Rear Adm. Paul Sohl is a 1985 graduate of Massachusetts Institute of Technology, where he received a Bachelor of Science in Aeronautical Engineering. He holds a Master of Science in Aeronautical and Astronautical Engineering from Stanford University and was designated a naval aviator in 1988.

His assignments include Strike Fighter Squadron (VFA) 113, test director of the presidential helicopter program, VH-71A, and assistant commander for Test and Evaluation, Naval Air Systems Command (NAVAIR). Sohl was interviewed for this article while serving in his last assignment as commander, Fleet Readiness Centers. Sohl is vice commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force.

Q. Based on your time as one of the four co-leads for Engineering, Maintenance and Supply Chain Management (EM&SCM) Team, what insights/observations can you share with Naval Aviation (NAE) stakeholders?

A. Everybody on the team, comprised of O-6s, O-5s, civilians and contractors, is focused on readiness. Brig. Gen. Allan Day and Rear Adm. Paul Verrastro, Defense Logistics Agency, Aviation (DLA-A) and [then] Naval Supply Systems Command Weapon Systems Support (NAVSUP WSS), respectively, are great partners. They have a different focus and outlook on readiness than those of us in production. They ask what things they can do in the Fleet Readiness Centers (FRCs) to avoid stoppages due to materials and have worked diligently to buy material before it was needed, resulting in the system providing materials to the artisans earlier than ever before. While we still have long lead times on structural material on [F/A-18] Hornets and other airframes, they are really leaning forward. As a co-lead, I bring in the maintenance perspective and Brig. Gen. Greg Masiello, Naval Air Systems Command assistant commander for Logistics and Industrial Operations (AIR 6.0), brings the logistics piece to the team as well.

Engineering was recently added to the team in part because of the material condition of the F/A-18 Hornets that were being flown past their planned service life. We knew that one of our constraints was engineering. It was a natural fit to put the chief engineer for Naval Air Systems Command, then Rear Adm. Dean Peters, on the team. Engineering goes across all type/model/series (TMS) aircraft, components and engines. I can't imagine the group without engineering being there.

In the future, we are headed toward becoming predictive in our maintenance approach. Our current system is reactive; a problem happens and we act on it. When I meet with the Commander, Fleet Readiness Centers (COMFRC) workforce, I tell them we can do better -- that we need to be proactive, we need to know what is coming and to act in advance of need. To get to predictive, you have to see what the problems are and have the tools necessary to give you those answers. We want to be able to analyze the data and say to ourselves, "Okay, I think this aircraft is reacting predictively and therefore I am going to have everything ready to go to fix it when it comes in." It's going to take time to get there.

Also, the fleet is taking ownership in generating aircraft readiness; it's the best indication of the progress the Naval Aviation Enterprise (NAE) in educating leadership -- not just in naval aviation, but across the Navy and Marine Corps. Before, COMFRC would be asked to step up work in the depot. Now they realize that it's not just a depot problem. The fleet understands that they contribute to the solution as well.

Q. Describe some of the challenges COMFRC experienced during your tenure and how support from NAE enabled COMFRC to overcome them.

A. When I came in the fall of 2013, furlough had just ended and COMFRC had just started to get out of a hiring freeze. We were starting to recover from a period of a year to 18 months -- and several years at FRCSW (FRC Southwest) -- when we couldn't hire. This created a giant divot in our product line and we weren't able to deliver aircraft. I don't think anyone understood the tidal wave of work that was approaching. As aircraft and components age, they stack up if we can't fix them right away. COMFRC had to get the enterprise to see, visually, how work was stacking up. We first looked at the legacy Hornet; we then soon after started to see gaps in other areas as well. When Marine Corps Deputy Commandant for Aviation Lt. Gen. Jon Davis came on board, he was surprised at Marine aviation's low readiness numbers and wanted to fix that as soon as possible.

Understand that the product, whether it's an aircraft, engine or component, gets a vote in the whole process -- it tells you what it needs. For example, a legacy Hornet that hasn't gone through a planned maintenance interval (PMI) for several years can come in to the depot having 7,500 flight hours when it was only designed for 6,000. FRC may think it knows what needs to be done and have all the materials, manpower and engineering data it thinks necessary to expeditiously get it back into service.

But when the aircraft is opened up, it doesn't meet expectations. Oftentimes, the structure itself is eaten away to the point it needs lots of engineering to help bring it back to life. The challenge with really old aircraft is that they are beyond predictable. It throws everything off. We plan for these maintenance events, but as aircraft get older the plan needs to change. Added to this is the demand from the fleet for the aircraft.

Now, with the Aircraft Status Dashboard, we are better able to see the material condition of each aircraft in the fleet. The dashboard tells us the physical location of the aircraft and the condition of the aircraft for several TMSs is reviewed by bureau number on a regular basis. It's not predictive yet, but we are getting there. It's a graphical representation that depicts aircraft status. All of out-of-reporting aircraft are listed on the left-hand side of the chart and in-reporting aircraft are listed on the right-hand side. Everybody loved it. But it took us about a year-and-a-half to develop it. Deputy Commander for Fleet Readiness Center Dennis West developed the idea to put every aircraft with its bureau number (BUNO) on a page to show leadership where it is in terms of its ready basic aircraft (RBA) status. It highlighted the reality of the RBA gap: it can only be solved at a couple of places in the production process and that aircraft are not in the depot, but sitting in the fleet in a non-mission capable status for supply and maintenance.

