# Reserve Pilot Tac Hel  Req



## UB6IB9

Hey,

Before anyone goes off on me, I did do a search and could not find the info. I know that to be a CF pilot you need 20/20 uncorrected..no contacts, laser ect. I was told laser is a no no because of the eject forces on the eye when in primary. But what about Tac Hel in the reserves.  If a reserve Tac Hel unit takes you on (considering you have a Helicopter CPL and 300 TT) ...they're not going to train you on the harvard. Just the Jet Ranger and than the Griffon. So has anyone heard of guys going into a reserve Tac Hel unit with corrective vison....mostly laser in my case? I'm thinking no...but I just wanted to ask anyways.

Thanks for the info. 

Cheers


----------



## aesop081

UB6 said:
			
		

> Hey,
> 
> Before anyone goes off on me, I did do a search and could not find the info. I know that to be a CF pilot you need 20/20 uncorrected..no contacts, laser ect. I was told laser is a no no because of the eject forces on the eye when in primary. But what about Tac Hel in the reserves.   If a reserve Tac Hel unit takes you on (considering you have a Helicopter CPL and 300 TT) ...they're not going to train you on the harvard. Just the Jet Ranger and than the Griffon. So has anyone heard of guys going into a reserve Tac Hel unit with corrective vison....mostly laser in my case? I'm thinking no...but I just wanted to ask anyways.
> 
> Thanks for the info.
> 
> Cheers



20/20 uncorrected vision, reserve or not..its all the same.  Doest matter what you are going to fly.  Laser eye surgery is NO GO in the CF for pilots.......


----------



## UB6IB9

alrighty...thanks. just thought i'd ask.

cheers


----------



## Kramer

aesop081 said:
			
		

> 20/20 uncorrected vision, reserve or not..its all the same.   Doest matter what you are going to fly.   Laser eye surgery is NO GO in the CF for pilots.......



Not exactly correct - see the requirements for the "Helicop" program (reserve only, Griffon only) - vision requirement is NOT V1 for that program.

Don't have the time to quote all the details/sources but the bottom line is that the Helicop (and, incidentally, CCEP) vision requirements are V2 with NO refractive standards being applicable (unlike the "regular" V2).  Correction (with glasses/contacts) IS allowed.

The vision reqs are fairly clearly stated (e.g. see "Guidelines for Flight Surgeons") but the civilian license/rating/hours are harder to figure out.  I've heard everything from bare CPL-H up to 500hrs TT, CPL-H plus IFR.

Other than that, the standard officer stuff applies (university degree, pass IAP/BOTC, etc...).


----------



## Sf2

i see what you're saying Kramer, but there's a difference between the V1 vs V2 thing and the fact that he's already had laser surgery.

V1, V2 or whatever, laser takes you out of the game, period.


----------



## UB6IB9

Well the reason I asked this question is because I heard (could be b.s. that's why i'm asking) of a guy who had alot of turbine helo time and got into the reserves; who had laser. But since he had laser he was confined to helo and there was no hope of him ever cross training to fixed wing. The part that I don't understand is that the docs are afraid your eyes are going to be ripped to shreds, in the event you have to eject from a fixed wing a/c. So where's the problem if a guy joins the reserves with plenty of time...especially on type, like the 206? It would save the DND a hell of alot of money getting a guy with say 1000 TT B206 when a reserve squadron was ever in need of pilot's.
Cheers


----------



## Zoomie

Anyone that joins the reserves through HELI-COP to fly the griffon is stuck there for life.  There is no cross-training permitted.  Reserve pilots are given the MOC of 32X vice 32A (not sure of the MOSID)  If they wish to fly fixed-wing, jets or any other helicopter in the CF, they must go to Moose Jaw just like every other CF pilot - this program is not a back door to avoiding the training world.  The same goes for anyone that has entered directly into flying the Dash-8.


----------



## aesop081

http://www.toronto.drdc-rddc.gc.ca/medical/visreq_e.pdf

DRDC document on aircrew vision standards.

The subject of laser-eye surgery has been beaten to death here before:

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/30942.0.html
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/25631.0.html


----------



## 22B

Oh blah blah blah.   I was one of the first to be approached by DND to be a helicop pilot.   They searched me out and asked if I would be interested, considering that I was a former Armoured Crewman and was   a recce crew commander and obviously knew the job.   I had been flying Hughes 500's and 206's for years after getting out.   No, I didn't learn to fly in the military.   I averaged about 600 hours a year and most of it was northern bush ops.   I was initially interested, as I didn't fly in the off season, and that's when they really wanted stand in pilots.   All the usual paper work etc was moving along, and I was ust about finished, when I got a routine call from the reserves filling in a few details.   They wanted to know what I held a degree in.   Told them I didn't have one, as you don't need one to fly.   They said I needed one, and would I be willing to go back to university to get one.   WTF for I said.   I'm busy flying my   a$$ of in the summer, and couldn't see the point in their plan so that I could fly maybe 20 hrs in one of their clapped out 206A's during the winter months.   I do 600+ hrs per year. Do the math.   Who's more current. Further to that, I met a guy who was one of two Air Reserve pilots who actually joined.   One couldn't help but laugh, he said he just puts his head down and goes flying.   The other was an Air Canada pilot who was flying an OH58.   He couldn't tell me what type of engine was in the OH58.   (...an Allison or something)   The Air Reserves is mostlyt a flying club and they DON"T WANT YOU IN IT.   Ex regular officers only.   Laser eye surgery?   My friend was one of the first to ever get it.   MOT watched him like a hawk for years to see how it turned out.   18,000 hrs later, he's fine.   His head didn't explode or anything else.   He was given an HAI award for his excellence in aviation.   Believe me, the two worlds of commercial and military helicopters don't blend very well.   I've seen it myself many times.   Those ex military types that do fit in are just fine.   Any way, been there done that.


----------



## Strike

> The Air Reserves is mostlyt a flying club and they DON"T WANT YOU IN IT.  Ex regular officers only.



Beg to differ.  I know of pilots in both helo and fixed wing that were never reg force anything.


----------



## volition

Well, it's nice to see that reserve pilots can fly more than the griffon now. ;D
http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=4182


----------



## aesop081

volition said:
			
		

> Well, it's nice to see that reserve pilots can fly more than the griffon now. ;D
> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=4182



Reserve pilots have been flying the CT-142 for several years already.........


----------



## Inch

volition said:
			
		

> Well, it's nice to see that reserve pilots can fly more than the griffon now. ;D
> http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/site/newsroom/news_e.asp?id=4182



And Sea Kings, and Hercs, and instructing on the Harvard and Jet Ranger and...

Mostly ex-reg force guys, but still reservists nontheless.


----------



## volition

True say! This guy is strictly a reservist, never been an ex-regforce pilot!


----------



## Avro_Arrow_1976

and the CC138 Twin Otter too.


