# Initiatives launched to retain and increase RCAF personnel experience levels



## dimsum (10 Jun 2019)

> News Article / June 10, 2019
> 
> Quality of Life — Quality of Service
> In June 2019, programs were launched to ensure the continuing health of the RCAF and our ability to achieve mission success. These initiatives are vital in the face of an unprecedented level of global competition for the skills of pilots, technicians, highly trained aviation specialists, and support personnel. Across the RCAF, we are working on restoring and retaining levels of personnel experience and thereby ensure we are able to meet our current mandate and properly transfer skills and knowledge to the next generations of aviators.
> ...



http://rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=initiatives-launched-to-retain-and-increase-rcaf-personnel-experience-levels%2Fjwmfy5h7&fbclid=IwAR0fMxZ31ybtEFiL4qA1rTqgj_gPevs1OhwNgYhTVWIpvVJuxpYLvZzw-zs



Also:



> News Article / June 10, 2019
> 
> From the Royal Canadian Air Force
> 
> ...



http://www.rcaf-arc.forces.gc.ca/en/article-template-standard.page?doc=quality-of-life-quality-of-service-initiatives/jwmfxwk7


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jun 2019)

Too little too late.  This won’t stop the bleeding.  It’ll just make you comfortable until you die...


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Jun 2019)

Another story:



> Air force commander eyes bonuses to address shortage of experienced pilots
> 
> The commander of Canada's air force wants to pay retention and signing bonuses to pilots, one measure of several meant to address the military's shortage of experienced aviators and mechanics.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## Ostrozac (11 Jun 2019)

The new Air Operations Officer MOSID is an interesting development. But what form will it take? Is it going to be a Prussian-style General Staff for the RCAF, educated, trained and specialized in the planning and employment of airpower? Or is it going to be a place where washouts from the aircrew training pipeline end up for permanent employment on cubicle duty in Ottawa? 

And doesn’t the AirPower Operations Course already provide trained RCAF staff officers without creating a whole new career structure? Aircrew and non-aircrew officers with APOC can fill staff billets, or be employed in their home cap badge. This new MOSID seems to be intended as staff-only, is there a need for that?


----------



## Navy_Pete (11 Jun 2019)

Only know a few pilots, but none of them complained about the things listed here.  Getting messed around by the boss/wing/RCAF and getting stuck in jobs where they couldn't fly were the complaints over a pint.

From an outsiders take, this seems like an off target top down approach from the same group that is ignoring/causing the underlying issues. Am I missing something here?

Maybe they could start with simple solutions at the lower level, like not being arseholes to their people. That would be free!


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jun 2019)

Lots of talk about pilots.  Not much about ACSOs or any of the NCM aircrew trades.  Like I mentioned on FB when I saw the article, fill an Aurora up with pilots and it can't even take off.

But, I'm sure the concerns and burn-out for "non-pilot" aircrew and maintainers are on the Leadership's radar... 



> Empower leaders down to the unit level to improve work-life balance.



Oh ya, that's what I've been seeing the last X years at my Sqn.  You know...more LOE than there are crews, people being effectively on duty for weeks straight...not sure what "intiated" means, of what "empowering" has happened but...it must have bypassed my Wing.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jun 2019)

Ostrozac said:
			
		

> The new Air Operations Officer MOSID is an interesting development. But what form will it take? Is it going to be a Prussian-style General Staff for the RCAF, educated, trained and specialized in the planning and employment of airpower? Or is it going to be a place where washouts from the aircrew training pipeline end up for permanent employment on cubicle duty in Ottawa?
> 
> And doesn’t the AirPower Operations Course already provide trained RCAF staff officers without creating a whole new career structure? Aircrew and non-aircrew officers with APOC can fill staff billets, or be employed in their home cap badge. This new MOSID seems to be intended as staff-only, is there a need for that?



From what I've heard, the Air Ops Officer is very similar to the RAAF's Operations Officer or Operations Manager:  

https://www.defencejobs.gov.au/jobs/Air-Force/operations-manager

Basically, they will take a lot of the billets in Sqn/Wing Ops, certain cubicles, etc that are currently filled by Pilots and ACSOs, to allow them to be back in flying units.  Higher up, they will also deal with the strategic planning, etc.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jun 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Lots of talk about pilots.  Not much about ACSOs or any of the NCM aircrew trades.  Like I mentioned on FB when I saw the article, fill an Aurora up with pilots and it can't even take off.
> 
> But, I'm sure the concerns and burn-out for "non-pilot" aircrew and maintainers are on the Leadership's radar...



The sad truth is that Pilots (and AECs) have a clear way out and people are leaving.  ACSOs, AES Ops, FEs and such don't, and so it's not as imminent of a threat.  

I would like to get more than GSO (and aircrew pay when flying) too... :'(


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jun 2019)

Our trade has some decent opportunities;  payload operators, contractors...there are job posting shared in our FB group and they seem to be fairly frequent.  

I guess, despite the fact the demand for our trade is growing in the RCAF, there's no GAFF for how healthy the trade is.  Just crank more people out of Wpg...that might keep numbers up, but not experience levels.   :dunno:


----------



## TCM621 (13 Jun 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> The sad truth is that Pilots (and AECs) have a clear way out and people are leaving.  ACSOs, AES Ops, FEs and such don't, and so it's not as imminent of a threat.
> 
> I would like to get more than GSO (and aircrew pay when flying) too... :'(



Techs are in high demand as well. It isn't quite as bad as it was a few years ago during the oil boom but they are still leaving. And the ones that are leaving are the 10-12 year MCpl/Sgts, just as they are becoming "experienced" they are leaving. I would argue that techs are even more important than pilots right now because most of our aircraft take a ton of maintenance to actually fly. No point having pilots if the planes don't work. I know that my Sqn didn't meet its YFR primarily due to lack of serviceable planes.


----------



## daftandbarmy (13 Jun 2019)

Albeit about the civilian side of the sector, apparently, it's not just about the money....


Strategies for Attracting and Retaining a Skilled Workforce
in a Cyclical Industry
A Study Prepared for
The Aerospace Review Secretariat
July 2012

Executive Summary:
This report describes the cyclical nature of the Canadian aerospace and space industries and the
challenges that cyclicality poses to retaining and replenishing the industries’ human capital. The report
also describes human resources management initiatives and strategies that might assist the industries in
attracting and retaining skilled and experienced workers. The report is based on a literature review, a
review of statistical sources, and eight key informant interviews.


The first group of strategies focused on firm-level strategies to retain skilled and experienced workers.
These strategies included relative remuneration, supplementary unemployment benefits, work-sharing,
and strengthening the linkage between short-term lay-offs and industry-relevant training.

The second group of strategies focused on potential strategies to replenish the human capital pool
available to the aerospace and space industries. These included: formulating a consensus to increase the
number of entry-level engineering positions, augmenting support for co-op and internship programs
(including tracking participation), exploring the scope for shared apprenticeship management, and
utilizing various options under federal and provincial immigration schemes.

The third group of strategies that were discussed pertain to sector-level human resources planning. An
important experiment that will be of interest to the industry is the PARC initiative in Quebec. This
section also looked at the industry’s need to consider options to preserve investments already made in
industry-recognized certifications. It was also noted that, outside of Quebec, there are data deficiencies
that will need to be addressed as part of any broadly-based strategy to address human resources planning
on a sector level.


http://aerospacereview.ca/eic/site/060.nsf/vwapj/Report_on_Cyclicality_and_Human_Resources_-_Final.pdf/$file/Report_on_Cyclicality_and_Human_Resources_-_Final.pdf


----------



## Quirky (20 Dec 2019)

Seems appropriate here:

Contractors to help Air Force manage shortage of experienced pilots, technicians

https://www.ctvnews.ca/canada/contractors-to-help-air-force-manage-shortage-of-experienced-pilots-technicians-1.4738235



> OTTAWA -- The Royal Canadian Air Force is turning to contractors to address a shortage of experienced military pilots that has forced commanders to walk a delicate line between keeping enough seasoned aviators available to train new recruits and lead missions in the air.
> 
> In an interview with The Canadian Press, Air Force commander Lt.-Gen. Al Meinzinger revealed the military plans to hire contractors to fill some pilot-instructor positions so its active-duty aviators can continue to fly real missions in Canada and around the world.
> 
> ...



Don't see the point of all this. Seems like a way for people to just release to avoid all the BS that comes with being in the military. Looks like they've given up on retention in the fighter world (I still believe it's 100% related to living in Cold Lake) and are focusing on keeping those things flying, no matter the cost.


----------



## daftandbarmy (20 Dec 2019)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Seems appropriate here:
> 
> Contractors to help Air Force manage shortage of experienced pilots, technicians
> 
> ...



The best leaders are also those who have experience, and enjoy, training others. Just sayin'... :


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Dec 2019)

Retention issues? Bah, just give them some patches.


----------



## Quirky (20 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> The best leaders are also those who have experience, and enjoy, training others. Just sayin'... :



That's fine and all, but this just gives pilots/techs an even bigger incentive to release. Retention doesn't seem like something the CAF is concerned with anymore and privatization of the defence force is becoming more apparent.


----------



## RCDtpr (20 Dec 2019)

The reality here is this is not an RCAF specific problem, it’s happening throughout the entire CAF.

One of the biggest factors for everyone I’ve talked to that released (myself included) was salary.  Having said that, I understand that is out of the CAFs control and it is what it is really.....nothing they can do about that.

What they CAN do to help with retention, in my opinion, is to not treat their people like garbage.  The other major factor from friends who’ve all released recently (myself included) is “leadership”.  In the 13 years I was in before releasing, I noticed a massive nose dive in the competence as well as quality level of human beings in the higher ups.  The toxicity from higher from when I left compared to when I joined is unreal in how much it’s elevated.  Perhaps it’s due to the fact that in the Afghan days, higher ups were too busy with real work, whereas these days it seems like they have nothing else to do so they implement some of the worlds dumbest decisions in an attempt to make their PER look more attractive.......which in turn drives people away.

Add to that the postings for the sake of postings, out of trade positions, the atmosphere of going to work and wondering if today is the day an OP Honour witch hunt is going to target you, and it’s plainly obvious to anyone below the rank of Col, it seems, why the CAF is having such retention and recruiting issues.  

To be honest, I don’t think this problem is going to get better before it gets worse.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2019)

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> The reality here is this is not an RCAF specific problem, it’s happening throughout the entire CAF.
> 
> One of the biggest factors for everyone I’ve talked to that released (myself included) was salary.  Having said that, I understand that is out of the CAFs control and it is what it is really.....nothing they can do about that.
> 
> ...



So.... what you're saying is.... we need different morale patches, right?


----------



## dimsum (21 Dec 2019)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> So.... what you're saying is.... we need different morale patches, right?



Hey hey, we just got approval to wear sqn patches on the neck of the blue t-shirts and sqn coloured t-shirts on Fridays!    :nod:


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Hey hey, we just got approval to wear sqn patches on the neck of the blue t-shirts and sqn coloured t-shirts on Fridays!    :nod:



Whoa.... I take that back (and hug my knees while rocking back and forth sobbing softly)


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Dec 2019)

Jarnhamar said:
			
		

> Retention issues? Bah, just give them some patches.


Leather jackets and pearl grey tanks should have fixed everything.


----------



## dimsum (21 Dec 2019)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Leather jackets and pearl grey tanks should have fixed everything.



Leather jackets that didn't look awful, you mean.  I would have bought a USAF A-2 jacket.


----------



## daftandbarmy (21 Dec 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Leather jackets that didn't look awful, you mean.  I would have bought a USAF A-2 jacket.



One good reason to be in NATO is to be able to trade German aircrew for their leather jackets. One team!


----------



## childs56 (21 Dec 2019)

I don't think pay is going to do much to retain people. Honestly spec pay is pretty decent. For those who don't think it is need to look at the work others do to get the same.  I don't think pay would solve much. Location of work is the main issue. A close second would be treatment. It's time to get back to Leadership and away from managers.


----------



## CBH99 (21 Dec 2019)

exCAFguy said:
			
		

> The reality here is this is not an RCAF specific problem, it’s happening throughout the entire CAF.
> 
> One of the biggest factors for everyone I’ve talked to that released (myself included) was salary.  Having said that, I understand that is out of the CAFs control and it is what it is really.....nothing they can do about that.
> 
> ...






I have to agree with the leadership part of this.

When I transitioned to the civvy world, I was immediately shown the sometimes stark difference between leadership & management.  Leadership and management are NOT the same thing, and I think people coming out of the military see the difference significantly more than someone who hasn't been in.

That being said, leadership was different back in the Afghan War days.  The military had a focus.  Every 6 months, big battlegroup deploys for actual combat operations.  Lessons to be learned.  A theatre that can constantly change.  And steady WIA and KIA to remind everybody to smarten up & focus, because your going to be patrolling the same areas these guys & gals were.

A sense of purpose and excitement for people.  Leaders HAD to be leaders, and they had pretty significant challenges to organize & face down themselves.  Those that lacked stuck around unfortunately, but the culture was more purposed and focused.

Overall, I found the culture was significantly more appealing.



I also agree with a post above about the location of work.  It doesn't matter how slick the recruiting ads are, nobody is ever going to be "excited" to live in Shilo, MB for a few years.  Or Cold Lake for that matter.  Our geography, however, is what it is...


Pay was never an issue for me.  I never expected to be rich when I joined the military, and we are among the top paid militaries in NATO.  Add in the extra spec pay & various allowances, and I found pay to be pretty decent.


----------



## kev994 (21 Dec 2019)

CTD said:
			
		

> I don't think pay is going to do much to retain people. Honestly spec pay is pretty decent. For those who don't think it is need to look at the work others do to get the same.  I don't think pay would solve much. Location of work is the main issue. A close second would be treatment. It's time to get back to Leadership and away from managers.


Pay may not be the reason some people are leaving, but it can make up for a lot, and the bases aren’t changing any time soon. For pilots, First Officers get paid well compared to civi side, Aircraft Commanders, not so much.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Sep 2020)

https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/pilot-desperate-air-force-sees-nine-aviators-rejoin-amid-covid-19/wcm/9d42de97-99b8-45d6-aa1a-255d3ee73e20?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1599429299

Related to the topic, RCAF states they have only managed to get 9 pilots to come back as part of an initiative to bring former pilots back. Of those 9, only 4 are full time, RCAF is still short over 140 pilots.

Given how many pilots are out of jobs right now I sure hope they are trying to recruit experienced commercial pilots to the RCAF.


----------



## Quirky (7 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/pilot-desperate-air-force-sees-nine-aviators-rejoin-amid-covid-19/wcm/9d42de97-99b8-45d6-aa1a-255d3ee73e20?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1599429299
> 
> Related to the topic, RCAF states they have only managed to get 9 pilots to come back as part of an initiative to bring former pilots back. Of those 9, only 4 are full time, RCAF is still short over 140.



If you can’t convince unemployed (supposedly) former military pilots back into the RCAF during a pandemic then nothing will. Also the article keeps referring to pilots as aviators when it’s the equivalent of a private in the RCAF. I’m glad we bring back traditional rank names for the sake of nostalgia.


----------



## Jarnhamar (7 Sep 2020)

New flight suits stuffed full of cash, no-posting promises and F35 rides?


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Sep 2020)

The problem is rooted much deeper than compensation.  Paying people may keep them for the short term but it will not keep people in the long run.  There are issues with trust in the CoC (can the CoC do what it says it does?), quality of life (how long can you sustain 12-hour days, often including weekends, without breaking your family, nevermind enjoy life?), lack of vision (where will the Air Force be in 5, 10, 15, 20 years?) and purpose (what actually is the Air Force purpose?  Project force abroad to defend our interest or merely wave the flag when it suits the government?)

Once there are satisfactory answers to those issues, you may see people sticking it out more than the minimum 13 years and stay for the long term.


----------



## dimsum (7 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> The problem is rooted much deeper than compensation.  Paying people may keep them for the short term but it will not keep people in the long run.  There are issues with trust in the CoC (can the CoC do what it says it does?), quality of life (how long can you sustain 12-hour days, often including weekends, without breaking your family, nevermind enjoy life?), lack of vision (where will the Air Force be in 5, 10, 15, 20 years?) and purpose (what actually is the Air Force purpose?  Project force abroad to defend our interest or merely wave the flag when it suits the government?)
> 
> Once there are satisfactory answers to those issues, you may see people sticking it out more than the minimum 13 years and stay for the long term.



Bingo.  However, I'm not sure how the CAF can even give satisfactory issues given its constraints.  Similarly, every military is going through the same thing, so either we're all going about it the wrong way or it's something that requires completely out-of-the-box/radical measures.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> https://calgaryherald.com/pmn/news-pmn/canada-news-pmn/pilot-desperate-air-force-sees-nine-aviators-rejoin-amid-covid-19/wcm/9d42de97-99b8-45d6-aa1a-255d3ee73e20?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1599429299
> 
> Related to the topic, RCAF states they have only managed to get 9 pilots to come back as part of an initiative to bring former pilots back. Of those 9, only 4 are full time, RCAF is still short over 140 pilots.
> 
> Given how many pilots are out of jobs right now I sure hope they are trying to recruit experienced commercial pilots to the RCAF.



I assume being perpetually exiled to places like Cold Lake (the hint is in the name) has had no impact on retention?


----------



## TCM621 (7 Sep 2020)

Speaking from the tech point of view. It is real easy to convince people to sign past their BIE because most of them are waiting for, or just recently completed their type course making them able to actually work on the Airplane by themselves. It is much harder to keep them past 10 years. We have nothing to keep them in. A lot of techs would rather work on planes than be an administrator but after 4 years as a corporal they are maxed out for incentives for the rest of their career. Even if they do want to be supervisors the difference between a Spec 1 Cpl IPC 4 and a Spec 1 Sgt IPC 1 is about 400 dollars a month. To get that 400 dollars a month the cpl has to be merited twice with all the extra work that takes outside of their job like mess committee positions, university courses the military doesn't want to pay for any more, secondary duties, etc. 

Then you have all the problems associated with a broke military like lack of specialty (and some cases career) courses, lack of parts or tools to actually fix the old, worn out planes properly, a CoC that preaches the danger of a no fail mentality while giving you multiple no fail missions at the same time.

As out old planes get older, we need better trained, more experienced techs but our techs struggle to get the training they need and they quit just as they're getting the experience. Because they don't have either the training or experience, it takes longer to diagnose problems, and to repair the Airplane. This results in airplane that are down longer and more often than they need to be. As much as I under that CO had a boss and has a mission that needs to be met, pilots without planes are pretty useless.


----------



## dimsum (7 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I assume being perpetually exiled to places like Cold Lake (the hint is in the name) has had no impact on retention?



From what I hear, you have to request fast jets.  So, Pilots generally volunteer for Cold Lake (maybe not the SAR Griffon squadron there though).  

The techs though?  Not so much.


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> From what I hear, you have to request fast jets.  So, Pilots generally volunteer for Cold Lake (maybe not the SAR Griffon squadron there though).
> 
> The techs though?  Not so much.



Talking with a MSE Op that was posted to cold lake, keeping Log Os and senior staff is particularly challenging as people never want to cone back if they leave, and only do come back if it is a career requirement.


----------



## daftandbarmy (7 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Talking with a MSE Op that was posted to cold lake, keeping Log Os and senior staff is particularly challenging as people never want to cone back if they leave, and only do come back if it is a career requirement.



Beats me why they don't shift them all to Comox. Would our NORAD commitments be null and void or something if we did that?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (7 Sep 2020)

I wouldn’t mind seeing another fast jet gun Sqn based at Comox again. The locals would not like it though.

The biggest issue is range access, which Cold Lake has in spades and Comox does not.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Sep 2020)

Range access isn’t an issue in Bagotville - we don’t have a dedicated range there, only airspace.  We either go to Goose Bay (for scenario-based training missions) or Varcartier (academic weapon deliveries).  Same could be done from Comox.  

There isn’t any appetite to bring fighters to Comox anymore.  There are a lot of politics at play (both in Cold Lake and Comox).


----------



## dimsum (7 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Beats me why they don't shift them all to Comox. Would our NORAD commitments be null and void or something if we did that?



Edmonton would make more sense, since it's closer to the range and any NORAD commitment up that way.  But they tore up the old runways on base, so unless EIA is willing to let the sqns use their infrastructure, good luck. 

Re:  Range access - the Australians don't base their aircraft near their big ranges.  In the diagram below, they TD them up for exercises in the ranges (blue circles) as needed, but generally they're near the major cities (red circles) with the exception of RAAF Tindal up north.  RAAF Pierce in Western Australia is essentially their Portage/Moose Jaw, while RAAF East Sale is their 1CFFTS equivalent - no combat aircraft are there.  The RAAF also tend to base all of one type of aircraft in one place (C-17s, Super Hornets, A330s, and Growlers at RAAF Amberley near Brisbane, Hercs and C-27s at RAAF Richmond near Sydney, P-8s at RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, etc) except for the fighters, and even then that's only because the Classic Hornets (and soon F-35s) will be at both Tindal and Williamtown.  

All this to say that aside from political reasons, I don't understand why we are so tied to being close to CLAWR.


----------



## lenaitch (7 Sep 2020)

Realistically, how far can any branch of the CAF go with its locations to accommodate or attract staffing?  It's a deployed service with operational needs and I sometimes wonder what applicants are thinking, and what recruiters are telling them about where they might end up (although I appreciate that CAF locations are as much political decisions as they are operational).  Back in that days of the DEW, Mid-Canada and Pinetree lines, probably thousands of personnel were posted to very remote locations.

There has been talk on other sites, possibly this one as well, that some of the FOLs should be turned into FOBs, which I have to believe would exasperate this problem exponentially.

The workforce is changing.  My former employer, the OPP, has similar difficulty staffing not only remote detachments but even some not-so-remote rural ones, because younger members don't want to live there.  Most northern detachments are fixed-term under contract - which substantial northern allowance bonuses, but in many cases the only way they can staff them is with recruits, which means their training officers are not far off being recruits themselves.  In many small locations, very few stay beyond their duration term.  Even in many smaller but not so remote southern locations, 12-hour shifts allows many to live in a city, show up and do their 4-day duty cycle (some share an apartment, etc.) then go home.  Not great for community engagement.


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Edmonton would make more sense, since it's closer to the range and any NORAD commitment up that way.  But they tore up the old runways on base, so unless EIA is willing to let the sqns use their infrastructure, good luck.
> 
> Re:  Range access - the Australians don't base their aircraft near their big ranges.  In the diagram below, they TD them up for exercises in the ranges (blue circles) as needed, but generally they're near the major cities (red circles) with the exception of RAAF Tindal up north.  RAAF Pierce in Western Australia is essentially their Portage/Moose Jaw, while RAAF East Sale is their 1CFFTS equivalent - no combat aircraft are there.  The RAAF also tend to base all of one type of aircraft in one place (C-17s, Super Hornets, A330s, and Growlers at RAAF Amberley near Brisbane, Hercs and C-27s at RAAF Richmond near Sydney, P-8s at RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, etc) except for the fighters, and even then that's only because the Classic Hornets (and soon F-35s) will be at both Tindal and Williamtown.
> 
> All this to say that aside from political reasons, I don't understand why we are so tied to being close to CLAWR.



