPT Wing team has continued to look for ways to improve efficiency. There
is a common misconception that when we split the squadrons, the overhead
exploded. The obvious increase in overhead personnel is two squadron
commanders, and two directors of operations. Specifically if you look at how the
ENJJPT Wing was previously organized and then you added squadron
commander; a deputy of operations; and a secretary it comes out to five to seven
people. The ENJJPT Commander highlighted the PO Changes Memos (See SC 68
Attachments 13 (Annex 2), 14 (Annex 6/6a), 15 (Annex 7), 16 (Annex 7A)
identifying multiple positions in the PO that are no longer need and removed them
from the PO.
6.7.2.4. The ENJJPT Wing is also working a new initiative to identify ways to
more effectively utilize the manning on a day to day basis and identify other ways
to do processes within the ENJJPT Wing more efficiently with the current
overhead manning.
6.7.2.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander concluded by requesting what
specifically is the question that needs to be answered. Is it the need for more IPs
or is it the issue surrounding the 55 hour week? The ENJJPT Wing Commander
says the IP issue is one problem. If someone is working a 55 hour work week,
then he needs the opportunity to validate this is the case and produce supporting
data. If the question is regarding efficiency, then multiple efforts have been put in
place.
6.7.2.6. The SC Chairman assisted with developing the question by reiterating the
decisions presented were outdated by 6 years. The SC Chairman stated the goals
might have been achieved, but current situation has changed from 6 years ago.
The numbers of students have decreased. The SC Chairman perceived the
ENJJPT Wing Commander was tasked with answering two completely different
issues – 1) The ENJJPT Wing needs to be more efficient and tried to use the
overhead based on the positions that are not needed anymore. 2.) Does the
ENJJPT Wing need four squadrons for fewer students? The SC Chairman
explained six years ago, the four squadrons were needed. Today, the question is
do we need four squadrons or would two squadrons be sufficient?
6.7.2.7. The SC Chairman made the task more transparent by asking, “What is the
breakeven point?”- How many students justify the existence of four squadrons”
and at “What number of students would it make sense to decrease from four to
two students?” If we are at 170 today that is fine, but how much of decrease is
needed to make the decision there is too much overhead based on the student
load. This is the question that needs to be looked at and investigated.
6.7.2.8. The US suggested the definition of overhead be defined. The US
explained if it is just squadron commanders and DOs then that could be a possible
benefit because it can give career development opportunities for not only the US,
but all of the other partner nations to develop their squadron and DO leadership.
The SC Chairman registered the US comment and concluded those seven
positions are seven too much.
6.7.2.9. The ENJJPT Wing Commander asked, “What level of span control do the
partners want to achieve?” The SC has to decide how large do they want their
squadrons.
6.7.2.10. The ENJJPT Wing Commander asked if the SC was looking at the
current student load and number of projections. The ENJJPT Wing Commander
was under the impression the SC is forecasting all of the current student load
numbers to decrease the squadrons. If the SC prefers a program looking to
downsize then that is a different argument. If we are looking at a program at a 200
student load with the ability to increase capacity based on the needs of SC, then
this is a different issue. The ENJJPT Wing Commander concluded by stating
standing up and shutting down squadrons is inefficient to the program as well.
6.7.2.11. The ENJJPT Commander explained there was a lot of discussion about
the squadron validation upon the adjournment of SC 67. The minutes were not
completed on time and did not provide any guidance. The ENJJPT Wing
Commander discussed the issue with the SNRs receiving 8 different opinions.
6.7.2.12. DE reiterated since they re-entered the program a year ago, the average
for their instructor pilots is about 55 hours per week and the PO is 45 on average.
DE would like the two numbers (45 hours and 55 hours) compared to see why the
DE IPs are working 55 hours per week. Also DE inquired if all of the IPs work
approximately 55 hours per week and wanted to assess the breakdown of those
hours and to compare them with the squadron overhead to determine whether or
not the correct balance is in place.
6.7.2.13. The SC Chairman understands DE’s problem, and did not believe the
solution had to do with producing two squadrons. The SC Chairman think there is
a manning problem in terms of IP working hours and IP availability.
6.7.2.14. The US agrees.
6.7.2.15. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained that is in fact his main issue
and requested more guidance on which one of the task (# of squadrons based on
finding the right Student load vs. # squadron ratio; IP working hours; IP
availability) or all of them does the SC want the ENJJPT Wing to pursue.
6.7.2.16. The SC Chairman proposed the SC tasked the PRS to investigate if we
have sufficient IPs based on working hours. The SC Chairman gave an example
by stating if the average is 10 working hours a week more than what that has been
contracted then a problem exists. If that is fact not only for the Danish IPs but for
all of the IPs, then we may not have enough instructor pilots. The SC Chairman
inquires if the PRS can give the SC the current status in terms of what working
hours are relevant to the conversation. The second issue is what is our breakeven
point and when does it not make sense to maintain four squadrons. The SC
Chairman stated the ENJJPT Program is in a good position for the time being
since we are thinking about expanding the program. The SC Chairman stated no
one intends to reduce the problem, but the SC cannot ignore potential accession
requests it might receive in the future. It may be pre-mature to make a decision on
the first day of the SC since there is not a consensus. The SC Chairman foresees if
the student load continues to go down then the SC needs to consider reducing the
number of squadrons not based on our intention to increase, but based on reality
the numbers are decreasing.
6.7.2.17. The SC Chairman concluded with two different tasks for the ENJJPT
Wing: 1.) Review the ENJJPT Wing’s manning working hours; if necessary adapt
the IP requirements if they are too high. 2.) The ENJJPT Wing closely reviewed
the student output rate and if it continued to go down, the SC needs to re-attack
that issue.
6.7.2.18. The ENJJPT Wing Commander asked the SC Chairman if the ENJJPT
Wing is a forward looking program and it is concluded the number of IPs
available or # students are steady, and/or looking to increase, then he is trying to
be efficient with his available overhead; the ENJJPT Wing does not have a staff to
do projects to go figure out the breakpoint details. The ENJJPT Wing Commander
is willing to pursue whatever task set forth by the SC, but the ENJJPT Wing
Commander would consider other variables such as the T-X and looking to other
things the ENJJPT Wing is are actually going impact the program versus a
tasking to go figure out what the breakeven point may not be the best utilization
of manpower.
6.7.2.19. The SC Chairman prioritized the task. 1a) Identify the working hours an
average IP has... 1b) If a problem stems from the working average, then the
ENJJPT Wing needs to investigate it. 2). Monitor if the students load decreases
and revisit the issue if required.