Reinvigorating and putting into place Critical Chain Project Management (CCPM) was another effort to stem the tidal wave of work in the FRCs. Imagine being in a raft and you see water coming in and you are bailing it out using a little cup, not seeing the gaping hole in the other end. Eventually you come to the realization that the tool you are using can't possibly work. We didn't have the tools to scope and manage the increasing workload in the FRCs. Then Naval Air Systems Command Commander Vice Adm. David Dunaway and NAVAIR Deputy Commander Garry Newton both realized that CCPM production system had to be established across all of the FRCs, TMSs, components, back shops and engines. CCPM allows us to function as an enterprise; it highlights where those constraints are and what is needed to get them to ready basic aircraft status.

We've arrested the descent, and we are coming back up now. It takes a while. Like an engine, FRCs take a while to bring back to full power.

Q. What challenges do you see for naval aviation maintenance in the future, and what role will the NAE play in COMFRC activities?

A. Resources are going to continue to go down. The FRC has as many resources as it's ever going to have. We can only hire so fast. What we need is to do a better job of globally managing the maintenance system. Information flow needs to happen quicker. The FRCs and the fleet should instantly know when an aircraft breaks, when there is a hole in an aircraft or when an engine pool goes down. With this data, we can work together across the enterprise to fix it.

We also have people around the world with a myriad of specialty skill sets and experiences. We just have to know where they are and what they are doing, and decide if they would be better utilized somewhere else.

We aren't even close yet to effectively using the resources we have to get the maintenance job done because we don't have the visibility as to what needs to get done. We have just started creating this capability. It started as an FRC initiative, but we soon realized it was going to take many more stakeholders to bring it to initial operational capability (IOC) by 2020.

By the way, the enemy gets a vote, too. When the world picture changes we have to respond to it. Perhaps the biggest challenge of the future is pushing maintenance [farther] forward and managing it because that is where the Navy is. The Marine Corps team is already there. We have pockets where this model is successful. FRC Western Pacific is a great example. We are tapping into that experience to take it across the Navy and Marine Corps.

Q. What NAE experiences will you draw upon in your new assignment as Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR)?

A. My background is in developmental test, which is taking an aircraft, or an engine or a component and testing them to see if they meet specifications -- if it performs according to what the contract says it should do. On the operational test side, they are really looking for mission effectiveness and asking if the weapon system is effective, suitable and sustainable. This is not just aviation, it is everything. If they don't pass it, it doesn't go to the fleet.

Being COMFRC has taught me to stay focused on the warfighter, to go back to within 50 feet of where the work is being done, and not get caught up in bureaucracy. I look at what warfighters need and how I can get it to them faster. I can apply that to COMOPTEVFOR as well.

I can also tap into my role as an educator in the NAE. I depended on the "super experts" in the FRC and communicated their ideas to leadership. Whether leadership is at the Pentagon, down at Fleet Forces, over at U.S. Pacific Fleet, I am sure COMOPTEVFOR will be the same.

Q. Is there anything you would like to add? Do you have any advice for NAE stakeholders?

A. Every day I'm humbled because I am fortunate and honored to lead with the great people we have in COMFRC. They are the greatest -- 16,000 civilians, contractors and Sailors who are brilliant when it comes to knowing what has to get done and have the tenacity to pursue solutions.

I've loved my time here. I started out in North Island as a lieutenant commander flying Hornets working on the F/A-18 line, flying the second center barrel [aircraft] to undergo the repair. It took the better part of two years to complete and fly its functional check flight. The artisans there were innovative. They took two crash-damaged aircraft, one with a good nose and the other with a good tail, and put it together with a new center barrel. Those same kinds of innovation are happening today. You can see it in initiatives like additive manufacturing. Five, 10 years from now we will look back at our accomplishments and be amazed.

I recently visited FRC Southeast in Jacksonville, Florida. We just hired an artisan from Cleveland who wanted to do something for his country. He had 30 years of tool and die experience. As he was walking around the FRC looking at the equipment and watching the work being done, he was like a kid in a candy store. That's the fun part about this job -- seeing our people and the heart they put into their work. That's what I'll miss.

But at the same time, I also look forward to meeting and developing a rapport with the dedicated men and women at Commander, Operational Test and Evaluation Force (COMOPTEVFOR) who play a different but equally important role in warfighter readiness.

Finally, I want us to remember that we are all fighting for the warfighter. To paraphrase a quote that has been attributed to Vice Adm. Joseph Dyer, who was NAVAIR commander in the early 2000s, "It's not how much you fight; it's how long you fight."

In other words, take your punches and keep getting back in the ring every day. It's about who you're fighting for. The warfighter doesn't take a break. We get to go home on Fridays. They don't. Warfighters will solve a problem, but they will solve it even if the wheels fall off. They have to. They are out there. What we do is help them solve it without having them to do that.

For more information, visit http://www.navy.mil, http://www.facebook.com/usnavy or http://www.twitter.com/usnavy/.

For more news from the Naval Aviation Enterprise, visit http://www.navy.mil/ or http://www.facebook.com/NAEready/.