Next thing you know you'll be wondering why we sentence thousands of innocent soldiers, and their families, to places like Gagetown and Shilo


----------



## CBH99 (8 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> Edmonton would make more sense, since it's closer to the range and any NORAD commitment up that way.  But they tore up the old runways on base, so unless EIA is willing to let the sqns use their infrastructure, good luck.
> 
> Re:  Range access - the Australians don't base their aircraft near their big ranges.  In the diagram below, they TD them up for exercises in the ranges (blue circles) as needed, but generally they're near the major cities (red circles) with the exception of RAAF Tindal up north.  RAAF Pierce in Western Australia is essentially their Portage/Moose Jaw, while RAAF East Sale is their 1CFFTS equivalent - no combat aircraft are there.  The RAAF also tend to base all of one type of aircraft in one place (C-17s, Super Hornets, A330s, and Growlers at RAAF Amberley near Brisbane, Hercs and C-27s at RAAF Richmond near Sydney, P-8s at RAAF Edinburgh near Adelaide, etc) except for the fighters, and even then that's only because the Classic Hornets (and soon F-35s) will be at both Tindal and Williamtown.
> 
> All this to say that aside from political reasons, I don't understand why we are so tied to being close to CLAWR.




Sorry.  I'm following this thread with interest, but what does CLAWR stand for??


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2020)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Sorry.  I'm following this thread with interest, but what does CLAWR stand for??



SWAG here.... might be 'Cold Lake Air Weapons Range'?


----------



## Zoomie (8 Sep 2020)

This article succinctly outlines why Op Experience is still very much on the go.   Nothing has changed in the RCAF to entice a young pilot to stay past his/her RRP/CE 9.  This downturn in the aviation industry will last a few years and then it will only get worse.    

Introduce a compensation model that entices a mbr to want to stick around for 20 years or possibly get promoted and skip right to the higher earnings.   We don’t need to pay our Captain IPC 1 pilots big bucks, just show them what a Captain IPC 16 makes and they will stick around for the $$$.   Flying an airliner is boring, the only draw is predictable schedule and high wage earnings.   Pay us more, and still let us fly cool shit and blow up stuff or go cool places - bonus.


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Sep 2020)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Introduce a compensation model that entices a mbr to want to stick around for 20 years or possibly get promoted and skip right to the higher earnings.   We don’t need to pay our Captain IPC 1 pilots big bucks, just show them what a Captain IPC 16 makes and they will stick around for the $$$.   Flying an airliner is boring, the only draw is predictable schedule and high wage earnings.   Pay us more, and still let us fly cool crap and blow up stuff or go cool places - bonus.



This would require a complete rework of our pay system, you do this and whats to stop doctors, JAG's, mechanics (both aircraft and not) among other trades from going well why do they get more vs us. Better compensation is fine, but really quality of life would go a lot further, Cold Lake is not a base you can raise a family at easily, Trenton on the other hand is much more friendly to families geographically. While I agree we won't see fighters leave Cold lake, the CAF would be wise to invest serious infrastructure funds to better the quality of life for all personal.


----------



## Quirky (8 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> To get that 400 dollars a month the cpl has to be merited twice with all the extra work that takes outside of their job like mess committee positions, university courses the military doesn't want to pay for any more, secondary duties, etc.



I avoided all that crap like the plague, came to work and did my job. If you are a good enough maintainer with a boss that recognises your work, you don't need to be on the mess council or organise sports days and bbqs. If that's something you want to do then by all means, but I've already turned down multiple requests to be some mess committee person. If that means I'm passed on promotion, as an aircraft mechanic or supervisor, then the military needs to reevaluate promotion requirements.


----------



## Drallib (8 Sep 2020)

Optional FORCE Test.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> This would require a complete rework of our pay system, you do this and whats to stop doctors, JAG's, mechanics (both aircraft and not) among other trades from going well why do they get more vs us. Better compensation is fine, but really quality of life would go a lot further, Cold Lake is not a base you can raise a family at easily, Trenton on the other hand is much more friendly to families geographically. While I agree we won't see fighters leave Cold lake, the CAF would be wise to invest serious infrastructure funds to better the quality of life for all personal.



Isn’t there a pay scales adjustment coming up in October/November?


----------



## Drallib (8 Sep 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Isn’t there a pay scales adjustment coming up in October/November?



Are you talking about an increase for all CF members? I heard this also but I wasn't sure. When was the last one, 2017?

I heard there's talks about technicians receiving more pay based on their qualifications/authorizations. Such as aquiring Journeyman status, Performance of Maintenance (POM), Level A, etc...


----------



## daftandbarmy (8 Sep 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I avoided all that crap like the plague, came to work and did my job. If you are a good enough maintainer with a boss that recognises your work, you don't need to be on the mess council or organise sports days and bbqs. If that's something you want to do then by all means, but I've already turned down multiple requests to be some mess committee person. If that means I'm passed on promotion, as an aircraft mechanic or supervisor, then the military needs to reevaluate promotion requirements.



This.  :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (8 Sep 2020)

Drallib said:
			
		

> Are you talking about an increase for all CF members? I heard this also but I wasn't sure. When was the last one, 2017?
> 
> I heard there's talks about technicians receiving more pay based on their qualifications/authorizations. Such as aquiring Journeyman status, Performance of Maintenance (POM), Level A, etc...



I heard this back in 2019 when it was discussed at the RCEME council, however the minutes of the fall 2019 meeting haven't been posted online and I doubt the spring 2020 meeting happened so I do not know the results that came out of it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (8 Sep 2020)

Ditch said:
			
		

> This article succinctly outlines why Op Experience is still very much on the go.   Nothing has changed in the RCAF to entice a young pilot to stay past his/her RRP/CE 9.  This downturn in the aviation industry will last a few years and then it will only get worse.
> 
> Introduce a compensation model that entices a mbr to want to stick around for 20 years or possibly get promoted and skip right to the higher earnings.   We don’t need to pay our Captain IPC 1 pilots big bucks, just show them what a Captain IPC 16 makes and they will stick around for the $$$.   Flying an airliner is boring, the only draw is predictable schedule and high wage earnings.   Pay us more, and still let us fly cool shit and blow up stuff or go cool places - bonus.



We could model our career and pay after something I'm envious of that I've mentioned on here before;  the RAF PA (Professional Aircrew) Spine.

If we had it, I'd gun for it 100%;  I'd be more than happy to stay at my current (actually, my last rank) and stay near Line or Trg Sqn's "until CRA";  as it is now the only way I can increase pay/pension is to progress in rank.  I'd trade the rank for a PA program that gave me (nearly) equal pay and pension as those who stayed the course to become Sqn Lead AES OPs/SCWO/SWOs and beyond...


----------



## TCM621 (10 Sep 2020)

Quirky said:
			
		

> I avoided all that crap like the plague, came to work and did my job. If you are a good enough maintainer with a boss that recognises your work, you don't need to be on the mess council or organise sports days and bbqs. If that's something you want to do then by all means, but I've already turned down multiple requests to be some mess committee person. If that means I'm passed on promotion, as an aircraft mechanic or supervisor, then the military needs to reevaluate promotion requirements.



You are supposed to do your job well, that's the minimum, and when they are promoting 5 of 200 it won't cut it. You can argue the mess stuff isn't important to your job but as long as they give you points for it it will continue to be important for promotion.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> You are supposed to do your job well, that's the minimum, and when they are promoting 5 of 200 it won't cut it. You can argue the mess stuff isn't important to your job but as long as they give you points for it it will continue to be important for promotion.



Is 'The Mess Stuff' on the PER anywhere? Just wondering....

If not, there are other ways to reward/ recognize those who make other types of contributions, apart from promotion.


----------



## dimsum (10 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is 'The Mess Stuff' on the PER anywhere? Just wondering....



I believe it's "dedication".  Maybe "verbal communication".

 :rofl:


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 Sep 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I believe it's "dedication".  Maybe "verbal communication".
> 
> :rofl:



Or, written somewhere in invisible ink perhaps: 'Other Related Duties'


----------



## blacktriangle (10 Sep 2020)

Military Operations Other Than Work


----------



## garb811 (10 Sep 2020)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> ...
> Cold Lake is not a base you can raise a family at easily, Trenton on the other hand is much more friendly to families geographically.
> ...


Really? Based on what reasoning is it a base you can't raise a family at easily? Seems to me that since the city is approx 15,000 people, a whole bunch of civies are able to make it work. What are the special requirements military families have that civie families don't ?

FWIW, I've had people tell me they don't want to go to Trenton either, because it's too small...


----------



## childs56 (10 Sep 2020)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Really? Based on what reasoning is it a base you can't raise a family at easily? Seems to me that since the city is approx 15,000 people, a whole bunch of civies are able to make it work. What are the special requirements military families have that civie families don't (keeping in mind
> 
> FWIW, I've had people tell me they don't want to go to Trenton either, because it's too small...



The average house price in Trenton is $250,000 Cold Lake its $389,000.
Average household income in Trenton is $60,000 year.
Average in Cold Lake $111,000 year. 
There is a big difference in the two. 
The level of service in Cold Lake is atrocious. I.lived there with the Military  and then also worked out of there with the Oilfield. Cold Lake was one of the worst service areas I worked out of. Expensive, short of stock and poor attitudes of the service industry. 
Those who like Cold.Lake love those who hate it hate it. There are more that hate it then love it. 

Its time they move the move fleets to areas not isolated. This allows familys more opportunity to get jobs, careers and supports they need. 
Or just throw money at the problem and it will still be there in another 20 years


----------



## CBH99 (10 Sep 2020)

CTD said:
			
		

> The average house price in Trenton is $250,000 Cold Lake its $389,000.
> Average household income in Trenton is $60,000 year.
> Average in Cold Lake $111,000 year.
> There is a big difference in the two.
> ...




Just to add to this, in a few areas.  As someone who is more or less born & raised in Alberta, and worked in the oilfield when the oil industry was pretty robust.

1.  $389,000 (Let's call it $400,000) doesn't even get you that nice of a house.  I'm not kidding.  It's an 'okay' house in an 'okay' area... everybody (and I mean everybody) is employed in either the oil industry, or the service industry.  

If being surrounded by imbred morons in pickup trucks is someone's ideal town, Cold Lake is the place for you.  Right up there with Grande Prairie and Ft. Mac.  (Thankfully God saw it in his heart to burn that place to the ground a few years back...and most of it wasn't rebuilt, as once people left, they didn't want to return.)

Crime isn't bad, but it's not great either.  While you do get some mature families who work hard & raise good kids, the number of young oilfield guys with bad attitudes and nothing else to do but drinking/drugs completely outweighs whatever good things Cold Lake has going for it.  (Young guys, bored, prevalence of alcohol & heavy drugs, and they used to START at about $44 an hour on average.)



It's not that raising a family on the base is any harder than raising a family somewhere else, such as CFB Winnipeg or CFB Edmonton.  It's that having any sort of life outside of military housing, beyond just social stuff, is very very difficult.  (My very limited  :2c


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Sep 2020)

Cold Lake is not bad for young families but it can be a significant challenge for families with high school kids.  The crime rates are fairly high and the education at that level is deficient which is not really a good combo for setting up young adults for a successful adult life.

We’re okay with Cold Lake but we would not want to raise teenagers here.


----------



## CBH99 (10 Sep 2020)

I should have also clarified -- my experience in Cold Lake was very limited, was quite some time ago, and I was there due to employment in the oil industry.

So I will absolutely be the first one to say, my experience in Cold Lake was very limited.


----------



## Quirky (10 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> You are supposed to do your job well, that's the minimum, and when they are promoting 5 of 200 it won't cut it. You can argue the mess stuff isn't important to your job but as long as they give you points for it it will continue to be important for promotion.



Promotion isn’t the end all be all in the CF. Everyone is so keen on getting promoted then they are miserable getting posted to places like cold lake for pennies extra a month. Somehow I managed to make it to the Snr NCO rank without doing any of that half way through my career. From what I’ve seen, those who are keen on every secondary duty are bad techs and their extra mess duties are irrelevant anyway because they don’t make it to the boards. I won’t force anyone to fill positions they don’t want to do, especially if their primary duty is keeping aircraft flyable. We are short on qualified and experienced pers as it is, last thing they need to worry about is planning the next TGIF.


----------



## kev994 (10 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is 'The Mess Stuff' on the PER anywhere? Just wondering....


I’ve seen Wing secondary duties given points on the Wing level ranking board for Capt, I think this would count. No points for whether you can actually pilot an aircraft.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Sep 2020)

My advice to subordinates is to excel at their job before volunteering for “PER boosting” activities.  And even then, those activities should be aimed at improving your work environment and shaping it.  To me, this is worth a lot more than someone doing things solely to boost their PER.

If you can’t do your job effectively, it is a non-starter for me.


----------



## TCM621 (10 Sep 2020)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> Is 'The Mess Stuff' on the PER anywhere? Just wondering....
> 
> If not, there are other ways to reward/ recognize those who make other types of contributions, apart from promotion.



It's in the SCRIT under potential. Major mess positions like PMC are considered a major secondary duty and was worth 2 points on Cpl and MCpl pers last year. It can also be worth 1 point under community involvement. More points are made off of section 3 than people think.

The second part of your statement isn't really true though. Sure we also sorts of things that are basically formal attaboys but their only real value is towards promotion and most of them don't even give you that. The Maj telling everybody how well you did on a project at a parade feels good but that and $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at best.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It's in the SCRIT under potential. Major mess positions like PMC are considered a major secondary duty and was worth 2 points on Cpl and MCpl pers last year. It can also be worth 1 point under community involvement. More points are made off of section 3 than people think.
> 
> The second part of your statement isn't really true though. Sure we also sorts of things that are basically formal attaboys but their only real value is towards promotion and most of them don't even give you that. The Maj telling everybody how well you did on a project at a parade feels good but that and $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at best.



And, of course, in the absence of real operations I assume that these 'peacetime points' will become more important.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Sep 2020)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> It's in the SCRIT under potential. Major mess positions like PMC are considered a major secondary duty and was worth 2 points on Cpl and MCpl pers last year. It can also be worth 1 point under community involvement. More points are made off of section 3 than people think.
> 
> The second part of your statement isn't really true though. Sure we also sorts of things that are basically formal attaboys but their only real value is towards promotion and most of them don't even give you that. The Maj telling everybody how well you did on a project at a parade feels good but that and $3.50 will buy you a cup of coffee at best.



The last SCRIT I was provided (2019), it is Section E - Secondary/Community.  Sqn/unit level = .2, Base level = .4, community involvement (volunteer) = .4 for a total of 1 pt.  

This forms 20% of the Potential score and is worth a max of 1 point.  The Potential section accounts for 38% of total PER score and is marked to a max of 18 pts.

Performance accounts for 60% of the score.  If someone is a shitpump at their job, but the PMC of the Mess and Chairperson of the "Helping Elderly People Cross the Street Committee" in their neighborhood, in the perfect world their PER, scoring and meriting should reflect that...

Fairly different SCRITs, though...


----------



## MilEME09 (9 May 2021)

Related









						RCAF looking overseas to fill pilot shortage as commercial aviators stay away
					

The RCAF is looking to foreign pilots to help fill shortage as commercial aviators stay away




					www.theglobeandmail.com
				




RCAF looking at foreign pilots to fill the ranks, could fast tracked citizenship help attracted pilots?


----------



## kev994 (9 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Related
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Maybe if every other Air Force didn’t have the exact same problem.


----------



## daftandbarmy (9 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> Maybe if every other Air Force didn’t have the exact same problem.



But the grass is always greener on the other side of the airfield...


----------



## CBH99 (9 May 2021)

In the article, it mentioned that one of the issues was taking 60 qualified pilots and 'recategorizing' them as something else?  (I was only able to briefly skim the article before it went blank, and they asked me to subscribe.)

I know I have asked this question before, and the answers seemed to be more generic to grievances across the RCAF.  


I am curious however, strictly from a pilot/aircrew generation standpoint, what are some of the biggest challenges we face?  Is it...


Lack of intererested recruits
Requirement that candidates don't have laser eye surgery, or something along those lines?
An inconsistent training pipeline?
Inconsistent requirements?
Are there not enough entry plans for someone who wants to be a pilot?  Or perhaps, too many, and it causes confusion?

- Are the problems we face the same as other western air forces, namely that the private section sucks up a lot of potential recruits?  Are we somehow driving people away from applying to the RCAF as pilots?

**Geniusly curious


I would think that given the chance to fly military aircraft, doing military missions, would be one of the most sought after jobs in the entire military.  As a kid, I always wanted to be a fighter pilot.  As I grew up, joined the Reserves when I was 16yo, and continued in life - I realized I didn't have the grades, nor the degree, nor the eyesight, to ever pursue it seriously.  (I actually had my student pilot permit before I had my drivers license  😅 )


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2021)

Expanded demand (added CC17 and CH147 without divestment) coupled with a training system barely able to sustain, but no capacity to grow.  That training bottleneck results in years of service being eaten up while individual are still not qualified.  Ideally, you want to maximize years of trained service - if it takes 7 years to get to an employable pilot, that's 28% of the career of a 25-year ( ie pensionable) pilot gone before any return on investment.

The RCAF owns the pilot training system.  There's no lack of individuals wanting to become pilots, no lack of personnel on the BTL and SUTL waiting to become pilots; the gaps are in pilot training and pilot absorption through the OTUs.


----------



## CBH99 (9 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Expanded demand (added CC17 and CH147 without divestment) coupled with a training system barely able to sustain, but no capacity to grow.  That training bottleneck results in years of service being eaten up while individual are still not qualified.  Ideally, you want to maximize years of trained service - if it takes 7 years to get to an employable pilot, that's 28% of the career of a 25-year ( ie pensionable) pilot gone before any return on investment.
> 
> The RCAF owns the pilot training system.  There's no lack of individuals wanting to become pilots, no lack of personnel on the BTL and SUTL waiting to become pilots; the gaps are in pilot training and pilot absorption through the OTUs.


-  When you say the training system is barely able to sustain, but not able to grow.  Would you mind elaborating on that, even if just briefly?  (Sorry if that sounds like an elementary question, I'm just trying to really make sure I actually understand some of the issues challenging us)

With a training backlog that long, it's to be expected that people would find a way to leave early.  Imagine a job you were super excited for, and worked unbelievably hard to get, only to 'not do the job' for years on end...ugh.  


-  When you say the RCAF owns the pilot training program, and the gap is in pilot training & absorption at the squadrons, what would be a viable solution to either improve or eliminate the problem?  (Is it a lack of training aircraft?  A lack of consistent classes?  A lack of instructors?)


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 May 2021)

The biggest factor right now is retention, not training.  We can't train ourselves out of the whole we are in.  We need experienced people to keep crewing the aircraft and teach the new generations.  If you look at the RCAF experience levels vs other NATO/FVEY countries, you'll see we are WAY behind both in average experience and maximum experience.  COVID bought the RCAF 2-3 years to the eventual collapse.  I just hope we are able to capitalize on that saving grace.

We need initiatives to keep people and for people to be enticed to come back.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2021)

Let's suppose there are 100 pilots in the CAF.  If ten retire every year, and we train ten every year, we are balanced.

If we add ten more pilot positions, then we need to train twenty pilots in a year, and eleven a year on an ongoing basis (steady state).  But if the training system can only train ten a year, we can keep up with that attrition, but not grow the additional ten pilots needed.

To fix the problem is broad, but at its most basic: increase throughput through the training system, including the OTUs.  To do that, however, may require the RCAF to reduce force output, by fleet, over several years to catch up.  The specifics will vary by fleet.

Even enrolling individuals with pilots licenses or prior experience does not necessarily mitigate the problem; a Dutch Major with 1500 hours on the F16 would still require conversion training and some Canadian specific training before we send them to Cold Lake.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (9 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> But the grass is always greener on the other side of the airfield...


Ad in Aussie newspaper:

Tired of the heat?
Tired of everything in your yard trying to kill you?
Tired of driving on the wrong side of the road?

Do you want to:
Barbecue moose meat?
Drink beer as good or better than yours?
Drive on the right side of the road?
Be able to visit another country without getting onto a boat or airplane?
Put real Maple Syrup on your pancakes
See all your mates and lasses that work in Whistler?
Fly your Dads fighter jet?

Then the RCAF and Cold lake (where the beer is always cold) awaits you! Fly with the best, fly with the Cobra Chickens!


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Even enrolling individuals with pilots licenses or prior experience does not necessarily mitigate the problem; a Dutch Major with 1500 hours on the F16 would still require conversion training and some Canadian specific training before we send them to Cold Lake.


That's a very shallow understanding of how we employ aircraft.  At some point, the type of airplane is irrelevant.  The conversion is 2-3 months/15-20 hours. What is important is understanding the employment part.  We've had very good success doing exactly that: taking F-16 drivers and making them Hornet drivers.  They were effective as soon as they finished the OTU and almost instantly became 4-ship leads/tactical IPs, a process that takes 4-5 years coming out of the OTU.



dapaterson said:


> To fix the problem is broad, but at its most basic: increase throughput through the training system, including the OTUs.  To do that, however, may require the RCAF to reduce force output, by fleet, over several years to catch up.  The specifics will vary by fleet.



Increasing the throughput of the training pipeline now will only exacerbate the problem. We need to keep pilot in flying positions longer (which we are being successful at doing now) and find ways to retain people longer (which we are still struggling to do.  COVID just provided a very temporary band aid).  410 TF(OT)S reduced its throughput from 24 every two years to 15 every two years to support that. We don't need ten 500-hour wingmen on Squadron.  We need a balanced level of experience, ideally biased towards the high-end.  Imagine if we were capable of keeping pilots on Squadron for 15 years. We would only have to train 3-4 pilots per year, a massive reduction in cost.  It is always cheaper to retain someone than train a new pilot.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (9 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> That's a very shallow understanding of how we employ aircraft.  At some point, the type of airplane is irrelevant.  The conversion is 2-3 months/15-20 hours. What is important is understanding the employment part.  We've had very good success doing exactly that: taking F-16 drivers and making them Hornet drivers.  They were effective as soon as they finished the OTU and almost instantly became 4-ship leads/tactical IPs, a process that takes 4-5 years coming out of the OTU.
> 
> 
> 
> Increasing the throughput of the training pipeline now will only exacerbate the problem. We need to keep pilot in flying positions longer (which we are being successful at doing now) and find ways to retain people longer (which we are still struggling to do.  COVID just provided a very temporary band aid).  410 TF(OT)S reduced its throughput from 24 every two years to 15 every two years to support that. We don't need ten 500-hour wingmen on Squadron.  We need a balanced level of experience, ideally biased towards the high-end.  Imagine if we were capable of keeping pilots on Squadron for 15 years. We would only have to train 3-4 pilots per year, a massive reduction in cost.  It is always cheaper to retain someone than train a new pilot.


A lot of the loss we suffer on MH Sqns is the giant sucking sound to fill strat level, no fail, HQ jobs. 

It isn’t “the” solution, but it is part of the puzzle.

The other aspect is that we tend to burn folks out on Ops. Sailing 200-300 days/year is fun- for a while.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> A lot of the loss we suffer on MH Sqns is the giant sucking sound to fill strat level, no fail, HQ jobs.
> 
> It isn’t “the” solution, but it is part of the puzzle.
> 
> The other aspect is that we tend to burn folks out on Ops. Sailing 200-300 days/year is fun- for a while.


We were able to cut that list down in our community, leaving only a handful of staff jobs, directly related to fighter operations, to be filled.  We are beyond the critical level however (somewhere around 50-60% PML. It may have gotten better since last year because of COVID).


----------



## Zoomie (9 May 2021)

It will get better for the Fighter Force when we buy F-35s and the ATPL candidates dry up at Cool Pool and Bagtown.