6.7.2.20. GE recommended the SC validate if there are in fact two different
issues. GE stated the squadron was split based on the manning formula. GE
suggested it be deferred to the PRS to allow them to figure on what to look at. The
SC Chairman thought a short term solution needed to happen not in the next five
years. The SC Chairman reiterated to need to start looking into how many
working hours the IPs have and then added to his ENJJPT Wing Commander
brief. The other issues identified can also be looked at, but it should be separated
because DE has a problem today until the SC comes up with a solution.
6.7.2.21. SP wanted to know the reasoning behind three squadrons and instead of
four. The SC Chairman explained the logic is you have the same number of
student loads in the two different systems; therefore there is not any benefit for
three squadrons.
6.7.2.22. The SC agreed to defer the issue to the PRS.
6.7.3. Action Item 67-8: SNR SC Attendance. The SC tasked the ENJJPT Wing
to have the Wing’s PO Working Group include wording in its PO proposal for
SNRs attending Steering Committee meetings. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.14.11.14.7; See SC 68 Minutes 5.11.-5.11.2; 11.7.4; 12.17-12.17.5.; SC 68
Attachment 8) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
6.7.3.1. The ENJJPT Wing proposed the following wording to ENJJPT PO,
Annex 2, paragraph 1“Each User’s Senior National Representative (SNR) should
attend the ENJJPTSC meetings at User’s expense.”
6.7.3.2. The ENJJPT Wing Commander recommended deferring it to the PRS and
FLS for discussion.
6.7.3.3. The SC took note and deferred it to the FLS and PRS.
6.7.4. Action Item 67-10: AETC’s Letter of Integrity. The SC task the ENJJPT
Wing to develop a method to meet the intent of AETC’s Letter of Integrity. (Ref.
SC 67 Minutes 11.17.1.-11.17.7; See SC 68 Minutes 5.13.1-5.13.2, 11.9.5;
12.19.- 12.19.3.) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
6.7.4.1. The OG staff and OSS worked with SNRs to develop process to satisfy
the intent of AETC’s Letter of Integrity
6.7.4.2. All students were briefed on ENJJPT’s Integrity Policy and documented
as a P-mission.
6.7.4.3 The ENJJPT Wing Commander requested the SC defer it to the PRS for
review.
6.7.4.4. GE also recommended it be deferred to the FLS for legal review.
6.7.4.5. The SC took note and deferred it to the FLS and PRS. (Ref. SC 68
Minutes 11.9.5, 12.19-12.19.3).
7. AIRCRAFT PROGRAMS BRIEFINGS
7.1. T-6A Programs Briefing (See SC 68 Attachment 10) was presented by Mr. Bryan
Knoll on behalf of the SPO at Wright-Patterson AFB. The briefing discussed T-6
Funding Summary, Funding Timeline; Wing stringer drain hole rework complete as of
March 2014; future modifications to include ADS-B Out, Canopy Fracture Initiation
System (CFIS), Wing Rib one repair/correction; ATD DAS II - Control loading Retrofit;
and Rudder Binding Repair.
7.1.1. The T-6 Brief addressed the increased sustainment cost as per Action Item 67-11.
The following FY13 costs are not all inclusive. The specific cost drivers are the
following: FY13 Sheppard COMBS Services - $1,149,019; FY13 Sheppard Cost Per
Flight Hour - $4,847,036; FY13 Sheppard Cost Per Flight Hour - $4,847,036; 98 FY13
Sheppard Parachute Repacks - $733,726;9 Engine Overhauls and 3 O&A repairs $13,630,000. (See SC 68 Attachment 10, Slide 12)
7.1.2 The SC took note.
7.2. T-38 Programs Briefing (See SC 68 Attachment 11) was presented by the T-38
SPO Representative (US). Briefing covered T-38 Life Extension, T-38 Funding Timeline,
Pacer Classic III (PCIII) funding summary, parts overview, way ahead; Video Data
Transfer System /Speed Brake Indicator Switch (VDTS/SBIS) funding and timeline.
New modification efforts include Automatic Dependence Surveillance Broadcast (ADSB), T-38C Avionics Component Integration (AVCI), PCIII Way Ahead, and the T-38
Anti-Skid/Brake program, and Forward Canopy Development.
7.2.1. The T-38 Brief addressed the increased sustainment cost as per Action Item 67-11.
The following FY13 cost drivers increased T-38 sustainment cost: New -33 Wings and
Wing Tips – Sheppard FY13 Costs $8,424,281.70 for 5 wing sets; New Landing Gear –
Sheppard FY13 Costs $1,753,685.04 for 12 ship sets; Fatigue Critical Locations Additional Inspections ~157 man-hours per aircraft. (See SC 68 Attachment 11, Slide
18)
7.2.2. The following FY14 costs are not all inclusive. The specific cost drivers are the
following: New -33 Wings and Wing Tips – Sheppard FY14 Costs $8,424,281.70 for 5
wing sets; New Landing Gear – Sheppard FY14 Costs $1,607,544.62 for 11 ship
Sets;Lower Center Longeron – Sheppard FY14 Costs $740,573.40 to replace 8
longerons; Fatigue Critical Locations - Additional Inspections ~157 man-hours per
aircraft; Asbestos Removal – Sheppard FY14 Costs ~$1,915,462.00 for 42 aircraft;
Attach Lower Aft Support Cracks – LH $4,843.35 RH $4,090.35. (See SC 68
Attachment 11, Slide 19)
7.2.3. The SC took note and closed Action Item 67-11 and 64-3.
8. PLAN OF OPERATIONS CHANGES
8.1. The ENJJPT Wing EP provided the PO Change Brief to the SC. (See SC Attachment
17)
8.1.1 The ENJJPT/EP brief discussed proposed PO Changes to the current edition. The
PO Change memos have been posted on the APAN. The following PO Changes were
briefed: Annex 2 - SNR SC Attendance; Annex 6 - Adding two rated positions; Annex
6/6A - Deleting 14 rated positions; Annex 6 & 7 - Miscellaneous Changes; Annex 7 Adding COMBS QAE position; Annex 7A - Adding ATCALS positions.
8.1.2. The SC Chairman requested the ENJJPT/EP explain the definition of “EU” on
Slide 4 of the PO Change Brief. The request to change all references to “EUR” with
“EU”. (See SC 68 Attachment 17, Slide 4)
8.1.3. The SC agreed to defer the PO Change Brief to the PRS and FLS.
8.1.4. The SC agreed to defer the “EU” acronym issue to the FLS. The SC Chairman
cautioned the term need to be identified and it cannot be inadvertently replaced without
justification.
