Maintenance Officer Clarification

[Dan Jessome]

Seeking clarification WRT some terminology contained in C-04-020-002/AG-001.

In this CFTO it clearly states on pg 9, para 29, sub b, that, “the officer in charge of maintenance at the inspecting unit shall countersign and date the form”.  I am being led to believe that this signature block can be disseminated down to the IC of whatever section that is carrying out the inspection. If this is the case then why would the signature block be titled “MAINTENANCE OFFICER”.

In B-GL-314-000/AF-000, The EME Branch, sect 5 and 6, clearly differentiated between the EME Officers and EME Technicians and therefore in my opinion leaves no room for individual interpretation of who is who and what their responsibilities are.   

My question would then be who other than the Maint O/OC Maint is entitled to represent the position of the “Maintenance Officer”?

I do not believe that the MCpl or Sgt should be the one signing this signature block and if in fact the Maint O/OC Maint can disseminate this title down to a NCM, at which rank should it be assumed?

Please provide references with response. I am not seeking personal opinion, as I am sure there are many; I am seeking fact supported by documentation.

Regards,
WO Dan Jessome

 

[George Wallace]

Well, WO Jessome, all we would be able to do is look into CFAO's, DAOD's and QR&O's and see what they say about "Delegated Authority" and the regurgitate it back to you.  That is all I can think of doing right now to help you.

 

[armyvern]

Hey Dan,

If it has been delegated down by the MaintO, it should be in official written format and that should state to whom the authority (and what level) it has been delegated down to.

Did you try the CGSOs to see what they have to say??

Oh welcome bud, long time no see. 

Vern

 

[combatbuddha]

This is where it falls to delegated authority, either official or implied. The unit Maintenance Plan should clarify this.
Many units, Reg and reserve do not have a Maint O, and the highest ranking EME person within the organization would become the Maintenance NCO (Not ET unless you are MWO). This person would be the technical liason between the unit and the EME world.
Most of these forms are now produced locally via word or some other program. Reproduce one that suits the requirements of your unit. Change Maint O to Maint NCO and soldier on.

 

[armyvern]

This is where it falls to delegated authority, either official or implied. The unit Maintenance Plan should clarify this.
Many units, Reg and reserve do not have a Maint O, and the highest ranking EME person within the organization would become the Maintenance NCO (Not ET unless you are MWO). This person would be the technical liason between the unit and the EME world.
Most of these forms are now produced locally via word or some other program. Reproduce one that suits the requirements of your unit. Change Maint O to Maint NCO and soldier on.

Not his case though. Gagetown has a MaintO. Gagetown also has those CGSOs ...

PS. My EME Sgt is the highest ranking of his trade in the province, and he can't sign squat ... it goes to Gagetown for that.

 

[combatbuddha]

Gagetown has many Maint Os, and again this matter would depend on unit policy and Maintenance Plan.
If one must get picky, then the Officer who the senior tech would report to, IE OC Admin Coy, BC Hq and Svc's Bty, OIC Admin Pl, would sign the appropriate block. The unit could reproduce a copy of the form locally to reflect unit demographics. ATI inspection forms are a prime example of this.
In my short 18 years I have seen this done, and it was perfectly acceptable as long as the work was done profesionally and the appropriate information was forwarded effectively. (SOPs sometimes mean Standing Optional Procedures. = flexibility)

 

[armyvern]

Gagetown has many Maint Os, and again this matter would depend on unit policy and Maintenance Plan.
If one must get picky, then the Officer who the senior tech would report to, IE OC Admin Coy, BC Hq and Svc's Bty, OIC Admin Pl, would sign the appropriate block. The unit could reproduce a copy of the form locally to reflect unit demographics. ATI inspection forms are a prime example of this.
In my short 18 years I have seen this done, and it was perfectly acceptable as long as the work was done profesionally and the appropriate information was forwarded effectively. (SOPs sometimes mean Standing Optional Procedures. = flexibility)

Read his post again.

3 ASG Gagetown has only one MaintO (OC Maint) BTW as was in the originating post. K14, L33 ... they all fall under 3 ASG. And, like was pointed out to him, if the Unit (3 ASG Tech Svcs Br in this case) MaintO (ie OC Maint) delegated this down, it should be in writing, and yes it is perfectly acceptable to forward and make available that information in other professional manner such as SOPs. Which would be exactly why he was referred to the CGSOs (Camp Gagetown Standing Orders) to check if it were included within it's massive volumes.

And, I can assure you that the original poster, with the TI he already has ... he is well aware of what ATIs are ... oh and Svc Bns ... ans Sp Cdos ... are and do. 

 

[combatbuddha]

What befuddles me is that the word Gagetown, or any referrence to that "place" does not appear anywhere in the original post.
However the intricacies of EME doctrine should not be posted for all to read. This should be left for discussion within the intranet, or even better, between the EME types who understand the doctrine and the way we do business. Every unit, Brigade and Area does things differentlty.
What about the Maint O of 2 RCR?
Arte et marte

 

[armyvern]

He was referred to those things which are applicable at his Unit. IE the CGSOs ...

When you post your name ... you find some people know you ... and can provide the specific answer to the question in directing you to the applicable SOs in effect at that Unit and other documents which contain delegation.

What befuddles me is that the word Gagetown, or any referrence to that "place" does not appear anywhere in the original post.
However the intricacies of EME doctrine should not be posted for all to read. This should be left for discussion within the intranet, or even better, between the EME types who understand the doctrine and the way we do business. Every unit, Brigade and Area does things differentlty.
What about the Maint O of 2 RCR?
Arte et marte

No mention of Gagetown, but that's explained above. The intricacies of EME doctrine have been discussed no where in this thread. Last time I checked, 2RCR (1st line Maint ... the 2nd line is mostly handled at 3 ASG) was a different Unit than we 3ASG Tech Svcs people ... and Delegation of Authority (in relation to his specific question) is done by UNITS. Ergo, the circumstances and refs provided to him that are applicable to his UNIT.

 

[aesop081]

However the intricacies of EME doctrine should not be posted for all to read. This should be left for discussion within the intranet, or even better, between the EME types who understand the doctrine and the way we do business. Every unit, Brigade and Area does things differentlty.

I fail to see what the problem is. Nothing in this cries OPSEC violation and nothing here is beyond the grasp of us poor non-EME types.

 

[armyvern]

I fail to see what the problem is. Nothing in this cries OPSEC violation and nothing here is beyond the grasp of us poor non-EME types.

No worries CDN Aviator, there isn't a single drop of doctrine in this thread. Just an attempt to throw it off track.

Some of us poor non-EME types ... happen to have become very familiar with 3ASG Maint policy in the course of our current postions. Heck, I really loved immersing myself in it to write my EME Section Sgts PER this year. 

 

[aesop081]

No worries CDN Aviator, there isn't a single drop of doctrine in this thread. Just an attempt to throw it off track.

Oh i know...alot of administrative talk but no doctrine.

Some of us poor non-EME types ... happen to have become very familiar with 3ASG Maint policy in the course of our current postions. Heck, I really loved immersing myself in it to write my EME Section Sgts PER this year. 

And some of us were employed as Motor Transport Rep in a former trade and had to deal with EME issues all the time......

 

[armyvern]

And some of us were employed as Motor Transport Rep in a former trade and had to deal with EME issues all the time......

That's the nature of support trades, always issues and work to do. Crap, as soon as I get back to work I've got to deal with a VHE09 upgrade to VHE10, and a CR05 one. The Supply section is leaving me alone (thankfully and finally) !!