Analysis of the Perceived Adequacy of Air Force Civil Engineering Prime Beef Training

Abstract

This thesis examined Air Force Civil Engineering Prime BEEF member's perceptions of the adequacy of their contingency training. Both NCO and officer members of Prime BEEF teams stationed throughout the world were surveyed to determine overall perceptions of training adequacy. The study sought opinions on: the adequacy of the training to support wartime and contingency taskings; whether or not current training programs are perceived to be established in the proper priority; the adequacy of the current amount of the hands-on training; and the belief that Field 4 training at Eglin AFB provides adequate opportunities to practice the Prime BEEF mission. The majority officers and NCO and these results compared. The results indicate the majority of Prime BEEF members are undecided, but tend to agree, that current contingency training is adequate. In particular, members current chemical warfare, Prime BEEF orientation, rapid runway repair, and weapons training are adequate, but are uncertain about the other training areas. Members indicated strong support for the current Field 4 training program and believe it is approximately the correct length. The officer/NCO comparison showed officers are more skeptical of the adequacy of the training in nearly every area considered.

Open PDF

Document Details

Document Type
Technical Report
Publication Date
Sep 01, 1985
Accession Number
ADA160869

Entities

People

  • William C. Morris

Organizations

  • Air Force Institute of Technology

Tags

Communities of Interest

  • Biomedical
  • Weapons Technologies

DTIC Thesaurus Topics

  • Air Force
  • Chemical Warfare
  • Civil Engineering
  • Command And Control
  • Databases
  • Engineering
  • Engineers
  • Fire Protection
  • Instructors
  • Medical Personnel
  • Military Personnel
  • Personnel Management
  • Students
  • Surveys
  • Trainees
  • Training
  • Warfare

Readers

  • Gender and Food Studies
  • Instructional Design and Training Evaluation.
  • Military Leadership and Professional Education.