Various Times of Service for Technician Ratings?

[SStradley]

Is there a cogent reason for the difference in the time of service for the various Professional Development Specialty Tracks?

I am not asking about why some tracks require more skills than others.  I understand why a Technician in Standardization/Evaluation needs to be a CFI, and a Technician in Personnel only needs to "be familiar with the governing directives."  (Clearly there is more work and skill required in earning a CFI from the FAA than studying the CAP Personnel Regulations.)

However, why do some Technician Ratings require only 6 months service and others 1 year? 

Why make a CFI who joins and serves as a Standardization/Evaluation Officer  work for 1 year to earn their Tech Rating, while the Finance Officer or the Personnel Officer only need to serve in that roll for only six months?

[DeputyDog]

Why make a CFI who joins and serves as a Standardization/Evaluation Officer  work for 1 year to earn their Tech Rating, while the Finance Officer or the Personnel Officer only need to serve in that roll for only six months?

For the Standardization/Evaluation Officer Specialty Track Technician Rating, it requires a six month internship. The one year is for the senior rating.

[DeputyDog]

However, why do some Technician Ratings require only 6 months service and others 1 year? 

I think you would have to ask whoever wrote the pamphlets for them. There does not appear to be any rhyme or reason for it.

For the ES Tech rating, it is one year. For the AE Tech rating, it is three months. For the Operations Tech rating it is six months (given that you must complete the ES, Flight Operations and Stan/Eval Tech ratings first).

[SStradley]

Why make a CFI who joins and serves as a Standardization/Evaluation Officer  work for 1 year to earn their Tech Rating, while the Finance Officer or the Personnel Officer only need to serve in that roll for only six months?

For the Standardization/Evaluation Officer Specialty Track Technician Rating, it requires a six month internship. The one year is for the senior rating.

Thank you for the correction.  I did misread the Stan/Eval.  However, as you pointed out ES is a year (and that was my other example which I edited for brevity.) 

However, I hope there is a better answer than ask the writers, as I don't have much hope to be able to do that.

[arajca]

However, I hope there is a better answer than ask the writers, as I don't have much hope to be able to do that.

Unfortunately, that's the best source for the answer. Also keep in mind that the pamphlets were written, in some cases, 15+ years ago. I can easily see making the case for 9 month or one year internships across the board.

Although, as an interesting difference, the Plan and Programs Sr rating requires no service time. According to the pamphlet, you need the rating BEFORE starting in the position.

[Major Carrales]

Let's also not forget the "Apple and Oranges" factor involved in many of these.  The OPERATONS driven areas require an certain amount of ES and additional taskings.

Operations Officer requires some intense knowledge of Aviation and Regulations to manage Aivation Resources and Training safely and IAW the regulations.  If this person is not so, then the missions don't get launched. 

Public Affairs, for example, would best require a Journalism Class or other credentials...however, that is an greater expense.  Time served as a PAO might also do it for some, but not others.  Some people are naturals, while others admittedly need work or are in training.

I don't think writing articles for the media and filing personal records is in the same league as Emergency Services and Flight Operations.  By their very nature the latter are more intense in terms of curriculum and implementation.

Unless you plan to argue that sending out press releases and updating files requires obligatory training merely to match up to something like STAN/EVAL. 

Rememeber, I am a Public Affairs Officer as well as a Squadron Commander of a Composite Squadron and I can tell you that OPS is more invovled.  Not do demean all else, but let's compare apple to apple and oranges to oranges.

And lastly, rememeber that it is the proper implementation of the missions that trumps all...not which badge one can wear (or at what time).  Let not the end (badge) become for of the focus than the means (training).   

[Short Field]

The Emergency Services Officer (ESO) Senior rating requires continuous qualification in a ES speciality for 3 yrs AND one year after completing the ESO Tech rating.  The ESO Master rating requires continuous qualification in a ES speciality for 5 years AND completion of the Inland SAR Planner's Course (or equivalent), AND 3 years as a Wing or Region level ESO or assistant after completing the ESO Senior rating.  No quickies there.

The Personnel Senior Rating requires six months after the Tech Rating and completion of a 100 question closed book test.  The Master Rating just takes another year of work experience.

I think the major difference between the two tracks (and the reason for the differences in time requirements) is that if you are working the Personnel track, you get to actually perform the functions a lot more often than you would the ES functions.  Plus it is easier to study the regulations to get up to speed.  It just takes a lot more time for a ESO to acquire the same level of experience, especially when you add in the wing/region level responsibilities.