----------



## Rick Ruter

22B, you can have a gadzillion hours in a 206, but throw in some live fire with all up weight NVG and its all back to square one. I'll take the Tac Hel pilot for 1000 Alex. :gunner:


----------



## Zoomie

Conceivably, every airframe in the CF can have a Reservist at the controls.  The caveat being that in most cases you must be ex-RegF.

In the case of the helo-world, the heli-cop program allows for trained and experienced civi pilots to join the CF as CH-146 pilots.  This individual simply made the leap over from one helo-asset to another.  He is still restricted in his career options in that he can only fly rotary wing aircraft.


----------



## volition

That's great!!!! For people like me that only want to fly Helos!!! ;D :


----------



## Ex-Dragoon

Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> 22B, you can have a gadzillion hours in a 206, but throw in some live fire with all up weight NVG and its all back to square one. I'll take the Tac Hel pilot for 1000 Alex. :gunner:



Rick you do know 22B posted that back in 2005 right?


----------



## kincanucks

Ex-Dragoon said:
			
		

> Rick you do know 22B posted that back in 2005 right?



That is why he works in recruiting now. ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

kincanucks said:
			
		

> That is why he works in recruiting now. ;D



Ouch!  You put a guy back in the field and how soon he forgets his fellow recruiters...  ;D

G2G


----------



## Rick Ruter

I guess I got caught up in the reading and he hit a sensitive cord. I also went to -3 so that'll teach me. :-[


----------



## dapaterson

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Conceivably, every airframe in the CF can have a Reservist at the controls.  The caveat being that in most cases you must be ex-RegF.
> 
> In the case of the helo-world, the heli-cop program allows for trained and experienced civi pilots to join the CF as CH-146 pilots.  This individual simply made the leap over from one helo-asset to another.  He is still restricted in his career options in that he can only fly rotary wing aircraft.



Isn't that a better way to train pilots though?  Most will not jump between platforms; why not streamline training at the front end and make it shorter and able to push through more pilots?


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Isn't that a better way to train pilots though?  Most will not jump between platforms; why not streamline training at the front end and make it shorter and able to push through more pilots?



I actually think it's better for us to jump platforms. It gives us a much broader view into the workings of the machine as a whole. Even though I may not want to be posted out of MH, it's nice to have the option. If I didn't like the job when I got here, it sure would suck to know that the only way out of a job I didn't like was a desk somewhere or releasing. It's better for personnel management to be able to send them where you need them, vice be limited because of their entry plan, IMHO.


----------



## aesop081

Inch said:
			
		

> I actually think it's better for us to jump platforms. It gives us a much broader view into the workings of the machine as a whole. Even though I may not want to be posted out of MH, it's nice to have the option. If I didn't like the job when I got here, it sure would suck to know that the only way out of a job I didn't like was a desk somewhere or releasing. It's better for personnel management to be able to send them where you need them, vice be limited because of their entry plan, IMHO.



AF-wise it is better to have aircrew who are well-rounded and have a broad range of experience in multiple aircraft types as well as ground jobs.  This applies perticularly in HQ/staff jobs and later on in Command roles. I love flying MPA but there might be a day where i will have to change airframe and i am sure this would benefit me and the air force if i should ever make it higher in my MOCs hierarchy and senior apointments withing the AF.


----------



## aesop081

In addition, jobs like ICP, HPMA, flight safety investigator, flight instructor, instructor for the Aerospace systems course, test and evaluation..... require personel with broad understanding of AF and flight operations.  Those positions need to be filled


----------



## Zoomie

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> but there *might* be a day where i will have to change airframe



Might?!?  Once the -140's are cut up and sold as beer cans, we'll be looking for new sensor operators on the FWSAR platforms.


----------



## Good2Golf

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Might?!?  Once the -140's are cut up and sold as beer cans, we'll be looking for new sensor operators on the  FWSAR platforms  re-engined Buffs.



True dat, CA!  


G2G


----------



## dapaterson

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> AF-wise it is better to have aircrew who are well-rounded and have a broad range of experience in multiple aircraft types as well as ground jobs.  This applies perticularly in HQ/staff jobs and later on in Command roles. I love flying MPA but there might be a day where i will have to change airframe and i am sure this would benefit me and the air force if i should ever make it higher in my MOCs hierarchy and senior apointments withing the AF.



But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions?  Heck, we could even revert to the WW2 era concept of flying Sgts.  Or is that getting too heretical?


----------



## aesop081

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions?




You will always need people in those positions who have recent, relevant experience to bring into the job.  We have an abundance of people in those jobs now who have a single flying tour or were cast-offs from their units and , IMHO, its hurting us.  Also, we have guys/gals who are career captains and have a wealth of experience that cant be bought.  Those people all want to "just fly" but their experience would do a reater good is other capacities. IMHO we cant have a stream for workers and a stream for managers because what we need is managers who have work experience.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions?  Heck, we could even revert to the WW2 era concept of flying Sgts.  Or is that getting too heretical?



You're applying pressure to a personal hot button here...

There are, informally, two streams. As all pilots are unnecessarily officers, it is rather hard to get promoted. I've long since given up paying attention to what constitutes critical factors (being a happy reservist/hobbyist now and having carefully cultivated enemies who did pay attention to those critical factors during my Reg F days), but our merit listings went to ridiculous places of decimal when I did and things like second language scores, OPDP, secondary duties, blind luck, gross incompetency (sent on every course imaginable to keep a certain individual away from his Squadron and before anybody realized it, he was the most qualified individual in 10 TAG), and occasionally simple rectal-osculatory skills made all of the difference. I was often surprised that they managed to promote some highly deserving and competent people at all out of that process. Those whp simply wanted to keep flying tend(ed) to avoid the career courses.

Why stop at Sergeants? The British Army was (don't know if they still are) training Corporals to fly. Rank and commission do not make one a better driver, or there'd be an officer in every truck. It's expensive. inefficient, and completely assinine.

I've noted that it's quick and easy to teach somebody to fly a machine, but it takes much time for them to learn to employ it well tactically, and subsequently to employ subunits and units well tactically. We largely leave that up to a process of osmosis, and I've seen that flop in the Tac Hel community - especially with retreads, who usually weren't keen to be there in the first place.

A couple of decades ago, pilots were viewed as completely interchangeable. They flooded out of 10 TAG into other communities  - we lost fourteen one year and gained just one retread in return - just about the time that they gained enough experience to be useful. If one wanted to remain in 10 TAG, at least that made it easy.

Heresy? I thrive on it (add that to enemy cultivation), which is just one of several reasons that I believe that we should have an Army Aviation Corps. I see confirmation of that belief almost daily. A well-rounded (officer's) career would then involve, aside from staff jobs in Army and Joint HQs, perhaps an initial few years as a Combat or Support Arms officer and perhaps an exchange to a Royal Canadian Navy Fleet Air Arm helicopter squadron. NCOs, either aircrew or groundcrew, would follow similar career patterns as their Army brethren currently do.