----------



## daftandbarmy (10 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> *Fly your Dads fighter jet?*



For the win


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> We were able to cut that list down in our community, leaving only a handful of staff jobs, directly related to fighter operations, to be filled.  We are beyond the critical level however (somewhere around 50-60% PML. It may have gotten better since last year because of COVID).


Interestingly, our (MH) weak point is not really pilots, as much as it is TACCOs and SENSOs. Those occupations are really stressed and it entirely limits what we can do operationally. But, that issue does not get any heat and light upstairs- because, Pilots.


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Interestingly, our (MH) weak point is not really pilots, as much as it is TACCOs and SENSOs. Those occupations are really stressed and it entirely limits what we can do operationally. But, that issue does not get any heat and light upstairs- because, Pilots.


Do you think this could be helped if the MH community was formally brought back into the RCN to be the RCN Air Arm again ?  

The ships revolve around helos when they are embarked and I know your capability is huge and respected in my world.  Perhaps you guys would be better represented truly as the RCN Air Arm.


----------



## dapaterson (10 May 2021)

The RCN already fails to attract and retain hard sea trades; why would doubling down on that improve the lot of TACCOs and SENSOs?


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you think this could be helped if the MH community was formally brought back into the RCN to be the RCN Air Arm again ?


...so they go from the red-headed stepchildren of the RCAF (although Tac Hel probably has a good argument there too) to being the red-headed stepchildren of the RCN?

But seriously, that's another half a dozen trades (you'll have to bring the Pilots and techs in too) to manage, create higher positions for, etc.  The NWOs won't like the Pilots/TACCOs taking over command/staff billets, etc. 

It sounds awesome but there would be some major issues implementing it.  I still secretly hope it's the case though - take LRP along as well since they seem to either fall between AF or Navy depending on the nation


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you think this could be helped if the MH community was formally brought back into the RCN to be the RCN Air Arm again ?
> 
> The ships revolve around helos when they are embarked and I know your capability is huge and respected in my world.  Perhaps you guys would be better represented truly as the RCN Air Arm.


I like the simplicity of having the Army/Navy own their own tactical aviation resources, so they can also own solutions/problems.

Unfortunately, I have watched in horror at how the RCN has mis-managed MARTECHs (to be fair, the Air Force did the samething with the 500 series amalgamation, until they quietly unwound it 5 years later) and NWOs, so I can only imagine how much of a mess they would make of Aviation trades that also have airworthiness implications.

We are probably past the point of returning to the RCN fold (for better or worse), baring some clean sheet redesign of the CAF.


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> clean sheet redesign of the CAF.


So...pre-1968 for "history and heritage" then?


----------



## Halifax Tar (10 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I like the simplicity of having the Army/Navy own their own tactical aviation resources, so they can also own solutions/problems.
> 
> Unfortunately, I have watched in horror at how the RCN has mis-managed MARTECHs (to be fair, the Air Force did the samething with the 500 series amalgamation, until they quietly unwound it 5 years later) and NWOs, so I can only imagine how much of a mess they would make of Aviation trades that also have airworthiness implications.
> 
> We are probably past the point of returning to the RCN fold (for better or worse), baring some clean sheet redesign of the CAF.


Fair enough.  I can see the advantages of having you guys back in the family but I defer your SMEness


----------



## Good2Golf (10 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Fair enough.  I can see the advantages of having you guys back in the family but I defer your SMEness


There’s the romantic image of the Navy or Army caring about their own aviation branch...then there’s the reality (at least based in past behaviour.  Navy may have been a bit better from the sounds of it, but the Army (actually FMC - Force Mobile Command in the day) was terribly tribal and threw heavy lift aviation to the wolves back in the late-80s/early-90s and scout/recce aviation shortly thereafter, all while FMC(and later LFC) had funding responsibility for TH.  

I simply wouldn’t trust the Army not to do it again...


----------



## FJAG (10 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> There’s the romantic image of the Navy or Army caring about their own aviation branch...then there’s the reality (at least based in past behaviour.  Navy may have been a bit better from the sounds of it, but the Army (actually FMC - Force Mobile Command in the day) was terribly tribal and threw heavy lift aviation to the wolves back in the late-80s/early-90s and scout/recce aviation shortly thereafter, all while FMC(and later LFC) had funding responsibility for TH.
> 
> I simply wouldn’t trust the Army not to do it again...


My understanding of the Loach and Chinook issue was that the Army was seeking to replace its roughly forty aircraft UH fleet and the government pushed the buy upwards to 100 thereby replacing all the tac helicopters with one all singing all dancing airframe that became the Griffon. That was more an imposed cost saving then a desired one.

That said, considering what the Army has done to the artillery over the last two decades I can't help but agree with you.

🍻


----------



## TCM621 (10 May 2021)

Most of this thread is focused on Pilots and that is part of the problem with OP Talent. Part of it is messaging, you look at any OP Talent material and it is still highly focused on Pilots despite Pilots being the focus of their own OP. It just increases the perception the the RCAF cares about Pilots more than anyone else. This is increased when you realize that while Pilots have all these great initiatives to pay them more, get more flying time, more qualifications, etc. everyone else gets some arm patches and a T-shirt with a Rondell meanwhile techs are leaving at a rate much faster than we can replace them and when we done replace them it is usual with some one with much less experience and training.  I can't speak to other Sqns but where I work, if we had more, better trained technicians and a supply system with parts, Pilots would be flying about twice as often as they do now. 

Now that the rant is out of the way, OP Talent and OP Experience will not have the desired effect for two main reasons. The first is that the vast majority of the issues people have are outside the control of the RCAF and in some cases (PLD) the military. There is not much they can do about that unfortunately. The second problem (and this is also shared throughout the CAF IMO) is that they have started from the wrong premise. They are asking themselves what can we do to remove the reasons people leave. While there are some cases where that has to happen, I think it is more important to increase the reasons people stay.  Why did we have to buy people out during FRP at a time when people were treated like garbage, you moved every 3 years, you were always away and the pay was crap? What we need to do is provide incentives to cancel the disincentives. What would make someone be willing to move every 3 years? What would make someone put up with long absences from family?

In a lot of ways it comes down to the fact the military used to be fun when it wasn't sucking. Fun meant different things to different people but I rarely hear people express joy at their job anymore. Once they are a journeyman, or equivalent, it just becomes a job to be completed with a CoC to be avoided if possible. We need to change that. Some of you are old enough to remember the old US Navy slogan "It's not a job, it's an adventure". We need to go back to that mentality. It doesn't have to be a physical adventure travelling all over the world, all the time, but it should be an adventure in the sense that we are constantly learning new things, fixing complex problems and growing.  We need to give people a Why rather than focusing on minor How issues.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 May 2021)

FJAG, no, the decision not to recapitalize MTH was well before CFUTTH was a glimmer in the politicians’ eyes.  CFLH was also allowed to wither on the vine in the late-80s.  

CFUTTH ‘replacing MTH, UH and LOH’ storyline was a ridiculous, reactive, PR-driven backwards engineering.  Quite simply, the ‘Army’ (and ‘Air Force’ along for the ride) did not want the MTH and LOH capabilities enough. It should have never supported the 147/135/136->146 charade. 

The 146 simply replaced green and yellow 135s, full stop. The 100 qty was purely political. The pre-146 SOR was for 50+3 (green, yellow and new black reqr).

Regards
G2G


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> fly with the Cobra Chickens!


 You saw his latest, too, then.


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> You saw his latest, too, then.


If 408 Sqn doesn't capitalize on that, then all hope is lost.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Interestingly, our (MH) weak point is not really pilots, as much as it is TACCOs and SENSOs. Those occupations are really stressed and it entirely limits what we can do operationally. But, that issue does not get any heat and light upstairs- because, Pilots.



FEs are traditionally a problem in Tac Hel. They get broken a lot, and fewer Techs want the job as it's no longer a stepping-stone to the transport world as neither CC130Js nor C17s have FEs.


----------



## CBH99 (10 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> FEs are traditionally a problem in Tac Hel. They get broken a lot, and fewer Techs want the job as it's no longer a stepping-stone to the transport world as neither CC130Js nor C17s have FEs.


I don't think I'm remotely alone in asking why techs wouldn't want to be a FE??  It seems like a pretty sweet gig, from an outsiders perspective?

Also, how/why do they break a lot?  Is it burnout, no longer a stepping stone, high deployment rate, etc etc?


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> FEs are traditionally a problem in Tac Hel. They get broken a lot, and fewer Techs want the job as it's no longer a stepping-stone to the transport world as neither CC130Js nor C17s have FEs.


True.  Fixed-wing FE spots are really only the Aurora, Twin Otter, Buff, and Kingfisher now.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> I don't think I'm remotely alone in asking why techs wouldn't want to be a FE??  It seems like a pretty sweet gig, from an outsiders perspective?
> 
> Also, how/why do they break a lot?  Is it burnout, no longer a stepping stone, high deployment rate, etc etc?



An applicant has to be a qualified Tech with a certain minimum level of experience. Starting rank for an FE is Cpl, which generally involves a reversion in rank. Pay is vested, however, and supplemented by Spec Pay plus Aircrew Allowance but it could involve a change in Mess plus a loss of prestige. Warrant Officer and Sergeant positions in Tac Hel Squadrons are very limited. The transport community would only accept Sergeant FEs, so they always bled ours away, but now the ability to return to a previously-held rank or move to a more hotel-oriented world is severely reduced.

From the Griffon perspective (I cannot discuss the Chinook sit as I have no experience therein, nor was I even remotely interested) FEs do the bulk of walkarounds while the front-seaters plan missions, so they're outside more often regardless of weather. They only have the same crappy rag-and-tube seats that grunts get. Those are not designed for long-term occupancy, and are literally a pain to sit in, nor do they give the same level of crash protection as the two front seats give. FEs tend to sit hunched forward as a result of the perfectly-vertical seat backs but have to keep their heads up while wearing a helmet and vibrating. The FEs move around the cabin fairly frequently, but have to remain hunched over or crawl about on their knees while the aircraft vibrates and occasionally lurches. They have to open the cabin doors during take-offs and landings and certain other manoeuvres and lean out regardless of weather to clear the aircraft, and occasionally have to lay flat on the floor with their heads out to clear underneath the machine. For hooking up slung loads (absent a TAMS team for real vice training loads), they have to slither underneath the machine on their backs regardless of rain, snow, mud, stones etcetera. This is all aggravated while wearing NVG with the extra weight well out in front while vibrating, and they have to be extra-careful to ensure that they don't bang the goggles on something and damage them or knock them off.

They also have to maintain their Tech quals.


----------



## CBH99 (10 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> An applicant has to be a qualified Tech with a certain minimum level of experience. Starting rank for an FE is Cpl, which generally involves a reversion in rank. Pay is vested, however, and supplemented by Spec Pay plus Aircrew Allowance but it could involve a change in Mess plus a loss of prestige. Warrant Officer and Sergeant positions in Tac Hel Squadrons are very limited. The transport community would only accept Sergeant FEs, so they always bled ours away, but now the ability to return to a previously-held rank or move to a more hotel-oriented world is severely reduced.
> 
> From the Griffon perspective (I cannot discuss the Chinook sit as I have no experience therein, nor was I even remotely interested) FEs do the bulk of walkarounds while the front-seaters plan missions, so they're outside more often regardless of weather. They only have the same crappy rag-and-tube seats that grunts get. Those are not designed for long-term occupancy, and are literally a pain to sit in, nor do they give the same level of crash protection as the two front seats give. FEs tend to sit hunched forward as a result of the perfectly-vertical seat backs but have to keep their heads up while wearing a helmet and vibrating. The FEs move around the cabin fairly frequently, but have to remain hunched over or crawl about on their knees while the aircraft vibrates and occasionally lurches. They have to open the cabin doors during take-offs and landings and certain other manoeuvres and lean out regardless of weather to clear the aircraft, and occasionally have to lay flat on the floor with their heads out to clear underneath the machine. For hooking up slung loads (absent a TAMS team for real vice training loads), they have to slither underneath the machine on their backs regardless of rain, snow, mud, stones etcetera. This is all aggravated while wearing NVG with the extra weight well out in front while vibrating, and they have to be extra-careful to ensure that they don't bang the goggles on something and damage them or knock them off.
> 
> They also have to maintain their Tech quals.


Ooooffff....

And here everybody I served with would watch the Griffons fly around and think 'Ya know, we can't be pilots.  But that FE position looks like a sweet gig!"

Thanks for the insight from the other side


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

FJAG said:


> My understanding of the Loach and Chinook issue was that the Army was seeking to replace its roughly forty aircraft UH fleet and the government pushed the buy upwards to 100 thereby replacing all the tac helicopters with one all singing all dancing airframe that became the Griffon. That was more an imposed cost saving then a desired one.
> 
> That said, considering what the Army has done to the artillery over the last two decades I can't help but agree with you.
> 
> 🍻


The CFLH (Canadian Forces Light Helicopter) programme to replace the Kiowa was cancelled by the Mulroney government, quoting "Peace Dividend" as an excuse, in 1988 along with all of the White Paper kit promises even though it was not actually one of them. Strangely enough, it lasted a day longer than all of the others and we where hoping that they forgot about it and wouldn't notice.

Kiowa would have required at least an engine upgrade to keep going towards the end of its life as spares for that ancient engine version were becoming hard and expensive to find, but lack of long-range sensors had rendered it ineffective on the battlefield anyway. Commander 10 TAG supported the increased all-Griffon fleet as it was that or nothing, but, yes, it was also very much political. The factory is in Mirabel, which was the then-defence ministers riding so it made a good (theoretical) get-me-re-elected programme. It didn't work, though as that was the year that the Progressive Conservatives were reduced to two seats and his was not one of them - the Griffon's first failure.

Had we kept the Griffon purchase to the Huey replacement numbers and bought a viable Kiowa replacement from Bell as well, we'd still be in a much better place - with fewer FE worries as well.

Chinook was killed off due to the cost of upgrading to D-model status, although, as the cost per flying hour would have been halved, by my math of the time it would have paid for itself in just less than twelve years. The Dutch were not so stingy, and I saw a couple of them in Dutch paint in KAF many years later.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Ooooffff....
> 
> And here everybody I served with would watch the Griffons fly around and think 'Ya know, we can't be pilots.  But that FE position looks like a sweet gig!"



Door gunnery provided some compensation, but that would only go so far.

It was definitely  a "sweet gig" for the young grunts that got to do it in KAF - including a sizeable number of Reservists. Seeing flying suits worn with funny Regimental hats was always amusing.


----------



## dimsum (10 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> Door gunnery provided some compensation, but that would only go so far.
> 
> It was definitely  a "sweet gig" for the young grunts that got to do it in KAF - including a sizeable number of Reservists. Seeing flying suits worn with funny Regimental hats was always amusing.


Yep.  I saw one Door Gunner in flight suit with a Balmoral.  The Americans (and everyone else) did a double-take when he walked by.


----------



## Loachman (10 May 2021)

I overhead one of our Yank hosts ask somebody during Ex Bold Venture in Fort Knox where we also turned an urn's worth of coffee into perfume for a TAMS Team) "How come y'all have so many hats?"


----------



## kev994 (10 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> True.  Fixed-wing FE spots are really only the Aurora, Twin Otter, Buff, and Kingfisher now.


C130H. And rumour is that it will be extended, at least in the AAR role.


----------



## FJAG (10 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> FJAG, no, the decision not to recapitalize MTH was well before CFUTTH was a glimmer in the politicians’ eyes.  CFLH was also allowed to wither on the vine in the late-80s.
> 
> CFUTTH ‘replacing MTH, UH and LOH’ storyline was a ridiculous, reactive, PR-driven backwards engineering.  Quite simply, the ‘Army’ (and ‘Air Force’ along for the ride) did not want the MTH and LOH capabilities enough. It should have never supported the 147/135/136->146 charade.
> 
> ...


Not going to argue with you since I wasn't involved in any of that at the time. I agree that the Chinook was gone in 1991 pre the UT order in 1992 but I take my view from this article:


> Why that argument didn’t hold sway when it came to the Chinooks, we don’t know. We only know that in 1991 the Chinooks were taken out of service and sold to the Dutch the next year.





> It’s the same story with the purchase of 100 Bell civilian helicopters for army support. Yes, the military was in the market to buy 40 helicopters to replace the C-Twin Huey, but hardly anyone was prepared when Defence Minister Marcel Masse announced that the Canadian Forces were going to buy 100 CH-146 Griffons. This was ostensibly done to reap the economic benefits of using one type of helicopter to replace four different types – the light observation Kiowa, the transport CH-135 Twin Huey, the base rescue CH-118 Iroquois, and the heavy-lift Chinooks.





> The Griffon helicopter has become almost a laughing stock. It is underpowered for the transport role the army needs it to play, and it’s too big for a reconnaissance role. At a time when the Canadian Forces are thirsting for equipment, it’s telling that about 20 of the Griffons have been parked.





> So who decided to buy the Griffons? Certainly Masse had political reasons to favour a deal with the Quebec based Bell, but he would not have proceeded without the support of the top brass. And they probably took the view that something was better than nothing. But does that rationale serve the military’s long-term interest? Shouldn’t the army and air force senior leadership stand up to the politicians and say “no, this won’t work”? That’s what Vice-Admiral Chuck Thomas did in April 1991 when he resigned as Vice-Chief of the Defence Staff in protest over the department’s policy proposals to the government.





> https://www.navalreview.ca/wp-content/uploads/CNR_pdf_full/cnr_vol2_2.pdf  Sharon Hobson, "Plain Talk - Who Decides" at p37


Simply put there was a nexus between the three types and their replacement by one type. Nevertheless, the last paragraph makes your point in any event. At the time, and pretty much since then, numerous poor decisions have been made in the name of financial constraints. While there is truth in that, the argument would be significantly more valid if we weren't mired up to our armpits in GOFOs and their plethora of staff crawling the halls of Ottawa and the compromises they make on a daily basis which end up in capability after capability being shed.

🍻


----------



## OldTanker (10 May 2021)

I worked in NDHQ, CLDO (Chief Land Doctrine and Operations) at this time. We had just done a study on the Griffon and bounced it back to the Air staff with the notice that it was underpowered and unacceptable to the Army. We were looking for something like a Blackhawk with enough power to lift a towed howitzer. Just as we did this we got the word that the Minister of Defence had given the direction that the department WOULD spend $1 Billion in Quebec, with tight timelines. The only CF program that was far enough along to meet his timelines was the Griffon. Hence the 100 airframes, way beyond the requirement. The rest is history. Regarding the lack of leadership by our senior management, I won't dispute that but at the same time we were dealing with the huge force reductions following the end of the Cold War, drawing down CFE and blindly staggering into our commitment in the Balkans. It probably didn't help that some of the senior Army leadership were "in tight" with the Minister and not likely to kick up a fuss. It was a sucky time to be an Army staff officer at NDHQ and frankly this wasn't anywhere near the top of the Army's primary concerns. My memory may be off a bit on details but I can clearly remember the collective sigh of disgust in our staff when we were told what was happening.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 May 2021)

OldTanker said:


> I worked in NDHQ, CLDO (Chief Land Doctrine and Operations) at this time. We had just done a study on the Griffon and bounced it back to the Air staff with the notice that it was underpowered and unacceptable to the Army. We were looking for something like a Blackhawk with enough power to lift a towed howitzer. Just as we did this we got the word that the Minister of Defence had given the direction that the department WOULD spend $1 Billion in Quebec, with tight timelines. The only CF program that was far enough along to meet his timelines was the Griffon. Hence the 100 airframes, way beyond the requirement. The rest is history. Regarding the lack of leadership by our senior management, I won't dispute that but at the same time we were dealing with the huge force reductions following the end of the Cold War, drawing down CFE and blindly staggering into our commitment in the Balkans. It probably didn't help that some of the senior Army leadership were "in tight" with the Minister and not likely to kick up a fuss. It was a sucky time to be an Army staff officer at NDHQ and frankly this wasn't anywhere near the top of the Army's primary concerns. My memory may be off a bit on details but I can clearly remember the collective sigh of disgust in our staff when we were told what was happening.


^This, and then some. 

The original CFUTTH, up until early/mid-1991, was specified by the Director of Land Aviation (DLA) within Chief of Air Doctrine and Operations (CADO, air cousin to Old Tanker’s aforementioned CLDO), to be 50+3 (50 was the number of originally-procured [pre-attrition] CH-135 Twin Hueys from 1971/72 and the +3 represented additional aircraft required to support the RCMP S.E.R.T. aviation support role assigned to 450 Squadron at CFB Uplands commencing in 1990.  The CFUTTH operational requirement, as originally developed in the late 80s by DLA, required a UH-60 Black Hawk class helicopter.  Between mid-1991 and early 1992 is when the morphing took place, leading to a major ‘directed’ (beyond CAF) revision in both quantity and characteristics of the CFUTTH-to-be. 

FJAG, ack your reference to Sharon Hobson’s article. A good effort in her part, but just because she wrote it, doesn’t mean all the details are accurate.  The Chinook decommissioning was without doubt an FMC decision, as FMC provided the source of the internally transferred capital funds for tactical aviation procurement (and ADM(Mat)/DGAEPM for in-service support) The CH-47D-model upgrade was estimated at $400M and Comd FMC, LGen Foster, told LGen Sutherland, Comd Air Command (peer Commanders) that FMC would not fund the Chinook’s upgrade. AIRCOM/CADO/DLA thus commenced decommissioning efforts in coordination with ADM(Mat) and Crown Assets Disposal in late-1991.  The Chinook’s demise was an entirely internal CAF decision/own goal.  Re: Griffons, it was Masse, back up by Mulroney, who directed the procurement to Bell. Hobson implies that the CAF could have pushed back and didn’t.  I have colleagues who were staff in DLA at the time, who advised upwards through the Chain of Command that, with the Chinook’s retirement, the UH-60 based requirement/capability must be retained.  That recommendation clearly didn’t make the cut.  Why 100 helicopters many have asked, compared to the original 53?  I understand that personnel directly involved with the MND the day he announced at the Bell Helicopter plant in Mirabel the purchase of 100 Bell 412s, that he told them 100 aircraft was a good round number and that if they had asked for more (not that they would), he would have ordered 200!  There was no manner in which military staff could counter that, notwithstanding Ms. Hobson’s belief that the military was responsible for how the procurement unfolded.

As an aside, I completely disagree with Ms. Hobson’s implication that the Griffon has been a laughing stock.  As a direct 1:1 replacement for the Twin Huey and Iroquois fleets, it has done an admirable job....when properly employed and supported.  It was unrealistic (and inappropriate) to expect heavy lift and armed recce ability from the Griffon.  As I said earlier, the backwards engineered PR effort to explain a multi-role responsibility where NO SUCH nexus truly existed.  THAT was the most disappointing point in the CAF’s involvement in the Griffon story.

Regards
G2G


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> I overhead one of our Yank hosts ask somebody during Ex Bold Venture in Fort Knox where we also turned an urn's worth of coffee into perfume for a TAMS Team) "How come y'all have so many hats?"



We are the Imelda Marcos' of headdress!


----------



## FJAG (11 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> I overhead one of our Yank hosts ask somebody during Ex Bold Venture in Fort Knox where we also turned an urn's worth of coffee into perfume for a TAMS Team) "How come y'all have so many hats?"








🍻


----------



## CBH99 (11 May 2021)

Very informative couple of posts, above.  Appreciated from all of you.

