# CF seeking industry input into future pilot training



## The Bread Guy (24 Sep 2013)

First step:  a Request for Information (RFI) ....


> .... The current RCAF pilot training system is based on two inter related service contracts with end dates of 2021 and 2027.  Efforts are underway to ensure a seamless transition and that any future training system is cohesive and structured to leverage emerging, more flexible technologies.
> 
> A Request For Information (RFI) has been released and is the first step in an engagement process intended to exploit Canadian industry experience and explore the potential for participation of industry in providing maximum value and capability for the RCAF.
> 
> ...



Some highlights/discussion points from the support documentation (6 page PDF via dropbox.com): 


> .... Deliver approximately 115 +/- 15% skilled military pilots per year taking ab initio student pilots from selection to relevant OTU input standards for the foreseeable future.
> 
> (....)
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (7 Jan 2014)

The process continues to unfold (highlights mine) ....


> .... In order to ensure a successful transition from the current process that the Government of Canada has in place for military pilot training following the expiration of the NATO Flying Training In Canada (NFTC) and Contracted Flying Training and Support (CFTS) contracts, Industry shall be consulted in an engagement process as one of the first steps in determining how
> the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) will deliver this training in the future.
> 
> *The engagement process will include the Future Pilot Training (FPT) "Industry Day Engagement Session" followed by "One-on-one Industry meetings" and "Working Group Sessions" at a later time.
> ...


A bit more detail here in the latest bid amendment document.


----------



## dapaterson (27 Jan 2015)

Interestingly, Bombardier is getting out of the pilot training business.  According to the Financial Post, Bombardier is selling their military flight training business to CAE for $19.8M.

http://business.financialpost.com/2015/01/26/bombardier-inc-sells-military-training-unit-for-19-8m-to-cae-inc/


----------



## MSTG93 (30 Jan 2015)

It's been interesting hearing some of the discussions being heard talked around the RCAF pilot training system.  One thing I have not heard discussed is how pilot training / education ties together with the CF's desire to have a degree holding officer corps. 

Although not an apples to apples comparison, RCAF wings standard can be compared to a commercial aviation rating.  Many Canadian universities offer aviation diploma/degree programs including Mt Royal in Calgary, Confederation in Thunder Bay and Seneca in Peterborough to name a few.  Once again these programs are not apples to apples when held against the RCAF pilot training program, yet they are similar enough to ask the question, why can't the RCAF's pilot training system grant the same?  

An average undergraduate degree in Canada requires approximately 4 years and costs approximately $60,000 (depending on program). Factor in salaries paid during undergraduate study the costs increase by another $75,000 to 136,00 (for 4x years at 2014 OCdt pay scales). (And assuming degrees are earned while members are in uniform). If degrees are worked on post pilot training with members working on degrees at Captain and Major wages these figures increase dramatically.  (If costs associated with time away from work/families are considered costs of an undergrad degree become large indeed.)

If the RCAF was able to grant diploma/degrees as part of its pilot training program the military would conceivably gain as much as 4years of trade functional service per member and free up upwards of $135,000 per member.  

Education of any sort is something every individual should strive for.  However, is an un-used engineering degree or a degree in medieval Asian philosophies what the RCAF needs....?


----------



## DAA (30 Jan 2015)

MSTG93 said:
			
		

> Education of any sort is something every individual should strive for.  However, is an un-used engineering degree or a degree in medieval Asian philosophies what the RCAF needs....?



Having an undergrad degree has very little to do with being a Pilot and everything to do with being an "Officer" in the CAF.  Hence, the term "Degreed Officer Corp".

Acceptable academic creditials for enrolment are based on the recommendation of the OA's.


----------



## dapaterson (31 Jan 2015)

However, it does beg the question as to whether or not all pilots need to be officers.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jan 2015)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> However, it does beg the question as to whether or not all pilots need to be officers.