I've explained in previous posts why quality overall would iincrease while personnel costs (lower pay, no irrelevant ROTP, shorter training time, greater stability) would decrease.

One man's heresy is another man's thinking-outside-of-the-box. I find the term heretic far more satisfying, though.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman:  I look forward to sharing your pyre as we're burned at the stake.  I almost see a nefarious undercurrent to the current pilot training model:  it takes so long that there are always pressures, which in turn necessitate extra funding or other amenities to retain those we've already got.  Streamlining the system by having people streamed into rotary or fixed after initial flight training would save time and money, and produce more pilots using the same resources.

Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?



Moose Jaw, and yes, people do go from TacHel to Jets.


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

I'm pretty sure a number of other countries already stream their pilots from Day 1 (thus, it can be done).  Anyway ...

Right now the first PFT-Extended courses are going on in Portage ... the program covers more-or-less the same curriculum as BFT (Moose Jaw), but is done on the Grobs and is less fast jet oriented.  PFT-E graduates will have the options of Multi or Rotary: Fast Jet not possible (ever, I was told, but who knows) ... it should work because there are plenty of PATs that have no interest in the Hornet.

Another sub-issue here: In coversations with people (who get paid a lot more money than me to think about think about these things, though it was a while ago now, so things may have changed) there's apparently some concern about students who do well at Moose Jaw, but then tank their Rotary course ... as the system exists right now those people get booted, but there seems to be some idea that these people could still be successful fixed-wing pilots (some people just can't get over the idea of the wings moving faster than the fuselage I guess, hah-hah) and they are looking for a way to "restream" these people into Multi.  The only thing constant is change.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?


None whatsoever. Split it further - into Army Aviation and everything else.


----------



## Loachman

I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> I'm pretty sure a number of other countries already stream their pilots from Day 1 (thus, it can be done).



A number of other countries recruit their pilots as Navy, Army, and Marine as well, and it works just fine.



			
				I_am_John_Galt said:
			
		

> Right now the first PFT-Extended courses are going on in Portage ... the program covers more-or-less the same curriculum as BFT (Moose Jaw), but is done on the Grobs and is less fast jet oriented.  PFT-E graduates will have the options of Multi or Rotary: Fast Jet not possible (ever, I was told, but who knows).



This is a Good Thing, and about time. We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:
			
		

> This is a Good Thing, and about time. We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.



I don't quite agree with it.  The Harvard is MUCH faster and much more performant than the Grob.  It can be overwelming sometimes, especially in IF.  I find it develops your multitasking and prioritization skills, something the Grob only students might not get.

Max


----------



## dapaterson

Inch said:
			
		

> Moose Jaw, and yes, people do go from TacHel to Jets.



But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?  Let's get a return on those training dollars, vice spending hundreds of thousands more.  If Mr "I don't want to fly helicopters" decides to quit, he can go fly helicopters for a living on civvy street...

Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)  Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.

Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...


----------



## Loachman

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I don't quite agree with it.  The Harvard is MUCH faster and much more performant than the Grob.  It can be overwelming sometimes, especially in IF.  I find it develops your multitasking and prioritization skills, something the Grob only students might not get.
> 
> Max



I don't agree with you.

What does speed have to do with anything?

I got 170 hours on the Tutor (the odd ED and a bunch of gear-puller trips and a Snowbird practice), and, while I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly a tremendous little aircraft, none of it translated to what I did from the start of BHT on. It was a waste, from a military and economic point of view, of a year and a pile of money.

And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?

I could do that long before I went to Portage on the Musketeer, thanks either to natural ability, or my Infantry training, or both.


----------



## Loachman

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?



Why, indeed. Fortunately, it doesn not happen as much as it used to.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)



Precisely. The Army equivalent would be having a generic Combat Arms classification vice separate Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Combat Engineer classifications and moving somebody from Infantry battalion to Armoured regiment to Artillery regiment etcetera every three or four years. You can teach them all about their tank, APC, gun, and digging/scraping thing on a fairly short course, but would they really understand what they were doing at the unit level?



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.
> 
> Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...



Which I have said on numerous occasions here.

Too much of an Army mentality? Perhaps the a** f**ce would benefit from having an Army officer as CAS for a few years.

Personally, though, I would care not one whit what the a** f**ce did if Tac Hel were left out of it and allowed to develop to its full operational effectiveness and efficiency via sensible policies.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't agree with you.
> 
> What does speed have to do with anything?
> 
> And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?



I'm not saying it's the ONLY way to do it, but I think it is the way that will push you the most in that regard.  Not to mention that I personnaly find that 2 CFFTS is a good introduction to military flying.  I liked my time on the Slingsby, but there was nothing military in that course.

Question:  Would the PFT Extended course be taught by civilian instructors or military instructor?

Max


----------



## I_am_John_Galt

Loachman said:
			
		

> We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.


I understand that PFT-E is a *new* course (i.e., not just new to the CF), but yes, that's the idea.



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Question:  Would the PFT Extended course be taught by civilian instructors or military instructor?



I'd have to check, but I'm 99% certain that it is an extension of the Allied Wings contract (and uses AW facilities, aircraft, etc.), ergo civillian instructors (many of whom are ex-mil.).  IIRC, the main impetus behind the program was the lack of available slots at NFTC.

Getting back to the bigger point, while I certainly see some merit in the idea of being a well-rounded pilot (in the spirit of the whole Universality of Service - thing), it doesn't make a whole lot of practical or financial sense to be sending guys on multiple Phase III courses, regardless of how good (or bad) they might be ... wrt PFT-E specifically, I understand that Moose Jaw is very Jet-oriented (maybe you can correct me in a few weeks  ;D ), and while that's a great thing for future Hornet guys, I can see how it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing for everyone else.

Max, at this stage PFT-E is purely an option (& I was led to believe that should the course continue it would remain so) ... I'm sure we both know guys that are picking the Moose Jaw option who have no interest in going Fest Jet: they are just going so they'll get to fly the Harvard, which is cool and all, but maybe not in the best long term interests of the Air Force.


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?  Let's get a return on those training dollars, vice spending hundreds of thousands more.  If Mr "I don't want to fly helicopters" decides to quit, he can go fly helicopters for a living on civvy street...
> 
> Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)  Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.
> 
> Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...



Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's so different between the infantry and the armoured, training wise. Everyone does Phase 2, or CAP or whatever it's called these days and remusters happen all the time. Where's the value in teaching an artillery or armoured officer how to do section attacks? Waste of time and money, why not just stream armoured officers right into an armoured vehicle, that's where they're going be employed, right? The only difference is that it's not a remuster if a pilot goes from helo to multi or anywhere else. There's far less paperwork.