PO Working Group
SC 68 PO Revision Discussions
8.2. The PRS Chairman explained as per FLS discussions the draft of the 18th edition
structure has evolved. The PO Working Group moved parts of chapters and annexes to
consolidate and streamline the PO. The FLS stated that disassociation of the PO from
references in the MOU from a legal standpoint is unacceptable.
8.2.1. The SC Chairman stressed that the draft of the18th Edition in its current format
cannot be approved since the FLS did not receive consensus due to legal considerations.
8.2.3. The SC discussed the way ahead and came up with the following tasks:
1. The SC tasked the FLS to inform the SC of the specific paragraphs in the draft PO that
are in conflict with the MOU Amendment 6 after the next FLS meeting in January 2015.
2. The SC tasked the FLS to update Section 7 of the PO.
3. The ENJJPT Wing was tasked to send a representative to the FLS meeting in January
2015.
4. The SC tasked the FLS to provide support to the ENJJPT Wing who needs to rewrite
the draft PO to overcome the legal concerns.
8.3.3. The SC took note.
9. SYLLABUS CHANGES
9.1. Syllabus Changes were addressed annually and will be addressed at SC 69.
9.1.1. The SC took note.
10. ADDITIONAL ITEMS
IT Student Enrollment
10.1. GE Student Vacancies
10.1.1. On 23 June 2014, the SC was informed GE would not be able to fill three
student slots in class 15-07 starting July 18, 2014. In response to the notification,
both IT and the US have expressed interest in filling the vacancies. (See SC 68
Attachment 18)
10.1.2. The SC Chairman sent a letter to the SC explaining the final decision on
which nation it preferred to fill its vacant slots on 7 July 2014.
10.1.3. GE accepted the US request due to the fact that the US could enroll their
students in both the T-6 and T-38 phases.
10.2. IT’s Enrollment Request
10.2.1. On 15 July 2014, IT provided an official memo requesting endorsements
from the SC and the ENJJPT Wing to enroll 10 additional students for the Phase
I/II (T-6) into Class 15-07 and 15-08.
10.2.2. All nations endorsed IT’s request. The endorsements are posted on the
APAN SC 68 Media Gallery.
10.2.3. The ENJJPT Wing endorsed IT’s request to enroll 10 students into Phase
II (T-6). (See SC 68 Attachment 19)
10.2.4. The SC approved it.
10.3. MOU Amendment 6
10.3.1. The FLS will provide the SC Update as part of the FLS Out-brief.
10.4. RO Participation Interest
10.4.1. RO explained they were contemplating signing the MOU. Thus far, an
official decision has not been made by their Ministry of Defense.
10.5. ENJJPT Expansion
10.5.1. The US explained, the new Air Education and Training Commander,
General Rand raised the question during CORONA (Four Star Summit) on how to
increase ENJJPT Participation among the current Users and add new Users. The
US requested recommendation from the SC on how to solicit interest from other
countries and how to increase participation especially by new Users. In
accordance with the MOU, the US will be taking on a more active role trying to
enlist new Users to generate increased participation at ENJJPT.
10.5.2. The US asked the SC for guidance and if it would be best if the issue be
discussed as a monetary issue or is it a process or mechanics issue on how new
Users become a full time member.
.
10.5.3. The SC Chairman revised the question and inquired if the members of
ENJJPT are willing to accept a full time member. If they just want to accept a
limited partnership or full partnership. This is an issue that needs to be discussed
in the forum. Some current members suggested new members must have the same
rights as the NATO partners. The SC Chairman strongly recommended this issue
be discussed before a country outside of NATO request to accede to the program.
The SC Chairman has told the ENJJPT Wing Commander and the US that he
should not elaborate on conditions or options when trying to enlist participation.
10.5.4. The SC Chairman asked the US if he would like an Action Item created to
be deferred to the PRS and FLS. The SC Chairman would like the FLS to review
the legal aspects of acceding to the ENJJPT Program. The SC Chairman
understands the review might not be fully completed by the end of the SC 68, but
would like the subcommittees to see how far they can go with their reviews
during this conference.
10.5.5. DE reminded the SC this discussion has already occurred when discussing
the amendment. DE explained to the SC Chairman that the SC had previously
discussed the accession of NATO and Non-NATO members (SC 66 and SC 67).
DE further explained the SC could not agree upon explicit language to be inserted
into the MOU on how Non-NATO and NATO members could accede to the
program. DE suggests the SC does not revisit the issue again.
10.5.6. The US explained that the current MOU Amendment 5 Section 13
accession language in which the SC agreed to revert back to at SC 66. This
language does not prohibit Non-NATO members from joining ENJJPT.
Therefore, the US is asking the SC to identify the process allowing countries such
as Australia to join the ENJJPT Program.
10.5.7. The DE explained the SC discussed an Executive Session without writing
anything down and to have the discussion in a close session.
10.5.8. DE agreed with the SC Chairman if it comes to that case, then an
Executive Session should be the way to address the issue. DE further elaborated if
anyone could not agree upon that non-NATO member there would not be any
minutes or identifying who disapproved the membership request.
10.5.9. GE stated that Amendment 6 will include the Amendment 5 Section 13
verbiage. The SC attempted to get NATO and Non-NATO language into the
MOU, but one of the members had concerns with a Non-NATO member
becoming a voting member on conditions, syllabi, or other documents impacting
the program. GE reminded the SC at the end of the discussion, the SC agreed to
revert back to Amendment 5 Section 13 language which did not restrict NonNATO members from joining. GE stated according to the MOU and PO, the US
is the leading host nation for starting negotiations with new partners. Therefore,
the US is in charge and it is the US responsibility to discuss what options a new
member could have concerning a voting member and non-voting member.
10.5.10. The SC Chairman has acknowledged the interest of the respective nation
to join then it would be as GE stated a need for an Executive Session (with
recommendations SNRs do not participate). The SC would call an Executive
Session to discuss the accession request. The SC will then have to come up with
conclusion whether there was a consensus or not. The SC Chairman explained
this is all the SC could offer as guidance at this point. If a Non-NATO nation is
interested the SC needs to discuss it as agreed by the partner nation. If this is
something we all can agree on.
10.5.11. The US agreed that an Executive Session was discussed. Therefore, it
was deferred to the PRS to define the term “Executive Session”.
10.5.12. DE agreed that it was actually to be written into the PO. It is not written
in the PO.
10.5.13. The US recommended that the SC could wait until a non-NATO member
formally requested permission or put a procedure in place so the SC is prepared
for such a request.
10.5.14. The SC Chairman agreed with the US with implementing a procedure in
order to be prepared, but there is not a solution that fits all of the nation’s
preferences. If A or B is joining there might be a significant difference. Therefore,
the SC Chairman recommended discussing the issue in an Executive session.