As for the Griffon being a laughing stock?  I wouldn't go that far, especially not after recent deployments to Mali, Afghanistan, and in support of SOFCOM throughout Iraq and Africa.

While many of us had our doubts about it's ability to perform in Afghanistan, and while it did have some limitations whereas other airframes may not have -- it certainly performed well, and was capable to unleashing some decently nasty lead showers down on the enemy.  I wouldn't call it a laughing stock when employed properly.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 May 2021)

I’ve heard from OSINT that the Taliban called the Griffons “Allah’s Breath”, after the stream of 7.62mm rounds coming from the Dillon M-134Ds (firing ~100 rds per second).  Look at the rate of reduction of Canadian KIA after the Chinooks and Griffons arrived in December 2008...


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> I’ve heard from OSINT that the Taliban called the Griffons “Allah’s Breath”, after the stream of 7.62mm rounds coming from the Dillon M-134Ds (firing ~100 rds per second).  Look at the rate of reduction of Canadian KIA after the Chinooks and Griffons arrived in December 2008...



One of my NCOs from the Westies was a door gunner during, I think, two tours.

I had a good chat with him a few years ago about his experiences and he had nothing but good things to say about the aircraft and the crews. He was also clear that the Canadians were recognized as leaders in the field of air gunnery in AFG, and other nations came to us for advice about a few things (that I only barely understood).


----------



## CBH99 (11 May 2021)

While the Griffons deployed after my tour, I had several friends deploy in the 2008-2011 timeframe.  Some spent all of their time in KAF, some out in the FOBs, and a small few did the first part of their tour in KAF and then ended up in the FOBs around midway through their tour.  (Why, I have no idea.)

But they heard nothing but praise for the Canadian machines and crews, as they seemed to be able to lift off & go far faster than other countries.  The Griffons, and their crews - from what they told me - seemed to be able to get briefed, plan the mission, and go - significantly faster than most.  (Minus  MEDEVAC birds that were constantly ready.)





Short rant.... It absolutely blows my mind that we deployed there in 2001, then deployed & conducted operations in Kabul, then redeployed in a combat role back to Kandahar in 2005, and conducted combat operations daily until 2011...and yet helicopters only arrived in 2008.  🤯🤦‍♂️

The top brass of the Army is supposed to, in my mind, essentially consist of  experienced officers who have the proper personality, experience, leadership abilities, and reasonable decision making abilities to lead an organization in war, and other operations where the danger is consistently higher than most civilian professions.

Did none of the Army leadership realize that in a country literally littered with landmines from the 80's, and IED's potentially anywhere, that helicopters would be essential?  How many 'gosh darn' Maple Resolves does one have to attend to say "Fast, safe movement GOOD...driving on roads that explode BAD."  

I know this is a sore topic for many of us on this board, so I do apologize for the above.  Just 🤯😠   one would think having helicopters moving people and supplies would be as basic as deploying LAVs or trucks.  <end rant>


----------



## Halifax Tar (11 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> While the Griffons deployed after my tour, I had several friends deploy in the 2008-2011 timeframe.  Some spent all of their time in KAF, some out in the FOBs, and a small few did the first part of their tour in KAF and then ended up in the FOBs around midway through their tour.  (Why, I have no idea.)
> 
> But they heard nothing but praise for the Canadian machines and crews, as they seemed to be able to lift off & go far faster than other countries.  The Griffons, and their crews - from what they told me - seemed to be able to get briefed, plan the mission, and go - significantly faster than most.  (Minus  MEDEVAC birds that were constantly ready.)
> 
> ...


I was a bit bewildered when I was tasked as the right seater for a 1 vehicle road move Kabul to Bagram in 2006.  It felt weird, and I was new in the ground and Jr so I went with it. My driver, an MSEOP was terrified.  And rightly so.

I remember him loading M72s in the back and asking why, to blow up G Wagon if we get stuck... Things got real.

Fyi the task was to go verify a SCA at Bagram.  It had medicine balls on it, that's it.

Looking back, I think a flight was a safer idea.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 May 2021)

CBH99, you wouldn’t be wrong in asking the question about helicopters, but it wasn’t just airlift that was lacking.  I drove close to a hundred times over the exact spot on Darulaman Road where Sgt Short and Cpl Beerenfenger were killed (the slight depression of the crater was still there in 2005) and try to imagine what it was like driving around Kabul in 2003 in an Iltis, compared to any up-armoured vehicle.  2001/02 the TF deployed in green CADPAT.  All represent what we had at the time and made it work, in part to being provided aviation support from other ISAF nations, although clearly, not without consequences.  That it took until late 2008 to get our own helicopters to provide integral support for a threat that was, as you noted, not something ‘unforeseen’ is without doubt, much longer than it should have taken.  My personal thought is that there had been so much misinformation and mis-‘missioning’ surrounding the Griffon in the part of many (some politicians, pundits, academics, even many CAF (Army, some AF, etc), that there was significant resistance to deploy the Griffon at the same time the original move of the BG from Kabul to Kandahar took place in late 2005.  Most unfortunately, it took loss of life...a lot of it, to turn the tide of opinion and with the support of John Manley and his team and their report in February of 2008, execute the accelerated procurement of interim used Chinooks and the deployment of the Griffon into AFG in Dec 2008, just 10 months after the Manley Report’s release.  Griffons also performed successfully in Iraq as well, and fortunately the lessons learned of aviation’s value in AFG were considered in deploying it to IRQ.  Would we have liked to have seen our own helos deployed earlier than late 2008? Absolutely.  The was a demonstrable reduction in KIA with the helicopters’ arrival. One certainly can’t be faulted for thinking that perhaps fewer Canadians would have died had it happened earlier. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## CBH99 (11 May 2021)

I truly hope that in any future operations we are involved in which require a ‘whole of military’ commitment, the idea of deploying helicopters to quickly and safely transport troops is a given.

Given the purchase of 15 new build, improved Chinooks - I am thinking the lessons did sink in, as we now have the assets to do so.  

I am consistently surprised that MOST western countries (the UK, Germany, France) - all operate with the same mindset deficiency in regards to organic helicopter support.  

We all deploy troops, and then consider the helicopter aspect almost as an afterthought.  Or worse yet, we consider the helicopter aspect almost like a “special Christmas present for the troops” that they only get if Santa comes.  

The US seems to have basic helicopter support as organic to a deployment.  X battalion deploys?  Y number of helicopters deploy with them.  Seems downright logical...  

(Yes the US has more assets than it knows what to do with - literally.  But our deployments only require a fairly small handful.)


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (11 May 2021)

I am not sure that integral helicopters would have changed much for our Kabul task circa 2003. Our task was to patrol the city.

Chinooks and escort helicopters certainly would have made life better in Kandahar in 2006. I recall the drive to FOB Wolf/Robinson took something like 12 hrs the first time, while the US CH47 ride back was about 40 mins.

I will offer, though, that helicopter movement is not without risk. The increasing ingenuity of Hezbollah IED attacks against Israeli forces occupying their security zone in Southern Lebanon in the 90s meant that the IDF adopted helicopter movement to rotate their patrol bases. Israeli forces typically did two-week rotations, with platoons moving in and out by helicopter to avoid IEDs. In 1997 two such helicopters collided with the loss of 73 personnel. 

1997 Israeli helicopter disaster - Wikipedia.

This was a galvanizing factor with the Israeli anti-occupation movement and is seen as the catalyst for the withdrawal from Southern Lebanon. Adaptation to one threat can open vulnerability to another.


----------



## kev994 (11 May 2021)

Can we split this thread? We’re nowhere near RCAF retention.


----------



## CBH99 (11 May 2021)

You are right.  Let’s just get back on topic.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 May 2021)

Apologies of this has been shared elsewhere, but good old 'bribery' has a role to play here, does it not? The US seems to think so....

Some Air Force Pilots Are Eligible for Up to $420K in Aviation Bonus Payments​
In its yearslong effort to get more pilots to stay in service, the U.S. Air Force is offering up to $420,000 in aviation bonuses over 12 years for some airmen, according to the service's fiscal 2021 bonus program.

Active-duty bomber, fighter, mobility, special operations and combat search-and-rescue fixed-wing pilots whose initial contract commitments expire this year are eligible to receive annual payments of $25,000 for five- to seven-year commitments or $35,000 for eight- to 12-year commitments, according to the service's latest figures provided to Military.com.

These aviators also have the option of taking upfront payments of $100,000 for the five- to seven-year terms, with the remainder of the bonus distributed annually thereafter. Those who choose eight- to 12-year contracts may request a $200,000 upfront payment, the service said.

Other pilot bonuses include:


Combat search-and-rescue (CSAR) rotary-wing pilots, combat systems officers and air battle managers whose initial contract commitments expire this year are eligible for annual payments of $15,000 for contract lengths of five to seven years or $25,000 for eight to 12 years.
Remotely piloted aircraft pilots whose initial contract commitments expire this year can receive annual payments of $25,000 for contract lengths of five to seven years or $35,000 for eight to 12 years. They can also choose upfront payments of $100,000 for contract lengths of eight to 12 years.
Remotely piloted aircraft pilots whose contracts expired before 2021 are eligible for annual payments of $15,000 for contract lengths of five to seven years or $25,000 for eight to 12 years.
Bomber, fighter, mobility, special operations or CSAR fixed-wing pilots whose contracts have expired prior to 2021 can sign up for annual payments of $15,000 for contract lengths of five to seven years or $25,000 for eight to 12 years.
For those who are non-contracted or have an expired contract, there is a five-year contract minimum and 24 years of aviation service maximum, the service said.










						Some Air Force Pilots Are Eligible for Up to $420K in Aviation Bonus Payments
					

The bonuses ae part of the Air Force's yearslong effort to get more pilots to stay in the service.




					www.military.com


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Do you think this could be helped if the MH community was formally brought back into the RCN to be the RCN Air Arm again ?



The key issue isn't what DEU they wear/could wear, the issue is more related to the "FG/FE" arm wrestle.  To put more people thru, the Schoolhouse (406) needs more qualified MHFIs (MH Flying Instructors).  The gun Sqn's and other units also need qualified flyers (423, 443, MHTEF, MHSET, MH OLA...) to support their necessary function in the fleet.  Generally speaking, RW air ops are harder on aircrew than FW air ops.  Not a hard rule, but a good general statement, in my eyes.

Putting more MH Pilots, TACCOs, SENSOs thru the applic courses means more flying.  That usually needs more aircraft, maintained by more techs, supported by supply, replenishment, SNIC, ATC.  All of those "more people" all need medical and admin support...

TL;DR:  I'm not sure the RCN can solve all intertwined aspects of the "qualify more aircrew" better than the RCAF can.  Right now, it might just be a "time" issue until "supply - attrition" can keep up to 'demand'.  However, senior RCN leadership might have more 'vested interest' in the success of MH aircrew generation than the RCAF writ large, who cares about aircrew generation across all fleets.  

My 2 cents worth.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> take LRP along as well since they seem to either fall between AF or Navy depending on the nation



Would this include returning YAW to it's former state, and moving LRP and SAR to civilization on the east coast?  😁


----------



## dimsum (11 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Would this include returning YAW to it's former state, and moving LRP and SAR to civilization on the east coast?  😁


One can dream.  There would be too many people complaining in the Valley though.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Would this include returning YAW to it's former state, and moving LRP and SAR to civilization on the east coast?  😁


Good luck. The Developers have built right up to the YAW fence line and penetrated the Obstacle Clearance everywhere. The days of a B52 doing 500kt, zero altitude run and battle break down the main runway (personally witnessed after the 1999 airshow) are loooong gone.


----------



## TCM621 (12 May 2021)

I really think the best way forward is to look at all the things that kept people in before and see how we can use that to our advantage. I think it all comes down to making the military be the military we all wanted to join as kids. I didn't join the military to spend my entire life in one place and go on TD once every year or two. I didn't join to spend all day writing emails about how the lack of training will eventually lead to someone get hurt or worse. I didn't join the military to fight HQs who decide the solution to having trouble meeting a standard, is to lower the standard. 

People have zero joy in their work and very little pride. They don't have pride because they do very little that deserves pride. They meet low standards and even when they do go above and beyond they rarely get recognition. How can you be proud of passing your trades course when everyone who takes it passes? How can you be proud of being a Cpl when all it took was not quiting for 4 years? How can you be proud of being a MCpl when. You didn't even pass PLQ (not that anyone fails). I could literally go on for an hour in this one topic alone.


----------



## Ostrozac (12 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I really think the best way forward is to look at all the things that kept people in before and see how we can use that to our advantage.


As someone who joined the CAF in 1991, it sometimes felt like I was like a tourist that arrived in Boston the day after St Patrick’s Day — the stories of heavy partying and booze when on TD, in the field, and in garrison, were legendary and not really anything like my lived experience, as I found Bosnia, Haiti and Afghanistan to be rather sober, and sobering, experiences. Germany seemed to be one long bender for the troops, and even exercises in Wainwright were described in terms more befitting a frat party movie than the sense of dread that now accompanies mention of Maple Resolve.

Was it all really just more fun in the 70’s and 80’s? And is that the solution for recruiting/retention? Or were these older soldiers, sailors and airmen that I served with just pointlessly nostalgic for the days of stubby beer bottles and 8-track tapes?


----------



## dimsum (12 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> Or were these older soldiers, sailors and airmen that I served with just pointlessly nostalgic for the days of stubby beer bottles and 8-track tapes?


I'm not one of those older folks, but I'd suspect that there is some nostalgia involved.  For example:  I remember the good times about sailing, not the crappy ones.



TCM621 said:


> I think it all comes down to making the military be the military we all wanted to join as kids. I didn't join the military to spend my entire life in one place and go on TD once every year or two


However, that may backfire.  The idea of being gone all the time and doing cool stuff is awesome when you're young and single.  Less awesome when you're married with a few kids and they're wondering why Dad/Mom is always gone.  

Yes, we obviously joined the military knowing we could be deployed, but I know I'm less gung-ho about being gone than I was when I was in my 20s.


----------



## TCM621 (12 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> However, that may backfire.  The idea of being gone all the time and doing cool stuff is awesome when you're young and single.  Less awesome when you're married with a few kids and they're wondering why Dad/Mom is always gone.
> 
> Yes, we obviously joined the military knowing we could be deployed, but I know I'm less gung-ho about being gone than I was when I was in my 20s.



I don't know. My dad spent 6 months at sea a year for like 30 years. And that was actual at sea time. But he loved his job. When you are 20 going away, anywhere for any reason, is new and exciting. When you are looking at your 10th trip to San Diego in 7 years to do the exact same thing you did the last 10 times, complete with the same problems, it is harder to justify to yourself that you are doing something worth leaving your family for. 

Part of the problem is the Cold war gave everyone purpose. Sailors would spend 280 days at sea training to protect Canada from the Russians. 3 months in Wainwright was worth it if it meant we could defend West German against Soviet aggression. Even the Air Force would share hotel rooms when needed to thwart the Red Menace. We saw a little bit of that during the Afghanistan years but it was mostly felt in the Army. Right now we are in a period of appeasement. We can't point out the Chinese threat without cries of racism and we are afraid of starting a new Cold War if we push back too hard against Russia. I think even a potential enemy would have an effect on our collective feeling of purpose.

I'm not suggesting we create an enemy just to increase a sense of purpose but merely stating that the lack of an enemy creates a hole that needs to be filled.  Lacking that sense of purpose we have to increase the other reason one might want to stay despite the demands of the service. "Fun" is one way but is difficult because fun is subjective. Increased pay is out because reasons. Don't even get me started on the promotion system. I am focusing my efforts on self-actualization and esteem needs, to reference Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, because I think it is the lowest hanging fruit of all the areas that need addressing (I see room for improvement in all Maslow's areas). I really think we need to break it right down to the basics of what areas we can't meet a members needs adequately and how do we balance that out?


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> TL;DR:  I'm not sure the RCN can solve all intertwined aspects of the "qualify more aircrew" better than the RCAF can.  Right now, it might just be a "time" issue until "supply - attrition" can keep up to 'demand'.  However, senior RCN leadership might have more 'vested interest' in the success of MH aircrew generation than the RCAF writ large, who cares about aircrew generation across all fleets.



There was a Joint Helicopter training establishment in Rivers, Manitoba which trained aircrew (and possibly techs) for the RCN, CA, and RCAF prior to unification.

Army Helicopter Techs wore RCEME cap badges.


----------



## Loachman (13 May 2021)

Ostrozac said:


> As someone who joined the CAF in 1991, it sometimes felt like I was like a tourist that arrived in Boston the day after St Patrick’s Day — the stories of heavy partying and booze when on TD, in the field, and in garrison, were legendary and not really anything like my lived experience, as I found Bosnia, Haiti and Afghanistan to be rather sober, and sobering, experiences. Germany seemed to be one long bender for the troops, and even exercises in Wainwright were described in terms more befitting a frat party movie than the sense of dread that now accompanies mention of Maple Resolve.
> 
> Was it all really just more fun in the 70’s and 80’s? And is that the solution for recruiting/retention? Or were these older soldiers, sailors and airmen that I served with just pointlessly nostalgic for the days of stubby beer bottles and 8-track tapes?


Yes.

Yes it was.

Yes it *most definitely* was.

But not *jus*t for the reasons cited above.

We had a full-blown mechanized brigade group and three bomber squadrons in Germany and constantly worked with allies.

Seeing a quarter of a million troops in the field (well, they were there, but well-dispersed and hiding for the most part) on the biggest exercise that NATO ever had - corps-versus-corps free play - is really indescribable. Hordes of tanks and APCs and SPGs and A10s and and and as far as one's eyes could see from fifty feet or less above it all.

There was a tremendous feeling of invincible military might.

Y'all yunguns missed out on a lot.

I feel sorry for you.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> There was a Joint Helicopter training establishment in Rivers, Manitoba which trained aircrew (and possibly techs) for the RCN, CA, and RCAF prior to unification.



Now I'm curious as to what the fling-wing folks think...let's say this 'was going to happen in 2-3 years'.  Pro's, con's....good investment/waste of time?


----------



## dimsum (13 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Now I'm curious as to what the fling-wing folks think...let's say this 'was going to happen in 2-3 years'.  Pro's, con's....good investment/waste of time?


Our allies do something similar.  Australia comes to mind.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (13 May 2021)

The attitude in the old days was work hard and play hard, because tomorrow you might be getting nuked. The thing also was that nobody was safe from global nuclear war, so there was a sense it would affect all of us. It was not all roses though, alcoholism was a big issue, but on the flip side, soldiers/sailors and Airmen were expected to let off steam. Them getting into fights hardly warranted a line in the newspaper, there was not the all seeing eye of Mordor to contend with and most issues were dealt at the regimental level often without any official note on your file.


----------



## FJAG (13 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes it was.
> 
> ...



Hell, even we missed out on the best of times. Remember when 1 Cdn Air Div in Europe had 6,000 people in twelve squadrons of 25 Sabre jets each in the mid 1950s. 300 state of the art jets all built by Canadair (who built 1,815 of them in Montreal before they built us 200 CF104 Starfighters)

🍻


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> Yes.
> 
> Yes it was.
> 
> ...



Except for all the 'real wars' and medals since '91 though, right?


----------



## FSTO (14 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> There was a Joint Helicopter training establishment in Rivers, Manitoba which trained aircrew (and possibly techs) for the RCN, CA, and RCAF prior to unification.
> 
> Army Helicopter Techs wore RCEME cap badges.


I recall reading that Sea Fury's would fly out of Rivers and do ground support for the Army in Shilo.


----------



## FJAG (14 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> There was a Joint Helicopter training establishment in Rivers, Manitoba which trained aircrew (and possibly techs) for the RCN, CA, and RCAF prior to unification.
> 
> Army Helicopter Techs wore RCEME cap badges.



When I left Manitoba a hog farm was using the remaining hangers (one of which burned down) but I think they have abandoned the base.

There's an extensive history of Rivers' military base here.

🍻


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Except for all the 'real wars' and medals since '91 though, right?


I have met a few of us "Cold War" types trying to inflate stuff so they can match the guys coming back from Afghanistan. For the majority of us that war thankfully did not happen and trying to level the field with people that lived everyday in dread of an IED is just plain sad.


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have met a few of us "Cold War" types trying to inflate stuff so they can match the guys coming back from Afghanistan. For the majority of us that war thankfully did not happen and trying to level the field with people that lived everyday in dread of an IED is just plain sad.



Hence the reason why the Legion is drying up. But I digress


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have met a few of us "Cold War" types trying to inflate stuff so they can match the guys coming back from Afghanistan. For the majority of us that war thankfully did not happen and trying to level the field with people that lived everyday in dread of an IED is just plain sad.


As a “Cold Warrior”, I definitely did not have it harder than the Afghanistan generation. 

With that said, my grounding in the subject matter of warfare, writ large, seems to have been better at young age/rank, than the current generation.

I could describe, up to a Corps Level (not that Canada had a Corps, but we knew we would work with US or GE Corps if the shooting started), what all the parts were. I knew how ammo dumping and supply all the back to DISGROUP worked. I understood the ACP for Central Europe. I could tell you the order of march of both a Soviet MRR and a Soviet TR off by heart.

Much of it was stupid memorization, but I think we also spent more time thinking about warfare.


----------



## FSTO (14 May 2021)

FJAG said:


> When I left Manitoba a hog farm was using the remaining hangers (one of which burned down) but I think they have abandoned the base.
> 
> There's an extensive history of Rivers' military base here.
> 
> 🍻


Really sad what happened to Rivers. I had uncles who farmed up against the south end of the base. One of them actually worked as a driver for the base commander when the based was closed. 
There is a story that when the Brandon Airport was closed for resurfacing, WestJet flew out of Rivers for a period.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> With that said, my grounding in the subject matter of warfare, writ large, seems to have been better at young age/rank, than the current generation.
> 
> Much of it was stupid memorization, but I think we also spent more time thinking about warfare.



You spent more time thinking about conventional, near-peer warfare, which is only a small piece of today’s warfare.  With all the irregular threats we, the West, are facing (including from our near-peer competitors), major force-on-force conflict is increasingly unlikely.

The lessons the “Afghanistan” generation learned are as or more valuable than what you learned in the 80s/early 90s.

Edit: Added link to an article from the SWJ on the topic.  The Myths of Traditional Warfare: How Our Peer and Near-Peer Adversaries Plan to Fight Using Irregular Warfare | Small Wars Journal


----------



## daftandbarmy (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You spent more time thinking about conventional, near-peer warfare, which is only a small piece of today’s warfare.  With all the irregular threats we, the West, are facing (including from our near-peer competitors), *major force-on-force conflict is increasingly unlikely.*
> 
> The lessons the “Afghanistan” generation learned are as or more valuable than what you learned in the 80s/early 90s.



I'm pretty sure that was the prevailing attitude amongst many key decision makers in the West in 1913 and 1938 too.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I'm pretty sure that was the prevailing attitude amongst many key decision makers in the West in 1913 and 1938 too.


Anything to support that argument and how it would apply in today’s context, like some research?


----------



## Halifax Tar (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Anything to support that argument and how it would apply in today’s context, like some research?


"Generals always fight the last war"  Not sure who that quote belongs too but...

Look at the stream Bore War -> WW1 -> WW2 -> Korea -> Vietnam -> Gulf War 1 -> Iraq/Afg

I would say the only somewhat similar two in a row would be WW2 and Korea.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> "Generals always fight the last war"  Not sure who that quote belongs too but...