Moose Jaw is no different, it's a common starting place for all pilots. I had a commercial airplane licence and an Aviation Diploma when I joined. If I had been told I would only fly helos without the chance of flying something else, I would have said "thanks, but no thanks", and I think plenty of other people would have too. I didn't join to fly helos, helos chose me and while I enjoy it now, I sure as shit didn't join to fly helos.

You're right, operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commission. However, the tactical employment of aircraft is not a corporal's job. Just because we're driving doesn't mean we're not making the decisions on weapons release, tactics to be employed or other things like that. Despite popular belief, we're more than drivers.  If you read the orders, an aircraft captain has the same authority over his aircraft as a ship's captain has over his ship. The driver of an AFV is not in command of that vehicle, there's quite a large difference between an aircraft captain and a LAV crew commander. So, no matter what the rank of the person on board the aircraft, the aircraft captain is in command wrt the flying and handling of the aircraft and it's safety. Even if Gen Hillier is on board my aircraft, I'm in command. A slight difference from an AFV commander, no?

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.42

And as far as I'm concerned, experience is experience. Sure it takes time to build Crew Commanders, Aircraft Captains and Flight leads, but guys from different backgrounds provide a different perspective and possibly a better way of doing business.



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> I don't agree with you.
> 
> What does speed have to do with anything?
> 
> I got 170 hours on the Tutor (the odd ED and a bunch of gear-puller trips and a Snowbird practice), and, while I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly a tremendous little aircraft, none of it translated to what I did from the start of BHT on. It was a waste, from a military and economic point of view, of a year and a pile of money.
> 
> And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?
> 
> I could do that long before I went to Portage on the Musketeer, thanks either to natural ability, or my Infantry training, or both.



That's the problem with your point of view. I had a commercial licence with an instrument rating, and I learned more than a thing or two wrt decision making when moving at 4 miles a minute. Things I don't think I would have learned if I had gone onto helos having never flown faster than 130 kts. What you learned in Moose Jaw obviously has some link to flying helos, I strongly disagree that it was a total waste of time and money. I found all kinds of links between the two, and I think I use far more techniques that I learned in Moose Jaw than techniques I learned in my 200+ hrs of bug smasher time.

Could you teach the Moose Jaw course on a slower platform? Who knows, my personal opinion is that I don't think you would get the same value out of a PFT-E as you would when teaching guys to think at 4 miles a minute.


----------



## dapaterson

Inch said:
			
		

> Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's so different between the infantry and the armoured, training wise. Everyone does Phase 2, or CAP or whatever it's called these days and remusters happen all the time. Where's the value in teaching an artillery or armoured officer how to do section attacks? Waste of time and money, why not just stream armoured officers right into an armoured vehicle, that's where they're going be employed, right? The only difference is that it's not a remuster if a pilot goes from helo to multi or anywhere else. There's far less paperwork.



CAP is, as I recall, about 2 months, with no backlog.  Can the same be said for flight training?  Pilots moving from one platform to another is a waste of scare resources; building that "flexibility" into the system from day one just costs millions in additional funding.  Eliminating it would permit faster throughput - and in the words of a fairly senior guy in the CF "Sometime quantity has a quality all its own".

Remusters between the combat arms are not common (training failures aside); and, when they do occur, the individual does all the occupation-specific DP1 training.  There is no "combat arms common" DP1 for a year or so, followed by occupation-specific training - it's very different from the pilot model.



> _(some things snipped)_
> 
> You're right, operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commission. However, the tactical employment of aircraft is not a corporal's job. Just because we're driving doesn't mean we're not making the decisions on weapons release, tactics to be employed or other things like that. Despite popular belief, we're more than drivers.  If you read the orders, an aircraft captain has the same authority over his aircraft as a ship's captain has over his ship. The driver of an AFV is not in command of that vehicle, there's quite a large difference between an aircraft captain and a LAV crew commander. So, no matter what the rank of the person on board the aircraft, the aircraft captain is in command wrt the flying and handling of the aircraft and it's safety. Even if Gen Hillier is on board my aircraft, I'm in command. A slight difference from an AFV commander, no?
> 
> http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.42



And I ask again:  Why does the captain of an a/c require a commission?  We have Sgts deciding when to employ 25mm chain guns and other armaments, in accordance with the rules of engagement. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle, within the platoon context, within the company.  There is no need to have a commission to fulfil those functions.

Or even why is someone commanding four aircraft (once the next three arrive in Trenton) a lieutenant colonel?  Why is he even a commanding officer, vice an officer commanding?  If, as you say, a/c type isn't important, couldn't we have an air tn sqn with two flights of hercs and another of C-17s, all under a single LCol?



> And as far as I'm concerned, experience is experience. Sure it takes time to build Crew Commanders, Aircraft Captains and Flight leads, but guys from different backgrounds provide a different perspective and possibly a better way of doing business.


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> And I ask again:  Why does the captain of an a/c require a commission?  We have Sgts deciding when to employ 25mm chain guns and other armaments, in accordance with the rules of engagement. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle, within the platoon context, within the company.  There is no need to have a commission to fulfil those functions.
> 
> Or even why is someone commanding four aircraft (once the next three arrive in Trenton) a lieutenant colonel?  Why is he even a commanding officer, vice an officer commanding?  If, as you say, a/c type isn't important, couldn't we have an air tn sqn with two flights of hercs and another of C-17s, all under a single LCol?



A Sgt deciding when to employ his 25mm chain gun is based on what the Capt in the next vehicle over has decided. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle based on what the Platoon commander has decided the vehicle will be used for.  They're not autonomous like aircraft can and tend to be, thus we're able to make the call ourselves since we've been given that authority, the same can't be said for all AFVs. 

On top of the authority issue, we do live in the real world and the money issue is part of it too. You're not going to retain qualified helo pilots for long if you're only paying them 50-60 grand a year when on the civilian market it's much more lucrative. Despite what illusions people may have about patriotism and serving their country, Canada is still a capitalist society and the almighty dollar reigns supreme, especially when you're talking about a profession as hard to get into as pilot.

I agree on your last point, there's no reason two aircraft types can't be in the same sqn, SAR sqns have been doing it for years. Still though, other than the LCol and HQ types, you still would need to have duplicate Standards officers and technicians for the two aircraft types as well as a few other specialized jobs that are done within a particular aircraft type. That said however, it's not like the Air Force is unique in having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.


----------



## Zoomie

Inch said:
			
		

> ... having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.



Amen Brother!  Now that is a waste of money and training.  Why train an Officer corps to do a job that they will never carry out?