10.5.15. The SC Chairman also recommended it will be beneficial to develop a
procedure to be prepared. It could be called a “close session” or “executive
session”. It has yet to be officially defined or labeled. The SC Chairman foresees
13 partners sitting in the room participating in open discussion which is already a
procedure. The SC Chairman proposed both committees discuss the issue. The
SC Chairman requested the FLS review the legal objections and the PRS would
need to look at problems that could arise with a non-NATO member.
10.5.16. The SC Chairman asked if the two task is something the SC could be
agreed upon.
10.5.17. The SC Chairman reiterated the SC should not be caught completely off
guard if a non-NATO member would like to join the ENJJPT Program. The SC
Chairman would like the SC be prepared. Specifically, homework means the SC
should know how to react if a Non- NATO country would like join ENJJPT. One
option could be for the SC Chairman to call an Executive Session of the SC where
all opinions given would be treated in strict confidence. Then the SC comes up
with a result with no name; a result only would be produced. The SC Chairman
implied this could be a procedure written down and established in the PO. The SC
Chairman further stated the FLS would investigate whether there are legal
challenges that would prevent a concept from going forward.
10.6. PO Change and UMD Synchronization Status
10.6.1. The PRS Secretary explained a PO Number modification proposal was
presented at SC 67. The SC approved the proposal at SC 67. The PRS Secretary
explained the PRS is waiting to make changes to the PO in order to prevent
separate changes being made for the sole purpose of adding the UMD number to
it. For example, when a change is made in Annex 6, the PRS will add that change
in UMD. The PRS Secretary reiterates the requirement has already been
approved. (Ref. SC 66 Minutes 11.9.6-11.9.7; See SC 67 Minutes 12.12.-12.12.4,
8.4.-8.4.3; SC 67 PRS Attachment 11)
10.6.2. The SC took note.
11. POLICY RECOMMENDATION SUBCOMMITTEE (PRS) REPORT
11.1. The PRS Chairman briefed the SC 68 PRS report. SC 68 Minutes have extracted
the contents of the SC 68 PRS Report to create Section 11; therefore the PRS report will
not be included in the SC 68 Book.
11.2. PRS gave final approval to SC 67 PRS minutes without changes.
11.2.1. SC took note.
11.3. PRS reviewed National Requests for IP Extensions.
11.3.1. PRS reviewed updated IP extension requests from GE, NO, NL, and the
US and accepted all extensions.
11.3.2. SC approved IP extensions.
11.4. PRS reviewed UPT and IFF Entries FY15 – FY19
11.4.1. Users provided SP entries to the Management Analyst prior to SC.
11.4.2. The PRS reviewed and confirmed all entries.
11.4.3. The ENJJPT Wing Commander confirmed the actual IFF capacity was
172.
11.4.4. The US agreed to move UPT and IFF students within years to help
balance classes.
11.4.5. The PRS provided two recommendations. RECOMMENDATION 1: SC
take note. RECOMMENDATION 2: SC approve UPT student and IFF inputs.
11.4.6. The SC approved both recommendations.
11.5. Review Student/IP Participation.
11.5.1. PRS reviewed UPT and IFF participation for FY15-19.
11.5.2. PRS reviewed and validated IP requirements.
11.5.3. The ENJJPT Wing is projected to be short T-6 IPs in FY15 and 16.
11.5.4. The Users are fixing the problem through various methods.
11.5.5. The ENJJPT Wing Commander can graduate students on time even with
IP shortages.
11.5.6. The SC took note.
11.6. PRS reviewed CAT I / II / III Positions.
11.6.1. GE did not agree to change criteria for CAT I changes.
11.6.2. PRS filled CAT II/IIA positions through FY17.
11.6.3. SC took note and closed Action Items 67-3 and 67-4.
11.7. PRS reviewed Proposed Changes to PO. (See SC 68 Attachment 12)
11.7.1. PRS agreed with TU’s PIT proposed changes, but with additional
wording.
11.7.2. PRS discussed IT’s proposed change but did not see any PRS action.
11.7.3. The 80 OGT also briefed what appeared a noticeable drop in the Phase II
formation scores and an increase in Phase III and IFF.
11.7.4. The PRS agreed with the Wing’s annex 2 change for SNRs and feels very
strongly, that as a matter of policy, it should be added.
11.7.5. The PRS agreed with all of the Wing’s annex 6, 6A, 7, and 7A changes.
11.7.6. 1.) RECOMMENDATION 1: SC approve TU proposed PO change with
additional wording 2.) RECOMMENDATION 2: SC approve all of the Wing’s
proposed PO changes. The FLS addressed the issue as well.
11.7.7. The SC took note and awaited FLS Out-brief before approving proposed
recommendations.
11.8. ENJJPT Wing Commanders Facility Requests
11.8.1. PRS determined there is an operational need for a “clean room”.
11.8.2. PRS determined there is an operational need to renovate the Paint Barn.
11.8.3. PRS determined there is an operational need to renovate the ENJJPT
dorm.
11.8.4. SC took note.
11.9. AI 65-2, SC Directed Items
11.9.1. AI 67-4, CAT I Eligibility. PRS Briefed Agenda Item 7: Category I/II/III
Positions. The discussion points were GE did not agree to the change criteria for
CAT I changes and the PRS filled CAT II/IIA positions through FY17. The SC
took note and closed AI 67-3 and AI 67-4 (See 68 Minutes; 4.2.3-4.2.5; 11.6.11.6.3)
11.9.2. AI 67-6, TU PIT PO Proposal Change. See agenda item 8.
11.9.3. AI 67-9, IT PO Proposal Change: T-38 Track A&B Proposal. See agenda
item 8.
11.9.4. AI 67-5, Squadron Split Validation. The original basis for squadron split
still exists. The ENJJPT Wing is working additional efficiency changes.
11.9.5. AI 67-10, AETC Letter of Integrity (LOI). ENJJPT Wing academic
briefing built from LOI. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.17.1.-11.17.7.; SC 68 Minutes
6.7.4 -6.7.4.3; 12.19-12.19.3)
11.9.6. Executive Session Process. Executive session needs to be defined. SC
Chairman needs to call for session and determine ROE. Definition needs to be
included in PO glossary.
11.9.7. The recommendation; SC took note and closed AIs 67-4, 67-6, AI 67-9,
67-5, AI 67-10. (See SC 68 Minutes 4.3-4.3.4)
11.9.8. The PRS Chairman explained an Executive Session has been done in the
past. If an Executive Session is needed then the SC would rely on past
precedence.