At the risk of stepping on toes and probably contradicting my previous stance, if there was a US Army-style Warrant Officer (not Commonwealth-style WO) scheme where the job is purely to fly, I'd agree.  This would leave the "staff/exec" function for aircrew (I'm sure this can be extended to other trades) just for the commissioned officers, after a flying posting to get hands-on experience with the aircraft.  

I'm sure there are headaches with that system too, but it might just work.


----------



## SupersonicMax (31 Jan 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> At the risk of stepping on toes and probably contradicting my previous stance, if there was a US Army-style Warrant Officer (not Commonwealth-style WO) scheme where the job is purely to fly, I'd agree.  This would leave the "staff/exec" function for aircrew (I'm sure this can be extended to other trades) just for the commissioned officers, after a flying posting to get hands-on experience with the aircraft.
> 
> I'm sure there are headaches with that system too, but it might just work.



This system won't solve any of the pilot training system issues.  Backlog isn't at getting people to Moose Jaw.  Also, money spent on education (150K a person more than no degree) is actually peanuts compared to the costs of flying training.  What you'd gain is useful years of service as a pilot (an extra 4 years), provided guys stick around past their restricted release period (and for that, pension will need to go back to 20 years.  Guys don't see themselves do an extra 12 or 13 years to get the pension).

Right now, the training system is designed backwards.  We produce 115 pilots a year, regardless of what the communities actually need.  In times like today, it leads to incredibly short tours in Operational Units (1.5-3 years with the odd 4 years).  The posting cycle leads to inexperienced Captains and, more alarming, inexperienced Majors (by inexperienced, I mean flying-wise).  I had a flying supervisor when I was on Squadron than had half the hours I had on the Hornet and I didn't have an exorbitant amount of hours back then...

We, in the CAF, tend to plan a year ahead.  From phase I to end of OTU, it takes on average 2.5 years.  It means that the overall intake plan needs to be done for 2-3 years ahead, not just next FY.  One important assumption would be that a tour on Squadron is 4-5 years before moving into a staff job.  This would enable people to gain experience in their primary job.  Each community would need to give a forecast of how many new pilots they will need in 2-3 years.  You could, from that, decide how many pilot ROTP you need (ROTP trade selection should be in year 2 of University).  From there and factoring attrition at every phase, you come up with a number of pilots you need to start on Phase 1 this year.  Your DEO intake becomes what ROTP cannot fill.  

Course dates between phases would need to line up so that when a phase is over, the next phase is ready to accept students.

Bottom line, we need to get away from the old mentality of "We NEED to produce X number of pilots this years" and more towards an as needed mentality.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jan 2015)

The pilot training and absorption issue has become a sucking chest wound for the RCAF. Pilot production seems to be an end into itself, rather than a necessary part of producing combat power for the CF. It consumes far too many resources to produce a pilot, over too great a length of time and then we turn around and employ pilots for too short a period of time in the cockpit to get a decent  return on the training investment.

Perhaps (without getting into the debate about officers vs NCMs as pilots) it should just be understood that unless you positively indicate that you are willing to do staff jobs and advance much past the rank of LCol, the expectation is that pilots will fly the majority of their careers- and even then, only a small, exceptional minority will be advanced. That might fix some of the training, experience level and retention issues issues that we have self-inflicted upon ourselves.


----------



## Ostrozac (31 Jan 2015)

Max, Tacco,

You both have some interesting points. In your opinion, is the problem that there are too many Pilots assigned to "Any" positions, or is it that there are too many Pilot positions outside flying squadrons?

If it's the first issue, that's a relatively easy fix -- there are plenty of MOSIDs that rarely if ever assign a member out of trade. I've never seen a SAR Tech teaching recruits in Saint Jean, or a Legal Officer commanding a recruiting centre. And I'd be surprised to see Clearance Divers teaching drill at RMC. Adjusting the numbers on who fills the "Any" or "Any Air" billets is a fairly easy way to get Pilots back on squadron.