----------



## dapaterson

Inch said:
			
		

> A Sgt deciding when to employ his 25mm chain gun is based on what the Capt in the next vehicle over has decided. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle based on what the Platoon commander has decided the vehicle will be used for.  They're not autonomous like aircraft can and tend to be, thus we're able to make the call ourselves since we've been given that authority, the same can't be said for all AFVs.
> 
> On top of the authority issue, we do live in the real world and the money issue is part of it too. You're not going to retain qualified helo pilots for long if you're only paying them 50-60 grand a year when on the civilian market it's much more lucrative. Despite what illusions people may have about patriotism and serving their country, Canada is still a capitalist society and the almighty dollar reigns supreme, especially when you're talking about a profession as hard to get into as pilot.
> 
> I agree on your last point, there's no reason two aircraft types can't be in the same sqn, SAR sqns have been doing it for years. Still though, other than the LCol and HQ types, you still would need to have duplicate Standards officers and technicians for the two aircraft types as well as a few other specialized jobs that are done within a particular aircraft type. That said however, it's not like the Air Force is unique in having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.



I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree about the training regime for pilots, and agree on the futility of Lcols commanding 100 personnel, regardless of their environment.  (The issue of Reserve unit COs is a personal hobbyhorse)

I still disagree about the AFV/aircraft differences, as there is a fair degree of individual autonomy even within a platoon structure.

On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; there has to be a reasonable return on investment.


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree about the training regime for pilots, and agree on the futility of Lcols commanding 100 personnel, regardless of their environment.  (The issue of Reserve unit COs is a personal hobbyhorse)
> 
> I still disagree about the AFV/aircraft differences, as there is a fair degree of individual autonomy even within a platoon structure.
> 
> On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; there has to be a reasonable return on investment.



There already is restricted release for pilots. Upon receiving your wings you enter a 7 year period of restricted release. I guess the CF figures that 7 years is a fair return on their investment. While the system may not be perfect, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Pilots already have separate pay tables, I guess I just fail to see why two guys, both aircraft captains and doing the same job should be paid different. I'm sure we both agree that there has to be some pilot officers, considering the only Air Force officers that reach the level of General are either pilots or Navigators, and since there has to be pilot officers and paying two guys differently for doing the exact same job doesn't make a whole lot of sense, every pilot is an officer. As far as I see it anyhow. That's how it works else where in the world, in fact, all pilots are officers in every arm of every military that I can think of, minus the US Army and the Army Air Corps in the UK.

Recruiting is always going to be a problem, the CF needs to be the employer of choice. In order to attract talented people and then keep those that do take the plunge, it has to be fiscally worth it. That's the danger with giving people marketable skills, those same skills will draw a higher wage else where. It's unavoidable. If you look at the pilot pay tables there has been a shift in when you start making the "big bucks". Prior to 1998 you started quite high on the pay tables, now you start out making less than $100 over what a GSO makes, and Lt's no longer get pilot pay.

And for the record, you're not promoted past 2Lt until you get your wings and you're employable. So in effect, it is exactly like you mentioned above, you're earning a living wage while learning the trade, but as soon as you're employable and desirable to outside employers, your pay goes up.


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; *there has to be a reasonable return on investment*.



That's why our contract is 7 years after wings.  Yes, we are well paid during training, but our salary, for the kind of responsability we have (ie:  type of aircraft we fly) is much less than in the civy world.  How much a 777 Capt makes at Air Canada?  I think in the neighborhood of 200 000$ a year (base salary).  How much a C-17 Capt makes?  100 000$ a year if he has 10 years in the service...  Over the long run, we do not make THAT much money.

Max


----------



## dapaterson

Using Air Canada widebodies as an example is not the best comparison.  Many pilots are flying smaller airlines and making less money.  And look at the number of hours in their logs - they aren't walking in off the street, Cessna license in hand, and starting at that level.  They have also seen significant pay reductions in recent years as commercial air has undergone structural shifts.

I'd argue that excluding the US and UK from a discussion of Officers as pilots is like discussing macaroni and cheese but omitting Kraft Dinner.  If those two allies can make it work, why can't we?


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Using Air Canada widebodies as an example is not the best comparison.  Many pilots are flying smaller airlines and making less money.  And look at the number of hours in their logs - they aren't walking in off the street, Cessna license in hand, and starting at that level.  They have also seen significant pay reductions in recent years as commercial air has undergone structural shifts.
> 
> I'd argue that excluding the US and UK from a discussion of Officers as pilots is like discussing macaroni and cheese but omitting Kraft Dinner.  If those two allies can make it work, why can't we?



dapaterson, my wife is a commercial pilot working for a small charter company.  She will be upgrading to Captain on a King Air (9 Passengers), flying mostly Medevacs and some charters.  She will then make about 70 000$ a year, which is about what a 1st year Capt Pilot will make in the Forces.  Her pay will just go up from there and she flies what we use for training.  

Yes, she has many more hours than most CF pilots that started when she did, but her work consists of taking off, 400' Post Take Off check, auto-pilot on. Make sure in cruise she won't get her IFR ticket violated then descend on the approach and disconnect the Auto Pilot at MDA or Decision Height.  Nothing to compare to what most CF pilots do.  

Comparing the 777 to the C-17 isn't unfair in my opinion.  Both are heavies.  The only differences are that the 777 carry passengers.  The C-17 crew might not carry pax, but they might get shot at. 

Max


----------



## Inch

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I'd argue that excluding the US and UK from a discussion of Officers as pilots is like discussing macaroni and cheese but omitting Kraft Dinner.  If those two allies can make it work, why can't we?



Only their armies make it work, the Navy, Marines and Air Forces have all officer pilots. We can't make it work for the army because of unification, we simply don't have an army air corps anymore and as a result, all pilots in the CF are officers.


----------



## dapaterson

An interesting article on pilot pay is online at http://www.salon.com/tech/col/smith/2006/02/17/askthepilot174/print.html.

SupersonicMax:  The experience is a major differentiation.  And the fact that a first-year Capt in the CF makes the same suggests the CF is overpaying (frankly, I'd argue that the whole CF officer corps, myself included, is overpaid for the work we do, but that's another tangent...)

And I still see no reason why the CF can't have NCM pilots.  If Sgt Chuck Yeager was good enough to be a fighter jock in WW2, I don't see why his modern-day Canadian contemporaries can't hold the same rank.  Except for institutional inertia...


(And mods:  Can this tangent be split off into another thread?  We seem to have lost the bubble on "Reserve Tac Hel Pilots")


----------



## SupersonicMax

dapaterson said:
			
		

> SupersonicMax:  The experience is a major differentiation.  And the fact that a first-year Capt in the CF makes the same suggests the CF is overpaying (frankly, I'd argue that the whole CF officer corps, myself included, is overpaid for the work we do, but that's another tangent...)



dapaterson:  Experience isn't only hours.  The industry really looks for the type of experience winged CF pilots have.  Majors (airlines it is) will not even look at your resume if you have less that 3-4000 hrs of flying time. However, if you're military, with 1000 hrs, they might take you. CF First Officers make more than beeing the Comms Bi*ch and the coffee server.