11.9.9. The SC Chairman requested to know PRS’ definition of “past precedence”
and asked what has been done in the past.
11.9.10. The PRS Chairman explained the precedence to be the following: The
SC Chairman would call an Executive Session. The SC Members attending that
particular SC meeting and the SC Secretary would meet. The SC Chairman has
the authority to put any other ROEs in place. The Executive Session is also
referred to as a closed session.
11.9.11. The SC took note.
11.10. ENJJPT X Strategy.
11.10.1. The ENJJPT Wing is pushing forward with future strategy.
11.10.2. The PRS is pleased with the ENJJPT Wing’s efforts.
11.10.3. Individual nations need to provide training requirements to the ENJJPT
Wing.
11.10.4. SNRs are the best conduit.
11.10.5. The PRS recommended the SC tasked each nation to support the ENJJPT
X strategy by having its SNRs provide the ENJJPT Wing with its country’s future
training requirements.
11.10.6. The SC took note and asked each nation SNR’s to provide the ENJJPT
Wing with its future training requirements.
11.11. PO Working Group 18th Edition.
11.11.1. The PRS reviewed the PO 18th Edition based on policy. The inputs will
be provided to US Legal for consolidation.
11.11.2. The FLS Chairman requested the FLS receive the PO Change brief from
the ENJJPT/EP before making a decision on the way ahead.
11.11.3. SC took note and awaited the FLS proposal on the way ahead.
11.12. The SC 66 PRS Minutes approval.
11.12.1. The PRS approved the SC 67 draft minutes.
11.12.2. The SC took note.
12. FINANCIAL-LEGAL SUBCOMMITTEE (FLS) REPORT
12.1. The FLS Chairman, briefed the FLS Report. SC 68 Minutes have extracted the
contents of the SC 68 FLS Report to create Section 12; therefore the FLS report will not
be included in the SC 68 Book.
12.1.1. The SC 67 FLS minutes were reviewed and no changes were requested.
12.1.2. The SC took note.
12.2. The FLS reviewed FLS Preparation Meeting Minutes.
12.2.1. The SC 67 FLS Preparation minutes were reviewed, and no changes were
requested.
12.2.2. The SC took note.
12.3. The FLS reviewed FY13 Draft FSA.
12.3.1. FY13 Draft FSA pending claim for equitable adjustment of DYNCORP
contract decision.
12.3.2. No changes were requested.
12.3.3. Timeline: ENJJPT FM will provide update at January 2015 pre-FLS
meeting for SC approval at SC-69.
12.3.4. FLS recommended the SC take note.
12.3.5. SC took note.
12.4. The FLS reviewed FY14 EOY BUDGET.
12.4.1. FY14 EOY.
12.4.2. The FLS endorsed with no requested changes.
12.4.3. The SC took note.
12.5. FY15 LOA Budget
12.5.1. ENJJPT FM received request from FLS to update FY15 Budget.
12.5.2. Action item for ENJJPT FM to provide revised budget prior to pre-FLS
meeting January 2015.
12.5.3. No LOA adjustments will occur prior to January 2015.
12.5.4. The SC took note.
12.6. Aircraft Modifications
12.6.1. T38 PM briefed FLS on program cost through 2023.
12.6.2. FLS noted no cost changes for FY14-16.
12.6.3. The SC took note.
12.7. FLS reviewed LOA Closure.
12.7.1. US Financial Representative briefed case closure status for FY03-FY12.
12.7.2. FY03-04 was closed in FY14.
12.7.3. The SC took note.
12.8. MOU Discussions
12.8.1. MOU Amendment 6 currently being staffed for signature in accordance
with each country’s national procedures, currently no issues identified.
12.8.2. The FLS Chairman explained not all of the changes were incorporated at
the SC 67. Therefore, the FLS inserted those changes at the FLS Preparation
Meeting in May 2014. The SC Secretary distributed the revised version of MOU
Amendment 6 to the SC Members on 27 May 2014. This version of MOU
Amendment 6 is currently undergoing staffing through each nation’s respective
ministries.
12.8.3. The SC Chairman asked the FLS Chairman if SC 70 would be a realistic
goal to complete the MOU Amendment staffing process and produce a signed
document.
12.8.4. The FLS Chairman explained it would contingent upon each nation’s
staffing process.
12.8.5. The US believed that barring any unforeseen circumstances Amendment 6
will be signed by the time of SC 70.
12.8.6. The SC Chairman agreed stating it is the SC’s best guess for the time
being.
12.8.7. The SC took note.
12.9. Proposed PO Changes, 17th Edition Change 2.
12.9.1. The FLS reviewed ENJJPT Wing PO changes brief presented at SC68,
17th edition change 2.
12.9.2. There is no financial or legal impact identified.
12.9.3. An administrative error was identified in reference to position 6506, which
should read 6604.
12.9.4. The SC approved proposed PO changes with correction to administrative
error.
12.10. SC Directed Items – FY14 ENJJPT Wing CC Project Fund
12.10.1. ENJJPT Wing CC requested authorization to exceed $2M threshold by
$55k to execute the maintenance composite cleaning room project.
12.10.2. FLS agreed to support this request, but indicated this should not set a
precedence to exceed threshold.
12.10.3. SC approved ENJJPT Wing CC request.
12.11. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – FY15 Paint Barn Project
12.11.1. The ENJJPT Wing CC requested authority to exceed $200k single item
threshold for the paint barn modernization project, currently estimated at $2M.
12.11.2. The FLS indicated Wing CC project funds are already included in the
LOA budget.
12.11.3. The FLS recommended the SC support this project.
12.11.4. The SC approved the authority to exceed $200k single item threshold.
12.12. SC-DIRECTED ITEMS: FY16 ENJJPT Dorm Room Renovation
12.12.1. ENJJPT Wing CC requested renovation project of ENJJPT dorms.
12.12.2. FLS requested SC to task ENJJPT Wing to provide cost breakout of
dorm renovation project.
12.12.3. The US Financial Representative recommended ENJJPT Wing to include
project on AFCEC IPL (Air Force Civil Engineering Center Installation Project
Listing), March timeframe.
12.12.4. GE inquired if the US will pay for the renovations.
12.12.5. The US Financial Representative explained the ENJJPT program will
have to go through the AFCEC IPL process to get approval to use the Air Force
portion to fund a civil engineering project. Furthermore, the ENJJPT program
would have to get the AFCEC IPL funding approval before the SC funding can be
used.
12.12.6. The SC Chairman requested a timeline; when should the SC expect the
ENJJPT Wing Commander to forward the cost breakout in order to make the
March timeframe for request.
