Department of Defense

Consolidate/Eliminate Air Force Inspection Teams or Create “Stan

The Air Force (AF) has multiple agencies that perform inspections that overlap and are unnecessary. These different agencies vary from squadron level all the way up to Headquarters (HQ) AF level with everyone in between needing to put their two cents in. This often causes conflicts in which guidance is to be followed as everyone has their own interpretation on the multiple sources of guidance.


The AF has been going through the growing pains of the largest career field realignment in history. Along with that has been ever evolving guidance on how things are supposed to be done. HQ AF has taken the stance of put a product or guidance out to the populace and wait for the responses to come back then they adjust fire as needed. If this is going to be the way that business is done there is no need to pay for travel, per diem, lodging, etc. for inspection teams to travel base to base. I have seen instances where guidance has changed between when an inspection team left home station and when they arrived at the location they were to inspect. How is this cost effective at all?


In this time of ever changing guidance maybe it would be more cost effective to bring together the best and brightest from different career fields to standardize everything as much as possible. Once suitable guidance and practices are established “standardization” teams, not an inspection teams, could travel to help sites get their programs and practices aligned correctly. These teams could stay on site longer to help establish correct procedures rather than taking the attitude of an inspection team jetting in and out and only leaving a stack of write-ups behind. By taking that extra time up front we would spend more money but eliminate the need for follow up inspections to occur as regularly cutting down on those costs. Keep in mind, we write the guidance that states how often inspections occur, so we can write the requirements to make them less often to cut back on costs.



Idea No. 8668