 Our qualifications, training and military experience is worth much more than what civies get.  I don't know any school out there that offer basic traning (PPL equivalent) on a 9 million $, glass cockpit, 1100 HP turbo-prop airplane.  We're talking about a high performance aircraft.  You're lucky if you get your training on a Katana in the civy schools. We are VERY competitive for the civilian market.  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> And I still see no reason why the CF can't have NCM pilots.  If Sgt Chuck Yeager was good enough to be a fighter jock in WW2, I don't see why his modern-day Canadian contemporaries can't hold the same rank.  Except for institutional inertia...



Pilots are more than operators.  I just finished 200 hrs of ground school (and that's only for BFT, more to come on advanced phases...) and it's a lot of things to know and you can get into big trouble very quickly if you don't know all the information you need to know and that only for the flying aspect.  And in a day to day pilot life, flying is secondary.  It's a given.  They are not evaluated on their PER for the amazing IF skills they have or the great overhead break he did last month. 

Pilots employ a machine, it weapons and different tactics in order to accomplish an objective.  They rarely have your boss behind you when you have an unknown in flight.  Theyhave to take the decision themself and in some circumstance, the decision could be life or death.  Not to mention that most pilot will eventually become flight leaders and such and will actually lead people in flight.

According to your reasonning, you are saying that any officer in the CF (except maybe at the general level) could be an NCM.  

Max


----------



## SeaKingTacco

There probably is no reason why some CF pilots in some roles could not be NCMs, but- why bother?  Sure- some militaries use NCMs as helo pilots.  No military that I am aware of uses NCMs as pilots of fixed wing heavy assets or fighters (I stand to be corrected when evidence to the contrary is presented). We can sit around and lament the loss of the Army Air Corps (and Fleet Air Arm, too, for that matter).  The simple fact of the matter is that we are never going back that way.  Ever.  Therefore- CF pilots are going to remain officers- all of them.

Remember this- I am a Navigator and have no dog in this fight.  ;D


----------



## Loachman

Inch said:
			
		

> Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's so different between the infantry and the armoured, training wise. Everyone does Phase 2, or CAP or whatever it's called these days and remusters happen all the time. Where's the value in teaching an artillery or armoured officer how to do section attacks? Waste of time and money, why not just stream armoured officers right into an armoured vehicle, that's where they're going be employed, right?



It's been a couple of decades since I did Phase II Infantry, Portage, or Moose Jaw so things may have changed however Phase II involved those things that were pretty common across the board, ie drill, first aid, weapons, fieldcraft, leadership skills in stressful situations, and simple small-unit tactics. As this course was run by Armour, Artillery, and Infantry schools independently, there may have been some arm-specific training given in each but I do not know for sure. Phase II would equate more to PFS, whereas Phases III and IV - definitely arm-specific, would relate more to BFT and OTU.

And anybody in the field should possess the skills and knowledge imparted in Phase II - Combat Arms, Support Arms, and Tac Hel as well. Operationally, that would be far more valuable than zipping about in a fast aeroplane for a year.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> The only difference is that it's not a remuster if a pilot goes from helo to multi or anywhere else. There's far less paperwork.



And far less training time. Besides, how many remusters/reclassifications do you see between Combat Arms components. None at all? They're usually to Int of P Aff or technical trades.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Moose Jaw is no different, it's a common starting place for all pilots.



Other than simply "because it is", why? I'd suggest that, as it precedes Moose Jaw and is also common, that Portage is a more valid "common starting place". And, other than for cost effectiveness, I see no need for a "common starting place" at all. The US Armed Forces have many "starting places".



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> If I had been told I would only fly helos without the chance of flying something else, I would have said "thanks, but no thanks", and I think plenty of other people would have too. I didn't join to fly helos, helos chose me and while I enjoy it now, I sure as crap didn't join to fly helos.



I did, and if anybody had told me that I'd have had to fly seized-wing...

If we recruited people into specific flying streams, ie helicopter, multi-engine, and jet, I'm sure that there would have been slots available to you and those like you in all categories as well.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> You're right, operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commission. However, the tactical employment of aircraft is not a corporal's job. Just because we're driving doesn't mean we're not making the decisions on weapons release, tactics to be employed or other things like that. Despite popular belief, we're more than drivers.  If you read the orders, an aircraft captain has the same authority over his aircraft as a ship's captain has over his ship. The driver of an AFV is not in command of that vehicle, there's quite a large difference between an aircraft captain and a LAV crew commander. So, no matter what the rank of the person on board the aircraft, the aircraft captain is in command wrt the flying and handling of the aircraft and it's safety. Even if Gen Hillier is on board my aircraft, I'm in command. A slight difference from an AFV commander, no?



The tactical employment of an AFV is not a corporal's job, either, under normal circumstances. It's the crew commander's, and he is a highly experienced Sergeant or possibly Master Corporal. He's not driving, either, although he may have done earlier in his career. You could compare a fighter pilot to a unified driver/crew commander, but the new lone fighter pilot is still operating as a wingman and making no decisions beyond those that involve the safe operation of his vehicle only. He doesn't decide whom to shoot or bomb unless his lead is gone. 

The crew commander has pretty much the same authority over the occupants of his vehicle as an aircraft captain has. There's really not a lot of difference, and, where one exists, it's generally because a generic aircraft could be operating at many thousands of feet thousands of miles from anywhere and there is no other authority. My powers as aircraft captain aside, I do not decide everything pertaining to my mission any more than a crew commander does and my responsibility includes carrying out that mission to the best of my ability. If I am flying General Hillier around, and he sees something on the ground that he wishes to inspect closer and I refuse to land and let him off, then it would be interesting to see whose authority trumps whose. Orders or lack thereof aside, if General Hillier goes out on a patrol in the back of a LAV, he's not likely to usurp the crew commander's authority and responsibility for a whole list of reasons. LGen Leslie likes to go out on patrols on exercises, and did when he was in Kabul, and I have heard no tales of him pushing his weight around.

In most battlefield helicopters, there is an aircraft captain (crew commander) and first officer (driver). The sole difference in that regard between the rotary-winged vehicle and the tracked or wheeled vehicle is that the rotary-winged vehicle has a second set of controls so the crew commander can wiggle the sticks when necessary. When engaged in a tactical mission, however, the copilot should be doing that while the crew commander/aircraft captain should be handling the maps and radios and thinking and deciding and directing. It's hard to keep track of what's going on in a fluid battlefield while trying to dodge wires and cows.

In its application to the battlefield, the helicopter is simply a vehicle with a different method of mobility.

There is no requirement for a commission for either the senior driver or the junior one, for any reason.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> And as far as I'm concerned, experience is experience. Sure it takes time to build Crew Commanders, Aircraft Captains and Flight leads, but guys from different backgrounds provide a different perspective and possibly a better way of doing business.