12.12.7. The US Financial Representative responded by stating, the March
timeframe is actually when the US Air Force reviews the IPL. Therefore, the
ENJJPT Wing Commander will need to have the recommendation to AETC
through the AFCEC by March 2015. Once the ENJJPT Wing Commander
receives the approval, the US Financial Representative can move forward with his
plans.
12.12.8. The SC Chairman explained there are two apparent tasks related to this
issue. First, the ENJJPT Wing will provide the SC a cost breakout to allow them
to make the decision whether to request funds through the AFCEC IPL process.
The deadline for the cost breakout would be by the FLS Meeting in January 2015.
Second, the US must request funding approval through AFCEC IPL process after
SC endorses the cost breakout and timeline.
12.12.9. The SC Chairman asked the ENJJPT Wing Commander if he could abide
by the January 2015 deadline.
12.12.10. The ENJJPT Wing Commander concurred but cautioned the SC he
would have to rely on an outside organization to provide the data. The ENJJPT
Wing would have to get a design in order to provide a closer rough order of
magnitude. The ENJJPT Wing Commander will be able to define the cost
between facility and furnishings which are aligned with the two existing line
items. The ENJJPT Wing Commander will be able to give a much more detailed
analysis by January, but it may not be the final complete analysis due to their
reliance on outside agencies.
12.12.11. GE inquired when the US will expect approval based on the fact a
similar project (shoulder repair) had problems in the past. Funds were needed at a
certain point in the process and in the end the funds were not executed because
US funds were not available.
12.12.12. The US Financial Representative responded by stating, the US will have
to go back and ask those questions because it is outside the ENJJPT Wing and
outside of AFSAT. The question has to be directed to AFCEC because they
manage the process.
12.12.13. The ENJJPT Wing Commander explained to the SC he is trying to work
through US channels to streamline the process to ensure the funding is available.
12.12.14. GE requested the task be addressed in the following order: TASK 1.)
The ENJJPT Wing provide a cost breakout and Task 2) The US will provide a
funding timeline by January 2015 Preparation Meeting. If the SC approves the
cost breakout and timeline, the US will request funding to be approved through
AFCEC IPL process.
12.12.15. The ENJJPT Wing Commander made it clear Task 1 should be tasked
to the ENJJPT Wing. Task 2 should go to the US.
12.12.16. The SC concurred and created SC 68 Action Item 68-1 for Task 1
(ENJJPT Wing Cost Breakout ).
12.l2.17. The SC created Action 68-2 asking the US to provide the SC a (Funding
Timeline).
12.13. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – ENJJPT Cost Estimate for Showcasing
12.13.1. The ENJJPT Wing CC requested FLS to provide a cost estimate for
ENJJPT program showcasing.
12.13.2. FLS discussed and agreed that this can only be handled on a case by case
basis by ENJJPT FM.
12.13.3. The SC took note.
12.14. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – Way Ahead on the PO
12.14.1. The FLS discussed this issue and deferred it to discussions with the SC
after the FLS Out-brief.
12.14.2. The SC took note.
12.15. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – Romanian Accession Options
12.15.1. SC tasked FLS to explore financial and legal options.
12.15.2. FLS determined that any financial or legal options must be negotiated in
accordance with Section 8 and 13 of the MOU.
12.15.3. FLS highly recommends Romania accession be included in MOU
Amendment 7.
12.15.4. The SC Chairman asked Romania their way ahead in terms of joining the
program.
12.15.5. RO explained from this point they will have to staff an analysis through
to their Chief of Air Force. If approved, RO will send a memorandum requesting
the SC for membership. RO explained legal procedures and financial analysis will
take some time.
12.15.6.The SC Chairman recommended based on RO’s response the SC wait to
include RO in Amendment 7. The FLS Chairman explained it is possible to begin
work on Amendment 7 to be prepared for RO’s potential accession to the
program.
12.16. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – Turkish PIT Training Proposal (Ref. SC 68 Attachment
7; SC 68 Attachment 12: SC 68 ENJJPT Wing CC Brief, Slide 39-40; SC 68 Minutes
11.7-11.7.7)
12.16.1. FLS did not agree on the original Turkish IP proposal. There were issues
of 1) Feasibility 2) PO 3) Financial Impacts. Based on the information provided,
the FLS could not come to a decision at this time.
12.16.2. PRS Chairman and Turkish PRS rep briefed FLS on updated proposal.
(Non-permanent duty PIT trainees will be considered as students)
12.16.3. FLS understood this would require PIT/UIP student sending nations
would be handled the same as UPT/IFF student sending nations.
12.16.4. FLS tasked the ENJJPT FM to assess cost associated with this proposal
to discuss at January 2015 pre-FLS meeting.
12.16.5. Italy pointed out that changes to the MOU are strongly recommended
and necessary for the PO.
12.16.6. TU inquired which sections in the MOU are against their proposal.
12.16.7. IT explained in Section 4 of the MOU there is a distinction between UPT
and IFF. The PIT must send another student to cover the UPT student; same for
IFF. While the IFF and PIT models do not support the proposal, there is nothing
wrong with the proposed language.
12.16.8. The SC Chairman reviewed IT’s concern. IT supports TU’s proposal in
principle, but has legal consideration the SC must address. The SC as whole
would like to support TU’s proposal.
12.16.9. The FLS Chairman reminded the SC there are no provisions to
accommodate Turkey’s request. Based on the information provided, the FLS
could not come to a decision at this time. FLS will continue discussions at the preFLS meeting January 2015.
12.16.10. The SC Chairman asked if there is any possibility of the SC developing
a solution to overcome the “no provision” challenge.
12.16.11. TU reviewed IT’s point “changes to the MOU are strongly
recommended which needs to be supported with specific wording within the
sections of the MOU” are not valid. TU referenced MOU Section 2 and stated that
the program is composed of UPT, PIT, UIP, and IFF training. There is nothing
mentioned in Section 4 about PIT. PRS recommended adding another sentence to
the PO to say, “Non-permanent duty PIT trainees will be considered as students
for the purpose of generating proper ENJJPT instructor requirements and
appropriate financial calculations”. This sentence will make it more transparent.
12.16.12. DE explained from a PRS perspective, there is not a nation against TU’s
proposal. DE proposed identifying the legal and financial aspects that would be
against the proposal. Then find out how to mitigate those impacts.
12.16.13. The SC Chairman agreed with DE and asked the SC if there is an option
the SC can agree on how to overcome the IT considerations.