If there are too many pilot positions that are tied to desks -- that's a bit of a tougher problem. Are there a lot of Pilot positions tied to the Wings and Air Divisions? Are those positions performing jobs that absolutely, positively, couldn't be done by ACSO or AERE?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (31 Jan 2015)

I cannot speak for Max, but the problem as I see it is multi-faceted. In the first place, there are way too many HQs in the CF, which drives a nearly insatiable desire for staff officers.  The second problem is that of all the officer occupations, pilots (along with maybe doctors and dentists) are really, really expensive to train. Why do we just not acknowledge that fact and try to get the best return on our training dollar by keeping pilots in cockpits for as much of their career as possible? Which means limiting the amount of "ATR" jobs available to the occupation.

This is not to say pilots should not command or that there should be no staff tours for any pilots. But I believe that we should recognize that every non-flying pilot is somewhat of a wasted resource.


----------



## dimsum (31 Jan 2015)

A possible way of getting aircrew (and other) officers out of some random staff positions is to do what the RAAF did and create an "Operations Officer" trade.  It's not very senior (capped at FLTLT or SQNLDR) but these people do all of the Ops jobs that Pilots/ACSOs/etc. do at Sqn/Wing HQs.


----------



## Pepperpots (31 Jan 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ... do what the RAAF did and create an "Operations Officer" trade.  It's not very senior (capped at FLTLT or SQNLDR) but these people do all of the Ops jobs that Pilots/ACSOs/etc. do at Sqn/Wing HQs.



Interesting thought as it is one I've heard tossed around before.  Anyone able to offer any insights as to why this would or wouldn't work in the RCAF?

From my lowly vantage it does appear as if the emphasis is to move pilots through operational flying as quickly as possible so that they can use their flying skills to provide guidance on contractural administration.  "2500hrs flying?  You are uniquely qualified to manage the contract for the new base infrastructure program.  It's due next month.  If you can land a plane I'm sure you'll figure it out.  Good luck."


----------



## SupersonicMax (1 Feb 2015)

The generic Ops Officer trade would work for some, not all, staff jobs.  In fact, I believe that Wing HQ Ops positions should be filled by Aircrew, simply because they have the background knowledge (ie: sitting in a cockpit) to make appropriate recommendations/decisions.  I don't see an Ops Officer trade type making recommendations on whether we should relocate assets or not due to forecast weather. These jobs are no issue, guys still fly.

Same with the A3 types at the Div.  You need operators in those.  And certainly any command positions.

SKT alluded to it, our HQs are bloated.  We need some representation in HQs, just not to the level we have now.  This is not a problem unique to pilots but to all CAF...  Reduce HQs, put people back into Operationnal Units.  This would solve some of our PML issue.  This however doesn't solve the fact that operational tours in units is short.  And this is strictly due to a pilot production that is too big for what units can absorb.  It doesn't take a genius to figure it out...  In a 32 pilots squadron, there is 1 LCol and 5 Majs.  This leaves 26 Capts.  If you plan a 4-5 year posting cycle, you will need 5-6 pilots a year to fill slots left empty from postings (you don't count attrition, those guys are still serving under restricted release).

We have 2 operationnal squadrons, this is a 10-12 pilot production requirement a year.  That's what the OTU needs to produce.  In previous years, our OTU was mandated to start between 18 and 22 students a year.  Every year, you lose 2-3 guys on course.  That leaves 15-19 CF-18 pilot produced.  The extra 5-7 pilots leads to shorten tours and contribute to innexerinced and backlog in the upgrade program (we have guys that haven't finished the Combat Readiness Upgrade after 1 year on Squadron, something that should take 3 months.  After a year, guys should be looked at for Element Lead Upgrade).

What this training philosophy does is move the backlog from Phase 2/3 to the Operational Squadron.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2015)

Run two streams (command and, as the RAF calls it, "spec aircrew"). Then reduce the 'hard' PLT positions in HHQs (which I agree with SKT and Max, badly need streamlining) and rebalance so that first tour pilots have a 5-6 yr tour instead of 3-4, so hat the foundation upon which the remainder of their flying career will be based.