And sometimes don't have a clue, or try to impose things that worked well in their previous communities but don't in their new one.

I've seen too many ex-fighter pilots tossed into leadership positions in 10 TAG do just that in the past to see that as any benefit. Only one exception comes to mind.

Now, a cross-trainee from the Combat Arms into Tac Hel is gold unless he's a numpty to begin with. There's far more applicable knowledge and experience there than there is in a fighter pilot with an amended driver's licence. That same experience wouldn't be so helpful in other flying communities, though.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> That's the problem with your point of view. I had a commercial licence with an instrument rating, and I learned more than a thing or two wrt decision making when moving at 4 miles a minute. Things I don't think I would have learned if I had gone onto helos having never flown faster than 130 kts.



But how valuable, really, were they? I cannot think of a single thing that I learned in Moose Jaw related to speed and altitude and flying upside-down on occasion that had any bearing on anything that I ever did afterwards. Nothing. Thousands upon thousands of military helicopter pilots around the globe, over many decades, seem to have done quite well without their nations buring up bazillions on zipping around in little neato jets and turboprops.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> What you learned in Moose Jaw obviously has some link to flying helos,



Not obviously. Quite the contrary.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> I strongly disagree that it was a total waste of time and money. I found all kinds of links between the two, and I think I use far more techniques that I learned in Moose Jaw than techniques I learned in my 200+ hrs of bug smasher time.



Those could have been taught in more economical ways on more suitable course, I'm sure.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> Could you teach the Moose Jaw course on a slower platform? Who knows, my personal opinion is that I don't think you would get the same value out of a PFT-E as you would when teaching guys to think at 4 miles a minute.



We are needlessly over-training, especially as pilot training relates to the Tac Hel community. That is my lane and my concern. Other communities vary, and I will not argue so strongly in their affairs.


----------



## Loachman

Inch said:
			
		

> A Sgt deciding when to employ his 25mm chain gun is based on what the Capt in the next vehicle over has decided. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle based on what the Platoon commander has decided the vehicle will be used for.  They're not autonomous like aircraft can and tend to be, thus we're able to make the call ourselves since we've been given that authority, the same can't be said for all AFVs.



There is extremely little difference between battlefield helicopters and AFVs in their tactical employment. An AH company commander maintains similar control over what the individual aircraft are doing in his company when they are engaging an enemy. RAH66 allowed him to do that technologically - he could box off individual killzones and transmit them to all of his aircraft so that none could engage in another's KZ without his specific authority, in order to prevent multiple engagements of one target by several aircraft.

A Sea King may be autonomous, and an Aurora, but a Griffon or an Apache on the battlefield is not.

Neither is a fighter.

And an AC on No 2 helicopter can only make decisions within the authority given to him by his lead or higher.

Our Sergeants are no dumber than any British Army Air Corps Sergeant who wears wings. Our Sergeants are no dumber than I am with my commission. A commission by itself confers no special abilities or smarts.

We select for smarts and natural ability and train for special abilities.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> On top of the authority issue, we do live in the real world and the money issue is part of it too. You're not going to retain qualified helo pilots for long if you're only paying them 50-60 grand a year when on the civilian market it's much more lucrative. Despite what illusions people may have about patriotism and serving their country, Canada is still a capitalist society and the almighty dollar reigns supreme, especially when you're talking about a profession as hard to get into as pilot.



That's why we have spec pay and aircrew allowance. Besides, there are not that many helicopter jobs out there that lure people away anyway. Airlines pay much more than any air force, naval aviation component. or army flying corps does yet many elect to continue to serve. Money, for lots of people, is not the driving factor.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> I agree on your last point, there's no reason two aircraft types can't be in the same sqn, SAR sqns have been doing it for years. Still though, other than the LCol and HQ types, you still would need to have duplicate Standards officers and technicians for the two aircraft types as well as a few other specialized jobs that are done within a particular aircraft type. That said however, it's not like the Air Force is unique in having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.



In the Kiowa and Twin Huey day, most Tac Hel Squadrons operated two types as well, but that was a peacetime concept. In wartime, groupings would have been doctrinal and we trained that way on major exercises. Kiowa Squadrons would locate closely behind the FEBA as our employment was far more intimate and continual. UTTH Squadrons would locate about 50 KM back. MTH and Maint Sqns would be even further back. Under those circumstances, mixing of types and misions was completely impractical.

Squadrons vary in manning, and many (Tac Hel at least) are over 100 people. A doctrinal wartime Griffon squadron is twenty-four aircraft with a crewing ration of 2:1 or higher to permit 24/7 operations, planning, and liaison with supported units. That's 96 pilots and 48 flight engineers alone.


----------



## Good2Golf

> Squadrons vary in manning, and many (Tac Hel at least) are over 100 people. A doctrinal wartime Griffon squadron is twenty-four aircraft with a crewing ration of 2:1 or higher to permit 24/7 operations, planning, and liaison with supported units. That's 96 pilots and 48 flight engineers alone.



LM, the big 3 are all pushing 300...

There are points for, and points against NCMs as pilots.  The US example is not an analogy because the US Army WO1/WO2/CW3/CW4/CW5 aviators have no equivalency in the CF.  There are also points to be made for "specialist aircrew" (capped at Major / SqnLdr) who will not progress through Command - like in the RAF.  In the end, Canada uses what appears to work best for it...both cases have been made in the past, and neither supported, for whatever reasons folks would like to speculate about.

Cheers
G2G


----------



## Loachman

Inch said:
			
		

> I guess I just fail to see why two guys, both aircraft captains and doing the same job should be paid different. I'm sure we both agree that there has to be some pilot officers, considering the only Air Force officers that reach the level of General are either pilots or Navigators, and since there has to be pilot officers and paying two guys differently for doing the exact same job doesn't make a whole lot of sense, every pilot is an officer. As far as I see it anyhow. That's how it works else where in the world, in fact, all pilots are officers in every arm of every military that I can think of, minus the US Army and the Army Air Corps in the UK.



Why pay two guys who are doing a crew commander job any differently simply based upon the method of mobility?

I don't see any complaints coming from British Army NCO pilots or US Army WO pilots that they're being paid less than their zoomie counterparts.

Yes, there has to be some pilot officers - Flight Commanders, Squadron Commanders, their deputies, Ops Officers, and HQ staff types.

Officers exist to lead and exercise command over more than a crew anywhere other than air forces. There is no need for every pilot to hold a commission to command a crew, let alone drive.

Australia and New Zealand also have NCO pilots, at least. And one must also take into account that many armies have different opinions regarding NCOs and Officers. In many, officers are professionals and everybody else is a conscripted amateur. Under those circumstances, putting a two-year-term conscript through pilot training definitely makes no sense.