12.16.14. IT suggested the change in the MOU is a necessity. IT explained when
PIT instructors are treated as students it will impact the ENJJPT budget. IT stated
the budget is built a certain way and until the new budget associated with the
proposal is presented, IT cannot agree to TU’s proposal. IT can approve the
principle, but would like to see the financials.
12.16.15. The SC Chairman explained the PIT students cost a certain amount of
funding and that this cost is known by all nations. Therefore, if TU is willing to
pay for the training, then the financial considerations should be sufficient.
12.16.16. IT responded by stating any financial implications affecting the other
nations should be considered. The amount and the weight might fluctuate which
could drive a new student load and new student IP requirement generating a new
shortfall. The financial impacts include flying hours, uniforms, overhead
positions; shortfalls impacting the entire program, etc.
12.16.17. US agreed with DE’s proposal identifying legal and financial impacts to
mitigate them. TU would like the SC to focus first on legal impacts prior to the
financial impacts.
12.16.18. The SC Chairman asked TU’s short term and long term request.
12.16.19. TU specifically is looking for a PO Change or PO addition request for
all the nations. It might be short term or long term depending on the financial
outcome of the necessary calculations. If there is a significant difference between
FMS PIT training at Randolph and ENJJPT, TU will consider FMS IP training at
Randolph.
12.16.20. The SC Chairman interjected by stating IT had a short term request with
student enrollment and the SC supported it. Now TU has a short term
request, and believes the ENJJPT structure is flexible enough to handle it.
12.16.21. TU explained it is not a short tem request if you look at IPs and student
weight for the next five years, the SC is almost at zero. There is not any surplus
IPs, therefore we cannot send any trainers through the program even it was
approved by the SC.
12.16.22. The SC Chairman suggested IT get all of the calculations correct prior
to the SC implementing the proposal.
12.16.23. IT’s stated from their perspective, they preferred to add it into the
ENJJPT financials and the manning mechanism for all of the classes to see what
the implications. There is not any PIT manning formula that exists. IT will go
back and review the MOU as well for the next SC.
12.16.24. DE stated that financial and manning calculations will just be a snap
shot due to the fact it will change in the next 6 months.
12.16.25. US thinks TU does not know how many students it would like to send
through PIT at this time.
12.16.26. IT asked if the TU request takes into account instructors being counted
for UPT.
12.16.27. TU explained it is not written in their request. It does say upon SC
approval and with coordination with the ENJJPT Wing nations may send PIT
trainees for non-permanent reasons. Even if the proposal is accepted by the SC,
unless there is concurrence of SC and endorsement of the ENJJPT Wing, TU
cannot send any PIT trainees to the program.
12.16.28. The SC Chairman would like to identify the circumstances if the
ENJJPT Wing decided “NO” or “Yes”; the SC needs to find a consensus.
12.16.29. CA stated their understanding of the TU proposal sent for consideration
to the FLS was not to question whether or not to support the proposal, but to
recommend a way that the TU proposal could be supported. From CA’s
perspective it is only a manning formula issue. In the “Spirit of ENJJPT” this
should be a supportable proposal from TU, because we know that when it comes
to student entries, they are all approved by the SC, and IFF and UPT will likely
always be prioritized above PIT-only students. If in the manning formulas TU
does not provide enough IPs, it would result in a payment that benefits all
members of the program.
12.16.30. TU referenced their proposal. The proposal dated 7 May 2014 explained
Turkey requested a paragraph addition to ENJJPT PO below: Para 3.3.3: "PIT
Trainee Commitment: After consultation with ENJJPT Wing and approval from
the SC, users may send PIT Trainees who will not be assigned as permanent party
members in the Program. Permanent party IP inputs will always take precedence
and the IP inputs for PIT only Training will depend on the available capacity of
the Program." Additionally the SC Chairman was briefed during PRS Out-brief
that PIT trainees will be considered as students for the purpose of generating
proper ENJJPT instructor requirements and appropriate calculations.
12.16.31. The FLS Chairman requested the SC review bullet number 3 on the FLS
Out-brief: SC Directed Items – Turkish IP Proposal. The SC Chairman confirmed
there was already a consensus in the FLS.
12.16.32. The SC Chairman requested a consensus from all nations present to
support TU’s proposal in principle. The SC Secretary will contact PO to get their
concurrence. The SC Chairman asked the SC how the proposal will be
implemented. The SC Chairman recommended tasking the FLS again to review
the financial and legal ramifications; develop a proposal to be presented to the SC.
12.16.33. NL requested clarification of the task by asking if it was a FLS task or
US Financial Manager task.
12.16.34. The FLS Chairman agreed to develop a proposal at the January
Preparatory Meeting.
12.16.35. GE stated that more guidance is needed. The question to be answered is
“Should we treat those PIT students as regular students?” Once this question is
answered, a financial analysis could be generated.
12.16.36. The US reviewed the FLS Out-brief bullet where the FLS did not agree
on the original Turkish IP proposal. The US explained when the SC tasked the
FLS to make a decision on a proposal or whether they agree or disagree it cannot
be deflected back to the SC without providing a valid reason such as legal
insufficiency.
12.16.37. The UK Legal explained the task may not have been specific enough for
the FLS to provide details.
12.16.38. The SC Chairman concluded after receiving consensus by summarizing
the following 1) The SC agreed to TU’s PO proposal in principle. 2) The SC
tasked the ENJJPT FM to produce a cost estimate based on PIT trainee treated as
regular student proposal, “Non-permanent duty PIT trainees will be considered as
students for the purpose of generating proper ENJJPT instructor requirements and
appropriate financial calculations.” 3) The FLS needs to propose language to be
inserted into a potential MOU Amendment 7 for better clarification.
12.17. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – SNR Attendance at each Users Expense
12.17. 1. The FLS determined that it is left up to the individual nation’s discretion
to send SNRs for SC participation.
12.17.2. The SC Chairman asked do we need to modify the FLS solution based on
the desires of some nations.
12.17.3. The PRS Chairman explained the intent of the PO language is to give any
country some leverage via PO verbiage to use when staffing their request through
their chain of commands such as “strongly recommend” or “highly encouraged”.
The US requested the FLS provide verbiage explaining what is legally sufficient
and to identify the language to be inserted in the PO.
12.17.4. The SC Chairman asked the FLS to produce more solutions other than
what was on the FLS Out-brief slide which will not be included in the SC 68
Book. The SC Chairman recommended the FLS present a proposal on the
language that needs to be used to emphasize the benefits of the SNRs
participation.