Max brings up a good point that the "115 at all costs" needs to be reviewed.  Short- and long-term planning should be based on a reasonably well-conducted assessment that actually takes into account existing and future fleets employment demands as well as fleet-related generation capabilities (OTU throughput.  The RCAF also needs to stop imagining itself as so special that it needs to have its own, home-grown un-leveraged training system.  There is room for sharing a bit of the "training is expensive" pain, if there is greater acceptance of inter-Allie dependencies.

Of course, this approach is not only applicable to PLT, or even just to the Air Force...

:2c:

G2G


----------



## Sf2 (1 Feb 2015)

What?  My streak of operational tours may continue?  Say it ain't so


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Feb 2015)

I find myself in wild agreement with both G2G and Max.  The MH Sqns are faced with the exact same pilot absorption issues as the fighter Sqn's- only our upgrade process for pilots also impacts the RCN, as we need ships and sea time to create Aircraft Captains. We are beginning to drive the Navy nuts with our problems. We have also shortened the operational training unit course, which, IMHO, is just moving a training burden to the Op Sqns.

Something has to give on the pilot training and absorption front.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Feb 2015)

Careful SF2, spec aircrew ain't here yet and we've got our eyes on you.... ;D


----------



## Sf2 (1 Feb 2015)

I know G2G...I can only ride the wave for so long


----------



## Baz (1 Feb 2015)

The problem isn't just pilots, and I don't think its just aircrew either... MARS is the same way in that they drive people up as fast as they can, so they get little time spent at sea.  Just look at all the training billets assigned for MARS to any given deployment.

The simple answer is to streamline the headquarters, in the right places (bring back the Group HQs, but get rid of 1 and 2 CdnAirDiv, so that each group has the experience in it needed; we lost a lot when MAG went away.  As well, make the Air Staff just the number of people that the Commander needs to make good strategic decisions, and no more.  I could go on...).  However, it still doesn't solve the real problem: careerism.

Make no mistake, the system isn't set up to put pilots on squadrons... its set up to check all those little boxes you need to make flag.  They've determined the pilot induction rate in order to support that moving around.  If we truly concentrated on the needs of the squadrons, induction would go way down as Max said, but the end result would be a slowing down of promotion and turnover rates at Command levels.

Its like their trying to support the turnover and promotion rates of World War II, when we were expanding, in a steady state military.  Let the whole system slow down and leave successful Flag Officers in place for longer; less need for new Flags, less need for the system to churn away.


----------



## McG (1 Feb 2015)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> A possible way of getting aircrew (and other) officers out of some random staff positions is to do what the RAAF did and create an "Operations Officer" trade.  It's not very senior (capped at FLTLT or SQNLDR) but these people do all of the Ops jobs that Pilots/ACSOs/etc. do at Sqn/Wing HQs.


Like the HCA of the health services community?


----------



## The Bread Guy (9 Feb 2015)

An update:  new focus on interim, not final solution ....


> .... 3.	Canada recognises that there has already been a significant amount of valuable open engagement and dialogue with industry as part of the initial work to help understand the challenges of FPT (Future Pilot Training).  This existing work and outputs from previous engagements continues to be evaluated to ascertain what benefits may be transferred into the efforts now focusing on iFPT (interim Future Pilot Training).
> 
> 4.	The iFPT project team is currently working to establish the strategic requirements and identify the business needs required to allow it to receive approval to start its OA (Options Analysis) process. It is anticipated that a further RFI may be released once this initial scoping work has been completed.
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (13 Nov 2015)

Yet another update - highlights mine ....


> .... The purpose of this document is to provide an update on the status of the Future Pilot Training project, and advise Industry of the requirement to acknowledge, sign, and submit the Rules of Engagement attached at Annex A.
> 
> In the last LOI, Canada indicated that a new project, iFPT had been created to address any potential gap inpilot training and that the project team would establish the strategic requirements and identify the business needs in order to start the Options Analysis process. Canada also indicated that a further LOI would be released once the initial scoping work had been completed ....


----------