R





			
				Inch said:
			
		

> ecruiting is always going to be a problem, the CF needs to be the employer of choice. In order to attract talented people and then keep those that do take the plunge, it has to be fiscally worth it. That's the danger with giving people marketable skills, those same skills will draw a higher wage else where. It's unavoidable. If you look at the pilot pay tables there has been a shift in when you start making the "big bucks". Prior to 1998 you started quite high on the pay tables, now you start out making less than $100 over what a GSO makes, and Lt's no longer get pilot pay.
> 
> And for the record, you're not promoted past 2Lt until you get your wings and you're employable. So in effect, it is exactly like you mentioned above, you're earning a living wage while learning the trade, but as soon as you're employable and desirable to outside employers, your pay goes up.



Check the starting pay of airline pilots and what most have to go through to get even that, which is why I elected not to do that when I left the Reg F. It's not exactly a secure and stable job environment, either. Air Canada let everybody with less than thirteen years seniority go back in the mid-nineties when the industry took a down-turn, and airlines are always going TU. Most commercial helicopter pilots spend more time in the bush than Tac Hel pilots, and make less, unless things have changed dramatically over the last decade. The type of flying makes a big difference to some people as well. There are few commercial helicopter jobs that have any appeal to me whatsoever. I did two police helicopter trials and would have stuck with that had either gone permanent - but would also have stayed on as a reservist anyway. Money isn't everything to many pilots, which is no different in the Army or Navy either. Most military officers could make far more in civilian fields if they chose to go that route.



			
				Inch said:
			
		

> And for the record, you're not promoted past 2Lt until you get your wings and you're employable. So in effect, it is exactly like you mentioned above, you're earning a living wage while learning the trade, but as soon as you're employable and desirable to outside employers, your pay goes up.



We've had Captains show up at our OTUs who've hung around waiting between Wings Grad in Portage and then. The delay was so long that they got promoted even though they weren't "employable", in my definition anyway.


----------



## Loachman

Inch said:
			
		

> we simply don't have an army air corps anymore



Absolutely the worst result of unification.


----------



## Inch

Counter points to all mine, you've convinced me. I see no need whatsoever to have any officers, if everyone can do the job then pay everyone the same and have no commissions and we'll be off to the races.

If you wanted to pay me the same and employ me the same, I don't care what rank you make me. If this is the way Tac Hel drivers think, I'll stay MH, thank you very much.

Then again, how many guys have failed out of pilot training? Guess it's not quite the same as being a LAV CC, but what do I know, I was only a gunner and not a CC.

If you think we're the only ones that do a course on a Turboprop prior to streaming, you're wrong. The USN/USMC does it on the T-34 and the USAF does a similar 90 hr course on the T-6 Texan II before streaming off to Rotary, Jets, or multi. If it's good enough for them, and they train a hell of a lot more pilots than we do, then it's good enough for us.

Kind of ironic isn't it? In my experience, the Tac Hel drivers are the ones that complain the most about who's running the Air Force yet they're also the ones that seem to want NCM pilots. Who do you think is going to run the Air Force when less than half your pilots are Officers?

Anyway, I digress.


----------



## dapaterson

Loachman said:
			
		

> Quote from: Inch on Yesterday at 20:41:36
> we simply don't have an army air corps anymore
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely the worst result of unification.
Click to expand...


I'd argue the old work dress was the worst result of unification (at least from a fashion perspective)...


----------



## Rick Ruter

Loachman said:
			
		

> What does speed have to do with anything?
> 
> I got 170 hours on the Tutor (the odd ED and a bunch of gear-puller trips and a Snowbird practice), and, while I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly a tremendous little aircraft, none of it translated to what I did from the start of BHT on. It was a waste, from a military and economic point of view, of a year and a pile of money.



Loachman, I'm the product of fast air and then switched to helos and I disagree with your comment above. The 4-6 miles per minute gets you thinking pretty quick and when you get to helos, you have all the time in the world which keeps you IN the cockpit and not skiing behind. As an ICP, I see a big difference between loach drivers, slugs and fast air background. The fastair pilots are much better at IF. Wether you realize it or not, I'm positive the ILS', PARs and TACANs you did in the Tutor helped you in Portage.


----------



## Loachman

Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> Loachman, I'm the product of fast air and then switched to helos and I disagree with your comment above. The 4-6 miles per minute gets you thinking pretty quick and when you get to helos, you have all the time in the world which keeps you IN the cockpit and not skiing behind.



Your mileage may vary. I stand by my comment. Nothing that I did in the Kiowa, especially when operating tactically, bore any resemblance to anything that I did in Moose Jaw that I can remember, and certainly nothing that could not have been taught more cheaply on something else, that something else preferably being more relevant.



			
				Rick Ruter said:
			
		

> As an ICP, I see a big difference between loach drivers, slugs and fast air background. The fastair pilots are much better at IF. Wether you realize it or not, I'm positive the ILS', PARs and TACANs you did in the Tutor helped you in Portage.



Again, that IF could have been taught on something cheaper and more relevant. After Portage, I had no use for IF other than achieving my quarterly minima and doing my ticket ride beyond treating it as the emergency procedure that it was for us. Most other Kiowa pilots were the same. Those of us now stuck on the CH146 haven't changed much, either.


----------



## Rick Ruter

Loachman said:
			
		

> Again, that IF could have been taught on something cheaper and more relevant. After Portage, I had no use for IF other than achieving my quarterly minima and doing my ticket ride beyond treating it as the emergency procedure that it was for us. Most other Kiowa pilots were the same. Those of us now stuck on the CH146 haven't changed much, either.



I understand as a loach driver that IF wasn't done except for minimums to keep your ticket but the Griffon??? 



			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> Again, that IF could have been taught on something cheaper and more relevant.



Believe it or not, the Tutor was cheaper to fly then than the Griffon is now and that's what helo guys will get their wings on soon. But it is more relevant, hence logical.

We have different opinions because we started on different airframes. Maybe the 170 hours on Tutor didn't do me as much good as I believed because I put on 1500 hours on T-Bird after that... so my fast air stuff is mostly T-Bird.


----------



## Good2Golf

I've regularly filed to get around/over crap that many civy helo drivers had to sit and wait out.  

Everybody has had different experiences during the formative first tour, but IF and thinking at speeds that challenge one's performance are good reasons to keep things the way they are.  Heck, you could probably make a wings program based on the Goodyear blimp, but it would be far less relevant than the "overkill" that some profess exists in the CF pilot production stream.  The time that you would need being on top of things the most and not have had the challenge during training to allow you to handle the situation appropriately would be the deal breaker.  It's always easy to say, "I don't need [XXX] or [YYY] for training, if you haven't been one of the guys to ever need it -- I have, on the other hand, so I don't think the current system is broken.

 mein 2¢

G2G


----------