I am not talking about COIN.  I agree that Afghanistan and Iraq may have tainted how we see IW.  COIN is one of many IW activities. IW has been part of warfare forever.  Vietnam could be characterized largely as IW. China and Russia are already using IW against the West at a threshold that isn’t enough to trigger an armed conflict.  Look at Ukraine for example...  and the West is getting out-manoeuvered.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You spent more time thinking about conventional, near-peer warfare, which is only a small piece of today’s warfare.  With all the irregular threats we, the West, are facing (including from our near-peer competitors), major force-on-force conflict is increasingly unlikely.
> 
> The lessons the “Afghanistan” generation learned are as or more valuable than what you learned in the 80s/early 90s.


I doubt the “more valuable” part- just differently blind. I did not mention it, but we had a pretty reasonable grounding in the COIN theory of the day, too (such as it was).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I am not talking about COIN.  I agree that Afghanistan and Iraq may have tainted how we see IW.  COIN is one of many IW activities. IW has been part of warfare forever.  Vietnam could be characterized largely as IW. China and Russia are already using IW against the West at a threshold that isn’t enough to trigger an armed conflict.  Look at Ukraine for example...  and the West us getting out-manoeuvered.


On this I will agree- the West does not view IW the same as Russia and China. A lot of that has to do with the terrible implications IW can have on liberal democracies. We do need to figure out how to fight in that domain effectively without destroying that which we hold most dear.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (14 May 2021)

I think the Afghan generation spent as much time thinking about it, but on a micro scale, this village is this and that village is that. Different threats lead to different thinking.


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> "Generals always fight the last war"  Not sure who that quote belongs too but...
> 
> Look at the stream Bore War -> WW1 -> WW2 -> Korea -> Vietnam -> Gulf War 1 -> Iraq/Afg
> 
> I would say the only somewhat similar two in a row would be WW2 and Korea.


If you believe that GW1 was planned and fought, by Generals, the same way as Vietnam, I have some news for you!


----------



## Underway (14 May 2021)

One thing was very clear in Afghanistan.  When it came to the kinetic aspects of IW, training for peer on peer was fully applicable.  There was nothing wrong with Canada's training system.  The skills needed to fight and win at an infantry company level were the same.  There were doctrinal additions of course to adjust to the battlespace and evolving threats (IED procedures of course) but core training was excellent.

The problem is when someone says IW  I don't know what they actually mean because the definition is so broad.  Dealing with China's Guerrilla fishing fleet is completely different than the Little Green Men in Ukraine, electronic warfare, hacking, drug smuggling, supporting an insurgency, or building the capacity of an ally (all of which fall under IW label).

The vast majority of solutions to these situations are not held by the military.   Espionage, electronic security, infrastructure, diplomacy, aid policy, law enforcement etc... are far more important than the military.

The military just needs to look at threat vectors to itself, and shield against those.  It can't do anything to protect national infrastructure from a cyberattack, protests and similar disruptive elements.  It can only protect its own infrastructure from that same attack.  When kinetics become involved we'll be fine to deal with what comes our way.

Dealing with IW is a whole of government effort.  Frankly the less the military is involved likely the better in many cases.


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

FJAG said:


> There's an extensive history of Rivers' military base here.
> 
> 🍻


Thanks for that link.


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> The attitude in the old days was work hard and play hard, because tomorrow you might be getting nuked. The thing also was that nobody was safe from global nuclear war, so there was a sense it would affect all of us. It was not all roses though, alcoholism was a big issue, but on the flip side, soldiers/sailors and Airmen were expected to let off steam. Them getting into fights hardly warranted a line in the newspaper, there was not the all seeing eye of Mordor to contend with and most issues were dealt at the regimental level often without any official note on your file.


I don't think that too many of us in my time there gave much thought to any possibility of "getting nuked" (in the warfare sense). We figured if the Godless Communist Horde thought that they had a chance of winning they'd have tried already. It seemed to be more of a massive game than anything else, but still one that had to be taken seriously.

Fights? The only problem that I ever had with fights was with a bar near a training site that we were using. I had to personally swear to the manager that we were not PPCLI (the last Canadians that had been there) and sign for every one of us who entered.


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> I have met a few of us "Cold War" types trying to inflate stuff so they can match the guys coming back from Afghanistan. For the majority of us that war thankfully did not happen and trying to level the field with people that lived everyday in dread of an IED is just plain sad.


I can sort of see that because a lot of general warfare stuff was abandoned to concentrate on that particular conflict.

A push was made afterwards to revert back to training for general warfare, and people who'd only known Afghanistan would push back with "that's not how we did it in theatre".

A certain well-known leather-loving R**F guy tried to take our cooks and drivers away and put them in his shiny new AEW in Bagotville because we "would only fight from airfields in the future and never again operate from the field".

"Two things, sir. Firstly, when not feeding our people in the field, our cooks are working in the kitchens on their home bases and I doubt that those bases would give up essential staff who would then be under-employed in Bagotville, and, secondly, the Army is going back to general warfare training including high mobility as opposed to fixed locations and we need to be close to our supported organizations or be rendered useless, and that requires both cooks and drivers."

We kept our cooks and drivers.

I've seen similar cycles in Tac Hel before. After every peacekeeping op ended, there was a mad scramble to rebuild capabilities that had withered. Knowledge and experience levels for Majors seemed, to me, to be the most depleted. Smart people, but there were a lot of things that I took for granted that they'd never done in a multi-year period and so had to be patiently and tactfully guided along for a while.

None of the young know-it-alls should ever disparage previous experience, or older know-it-alls disparage more recent experience. There are no new lessons, only new people.

And that's why study of previous wars is worthwhile.


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Hence the reason why the Legion is drying up. But I digress


Although the Legions seemed to be quite accepting of us Cold Warriors who had missed out on The Big Ones.


----------



## FJAG (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You spent more time thinking about conventional, near-peer warfare, which is only a small piece of today’s warfare.  With all the irregular threats we, the West, are facing (including from our near-peer competitors), major force-on-force conflict is increasingly unlikely.
> 
> The lessons the “Afghanistan” generation learned are as or more valuable than what you learned in the 80s/early 90s.
> 
> Edit: Added link to an article from the SWJ on the topic.  The Myths of Traditional Warfare: How Our Peer and Near-Peer Adversaries Plan to Fight Using Irregular Warfare | Small Wars Journal



I think the fallacy in the "Myths ..." article is that it presupposes how Americans perceive future wars to be fought as "traditional warfare". "Traditional Warfare" in and of itself is a loaded term to mean whatever one wants it to mean - most presume it means something like 1970s and 1980s Cold War or AirLand Battle. What we're really talking about is military doctrine.

If I have my timings right, this article came out just before TRADOC foundation publications on Multi-Domain Operations albeit the notion had floated around before that. The word "domain" only comes up once in the article and not in an overarching way. So my guess is it doesn't really address the expression of the change in doctrine from AirLand Battle to Multi-Domain (or Pan Domain as we call it here in Canada).

Rather than focus on "traditional war" I tend to think in terms of "Big or Little War". For me "Little War" is the discretionary one where we have a choice as to whether we wish to engage or not and a choice in how deeply we will commit to it and where failure does not create a crisis for the country regardless of how much of a crisis it may be for a particular political party. Afghanistan was a typical "little war". A "Big War" for me is one where we have no choice but to participate, where we may very well have to go "all in" to succeed and where failure will have severe consequences for our nation and/or lifestyle. The current war we are in with Russia and with China is a "Big War". Our doctrine for that and the tools to effect it are still under development - slower in some Western countries than others but under development nonetheless.

I think where SeaKingTaco is bang on is that for those of us who were part of the Cold War, we have a more far ranging view of what a future war looks or could look like because we've seen and worked within the "Big War" scenario. When you have that picture as part of your experience set then its easier to slot other concepts such as COIN and Pan Domain operations and various other ones into their place than if your experience set is simply based on the "Little War" scenario. Personally, I think that there will be another need for a "heavy fight". It may not be like the Cold War ones we planned for - in fact I'm positive it won't be - but it will, at its extreme end, require large quantities of full spectrum equipment and combat techniques. Let's face it, while everyone is developing the new methods of warfare they continue to produce and field heavy armoured forces with extensive conventional capabilities. 

🍻


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> You spent more time thinking about conventional, near-peer warfare, which is only a small piece of today’s warfare.  With all the irregular threats we, the West, are facing (including from our near-peer competitors), major force-on-force conflict is increasingly unlikely.



So if you guys are just going to drop bombs on tribesmen tribespeople(?) for the rest of human history, why bother wasting time and money with all of that air combat manoeuvring stuff?

History has a habit of repeating, and usually when least expected.


----------



## Loachman (14 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Anything to support that argument and how it would apply in today’s context, like some research?


Almost losing twice?


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 May 2021)

FJAG said:


> I think the fallacy in the "Myths ..." article is that it presupposes how Americans perceive future wars to be fought as "traditional warfare". "Traditional Warfare" in and of itself is a loaded term to mean whatever one wants it to mean - most presume it means something like 1970s and 1980s Cold War or AirLand Battle. What we're really talking about is military doctrine.
> 
> If I have my timings right, this article came out just before TRADOC foundation publications on Multi-Domain Operations albeit the notion had floated around before that. The word "domain" only comes up once in the article and not in an overarching way. So my guess is it doesn't really address the expression of the change in doctrine from AirLand Battle to Multi-Domain (or Pan Domain as we call it here in Canada).
> 
> ...



I think our doctrine portrays IW in a way that is inaccurate.  It shows IW below conventional warfare. This lead to a perception that if you are ready for conventional warfare, you are ready for anything underneath.  From speaking with many Army officers, they think the Army thinks that way (and agree it is not the right way to see the problem).  All types of operations below conventional warfare differ from it and require specific training.  Also, it is not a binary thing.  One does not exclude the other.  We need to be ready for all types of warfare (and their intricacies).  But saying "we'll train for conventional warfare so we'll be ready for everything" is leading us the wrong path, especially in an environment where "asymmetric" and "hybrid" threats are more threatening than conventional force itself.  IW was part (we just didn't realize it until the mid 80s/early 90s) and will be part of global competition in, imo, a more meaningful way than conventional war will be. Not to say we don't need to be ready for conventional war, just that we can't put all our eggs in that basket.

The real question is how we structure and equip ourselves to be relevant in today's security environment.  Do we stay a multi-purpose force (risking having irrelevant capabilities in every aspect of warfare) or do we become a niche military, where we specialize in areas of warfare that our allies lack capacity or capability?




Loachman said:


> So if you guys are just going to drop bombs on tribesmen tribespeople(?) for the rest of human history, why bother wasting time and money with all of that air combat manoeuvring stuff?
> 
> History has a habit of repeating, and usually when least expected.



COIN (what we did in Afghanistan) does not (entirely) equal IW....  Peer and near-peer competitors also conduct IW and while its application requires a comprehensive approach (rather than just Whole of Government), the military has a key role to play. There is a wealth of academic and professional military articles on the subject south of the border.


----------



## Zoomie (22 May 2021)

Back to the topic at hand.   CAS sent out this letter to the RCAF.


----------



## Sf2 (22 May 2021)

Great news $$$$


----------



## dimsum (22 May 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Back to the topic at hand.   CAS sent out this letter to the RCAF.


Wow. I hope they also replace aircrew allowance for other aircrew trades as well.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Wow. I hope they also replace aircrew allowance for other aircrew trades as well.


Yeah. Dream on.

ACSOs and AESOps are, statistically both in worse shape as occupations than pilots, but that gets no attention....


----------



## Loachman (22 May 2021)

That, at first glance, actually makes much more sense than any previous failed attempt that I've seen.

Too late for me, though...


----------



## Loachman (22 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> Yeah. Dream on.
> 
> ACSOs and AESOps are, statistically both in worse shape as occupations than pilots, but that gets no attention....


It would only make sense to expand this initiative to other aircrew occupations. Two parallel compensation packages would be ridiculous, and probably counter-productive.


----------



## Sf2 (22 May 2021)

How many annuitant reservists will CT back to reg force to boost the pension?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (22 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> It would only make sense to expand this initiative to other aircrew occupations. Two parallel compensation packages would be ridiculous, and probably counter-productive.


So, that is probably how this will go down, then...


----------



## dimsum (22 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> So, that is probably how this will go down, then...


Probably.

I'd also like to know how AEC is fairing.  Completely anecdotally from friends, there are a LOT of people pulling pin and switching to Nav Canada once their contract is up.


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

Sf2 said:


> How many annuitant reservists will CT back to reg force to boost the pension?


I know at least 1, maybe 2 (out of a sample size not much larger) who have their applications in and plans to pull it if the numbers aren’t to their liking.


----------



## CBH99 (22 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Apologies of this has been shared elsewhere, but good old 'bribery' has a role to play here, does it not? The US seems to think so....
> 
> Some Air Force Pilots Are Eligible for Up to $420K in Aviation Bonus Payments​
> In its yearslong effort to get more pilots to stay in service, the U.S. Air Force is offering up to $420,000 in aviation bonuses over 12 years for some airmen, according to the service's fiscal 2021 bonus program.
> ...


Wow!!  If you have a family (or even if you don't marry or have kids) - thats incentive right there.  

Perfect timing too, as I imagine some of the airlines might put a hold on hiring for a bit.


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Wow!!  If you have a family (or even if you don't marry or have kids) - thats incentive right there.
> 
> Perfect timing too, as I imagine some of the airlines might put a hold on hiring for a bit.


USAF has had similar bonuses for quite some time.


----------



## CBH99 (22 May 2021)

The USAF sounds like a pretty darn good gig as a pilot.  I’m surprised they are suffering the way they are, re: pilots 


Decent pay & benefits
Fly exciting planes (variety of fighters, refuellers, transport, etc)
Fly newer jets (especially with F-15EX, F-35, etc)

- Most bases have decently large communities nearby.  Or are near a big city.  (That alone would be a huge attraction compared to us)

- Possibility of being posted somewhere with a decent climate year round.  

Personally, if I had multiple lives to live, I think being a pilot in the USAF would be a pretty cool job.  I’m surprised they struggle to retain as much as they do.


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The USAF sounds like a pretty darn good gig as a pilot.  I’m surprised they are suffering the way they are, re: pilots
> 
> 
> Decent pay & benefits
> ...


UPS starts at 200k+/yr, so there’s that…


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> Personally, if I had multiple lives to live, I think being a pilot in the USAF would be a pretty cool job.  I’m surprised they struggle to retain as much as they do.


Hawaii Air National Guard flying Raptors.  Sign me up!


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> The USAF sounds like a pretty darn good gig as a pilot.  I’m surprised they are suffering the way they are, re: pilots
> 
> 
> Decent pay & benefits
> ...


Many pilots I know do not take the bonuses.  Most that take them are posted to undesirable posts (like a year-long unaccompanied posting to the Middle East).  They don’t want to be at the mercy of the “system.”


----------



## MilEME09 (22 May 2021)

How big is the RCAF reserve? Could any expansion of it offer a assistance to our shortages by trying to get civilian aircraft type jobs to work for us part time?


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> How big is the RCAF reserve? Could any expansion of it offer a assistance to our shortages by trying to get civilian aircraft type jobs to work for us part time?


The shortage is in experience. We’re swimming in First Officers but have insufficient Instructor Pilots to help them progress.


----------



## dimsum (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> - Most bases have decently large communities nearby. Or are near a big city. (That alone would be a huge attraction compared to us)


From my limited experience chatting with USAF folks, they get posted every 2 years.  Regardless of location, that gets old FAST.

Also, unlike us, they are in an "up or out" system.  Want to fly as a line pilot indefinitely?  Nope - if you don't make the promotion cut for 3 years, you're released from the USAF (and USN, and etc).  So there's no "career Capt" and everyone is competing for the next rank up.


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> From my limited experience chatting with USAF folks, they get posted every 2 years.  Regardless of location, that gets old FAST.
> 
> Also, unlike us, they are in an "up or out" system.  Want to fly as a line pilot indefinitely?  Nope - if you don't make the promotion cut for 3 years, you're released from the USAF (and USN, and etc).  So there's no "career Capt" and everyone is competing for the next rank up.


Yeah, it’s a weird system, the USCG is the same; they’re crying that they’re bleeding pilots and at the same time kicking out people who want to stay. IIRC you need to make O4 to be allowed to stay the 20 years for immediate annuity.


----------



## CBH99 (22 May 2021)

The 'up & out' system seems to have come from good intentions.  "Encourage people to progress, take courses, improve their skills and leadership qualities, get as much education as possible, etc - to constantly work their way up, and have momentum in their career.  Folks who don't want to progress, learn, and work their way up are viewed as dead weight, and are subsequently released."

On the surface, from afar, I can see how that was easily sold as a good way to keep people growing and moving.

The reality is, like many of you have stated, quite a career killer if someone just enjoys their job and wants to keep doing it.  Which is not only sad that good people are forced out of a position they are good at and enjoy, but it takes away some really experienced folks at that level.  And every level needs experienced people.  

It's a shame they can't make some minor tweaks and adjust for the times.  This is an expensive way to essentially say "Sorry you didn't feel wanted.  Here's a pile of cash to let you know we actually desperately need you, but didn't realize it until you were all leaving en mass."




Posted every 2 years is tough too.  I didn't realize that.  Hard to put down roots and really feel 'at home' when you are constantly packing up and moving, and it's hard to settle when you know you will be moving again soon.  If one has kids, they won't be able to have the 'childhood best friend' or 'lifelong best friend' if they are going to a different school every few years, new city, etc etc.

When pilots leave the active force, I know quite a few of them stay flying with the National Guard.  Is that one of their only options, if they just want to fly?  Leave the full time job, get on with the National Guard?


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

CBH99 said:


> When pilots leave the active force, I know quite a few of them stay flying with the National Guard.  Is that one of their only options, if they just want to fly?  Leave the full time job, get on with the National Guard?


a few of the guys I know are trying to get the last couple years towards a pension, though I do know one who is pensioned and finds the Herc a lot of fun.


----------



## Sf2 (22 May 2021)

There are a few, rare opportunities in the RCAF too....reservists who can still pay into the pension....build it up, but with no looming threat of posting every year.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> The shortage is in experience. We’re swimming in First Officers but have insufficient Instructor Pilots to help them progress.


Is their Allied air forces that can help supply senior personal to help out?


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Is their Allied air forces that can help supply senior personal to help out?


Most are in the same situation.


----------



## dimsum (22 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> Is their Allied air forces that can help supply senior personal to help out?


As Kev994 says, everyone is in that level of hurt.  Those senior pers would jump straight to the airlines.

The Australians are notorious for "poaching" trained members.  They specifically ask for senior pilots, crew commanders, QFIs, etc.  While on the face of it, it's awesome to fly new kit in Australia, it really makes me wonder why their own folks aren't staying in the RAAF.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (22 May 2021)

When you can't get people to do stuff like fly fighter jets and cool transport planes, then your doing something wrong. The Question of course is what that wrong is and how to fix it.


----------



## kev994 (22 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> When you can't get people to do stuff like fly fighter jets and cool transport planes, then your doing something wrong. The Question of course is what that wrong is and how to fix it.


The flying isn’t the issue it’s all the other crap. I spend a lot of time trying to figure out what to do with all of the new pilots that keep showing up. Meanwhile, someone at the Div decides that we don’t really need X, so now I need to dig through my outlook to send them the emails from the last 5 years where I’ve already argued that in fact we need 2X, knowing that next spring I’m going to have to do it all over again. And then they wonder why we’re not meeting the imposed 2 year upgrade timeline when it was never realistic to begin with and they’ve halved our resources.


----------



## Sf2 (22 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> As Kev994 says, everyone is in that level of hurt.  Those senior pers would jump straight to the airlines.
> 
> The Australians are notorious for "poaching" trained members.  They specifically ask for senior pilots, crew commanders, QFIs, etc.  While on the face of it, it's awesome to fly new kit in Australia, it really makes me wonder why their own folks aren't staying in the RAAF.


I applied for Aussie Army Avn a few years ago....had I not pulled my file off the table, I would have been there in 6 months from initial application


----------



## SupersonicMax (22 May 2021)

Colin Parkinson said:


> When you can't get people to do stuff like fly fighter jets and cool transport planes, then your doing something wrong. The Question of course is what that wrong is and how to fix it.


Also, at some point, priorities shift from flying to stability. There is no shortage of people who wants to be fighter pilots or tactical transport pilots, but there is a definite shortage of experienced folks doing that.  I don’t need to fly a training Close Air Support or Defensive Counter Air  mission for the 200th time.  I would love to deploy operationally once more but I wouldn’t feel incomplete if I didn’t. What I am looking for is stability or be compensated for the lack thereof.


----------



## MilEME09 (22 May 2021)

What we did something like the commonwealth air training plan in the modern day? Work with our allies to pool trainers at a central point to get more throughput?


----------



## daftandbarmy (22 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Hawaii Air National Guard flying Raptors.  Sign me up!


 Oh man... last time I was there I just sat on the beach, not far from Honolulu, with a few beers and just watched them practicing going from the hard deck to probably 20,000 ft in what must have been about 5 seconds. Astonishing performance.


----------



## dimsum (22 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> What we did something like the commonwealth air training plan in the modern day? Work with our allies to pool trainers at a central point to get more throughput?


My guess is that it would be prohibitively expensive for the "other" countries (ie. the ones sending their students/staff to the central location).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (22 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> I hope they also replace aircrew allowance for other aircrew trades as well.



That is the chatter I've been hearing in the WO+ ranks;  I think it was discussed on FSC earlier this year.  I know there was info passed on increasing the # of IPCs for either Sgt+ or WO+ - that did come from WO who heard it on ILP Res phase semi-recently (a trusted source, or I wouldn't mention it).  I believe it is part of, or flows from SEM/TEM project work.

Good to see the SAR Techs get it first, I'd happily trade AIRCRA for pensionable earnings.


----------



## daftandbarmy (23 May 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> What we did something like the commonwealth air training plan in the modern day? Work with our allies to pool trainers at a central point to get more throughput?



And the only reason we offered up that program was because Mackenzie King thought it would give us a pass from the heavy ground combat resulting in (huge infantry) casualties that would spell the demise of his government,

As it turned out, ironically, the Canadian Army set a record for casualty rates in WW2.



			https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/303915474.pdf


----------



## GR66 (24 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> And the only reason we offered up that program was because Mackenzie King thought it would give us a pass from the heavy ground combat resulting in (huge infantry) casualties that would spell the demise of his government,
> 
> As it turned out, ironically, the Canadian Army set a record for casualty rates in WW2.
> 
> ...


Unfortunately your link wouldn't work for me.

Can you provide details supporting the claim that the Canadian Army set a record for casualty rates in WW2?


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 May 2021)

GR66 said:


> Unfortunately your link wouldn't work for me.
> 
> Can you provide details supporting the claim that the Canadian Army set a record for casualty rates in WW2?



Another link that leads to the same article:    _Copp, Terry "To the Last Canadian?: Casualties in the 21st Army Group." Canadian Military History 18, 1 (2009)_






						To the Last Canadian?: Casualties in the 21st Army Group
					

In Normandy, Canadian infantry divisions suffered a higher rate of casualties than British divisions engaged in similar operations. These figures have been used by some historians to prove Canadian failure on the battlefield. However, by using statistics gathered by operational research...




					scholars.wlu.ca
				



Abstract: In Normandy, Canadian infantry divisions suffered a higher rate of casualties than British divisions engaged in similar operations. These figures have been used by some historians to prove Canadian failure on the battlefield. However, by using statistics gathered by operational research scientists during the war, this article shows that the “considerably heavier casualties” suffered by the Canadians in Normandy and beyond were the product of a greater number of days in close combat with the enemy, not evidence of operational inexperience or tactical failure.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (25 May 2021)

I will argue "No evidence of operational inexperience or tactical failure, beyond that experienced by all the allies on the Western front". All the allies learned the hard way about Infantry/tank cooperation, even if some of those lessons had already been learned in Italy and more or less ignored by some of the leaders preparing for the Invasion of France.