12.17.5. The SC took note and tasked the FLS to conduct a more thorough review.
The SC Closed Action Item 67-8. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.14.-11.14.7; See SC 68
Minutes 5.11.-5.11.2; 11.7.4; SC 68 Attachment 8; Action Item SC 68-6)
12.18. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – ITALY T-38 TRACK A & B PROPOSAL
12.18.1. The FLS decided to treat proposal as a PO change to the current PO
12.18.2. The FLS made note that this change is an administrative update to align
MOU verbiage to PO with no cost impact.
12.18.3. SC approved proposal. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.16-11.16.5; SC 68
Minutes 5.12.-5.12.1; 12.8.1-12.8.3 )
12.19. SC DIRECTED ITEMS – LETTER OF INTEGRITY
12.19.1. The FLS opposes signing a letter by each student, noting disciplinary
actions are already in place for each individual country
12.19.2. The FLS has no issue with including integrity statement into the course
syllabus
12.19.3. The PRS Chairman summarized the ENJJPT Wing CC brief by stating
the PRS agreed the academic briefing presented by the ENJJPT Wing is sufficient
to 1.) Fulfill the intent of the integrity issue. 2) Fulfill the partner nation’s
resistance for any legal signing it. Therefore, the brief is given to the students to
ensure they receive the message.
12.19.3. The FLS recommended to approve the ENJJPT Wing’s approach on the
integrity issue. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.17.1.-11.17.7.; SC 68 Minutes 5.135.13.1; 6.7.4-6.7.4.3; 11.9.5 )
12.19.4. The SC approved and closed Action Item 67-10.
12.20. FLS: OTHER BUSINESS
12.20.1. The FLS requested copies of the USAF Accounts Receivable guide
process maps developed during the AFSAT hosted Rapid Improvement Event.
12.20.2. NO noted that the Friday should be a full working day of the SC Agenda,
if not it should be noted that participants may schedule a return on Friday.
12.20.3. The SC took note.
13. OTHER BUSINESS
13.1. N/A.
14. NEXT STEERING COMMITTEE MEETINGS AND FLS PREP-MEETING
14.1. The ENJJPT Wing will host SC 69. The dates are 9-13 March 2015.
14.2. Belgium will host SC 70. The dates are tentative. The proposed dates are 7-11
September 2015. BE asked to confirm the tentative dates 7-11 September 2015 before the
End of Year 2014. All nations are responsible to send their concurrence to the SC
Secretary.
14.3. The ENJJPT Wing will host SC 71.
14.4. The FLS Prep-Meeting will be in 19-23 January 2015.
15. REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF MINUTES
15.1. SC 68 Minutes were reviewed by the SC from Agenda Item 1 WELCOME and
OPENING REMARKS through Agenda Item 15 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF
MINUTES.
16. AWARDS/RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING MEMBERS/CLOSING REMARKS
16.1. The SC Chairman thanked everyone for patience and participation.
16.2. The SC Chairman convened an Executive Session. The Executive Session Minutes
were recorded and will be posted separate on the APAN in separate from SC 68 Minutes.
16.3. The SC Chairman thanked TU for hosting SC 68 and closed the meeting.
17. SC 68 ACTION ITEMS:
17.1. Action Item 62-1: T-X Acquisition Plan. SC requested to be updated on the TX Acquisition Plan annually. US will brief update at SC 69. (Ref. SC 62 Minutes
5.1.-5.1.4.) (OPR: US)
17.2. Action Item 66-9: MOU Amendment Initiation. The SC tasked the SC
Secretary to execute the initiation of the conformed Amendment 6 for national staffing
as outlined in the ENJJPT Directive 45-1 and as per the needs of the SC. (Ref.15.115.6.) (OPR: SC Secretary)
17.3. Action Item 68-1: FY16 ENJJPT Dorm Room Renovation Cost Breakout. The
SC tasked the ENJJPT Wing to breakout the cost for the ENJJPT Dorm Room
Renovation project. (Ref. SC 68 Minutes 12.12.16.) (OPR: ENJJPT Wing)
17.4. Action Item 68-2: FY16 ENJJPT Dorm Room Renovation Timeline. The SC
tasked the ENJJPT Wing to provide a timeline for the ENJJPT Dorm Room Renovation
project. (Ref. SC 68 Minutes 12.12.17.) (OPR: US)
17.5. Action Item 68-3: TU IP Training Request- Financial and Legal Impacts.
TU provided a formal request for IP only training and a proposed PO change
at SC 68. 1.) The SC tasked the ENJJPT FM to assess cost associated with this
proposal to be discussed at January 2015 pre-FLS meeting and SC 69. 2.) The SC
tasked the FLS to produce a proposal based on PIT trainees being equal to UPT/IFF
students. 3.) The FLS needs to propose language to be inserted in a potential MOU
Amendment 7. The FLS Chairman agreed to develop a proposal at the January
Preparatory Meeting. (Ref. SC 68 Minutes 12.16.4.; 12.16.19; 12.16.35) (SC 68 OPR:
TU; SC 69 OPRs: ENJJPT FM & FLS)
17.6. Action Item 68-4: ENJJPT Program Efficiencies. The SC tasked the ENJJPT
Wing to reevaluate the need for two squadrons for each UPT phase. The ENJJPT Wing
CC briefed at SC 68 the original basis for squadron split still exists and is working
additional efficiency changes. The SC 69 ENJJPT Wing CC Status Brief will address
the efficiencies in detail. (Ref. SC 67 Minutes 11.13; 17.8 Action Item 67-5 Squadron
Validation) (SC 68 Minutes 6.7.2 - 6.7.2.22.; 11.9.4) (OPR: ENJJPT WING)
17.7. Action Item 68-5: PO Task. The SC discussed the way ahead and identified the
following tasks: 1.) The SC tasked the FLS to inform the SC of the specific paragraphs
in the draft PO that are in conflict with the MOU Amendment 6 after the next FLS
meeting in January 2015. 2.) The SC tasked the FLS to update Section 7 of the PO. 3.)
The ENJJPT Wing was tasked to send a representative to the FLS meeting in January
2015. 4.) The SC tasked the FLS to provide support to the ENJJPT Wing who needs to
rewrite the draft PO to overcome the legal concerns. (SC 68 Minutes 8.2.-8.2.3) (1:
OPR FLS; 2: OPR FLS; 3: OPR ENJJPT Wing; 4: OPR: ENJJPT Wing & FLS)
17.8. Action Item 68-6: SNR SC Attendance PO Language Proposal. The SC tasked
the FLS to prepare a proposal with language emphasizing the benefits of the SNRs
participation at SC Meetings"(Ref. See SC 68 Minutes 5.11.-5.11.2; 11.7.4; SC 68
Attachment 8; 12.17-12.17.4) (SC 68 OPR: ENJJPT Wing; SC 69 OPR: FLS)