# Private sector training for new Hercs, Chinooks



## MarkOttawa (14 Jul 2007)

Feds seeking company to train pilots (Shared in accordance with the 'fair dealing' provisions, Section 29, of the Copyright Act)
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2007/07/13/pf-4338220.html



> OTTAWA (CP) - The Canadian government announced on Friday that it's looking for a company to train pilots to fly its new Hercules aircraft and Chinook helicopters.
> 
> The exact value of the contract is unclear, but the Ministry of Public Works says it's looking to sign a 20-year deal.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Sf2 (14 Jul 2007)

*mails his resume to CAE*........


----------



## peaches (14 Jul 2007)

So does this mean we will have civilian pilots flying our C130 and CH47s to train our crews???  Will the civilian company use it's own aircraft.  Sounds odd....


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Jul 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> So does this mean we will have civilian pilots flying our C130 and CH47s to train our crews???  Will the civilian company use it's own aircraft.  Sounds odd....



Well, I would see something more in the lines of what's going on in Moose Jaw right now with Bombardier.  All our simulator instructors are civilians (ALL of them with a wealth of military flying experience) and our Flight Line instructors are military.

Max


----------



## peaches (14 Jul 2007)

That sound more along the lines of what I was thinking.  However, we could just set up a training component at Little Rock AFB to train our Herc crews.  Does anyone know where the C17 training will be conducted in the future, will it still be Altus AFB OK????


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Jul 2007)

peaches: I imagine the model will be 3 Canadian Forces Flying Training School (3 CFFTS) at Portage la Prairie, with the civilians doing most things except provide the aircraft and the pilot instructors (assuming the pilots get their copter or multi-engine qualifications as now at Portage).
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/17wing/squadron/3cffts_e.asp

Where the training will be done is another matter.  I would think Hercs at Trenton or Winnipeg--as for Chinooks maybe Portage if they fit in the hangars.  Just guessing.

Mark
Ottawa


----------



## peaches (14 Jul 2007)

I am of the understanding that the Chinooks were to be split evenly, 8 in Edmonton and 8 in Petawawa.....  not sure if this is still the case???  does anyone know??


----------



## Sf2 (14 Jul 2007)

meh....I'll believe it when I see it


----------



## Loachman (15 Jul 2007)

They measured the hangars in Borden and other places a few months ago.


----------



## peaches (15 Jul 2007)

So I guess no final decision has been made as to the basing of the Chinooks.  You'd think from a common sense point of veiw they'd give 4 to each brigade and to Gagetown...  but perhaps there's other issues I have not thought of...


----------



## bison33 (16 Jul 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> So I guess no final decision has been made as to the basing of the Chinooks.  You'd think from a common sense point of veiw they'd give 4 to each brigade and to Gagetown...  but perhaps there's other issues I have not thought of...



Not very feasible on that idea......
now, last we heard in our world, it would be an even split with us(Edmonton) and Pet on the birds. But much time has passed since that was said. In fact, there has been very little said over the past few months on the chinooks and what's going on. Anyone else hearing anything?


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2007)

peaches said:
			
		

> You'd think from a common sense point of veiw they'd give 4 to each brigade and to Gagetown...



I wouldn't.

That's just spreading things too thinly. In our old doctrine, which is quite valid, Chinooks were a Corps-level resource as there is not sufficient continual emplyment for them at Div-level and below. They are in demand in Afghanistan simply because nothing else will do the job in that environment.

And while Afghanistan is our prime focus today, that must be regarded as a temporary situation. Our next focus will quite likely be in a cooler and/or lower environment.

A driving factor for permanent basing will be suitable infrastructure - new hangars are very expensive.

Proximity to CMTC would be desireable, so Edmonton makes sense from that perspective, but deployment from anywhere else would satisfy its requirements as well. Not having been to Edmonton for about a decade, I have no idea what hangars still exist, what state they're in, or what they're being used for. Borden has two suitable hangars if CFSATE is pushed out of its remaining one (we pushed them out of 18 Hangar when we moved in in 1996).

That would probably generate a revolt amongst the local citizenry, though, if we tried to do any local training. I'm still surprised that we don't generate more complaints with the Griffon (like over my four nights straight of 2200-0100 batting around at 200 feet over people's houses last week). We do a fair amount of tac flying in the Muskoka region, but that's not exactly ideal due to the transit time.

Pet has about 5500 sq km of wilderness on the north side of the Ottawa River established as a Tac Low Fly Area, but smaller hangars. I have not looked at them with Chinooks in mind, though.

All that I know for sure is that I do not want to fly them. The Griffon is too bulbous and ungainly for my tastes as it is.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Jul 2007)

Don't forget that 16 airframes doesn't mean 16 serviceable airframes.

Max


----------



## GAP (16 Jul 2007)

Are they looking for 1/2 to go to Afghanistan initially? That leaves 8...


----------



## volition (16 Jul 2007)

With no escort that's going to be great!!


----------



## Loachman (16 Jul 2007)

They won't arrive until the current mission is over, unless a political miracle occurs to extend it. An el cheapo escort semi-solution is possible within the waiting period (for political miracle and initial operational capability both).


----------



## MarkOttawa (14 Feb 2009)

The prime minister's simulator stimulator: a post at _The Torch_:

Big simulator contract for CAE...for Jercs but what about Chinook Fs? 
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2009/02/big-simulator-contract-for-caefor-jercs.html

Mark
Ottawa


----------