----------



## McG (25 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> What I am looking for is stability or be compensated for the lack thereof.


What do you mean when you talk of “stability”? Is it postings, op tempo, unexpected tasks, all the above, or something else?


----------



## dimsum (25 May 2021)

McG said:


> What do you mean when you talk of “stability”? Is it postings, op tempo, unexpected tasks, all the above, or something else?


I'd say all of the above.  Also, for me (and many others), spousal employment is a huge issue.  Might be hard in Cold Lake, although with the "trial by fire" of remote working some jobs might become (inter)national.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 May 2021)

McG said:


> What do you mean when you talk of “stability”? Is it postings, op tempo, unexpected tasks, all the above, or something else?


All of the above. And our market value, for often better conditions, is much higher than what we are offered within the CAF at the moment.


----------



## kev994 (25 May 2021)

Last minute schedule changes are the norm because there are not enough people with certain quals. Insufficient time off, incessant calls on your time off to ask ‘quick questions’ that can actually wait…


----------



## Hwyhtac (26 May 2021)

Loachman said:


> That, at first glance, actually makes much more sense than any previous failed attempt that I've seen.
> 
> Too late for me, though...



For me as well, though it wouldn’t have retained me either way.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> All of the above. And our market value, for often better conditions, is much higher than what we are offered within the CAF at the moment.



Our bases were built in remote locations post-WW2 to defend us against nuclear attack from slow moving bombers a la Dr. Strangelove.

Maybe they need to be repositioned closer to the bigger urban centres, and include more generous cost of living incentives, to reflect the bigger threat these days: our increasing inability to address the quality of life needs for an ever shrinking pool of highly qualified, eligible applicants/ staff in all areas of the CAF.


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Maybe they need to be repositioned closer to the bigger urban centres, and include more generous cost of living incentives, to reflect the bigger threat these days: our increasing inability to address the quality of life needs for an ever shrinking pool of highly qualified, eligible applicants/ staff in all areas of the CAF.









So, obviously what will happen is that fewer people will do more.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> So, obviously what will happen is that fewer* (less satisfied/motivated/qualified)* people will do more.



There, FTFY


----------



## Good2Golf (26 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Our bases were built in remote locations post-WW2 to defend us against nuclear attack from slow moving bombers a la Dr. Strangelove.
> 
> Maybe they need to be repositioned closer to the bigger urban centres, and include more generous cost of living incentives, to reflect the bigger threat these days: our increasing inability to address the quality of life needs for an ever shrinking pool of highly qualified, eligible applicants/ staff in all areas of the CAF.


Not sure that’s totally the case. RCAF Station Downsview had Sabres flying out of it.  Pretty certain that there is no way at all that the CAF/RCAF could come anywhere close to returning a fighter wing to Downsview to “be closer to the recruiting base”...


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Not sure that’s totally the case. RCAF Station Downsview had Sabres flying out of it.  Pretty certain that there is no way at all that the CAF/RCAF could come anywhere close to returning a fighter wing to Downsview to “be closer to the recruiting base”...


Maybe not that close, but maybe an area about 1h away from the GTA?  For example, RAAF Base Amberley is about 1h from Brisbane and has Super Hornets, Growlers, A330 MRTTs, C-17s, etc.  RAAF bases aren't right in the city but about 30min to 1h away from the city centres.

Close enough that people could commute if they wanted, but some would live closer to the base.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Maybe not that close, but maybe an area about 1h away from the GTA?  For example, RAAF Base Amberley is about 1h from Brisbane and has Super Hornets, Growlers, A330 MRTTs, C-17s, etc.  RAAF bases aren't right in the city but about 30min to 1h away from the city centres.
> 
> Close enough that people could commute if they wanted, but some would live closer to the base.



I was at YVR last month and drove past all the former RCAF family housing.


----------



## Good2Golf (26 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Maybe not that close, but maybe an area about 1h away from the GTA?  For example, RAAF Base Amberley is about 1h from Brisbane and has Super Hornets, Growlers, A330 MRTTs, C-17s, etc.  RAAF bases aren't right in the city but about 30min to 1h away from the city centres.
> 
> Close enough that people could commute if they wanted, but some would live closer to the base.


Sounds like............YTR


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Sounds like............YTR


At the current rate of development in the GTA, yes.  Making YTR into a "superbase" isn't the worst idea.

The ADF strategy is to protect the big cities in the south.  Sorry Perth; you're out on your own (from an Air Force perspective).  The only RAAF base out there is their version of Moose Jaw.


----------



## lenaitch (26 May 2021)

I have observed this type of discussion before and, clearly as outsider, I wonder how trying to solve a recruiting issue squares with operational needs.  From an 'urban-applicant perspective, how big is big enough?  To many urban young, it's not only moving away to a smaller community, it's moving away from _their_ community.  From a Toronto perspective, for many even moving north of Steeles Ave. is considered Terre Inconnue.  I have seen complains that places like North Bay (~85,000) and Greenwood are too small and boring (although I would personally move to the Annapolis Valley in a heartbeat, but I'm not young).

Obviously, naval bases need to be near the water, even though I've heard some complain that even Halifax is 'boring', unless it was the intent to have them inland.

The army seems to need lots of geography to do what they do.  Do we buy up gobs of very expensive real estate?  Or smaller plots and have them constantly truck away to farther, larger ones for training?  In the southern Ontario context, do we turn Borden back into a garrison/airbase?  Would that be close enough to satisfy recruiting?  Pettawawa is only 1 1/2 hours from Ottawa - close enough?

For the Air Force, how does having them close to urban centres - most of which are along the US border - square with our NORAD commitments?  And what about the need for restricted airspace for training?  I suppose Edmonton could replace Cold Lake.  Would Trenton even have the space?  I have seen discussions about the 'need' to turn one or more of the northern FOLs into bases.  I imagine that might impact recruiting ('good news, honey, I got my wings; the bad news is . . .).

Obviously, there are factors I'm not aware of, and the location of military bases and other federal properties is as much, or more of,  a political decision as opposed to an operational one.


----------



## TCM621 (26 May 2021)

Small Towns are boring, big cities are expensive, Comox is both. We can't please everyone so why even try? Instead make it worth living somewhere you wouldn't otherwise while making living there viable either through affordable housing options not tied to market rents or a proper housing/living allowance allowance that reflects the actual cost of living in that area. 

I would live anywhere provided I could afford to live there and my family would have the proper supports like Drs. Instead you often have to chose (to the extent you get a choice) super expensive or completely devoid of family support. Once in a while you hit the jackpot and get posted somewhere expensive and devoid of family support.


----------



## daftandbarmy (26 May 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I have observed this type of discussion before and, clearly as outsider, I wonder how trying to solve a recruiting issue squares with operational needs.  From an 'urban-applicant perspective, how big is big enough?  To many urban young, it's not only moving away to a smaller community, it's moving away from _their_ community.  From a Toronto perspective, for many even moving north of Steeles Ave. is considered Terre Inconnue.  I have seen complains that places like North Bay (~85,000) and Greenwood are too small and boring (although I would personally move to the Annapolis Valley in a heartbeat, but I'm not young).
> 
> Obviously, naval bases need to be near the water, even though I've heard some complain that even Halifax is 'boring', unless it was the intent to have them inland.
> 
> ...



The majority of the CAF Reserves, and the RCN, are located in urban centres, close to large numbers of Canadians, and have deep roots in those communities.

The Reg F Army & RCAF seem to be 'odd man out' in this regard and, as result of a policy that seems to favour 'proximity to dirt we can blow up/ sky we can shred', are more socially distanced from the great majority of Canada's population, squirrelled away in various little remote ghettos we've built for them around the country. And the West Coast (except for Comox of course).

Hey, wait a minute, I think I've just talked myself out of my argument


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> The Reg F Army & RCAF seem to be 'odd man out' in this regard and, as result of a policy that seems to favour 'proximity to dirt we can blow up/ sky we can shred', are more socially distanced from the great majority of Canada's population, squirrelled away in various little remote ghettos we've built for them around the country. And the West Coast (except for Comox of course).


I have zero confidence that any PLD update will result in a positive benefit for CAF members.  So, for this thought experiment, I can see the timeline already:

Magically move Army and RCAF bases near cities
CAF members rejoice because of QOL, spousal jobs, and amenities
CAF members realize how crazy housing situation is near cities
CAF members complain that the bases are now (more) unaffordable
Magically move Army and RCAF bases away from cities
CAF members rejoice because they can afford houses
CAF members complain that there is nothing to do and no jobs in X town
Go back to 1


----------



## Sf2 (26 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> At the current rate of development in the GTA, yes.  Making YTR into a "superbase" isn't the worst idea.
> 
> The ADF strategy is to protect the big cities in the south.  Sorry Perth; you're out on your own (from an Air Force perspective).  The only RAAF base out there is their version of Moose Jaw.



Holsworthy Barracks....20 mins from Sydney.   There's even a train station on base


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

Sf2 said:


> Holsworthy Barracks....20 mins from Sydney.   There's even a train station on base


Aus Army, but I'll allow it b/c they do have helicopters there.  The closest RAAF Base is Richmond (where all of their C-130s are), 50km from city centre.

I also really like how they have one* base per type of aircraft.  Those bases are near-ish to their cities**.  Downside is that their crews are away from home probably more than ours on average because they have to TD for training, patrols, etc.

* Except fighters, and even then not all of them - the Super Hornets and Growlers are all in RAAF Base Amberley.

** Except training bases bc like us, they want lots of room to train aircrews.


----------



## kev994 (26 May 2021)

lenaitch said:


> I have observed this type of discussion before and, clearly as outsider, I wonder how trying to solve a recruiting issue squares with operational needs.  From an 'urban-applicant perspective, how big is big enough?  To many urban young, it's not only moving away to a smaller community, it's moving away from _their_ community.  From a Toronto perspective, for many even moving north of Steeles Ave. is considered Terre Inconnue.  I have seen complains that places like North Bay (~85,000) and Greenwood are too small and boring (although I would personally move to the Annapolis Valley in a heartbeat, but I'm not young).
> 
> Obviously, naval bases need to be near the water, even though I've heard some complain that even Halifax is 'boring', unless it was the intent to have them inland.
> 
> ...


To be clear, the RCAF does not have a pilot recruiting issue, there are tons of applicants. Retention is the problem.


----------



## lenaitch (26 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> Small Towns are boring, big cities are expensive, Comox is both. We can't please everyone so why even try? Instead make it worth living somewhere you wouldn't otherwise while making living there viable either through affordable housing options not tied to market rents or a proper housing/living allowance allowance that reflects the actual cost of living in that area.
> 
> I would live anywhere provided I could afford to live there and my family would have the proper supports like Drs. Instead you often have to chose (to the extent you get a choice) super expensive or completely devoid of family support. Once in a while you hit the jackpot and get posted somewhere expensive and devoid of family support.


 
And, again, as an outsider, I always thought they did that; perhaps it was better back in the day.  My exposure is limited but back in the late '70 I was posted to Sioux Lookout with the CFS nearby.  I was quite surprised that this relatively small station had messes, a gym, pool, seemingly lots of housing (albeit trailers), clubs, etc.    This was a town of ~3200; not bad compared to many of radar stations.   My former service used to have some cheap government-provided housing in small communities but the CRA decided that was a taxable benefit and the government decided to go to market-valued rents.

In earlier times, spousal employment seemed less of an issue and, even if it was, it was often a job, not a career.  The communities were usually pretty good finding something at the bank or retail (if they were a nurse or teacher they were usually golden).   Now, there is a great tendency towards spousal careers, causing many of our members reluctant to take on a remote posting.  with 12-hour shifts and long stretches of rest days, some will live in a larger centre and commute, some sharing an rental in the small town.


----------



## mariomike (26 May 2021)

lenaitch said:


> To many urban young, it's not only moving away to a smaller community, it's moving away from _their_ community.  From a Toronto perspective, for many even moving north of Steeles Ave. is considered Terre Inconnue.


My sister joined the RCAF and looked back on Toronto with no regrets.

As someone who was never a Recruiter, does the CAF encourage cultural organizations as a bridge between the CAF and the various communities within a big city?

I know there's the Legion, but maybe something more like this, for example. 


			Fraternals - NYPD


----------



## dimsum (26 May 2021)

lenaitch said:


> In earlier times, spousal employment seemed *less of an issue* and, even if it was, it was often a job, not a career. The communities were usually pretty good finding something at the bank or retail (if they were a nurse or teacher they were usually golden). Now, there is a great tendency towards spousal careers, causing many of our members reluctant to take on a remote posting. with 12-hour shifts and long stretches of rest days, some will live in a larger centre and commute, some sharing an rental in the small town.


I wonder if it was "less of an issue" because society was normalized to the woman being a housewife.  Now, it's normalized for both adults to have careers, and the military (not just CAF - I've heard the same issues from friends in multiple militaries) posting cycle is at odds with current society.

I think this issue of postings/locations/one-person-in-the-family careers is what will keep us from recruiting and keeping the people we want.  There will have to be some drastic changes to the CAF as we see it now if we want to keep up retention, and with that there might have to be some serious breaking of cultural "rice bowls". 

Part of it is already happening now with Covid, when some folks in the NCR realized they get as much (if not more) work done while working from home.  RCafe has had conversations about "postings" where depending on your trade, you may never physically get posted but you progress from unit to unit just like a normal military career.  Does it matter where you are if you're an admin trade and you have the proper equipment to WFH? 

Another one is the issue of "east coast, west coast" squadrons.  Aside from SAR and fighters, why do we need 2 locations for each aircraft type?  Going back to the Australian example (because big country, similar proportion of members in uniform, etc), each airframe has one location, except for Classic Hornets (they don't do SAR).  Even then, Classic Hornet squadrons have 2 locations, and you're at 1 of them (the one close to Sydney) most of your career because the school and 2 of their squadrons are there.  Their "Cold Lake" squadron is usually one posting.  The RAN Maritime Helicopter fleet is all located 2h from Sydney, their east coast base.  West coast (Perth) ships sailing and need a helicopter?  They fly it across Australia to join the ship when needed.  All of this means that with few exceptions, a member and their family could potentially never get physically posted unless it's to an HQ that's not associated with their Wing.  Add that to most of their bases being within commuting distance to their major cities, and the strain can be a lot less.  Now granted, because of this, the members will be gone quite a bit more because a border patrol mission would mean TD-ing to Darwin or wherever, then doing their missions, then going back to home base. 

As others have said, recruiting isn't the problem because there are tons of 18 year olds who want to do the cool stuff.  The problem is keeping them in when they're 30, experienced, have a family, and realize that Cold Lake or Shilo isn't helping their spouse's career (if they had one to start with).  Saying "well we'll just replace with other 18 year olds" doesn't work when the experienced people are the ones leaving.  As the saying goes, "how long does it take to train a 10-year experienced employee?  10 years." 

Whew, that became a bit of a rant.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> To be clear, the RCAF does not have a pilot recruiting issue, there are tons of applicants. Retention is the problem.



The RCAF also has training capacity and absorption issues.  (This applies equally to ACSO and AESOps as well).

Leaving people festering on the BTL for a half decade costs the CAF money, breeds dissatisfaction, and reduces the amount of post-OFP time the CAF gets out of a pilot.  Recent initiatives removing pilots from some staff positions should help retention if it means more time actually flying.


----------



## lenaitch (26 May 2021)

Apparently about 85% of Australia's population is within 50km of the coast, which nicely aligns with their military's primary national security mandate.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 May 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Apparently about 85% of Australia's population is within 50km of the coast, which nicely aligns with their military's primary national security mandate.


How does Australia's East Coast relate to their security mandate?  Their threat comes mostly from the North, not the East.


----------



## TCM621 (27 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> I wonder if it was "less of an issue" because society was normalized to the woman being a housewife.  Now, it's normalized for both adults to have careers, and the military (not just CAF - I've heard the same issues from friends in multiple militaries) posting cycle is at odds with current society.
> 
> I think this issue of postings/locations/one-person-in-the-family careers is what will keep us from recruiting and keeping the people we want.  There will have to be some drastic changes to the CAF as we see it now if we want to keep up retention, and with that there might have to be some serious breaking of cultural "rice bowls".
> 
> ...


The biggest issue with all these issues is that the needs of the member isn't the same as the needs of the service. If the goal is to keep more people local, they will keep people local even if they don't want to stay. I wanted to get posted every 3 or 4 years but I have had 3 physical postings. Back when we had more  desirable postings moving was an adventure. I know so many people who lived in Germany as kids and they all look back on there time there as a positive experience. I mean how many people turn down OUTCAN postings? 

Personally leaving somewhere I love is bad but staying somewhere I hate is worse. It's one of reasons so many people in the airforce have the "Cold Lake Stare" and they want everyone else to have to suffer through 15 years there like they did. The Pilots are there because they get to fly fighter jets while everyone else just does basically they same job they would do in Comox, Edmonton, Winnipeg or Greenwood. The pilots get the big money and the guy who drives the fuel bowser or fixes the landing gear has been maxed out on Cpl incentives for the last 5 years and the MCpl gets a 40 dollar a month raise and then never sees another one. If you told a tech that they would spend 5 years in Cold Lake then they were guaranteed a different posting they wouldn't complain as much.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I mean how many people turn down OUTCAN postings?


Completely anecdotally, last year a few friends turned them down because those locations were riddled by Covid.  I understand that it's not the norm, but some people do turn them down.  Another instance would be for family/schooling reasons.  I would like to see an official report at some point of how many qualified/screened candidates they go through per location though.

I can't really speak to Cold Lake because my trade has no postings there.  Longest I've been there was 3 weeks for an exercise, but I agree - I can't see myself living there.  Hence, the idea of having the base closer to Edmonton and TD-ing up to the CLAWR for "bomb camp" or whatever.  There can be a caretaker crew up there of min staff (again, like Australia) to keep the lights running.


----------



## Halifax Tar (27 May 2021)

The whole postings thing its a struggle PAN CAF.  The issue is with the current way we promote, manage positions and careers we often need to post people in order to promote them.  Log trades are a good example of this but I would imagine many trades, including Pilot, are similar. Promoted to Maj and your position is at ADM(XXX) in Ottawa; as an example.

Im not sure how we get around this.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Im not sure how we get around this.


I currently work at the NCR.  I've been in the office physically about 4 times since I got posted in last APS.  I know folks who, on paper, are posted to Ottawa but in reality are working remotely from their family location.  A friend of mine actually had a cubicle in another base but was in ADM for 2 months until they could move to Ottawa.

All that to say that this past year has shown that we could actually "post" people administratively but not move them in these cases.  So if you're posted to a staff position, you could theoretically work from home (or in a desk somewhere in your base location, given proper DWAN connection and/or access to CSNI).  This will change the culture of work - again, one of those "rice bowls" we should be looking at shattering.


----------



## mariomike (27 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> I can't really speak to Cold Lake because my trade has no postings there.  Longest I've been there was 3 weeks for an exercise, but I agree - I can't see myself living there.


My sister likes it so much she retired there.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2021)

mariomike said:


> My sister likes it so much she retired there.


I know people who love it there too. 

Even in this thread, there are folks who don't like Comox (traditionally considered a desirable location, housing costs notwithstanding).  There were folks I knew who couldn't wait to get posted back to Greenwood.  

It happens.


----------



## kev994 (27 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> I currently work at the NCR.  I've been in the office physically about 4 times since I got posted in last APS.  I know folks who, on paper, are posted to Ottawa but in reality are working remotely from their family location.  A friend of mine actually had a cubicle in another base but was in ADM for 2 months until they could move to Ottawa.
> 
> All that to say that this past year has shown that we could actually "post" people administratively but not move them in these cases.  So if you're posted to a staff position, you could theoretically work from home (or in a desk somewhere in your base location, given proper DWAN connection and/or access to CSNI).  This will change the culture of work - again, one of those "rice bowls" we should be looking at shattering.


I know of a position in Ottawa that pilots kept releasing when they were posted there, the 3rd guy in a year posted to the position they allowed to work remotely from Comox.


----------



## dimsum (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> I know of a position in Ottawa that pilots kept releasing when they were posted there, the 3rd guy in a year posted to the position they allowed to work remotely from Comox.


Exactly.  If it's a staff position and doesn't require face-to-face meetings (which again, this past year has proven it generally does not), then why not?  The only weirdness would be time zone differences.


----------



## lenaitch (27 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> How does Australia's East Coast relate to their security mandate?  Their threat comes mostly from the North, not the East.



I meant external in general, as compared to our two major population regions, which are inland.


----------



## daftandbarmy (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> I know of a position in Ottawa that pilots kept releasing when they were posted there, the 3rd guy in a year posted to the position they allowed to work remotely from Comox.



Cool... I didn't know, until now, that the RCAF had an equivalent to the 'Forlorn Hope'


----------



## Loachman (27 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> As others have said, recruiting isn't the problem because there are tons of 18 year olds who want to do the cool stuff.  The problem is keeping them in when they're 30, experienced, have a family, and realize that Cold Lake or Shilo isn't helping their spouse's career (if they had one to start with).  Saying "well we'll just replace with other 18 year olds" doesn't work when the experienced people are the ones leaving.



Sort out the delay and bottleneck problems in the recruiting process.

Sort out the delay and bottleneck problems in the training process.

Eliminate four years of wasted time at RMC.

I joined the Regular Force under OCTP (Officer Candidate Training Plan) in 1978. Recruiting, less a two-month delay to attain Canadian citizenship (normally four months back then, but they pushed it through for me in two as joining the CF seemed to be a much Bigger Deal back then) took a couple of months, with the bulk of the time spent waiting for aircrew eye exams (they botched my first two, and the doctor misinterpreted the third).

I first walked into the Recruiting Centre in London around late August or early September 1977. I did Aircrew Selection in February 1978. I was in Chilliwack for Basic Officer Training on 5 March 1978 and was finished in early June. Due to a fatal Snowbird crash, all flying training courses were delayed and my Primary Flying Training did not start until January 1979 instead of late July or early August 1978 as scheduled. Gaps between courses were generally only weeks long, just enough to ensure that bad weather delays did not cause overlaps, not two-plus years.

We did a much better job in the 1970s and early 1980s than we do now, with all of the labour-saving computers and fancy simulators and crap.

The Reserve Pilot Training Programme, sadly cancelled around 1994/95, pushed guys off of the street through the whole Regular Force flying training programme in two years, from arrival at Chilliwack to returning from Portage with wings. Each of the two Air Reserve Wings (in St-Hubert and Downsview) put two pairs through per year. One is now a Squadron CO.

Get this done quickly and efficiently, and people will get at least two flying tours in before the first symptoms of settledownitis even begin to show up.



dimsum said:


> As the saying goes, "how long does it take to train a 10-year experienced employee?  10 years."



But only around twenty years in the Modern Canadian Armed Forces.

Progress.

You kids now don't know how good you have it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The RCAF also has training capacity and absorption issues. (This applies equally to ACSO and AESOps as well).



I think there's a directed recruiting effort on for Flight Attendants at this point as well?

It's well and good to focus compensation satisfiers at (1) Pilot and (2) SAR Techs now and say "because they are the most critical" but, many fleets can't even rotate with just those trades onboard. 

Ask anyone at an operational (aka Pri C) squadron how they feel about life and operational units being Pri C.


----------



## Quirky (27 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> The biggest issue with all these issues is that the needs of the member isn't the same as the needs of the service.If you told a tech that they would spend 5 years in Cold Lake then they were guaranteed a different posting they wouldn't complain as much.


The rcaf won’t get their money’s worth after only 5 years. It’s not nearly enough time to get a tech proficient enough on the CF-18. There is a similar program however with 431 Sqn, I can’t remember the CANAIRGEN number. After 4-5 years with the snowbirds a technician is eligible for a posting to fleet or geographical location of their choice. Similar program could work in cold lake but it would need to be 8-10 years with a gun squadron.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> but, many fleets can't even rotate with just those trades onboard.


While in our SOPs, there are tasks for other trades in the start, taxi and takeoff phase, pretty much every aircraft in our inventory could takeoff with pilots alone. I have flown the P-3 and Seahawk with just pilots.  Granted, from a systems point of view, nothing was happening, flying the aircraft was possible.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

> The rcaf won’t get their money’s worth after only 5 years. It’s not nearly enough time to get a tech proficient enough on the CF-18



I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what you would define as "proficient" enough if 5 years isn't enough time to reach that level.  You're saying 5 years after their type course doesn't = proficient?

Is that normal in other RCAF fleets?  USAF/USN/USMC, RAF, RAAF, etc forces are similar?  Or is this RCAF fighter specific?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> The rcaf won’t get their money’s worth after only 5 years. It’s not nearly enough time to get a tech proficient enough on the CF-18. There is a similar program however with 431 Sqn, I can’t remember the CANAIRGEN number. After 4-5 years with the snowbirds a technician is eligible for a posting to fleet or geographical location of their choice. Similar program could work in cold lake but it would need to be 8-10 years with a gun squadron.


This is a data point of one, but in speaking with several pilots on Sqn today, a number seem to be re-evaluating their futures in light of this announcement, including one reservist who may CT back to Reg F, if the details  actually pan out.

At least in my neck of the woods, this might have had a positive effect on retention. Mind you, it did nothing at all for ACSO or AESOp retention...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> While in our SOPs, there are tasks for other trades in the start, taxi and takeoff phase, pretty much every aircraft in our inventory could takeoff with pilots alone. I have flown the P-3 and Seahawk with just pilots. Granted, from a systems point of view, nothing was happening, flying the aircraft was possible.



I get what you're saying, but we usually do more with _most_ of our fleets than "fly" in the basic sense...an operational CP-140 crew requires pilots, FEs, ACSO and AES Ops (NASO _and_ ASOs).   An FE is required for a PPF....not really much point in saying "well, if we could take off we could 'fly' if you _can't _take off.


----------



## kev994 (27 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> This is a data point of one, but in speaking with several pilots on Sqn today, a number seem to be re-evaluating their futures in light of this announcement, including one reservist who may CT back to Reg F, if the details  actually pan out.
> 
> At least in my neck of the woods, this might have had a positive effect on retention. Mind you, it did nothing at all for ACSO or AESOp retention...


They had to start somewhere and it’s easier to make an argument when you have a clear comparison (the Air Canada pay scale). I don’t know where you would even look for a civilian equivalent to ACSO pay scale.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> They had to start somewhere and it’s easier to make an argument when you have a clear comparison (the Air Canada pay scale). I don’t know where you would even look for a civilian equivalent to ACSO pay scale.


There isn’t one. But that does not mean that the occupation is not bleeding to death. It might not actually be a money thing for ACSOs.


----------



## kev994 (27 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> There isn’t one. But that does not mean that the occupation is not bleeding to death. It might not actually be a money thing for ACSOs.


Money might not be the problem, but it tends to make the problem more bearable and the alternative work less attractive.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> Money might not be the problem, but it tends to make the problem more bearable and the alternative work less attractive.


I am saying that I don’t know what the issue(s?) is(are). While I am still an ACSO, I no longer fly, so my perspective is perhaps not that of a 20-30 something Capt.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

Maybe taking a look at the "operational units are Pri C" aspect is more important than money (which is, generally speaking, decent for flyers).

When you're at a Sqn that some people call "_The Pissed-Off Wives and Disappointed Kids Club_"... I'm sure many can relate.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> They had to start somewhere and it’s easier to make an argument when you have a clear comparison (the Air Canada pay scale). I don’t know where you would even look for a civilian equivalent to ACSO pay scale.



Would it have been possible to roll AIRCRA into pay for all aircrew trades at once?  I know there would be some questions that need investigation and decision with that alone, but it would seem that has already been done...

I'd happily give up AIRCRA (and any future AIRCRA level increases) for it to be added to my pay.  I'd just find the pension benefit a bit of a satisfier that means something to me, and my wife, now and in the future.

Combine that with the pay raise from a few months ago, I can equate that to "pension earnings when we retire" conversations over coffee with Mrs EITS, and we're at the age those conversations become more important.


----------



## kev994 (27 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Would it have been possible to roll AIRCRA into pay for all aircrew trades at once?  I know there would be some questions that need investigation and decision with that alone, but it would seem that has already been done...
> 
> I'd happily give up AIRCRA (and any future AIRCRA level increases) for it to be added to my pay.  I'd just find the pension benefit a bit of a satisfier that means something to me, and my wife, now and in the future.
> 
> Combine that with the pay raise from a few months ago, I can equate that to "pension earnings when we retire" conversations over coffee with Mrs EITS, and we're at the age those conversations become more important.


I would think it would take longer to do a bunch of trades at once. Now there’s a precedent.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 May 2021)

That's a fair observation; the message Ditch posted did say something that it would take until 2022 to implement the Pilot/SAR Tech changes in the pay system, but it would be retro to "now'ish"....


----------



## Colin Parkinson (27 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> They had to start somewhere and it’s easier to make an argument when you have a clear comparison (the Air Canada pay scale). I don’t know where you would even look for a civilian equivalent to ACSO pay scale.


Maybe have the RCAF association find released ACSO's and get a survey about why they left and what careers they find. Having the survey outside the CF might increase honest responses.


----------



## Quirky (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'm wondering if you can elaborate on what you would define as "proficient" enough if 5 years isn't enough time to reach that level.  You're saying 5 years after their type course doesn't = proficient?


Yes, just because one has a type course doesn’t mean they are proficient. Big difference between doing a job and signing off on one. 5 years Level A on-type in cold lake would be a good starting point for posting out eligibility. 8 years would come quickly after waiting for a type course and being recommended for level As. This is assuming new techs from Borden. Cold Lake is far too big of a base to manage all those people and postings, it’s not feasible. 10 years minimum is normal before you are even looked at for posting.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2021)

I get the "type course doesn't equal proficient", of course, but was surprised that "Type Course + 5 years doesn't equal proficient".  Tks for the info!

Curious...is part of the issue (if there is one) related to the amount of systems/maint that each trade is responsible for?  Thinking back to the day when my Dad was an Airframe Tech, and there were Aero Engine, IE Tech, Refinishing Techs etc etc before they were consolidated.  Does the RCAF, or certain fleets, require too much from a single trade that would be better split into several trades, or sub-occupations ?


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> The rcaf won’t get their money’s worth after only 5 years. It’s not nearly enough time to get a tech proficient enough on the CF-18. There is a similar program however with 431 Sqn, I can’t remember the CANAIRGEN number. After 4-5 years with the snowbirds a technician is eligible for a posting to fleet or geographical location of their choice. Similar program could work in cold lake but it would need to be 8-10 years with a gun squadron.


What's a better value, a technician that spends 7 years in Cold Lake and quits or a technician that spends 5 years in Cold Lake then gets posted to 8 AM's for 3 to 5 years, then does another 3 to 5 in Cold Lake? 

We need to think more than 6 months ahead. To do that we need career managers need to actually manage careers rather than just fill positions. If the CM tells someone they will be in Cold Lake for 5 years and they then are heading to Trenton, the following CMs need to stick to that deal absent some very compelling reasons. If they need more staff to accomplish that, then give it to them. 

We also need to have waaaayyyyy more communication between CMs, the SOAs and the members. The airforce is weird in that people only see the CM if they are promoted or the CM says they are posted. The CMs should have a least a passing knowledge of your file but even the ones I have seen before have no idea who I am or what I want. I'll plead ignorance here because I don't know what a CM does on a day to day basis but of the 364 days a year that he isn't talking directly to (some) members how often is he in contact with the units on files that don't involve a promotion or an imminent posting? When a bunch of members talked to the CM about issues they were having with getting loaded on core training, the CMs had no SA at all and said it wasn't their area. That lead to one member having a rather spirited disagreement on the difference between a career _manager _and a highly paid, over ranked posting clerk.


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2021)

Unless the plan changed, there was a plan for the Capability Advisory Group to  manage air technicians (rather than CMs).  There would be a lot more involvement from the CoC in the process.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (28 May 2021)

CMs can't know every mbr of the trade at every rank; that is why there are regional "managers" for lack of a better term - I've heard different trades use different terms.

I am in a relatively small trade (200 give or take).  My most important contact, IMO, isn't the C Mgr;  it is my "Fleet MWO" and "Fleet CWO".  

C Mgr briefings in my trade include info on what the C Mgr "cycle" is;  SCBL prep, promotion boards, posting plot, issuing promotion and posting instructions...rinse repeat (simplified version, of course...).  So it's more of a de-centralized function in some aspects, centralized at others.

Perfect system?  Nope.


----------



## Sf2 (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Would it have been possible to roll AIRCRA into pay for all aircrew trades at once?  I know there would be some questions that need investigation and decision with that alone, but it would seem that has already been done...
> 
> I'd happily give up AIRCRA (and any future AIRCRA level increases) for it to be added to my pay.  I'd just find the pension benefit a bit of a satisfier that means something to me, and my wife, now and in the future.
> 
> Combine that with the pay raise from a few months ago, I can equate that to "pension earnings when we retire" conversations over coffee with Mrs EITS, and we're at the age those conversations become more important.


I'll be interested to see how this retroactive thing works with aircra implemented into base pay.    We have a letter circulating at work that members can expect less net pay as you are now contributing more to the pension each month....and a lump retroactive contribution once this all kicks in.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> I would think it would take longer to do a bunch of trades at once. Now there’s a precedent.


True, but even the acknowledgement to other trades aside from a one-liner would be nice.  The way it's presented now, it seems like an afterthought.  That might not be the intention, but it certainly reads like it (to this ACSO at least). 



kev994 said:


> They had to start somewhere and it’s easier to make an argument when you have a clear comparison (the Air Canada pay scale). I don’t know where you would even look for a civilian equivalent to ACSO pay scale.


Retention bonuses like the USAF might help. 

From this FY:  "Combat systems officers and 13B air battle managers this year qualify for annual payments of $15,000 if they renew their contracts for five to seven years, or $25,000 for contracts of eight to 12 years."

But I think the AIRCRA-to-pay switch will help too.  Imagine not losing "AIRCRA" when you go to a ground job, and keeping it as part of your Best 5.  That would be attractive to many people.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I think there's a directed recruiting effort on for Flight Attendants at this point as well?


Yes, I read the article.  Although with the way they do it, wouldn't there be a directed effort every year since it's just a posting, not a trade?


----------



## SupersonicMax (28 May 2021)

Sf2 said:


> I'll be interested to see how this retroactive thing works with aircra implemented into base pay.    We have a letter circulating at work that members can expect less net pay as you are now contributing more to the pension each month....and a lump retroactive contribution once this all kicks in.


If the future base pay is more than the current base pay + (AIRCRA x 1.15), we will have more net pay every month.


----------



## kev994 (28 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Retention bonuses like the USAF might help.
> 
> From this FY:  "Combat systems officers and 13B air battle managers this year qualify for annual payments of $15,000 if they renew their contracts for five to seven years, or $25,000 for contracts of eight to 12 years.


I suspect bonuses would not be pensionable. I’ll take pensionable earnings any day.


----------



## Furniture (28 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> What's a better value, a technician that spends 7 years in Cold Lake and quits or a technician that spends 5 years in Cold Lake then gets posted to 8 AM's for 3 to 5 years, then does another 3 to 5 in Cold Lake?
> 
> We need to think more than 6 months ahead. To do that we need career managers need to actually manage careers rather than just fill positions. If the CM tells someone they will be in Cold Lake for 5 years and they then are heading to Trenton, the following CMs need to stick to that deal absent some very compelling reasons. If they need more staff to accomplish that, then give it to them.
> 
> We also need to have waaaayyyyy more communication between CMs, the SOAs and the members. The airforce is weird in that people only see the CM if they are promoted or the CM says they are posted. The CMs should have a least a passing knowledge of your file but even the ones I have seen before have no idea who I am or what I want. I'll plead ignorance here because I don't know what a CM does on a day to day basis but of the 364 days a year that he isn't talking directly to (some) members how often is he in contact with the units on files that don't involve a promotion or an imminent posting? When a bunch of members talked to the CM about issues they were having with getting loaded on core training, the CMs had no SA at all and said it wasn't their area. That lead to one member having a rather spirited disagreement on the difference between a career _manager _and a highly paid, over ranked posting clerk.


Agreed on Para 1, it's better to keep a member over the long term than have them release out of frustration due to someone else's "plan" for their career. 

As for CMs, I was shocked when I got to Ottawa to learn just how much they deal with, and how burnt out they can get after a couple of years in the job. When it comes to coursing, they don't deal with "trades training", only "career courses" (PLQ/ILP), and even with those they simply nominate and CDA does the loading. 

I know that with my trade the CM can't plan anyone's career, because releases and staffing shortages mean they are left plugging the critical holes while other holes are left empty. 

More on the overall topic, I believe trades based pay scales could be a very handy way to recruit and retain pers in some jobs.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> More on the overall topic, I believe trades based pay scales could be a very handy way to recruit and retain pers in some jobs.


Below is the link to the eye chart that the ADF uses for their pay and benefits.  It would take a lot of work, but that might solve some complaints about different trades (e.g. Log vs AERE) of the same rank being paid the same, despite different educational requirements.



			https://www.defencejobs.gov.au/-/media/DFR/Files/DFT_Document_PayRates.pdf


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> CMs can't know every mbr of the trade at every rank; that is why there are regional "managers" for lack of a better term - I've heard different trades use different terms.
> 
> I am in a relatively small trade (200 give or take).  My most important contact, IMO, isn't the C Mgr;  it is my "Fleet MWO" and "Fleet CWO".
> 
> ...



I agree that a single person can't know everything about every member but they should be more engaged then they are now. The CAGs might be a solution to that but I think it might exacerbate the situation as Cold Lake people stay Cold Lake and Bagotville people stay in Bagotville. I can't see a huge budget for posting people across the country to do the same jobs when they can just shuffle them around locally, especially since so many people are clamouring for longer postings. A long term posting is only attractive to people who like where they are. 





Furniture said:


> Agreed on Para 1, it's better to keep a member over the long term than have them release out of frustration due to someone else's "plan" for their career.
> 
> As for CMs, I was shocked when I got to Ottawa to learn just how much they deal with, and how burnt out they can get after a couple of years in the job. When it comes to coursing, they don't deal with "trades training", only "career courses" (PLQ/ILP), and even with those they simply nominate and CDA does the loading.
> 
> ...



Everything you mention is a problem but it doesn't mean we shouldn't be doing it. We don't have enough manpower to do anything properly. At some point, we need to stop pretending we can do less with more. We started that in the 90s and we never stopped. Now everyone has 5 hats and they are all hats that used to be worn by someone with a high rank on their chest. 

My biggest complaint with Op Experience (besides the fact it highlights the fact the RCAF care more about Pilots and less about people who do everything that allows them to fly) is that we are trying to weed the garden while the house is on fire. Patches and shirts with rondels on them raise morale for about 5 minutes but it certainly doesn't affect how I feel about quiting.  

I have wanted to ask one question of the leadership and I haven't been able to find a forum, or phrasing, to ask it in a way that won't come back to make thigs worse. That question is "Why should I stay in? I actually looked into the hit I would take quiting at year 18 of a 20 year contract to see if I hated my career worse than that number. (It's a big number and I don't hate my job that much). My promotion is barely tired to my performance, so I have very little control over that and dealing with a the promotion games just makes me hate my job more. I don't have any prospects of tours or good courses. I don't even know what my job will look like in 5 years because I haven't heard from a SOA in something like 5 years and the CM has no idea. So why shouldn't I run away from the military as fast as I can, as soon as I can"

This is coming from someone who has a direct military line going back to the First World War and went to the recruiting center the first business day after his 17th birthday. The military is my dream job, or it would be if I did the job I'm supposed to according to my OCC specs. Instead, I live a nightmare where I have no idea what life is going to look like in a month or two let alone 3-5 years from now, while doing jobs that are so far above my terms of references that I'm not even sure if I should be allowed to do them.


----------



## dimsum (28 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I have wanted to ask one question of the leadership and I haven't been able to find a forum, or phrasing, to ask it in a way that won't come back to make thigs worse. That question is "Why should I stay in? I actually looked into the hit I would take quiting at year 18 of a 20 year contract to see if I hated my career worse than that number. (It's a big number and I don't hate my job that much). My promotion is barely tired to my performance, so I have very little control over that and dealing with a the promotion games just makes me hate my job more. I don't have any prospects of tours or good courses. I don't even know what my job will look like in 5 years because I haven't heard from a SOA in something like 5 years and the CM has no idea. So why shouldn't I run away from the military as fast as I can, as soon as I can"


From your posts, I think you're in the RCAF (correct me if I'm wrong).  If so, stuff like this is why RCafe was created.  

Same with the Pilot focus too (which I agree).


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> From your posts, I think you're in the RCAF (correct me if I'm wrong).  If so, stuff like this is why RCafe was created.
> 
> Same with the Pilot focus too (which I agree).


And as soon as I figure out how to phrase it in a way that is something besides a laundry list of complaints, I will probably post something there. I have been following all the Q&As from the virtual town halls being done with interest. The biggest thing that stands out so far is that the RCAF has almost zero ability to deal with the issue that are really important to members and the CAF only had a slightly better ability. Op Experience seems like a well meaning afterthought to Op Talent that is basically doomed to failure because we just are incapable of making the structural changes required for success.


----------



## Quirky (28 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I get the "type course doesn't equal proficient", of course, but was surprised that "Type Course + 5 years doesn't equal proficient".  Tks for the info!
> 
> Curious...is part of the issue (if there is one) related to the amount of systems/maint that each trade is responsible for?  Thinking back to the day when my Dad was an Airframe Tech, and there were Aero Engine, IE Tech, Refinishing Techs etc etc before they were consolidated.  Does the RCAF, or certain fleets, require too much from a single trade that would be better split into several trades, or sub-occupations ?



The main issue I see are people joining for a job, fewer are joining to become mechanics or have any interest in working with tools. People become pilots because they have an interest in flying. The vetting process for techs is non existent, everyone passes. I’ve seen completely inept people need 100% supervision years after their type courses and get contract extensions without question, even after mountains of paperwork covering deficiencies.


----------



## Good2Golf (28 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> The vetting process for techs is non existent, everyone passes. I’ve seen completely inept people need 100% supervision years after their type courses and get contract extensions without question, even after mountains of paperwork covering deficiencies.


You mean the SAMS signed off on their POM? 😳


----------



## TCM621 (28 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> The main issue I see are people joining for a job, fewer are joining to become mechanics or have any interest in working with tools. People become pilots because they have an interest in flying. The vetting process for techs is non existent, everyone passes. I’ve seen completely inept people need 100% supervision years after their type courses and get contract extensions without question, even after mountains of paperwork covering deficiencies.


We have had a few cases where people refused to recommend a person and they just kept asking different people until one said yes.


----------



## Furniture (29 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> The main issue I see are people joining for a job, fewer are joining to become mechanics or have any interest in working with tools. People become pilots because they have an interest in flying. The vetting process for techs is non existent, everyone passes. I’ve seen completely inept people need 100% supervision years after their type courses and get contract extensions without question, even after mountains of paperwork covering deficiencies.


It is a job... Maybe one of our major stumbling blocks when it comes to recruitment and retention is pretending it's a some holy calling.

Whether it's a "job", or a "calling" doesn't determine one's aptitude. Every trade struggles with people who barely pass the training, and are inept at the job. Instead of pretending more "zeal for Queen and country" would fix things, perhaps we should be fixing the HR mechanisms that prevent those people from switching to a job more suited to their skills. Maybe your tech is a bad wrench turner, but would make a great Met Tech, and maybe the guy who can't string two words together without stuttering is a bad Met Tech, but would be an amazing ATIS tech.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> I agree that a single person can't know everything about every member but they should be more engaged then they are now. The CAGs might be a solution to that but I think it might exacerbate the situation as Cold Lake people stay Cold Lake and Bagotville people stay in Bagotville. I can't see a huge budget for posting people across the country to do the same jobs when they can just shuffle them around locally, especially since so many people are clamouring for longer postings. A long term posting is only attractive to people who like where they are.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'll add my $0.02 on some of the points raised.  The CAGS will help address brain drain from within fleets so that corporate knowledge and expertise can grow; particularly in younger fleets like the 147/148 but also in fleets like the 146 where the last I'd heard the lead time on new folks getting type training was ridiculous... I could be mistaken there.  There is a ton of communication between Sqn & Fleet CWOs / ETOs and the career shop.  We can't always get what we want at unit or fleet level but we've got a stronger stakeholder position under the current structure IMO.  I spent quite a bit of time going back and forth with many of the Air Tech CMs and they were doing their best... there were a few honourable mentions but I'll just leave that as is.  I did have a chance to sit as a promotion board member this past fall and it was a great experience as well as a real eye opener.  

I've had the good fortune to have been posted to both coasts on both the 140 and 124.... eventually 148 fleets.  I finished up out west as the D/ETO and I'd hoped to address some of the frustration from techs while I was in that office.  One thing I will say that I consistently ran into was what I'll call the 'Will Hunting' response.  When I'd chat with someone who was expressing that feeling of 'why should I stay...  I hate this' in most occasions they couldn't tell me what they wanted to do or what they wanted to accomplish in their career.  It was mostly just an iteration of 'this sucks', 'this is stupid' etc.  I'm not saying that's the case with anybody in this thread but I would say if you ever get your chance to address concerns to someone behind an expensive desk, make sure you know exactly what you want accomplish and can hopefully express why the current model is preventing you or others from getting there.  I've got my own somewhat jaded views regarding the 'patch for all occasions' thing that's going on.  

Our SAMS at the time was running a similar play in parallel while I was out chatting with folks on the floor, behind the desks and in the shops.   He had set up something of a road map for progression starting with: apprentices to get them ready for type; preparing new POMs for getting their level A once eligible; getting experienced techs on the road towards WSR; and preparing senior techs/AM Sups for whatever is is we do.  He had face-to-face sit downs with everyone.  We found it helped a great deal towards getting folks where they needed to be training and policy wise, but more importantly that face time gave us a chance to see what was pissing people off.  I'll also say that the folks who needed those contacts the most were the toughest to get buy-in from.

If you're feeling lost or overwhelmed, is that due to getting handed projects you're not been trained for?


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> You mean the SAMS signed off on their POM? 😳


I've seen a number of folks get punted from type training without gaining any sigs, but it's not common.  We've had to rescind auths more than once to backtrack what I'd consider a failure of judgement from an OTU.


----------



## GR66 (29 May 2021)

For some of the technical trades would there be any opportunity for the CAF to partner with civilian schools (and the airlines/aerospace companies?) to do joint training?  

In return for some Federal funding and provision of RCAF airframes to actually work on the schools could adjust their curriculum to mirror CAF trades training.  The benefit for CAF members is that they would end up with training that matches civilian industry training making it easier for them to get employed when they release and for the benefit for the CAF would be that there would be a pool of civilian workers out there with basic trades training already completed that you could draw on as a potential recruiting pool.


----------



## Quirky (29 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> It is a job... Maybe one of our major stumbling blocks when it comes to recruitment and retention is pretending it's a some holy calling.
> 
> Whether it's a "job", or a "calling" doesn't determine one's aptitude. Every trade struggles with people who barely pass the training, and are inept at the job. Instead of pretending more "zeal for Queen and country" would fix things, perhaps we should be fixing the HR mechanisms that prevent those people from switching to a job more suited to their skills. Maybe your tech is a bad wrench turner, but would make a great Met Tech, and maybe the guy who can't string two words together without stuttering is a bad Met Tech, but would be an amazing ATIS tech.



An issue I see are very good techs being promoted off the floor into office and supervisory positions - it's the only way to see any sort of pay raise. Some people are more than happy to just stay at the cpl/mcpl level and keep wrenching, however with only 5 pay incentives they quickly max out. We promote/post some of our best techs off the floor and all their years of experience disappears overnight. If a business operated the way we did, they'd be bankrupt very quickly. If a civilian company decided to purchase our F18s and base them anywhere but Cold Lake, my resume would be submitted the next day.



AM Sup said:


> I've seen a number of folks get punted from type training without gaining any sigs, but it's not common.  We've had to rescind auths more than once to backtrack what I'd consider a failure of judgement from an OTU.



Have you seen anyone get released due to the inability to perform their job? I haven't. They are always placed into the tool cribs and second line shops where they can't do any damage. Meanwhile, they are making the same top dollar as the people busting their ass on the flight line making those missions happen.


----------



## Good2Golf (29 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> I've seen a number of folks get punted from type training without gaining any sigs, but it's not common.  We've had to rescind auths more than once to backtrack what I'd consider a failure of judgement from an OTU.


Hopefully a rare case, as you note AM Sup.  How is the training/qual feedback loop? One would hope that the OTU and the Units should be fairly close to each other, so if there is an occurrence/trend of quality, it can be addressed ASAP, and less so later through retraction of the A-check.  I’m assuming in this model from the sounds of it that the school is granting POM, vice a unit sign off by the SAMS upon return from type training?

Regards
G2G


----------



## kev994 (29 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> If a civilian company decided to purchase our F18s and base them anywhere but Cold Lake, my resume would be submitted the next day.


Isn’t there a civilian company that rebuilds them at Mirabel?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

Sf2 said:


> I'll be interested to see how this retroactive thing works with aircra implemented into base pay. We have a letter circulating at work that members can expect less net pay as you are now contributing more to the pension each month....and a lump retroactive contribution once this all kicks in.



"Pay more now" _and _"pay more later"?

$400-$500 more in earning shouldn't equal the same amount in increased pension contributions.  I'm confused, but not surprised; our pay increase earlier this year, I went up 400 and change and my mid-April pay went up....40 bucks.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Although with the way they do it, wouldn't there be a directed effort every year since it's just a posting, not a trade?



Ya, I'm not sure what the rationale is with that...similar to Traf Tech/LoadMaster.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> An issue I see are very good techs being promoted off the floor into office and supervisory positions - it's the only way to see any sort of pay raise. Some people are more than happy to just stay at the cpl/mcpl level and keep wrenching, however with only 5 pay incentives they quickly max out. We promote/post some of our best techs off the floor and all their years of experience disappears overnight. If a business operated the way we did, they'd be bankrupt very quickly. If a civilian company decided to purchase our F18s and base them anywhere but Cold Lake, my resume would be submitted the next day.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone get released due to the inability to perform their job? I haven't. They are always placed into the tool cribs and second line shops where they can't do any damage. Meanwhile, they are making the same top dollar as the people busting their ass on the flight line making those missions happen.


I've seen at least 3 people that I can recall who were released due to job performance deficiencies, and several more were OT'd into trades that were better suited to their strengths and interests.  It happens but it takes work and it is uncommon.

There was a very serious look into a lateral progression/Tech Sgt model a couple years back that I received a briefing on from the A4 Maint CWO at the time. I feel like there were actual dollar values in the model as well, I'm sure someone else here must have seen it.  Pay incentives were tied to auths etc.  I believe it died on the table somewhere.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

If someone could explain what a POM is, I'd appreciate it.  I'm equating it to a Category based on context...is that anywhere close to reality?


----------



## TCM621 (29 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> I'll add my $0.02 on some of the points raised.  The CAGS will help address brain drain from within fleets so that corporate knowledge and expertise can grow; particularly in younger fleets like the 147/148 but also in fleets like the 146 where the last I'd heard the lead time on new folks getting type training was ridiculous... I could be mistaken there.  There is a ton of communication between Sqn & Fleet CWOs / ETOs and the career shop.  We can't always get what we want at unit or fleet level but we've got a stronger stakeholder position under the current structure IMO.  I spent quite a bit of time going back and forth with many of the Air Tech CMs and they were doing their best... there were a few honourable mentions but I'll just leave that as is.  I did have a chance to sit as a promotion board member this past fall and it was a great experience as well as a real eye opener.
> 
> I've had the good fortune to have been posted to both coasts on both the 140 and 124.... eventually 148 fleets.  I finished up out west as the D/ETO and I'd hoped to address some of the frustration from techs while I was in that office.  One thing I will say that I consistently ran into was what I'll call the 'Will Hunting' response.  When I'd chat with someone who was expressing that feeling of 'why should I stay...  I hate this' in most occasions they couldn't tell me what they wanted to do or what they wanted to accomplish in their career.  It was mostly just an iteration of 'this sucks', 'this is stupid' etc.  I'm not saying that's the case with anybody in this thread but I would say if you ever get your chance to address concerns to someone behind an expensive desk, make sure you know exactly what you want accomplish and can hopefully express why the current model is preventing you or others from getting there.  I've got my own somewhat jaded views regarding the 'patch for all occasions' thing that's going on.
> 
> ...


The CAGs are a good solution for the RCAF and retain knowledge on a fleet but they don't seem to address issue members have. Again it comes down to the biggest drain on our experience isn't beneficial postings for members. It is the lose of experience at the 10-12 mark and retaining pensionable people beyond their 20/25. The CMs have to post people to full those spots and typically that involves changing fleets 

A lot of those people can only identify the problems but do we really expect Cpls, MCpls and Capts to have answers the CAF doesn't have? When they tell ask their CoC "why should I stay... I hate this" what they are saying is that I have all these problems and nothing I can do will make them better, please help. 




Quirky said:


> An issue I see are very good techs being promoted off the floor into office and supervisory positions - it's the only way to see any sort of pay raise. Some people are more than happy to just stay at the cpl/mcpl level and keep wrenching, however with only 5 pay incentives they quickly max out. We promote/post some of our best techs off the floor and all their years of experience disappears overnight. If a business operated the way we did, they'd be bankrupt very quickly. If a civilian company decided to purchase our F18s and base them anywhere but Cold Lake, my resume would be submitted the next day.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you seen anyone get released due to the inability to perform their job? I haven't. They are always placed into the tool cribs and second line shops where they can't do any damage. Meanwhile, they are making the same top dollar as the people busting their ass on the flight line making those missions happen.



This is a big problem. We have a lot of talented technicians who, through lack of skill or will, couldn't lead their way out of a paperbag. We promote these people (often inflating their potential) in order to reward them for their work. We need something to reward those people and it has to be a real reward that recognizes their value to the organization. I like the idea a rank is one step above the working rank of Cpl/Capt but isn't a leadership rank. Unlike cpl/capt it would be earned and tell everyone that this person is a technical expert. 



Good2Golf said:


> Hopefully a rare case, as you note AM Sup.  How is the training/qual feedback loop? One would hope that the OTU and the Units should be fairly close to each other, so if there is an occurrence/trend of quality, it can be addressed ASAP, and less so later through retraction of the A-check.  I’m assuming in this model from the sounds of it that the school is granting POM, vice a unit sign off by the SAMS upon return from type training?
> 
> Regards
> G2G



It's more common than you think. Quite often we push people to get their A lvl because we need that signature on crew. Then we will have to take their A lvls away because they keep screwing up. Occasionally they will remove all their authorizations although that tends to be a temporary measure.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

Good2Golf said:


> Hopefully a rare case, as you note AM Sup.  How is the training/qual feedback loop? One would hope that the OTU and the Units should be fairly close to each other, so if there is an occurrence/trend of quality, it can be addressed ASAP, and less so later through retraction of the A-check.  I’m assuming in this model from the sounds of it that the school is granting POM, vice a unit sign off by the SAMS upon return from type training?
> 
> Regards
> G2G


It depends I suppose, 443 always has some comms issues with being the distant part of 12 Wg but we kept in contact with 406 as much as possible and tried to work together on everything.  We were transitioning to the 148 out west during my last year there so we had a ton of contact with 406, there were still some hiccups but considering the volume of training that was going on at the time, it was to be expected.

Yes, the OTU SAMS conducts interviews and grants POM before the end of the course.  The 1st line unit SAMS and the 406 SAMS were keeping in pretty close contact when I was there and I'd assume that to be the case today.  I'm in the 148 AEO shop now so I'm removed from that stuff these days.


----------



## Halifax Tar (29 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Ya, I'm not sure what the rationale is with that...similar to Traf Tech/LoadMaster.


Isn't that a trade Sub Occupation like rigger used to be for Sup Tech ?


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> If someone could explain what a POM is, I'd appreciate it.  I'm equating it to a Category based on context...is that anywhere close to reality?


Sorry, Performance Of Maintenance.  It's the auth a journeyman needs to certify their own work.

Generally granted now on completion of type training.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Isn't that a trade Sub Occupation like rigger used to be for Sup Tech ?



Yeah, something like that.  I heard recently (in the past year...) they tried to make LM a separate MOSID that you would OT into, but it didn't happen.

Sure, it would be a small, specialized MOSID but it wouldn't be the first or only one.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (29 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> Sorry, Performance Of Maintenance. It's the auth a journeyman needs to certify their own work.
> 
> Generally granted now on completion of type training.


 Tks!


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> The CAGs are a good solution for the RCAF and retain knowledge on a fleet but they don't seem to address issue members have. Again it comes down to the biggest drain on our experience isn't beneficial postings for members. It is the lose of experience at the 10-12 mark and retaining pensionable people beyond their 20/25. The CMs have to post people to full those spots and typically that involves changing fleets
> 
> A lot of those people can only identify the problems but do we really expect Cpls, MCpls and Capts to have answers the CAF doesn't have? When they tell ask their CoC "why should I stay... I hate this" what they are saying is that I have all these problems and nothing I can do will make them better, please help.
> 
> ...


I can only speak for the 4 operational squadrons I've been posted to (14 AMS, 407, 423, 443) but I've not seen great numbers of folks walking out the door from air tech trades at the 10-12 year mark in any of those places.  Fleet changes are becoming more the exception that the rule compared to what was the norm in the past.  

If folks don't have a clear picture for their own career, then there isn't a CoC on the planet that can satisfy their needs.  You don't need to have all the answers to your problems but if you can't identify why you're not getting what you need from the CAF to advance, then the odds of them being able to respond in any helpful way are not great.  

I don't particularly care for the 'one Level A to rule them all' philosophy we're using now but it's here to stay I'm afraid.  

I think the practice of contracting out so much maintenance and making use of the first to third line concept will be the death of an intellectually invested air maintenance branch.  Kids (or adults) who join up because they want to troubleshoot and test themselves are not likely going to find satisfaction and challenge in the plug and play style of aircraft maintenance.  I don't personally feel there are many things better than giving someone the tools to learn, advance and become a respected expert in their field as far as job satisfaction and career longevity go for techs.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

GR66 said:


> For some of the technical trades would there be any opportunity for the CAF to partner with civilian schools (and the airlines/aerospace companies?) to do joint training?
> 
> In return for some Federal funding and provision of RCAF airframes to actually work on the schools could adjust their curriculum to mirror CAF trades training.  The benefit for CAF members is that they would end up with training that matches civilian industry training making it easier for them to get employed when they release and for the benefit for the CAF would be that there would be a pool of civilian workers out there with basic trades training already completed that you could draw on as a potential recruiting pool.


In my opinion, the RCAF is not interested in building civilian equivalent experience within uniformed air tech ranks.  We've adopted a practice of focusing much of our attention on 1st line support to operations with very limited 2nd line capability.  We do have techs in the RCAF who've completed training at NSCC or NAIT type of institutes, but they're employed within the air force in the same way as folks who trained at CFSATE.


----------



## dimsum (29 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> Yeah, something like that.  I heard recently (in the past year...) they tried to make LM a separate MOSID that you would OT into, but it didn't happen.
> 
> Sure, it would be a small, specialized MOSID but it wouldn't be the first or only one.


Wait, it isn't? I would have thought that any "large aircrew wing" trade was its own trade.

Isn't the difference between TT and LM similar to the difference between AVN/AVS Tech and FE?


----------



## dapaterson (29 May 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> "Pay more now" _and _"pay more later"?
> 
> $400-$500 more in earning shouldn't equal the same amount in increased pension contributions.  I'm confused, but not surprised; our pay increase earlier this year, I went up 400 and change and my mid-April pay went up....40 bucks.


_Very_ rough math:

If you have $100 moved from Allowances to pay, you will now be paying $10 in pension contributions on that.  Taxes will drop by about $3 because pension contributions are tax-deferred, so your net will be about $7 less than before.

Your exact situation will vary based on your income, province of residence, other deductions...


----------



## TCM621 (29 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> I can only speak for the 4 operational squadrons I've been posted to (14 AMS, 407, 423, 443) but I've not seen great numbers of folks walking out the door from air tech trades at the 10-12 year mark in any of those places.  Fleet changes are becoming more the exception that the rule compared to what was the norm in the past.
> 
> If folks don't have a clear picture for their own career, then there isn't a CoC on the planet that can satisfy their needs.  You don't need to have all the answers to your problems but if you can't identify why you're not getting what you need from the CAF to advance, then the odds of them being able to respond in any helpful way are not great.
> 
> ...



The biggest spikes in release happened after the initial BIE, the 10-12 year mark and at 20 (soon to be 25). I can find the number on DWAN and I will try to remember to post them. 

I'll agree that most folks don't have a clear picture of their career but I will argue that it isn't for lack of trying for many people. There seems to be a mentality among senior people that of jnr don't have a solution they shouldn't complain but the reality is that they are looking to the Snr people to give them the information they need. I have recieved career course messages and posting messages weeks after I have been told I wasn't going with a start date that has already passed. This isn't an RCAF problem but a military one in general. As I mentioned, I haven't seen an SOA since maybe 2015, I haven't seen any briefing or anything else regarding the state of my trade, how we are growing, what opportunities are opening up, etc. Sure I'm supposed to be my own CM but how can I be my own CM when I have zero influence on whether or not I can meet my career goals? 

Basically, this is a leadership problem at the highest levels and putting it back on the members is part of the reason we are hemorrhaging people. People are sick and tired of being their own CM, being their own claims clerk, being their own training coordinator, etc when we have people who are actually sitting in those jobs.


----------



## kev994 (29 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Wait, it isn't? I would have thought that any "large aircrew wing" trade was its own trade.
> 
> Isn't the difference between TT and LM similar to the difference between AVN/AVS Tech and FE?


Nope. FE is a trade, Loadmaster is a traffic tech; no spec pay, wears a green beret with a log cap badge, gets aircrew allowance.
FE typically drops in rank to Cpl when they remuster.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> The biggest spikes in release happened after the initial BIE, the 10-12 year mark and at 20 (soon to be 25). I can find the number on DWAN and I will try to remember to post them.
> 
> I'll agree that most folks don't have a clear picture of their career but I will argue that it isn't for lack of trying for many people. There seems to be a mentality among senior people that of jnr don't have a solution they shouldn't complain but the reality is that they are looking to the Snr people to give them the information they need. I have recieved career course messages and posting messages weeks after I have been told I wasn't going with a start date that has already passed. This isn't an RCAF problem but a military one in general. As I mentioned, I haven't seen an SOA since maybe 2015, I haven't seen any briefing or anything else regarding the state of my trade, how we are growing, what opportunities are opening up, etc. Sure I'm supposed to be my own CM but how can I be my own CM when I have zero influence on whether or not I can meet my career goals?
> 
> Basically, this is a leadership problem at the highest levels and putting it back on the members is part of the reason we are hemorrhaging people. People are sick and tired of being their own CM, being their own claims clerk, being their own training coordinator, etc when we have people who are actually sitting in those jobs.


No worries on the numbers, we're always going to lose people, and in some cases that's ok.  Sometimes folks just decide it's not for them anymore and that 10-12 year mark is where a lot of people might be looking at their first posting and say no thanks.

As I mentioned, a solution would be ideal, but at the very least people need to offer up a problem other than 'I don't like it here anymore'.  I see you've added some specific complaints at the bottom ref: claims and trg, that's a start.  Techs should be able to walk into ETO or even better the SCWO's office (unlikely, but maybe with an appointment) and ask questions about what opportunities are out there.  Even their supervisor is a start, bring it up in PDR or PER feedback sessions.  If your supervisor doesn't know what your career goals are and hasn't given you a path to reach them then there's a problem unless you're already mapping your own course. 

As far as promotions go, the SCRITs are out there for anyone to see and it's basically an open book exam; find the points on the sheet, do those things.  The CMs brief almost always has trade strength/PML numbers for anyone that wants them.  If anybody is waiting around for the CM to pluck them from the rough and offer up something great... it's probably not going to happen.  There's a core group of say.... 50 people getting that kind of attention, but most of us are left making the best of the tools we have, which in most cases means each other.

I had the rare (for me) chance to have a 30 min solo chat with the 1 CAD CWO a few years back and I took the opportunity to tell him (1) how stupid I thought it was that we've been contracting out so much maintenance: (2) that most people really don't care about most of the talking points we get from his level when they visit us i.e.: shoulder patches etc; (3) and that all this trade rejigging has been infuriating and people don't even know what they can sign for anymore half the time.  He got up and shut the door to my office, and contrary to the blast that  thought was coming, he thanked me profusely for speaking plainly to him.  Very few people are straight with leadership working at that level and he was sincerely overjoyed to have some actual back and forth on this stuff.  Oddly enough I ended up getting a coin from him out of that conversation. 

Asking for specific feedback isn't putting stuff back on the jr members, it's offering them a chance to provide input.  Senior folks telling junior folks how things are is what leads to discontent in the first place.  Nobody in leadership that I know goes to work in the morning with the aim of 'sticking it to some hardworking tech today'.  Most want to do well and want their people to be happy and invested in the branch/element/CAF.  That being said I know there some nightmarish folks sitting in influential offices and I fear that transcends industry.


----------



## dimsum (29 May 2021)

kev994 said:


> Loadmaster is a traffic tech; no spec pay, wears a green beret with a log cap badge, gets aircrew allowance.


...so LMs, a specialty that I assume only works on aircraft, _isn't_ part of the RCAF? 🤔


----------



## kev994 (29 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> ...so LMs, a specialty that I assume only works on aircraft, _isn't_ part of the RCAF? 🤔


Apparently they’re both Air Force and Army. My memory must be skewed by the loud ones being in the Army.
Job description


----------



## Quirky (29 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> Sorry, Performance Of Maintenance.  It's the auth a journeyman needs to certify their own work.
> 
> Generally granted now on completion of type training.


Certify? Don’t you mean rectify? Level A gives the auth to certify own work. I know what you mean though.



kev994 said:


> Isn’t there a civilian company that rebuilds them at Mirabel?


There is, but I’d prefer to stay in Canada, otherwise I’d go to AirUSA in Quincy.


----------



## daftandbarmy (29 May 2021)

Furniture said:


> I had the rare (for me) chance to have a 30 min solo chat with the 1 CAD CWO a few years back and I took the opportunity to tell him (1) how stupid I thought it was that we've been contracting out so much maintenance: (2) that most people really don't care about most of the talking points we get from his level when they visit us i.e.: shoulder patches etc; (3) and that all this trade rejigging has been infuriating and people don't even know what they can sign for anymore half the time.  He got up and shut the door to my office, and contrary to the blast that  thought was coming, he thanked me profusely for speaking plainly to him.  Very few people are straight with leadership working at that level and he was sincerely overjoyed to have some actual back and forth on this stuff.  Oddly enough I ended up getting a coin from him out of that conversation.



I would guess that both you and he are a rare breed. A junior person who cares enough to speak out and a senior person who cares enough to listen. Both acts courageous in their own way, but should just be normal routine of course.

'_Courage_ is what _it takes_ to _stand up_ and speak; _courage_ is also what _it takes_ to sit down and listen.' Winston _Churchill_


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

Quirky said:


> Certify? Don’t you mean rectify? Level A gives the auth to certify own work. I know what you mean though.
> 
> 
> There is, but I’d prefer to stay in Canada, otherwise I’d go to AirUSA in Quincy.


No I meant certify, POM refers to a journeyman who is authorized to perform and certify maintenance w/o being supervised directly (critical junctures aside).  For anything but an elementary task, they'll need that Level A to inspect and certify the task/job.


----------



## AM Sup (29 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I would guess that both you and he are a rare breed. A junior person who cares enough to speak out and a senior person who cares enough to listen. Both acts courageous in their own way, but should just be normal routine of course.
> 
> '_Courage_ is what _it takes_ to _stand up_ and speak; _courage_ is also what _it takes_ to sit down and listen.' Winston _Churchill_


Very kind of you to say and I'd say it's true on the Chief's behalf, but there's nothing rare/special about me.  I just wasn't going to miss out on the opportunity; we were alone when I asked so there were no audience concerns.  I'm also not particularly concerned about my career progression so I really wasn't taking much of a risk other than getting politely stomped by a command chief and making my SCWO's sh!t list.  I was a WO at the time so it wasn't like I was some cheeky Cpl.  I'm glad I did it, it was very refreshing to get an unfiltered response from someone in his position.


----------



## TCM621 (30 May 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> I would guess that both you and he are a rare breed. A junior person who cares enough to speak out and a senior person who cares enough to listen. Both acts courageous in their own way, but should just be normal routine of course.
> 
> '_Courage_ is what _it takes_ to _stand up_ and speak; _courage_ is also what _it takes_ to sit down and listen.' Winston _Churchill_


Junior? He was likely a warrant or higher based on his handle.


----------



## childs56 (30 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> No worries on the numbers, we're always going to lose people, and in some cases that's ok.  Sometimes folks just decide it's not for them anymore and that 10-12 year mark is where a lot of people might be looking at their first posting and say no thanks.
> 
> As I mentioned, a solution would be ideal, but at the very least people need to offer up a problem other than 'I don't like it here anymore'.  I see you've added some specific complaints at the bottom ref: claims and trg, that's a start.  Techs should be able to walk into ETO or even better the SCWO's office (unlikely, but maybe with an appointment) and ask questions about what opportunities are out there.  Even their supervisor is a start, bring it up in PDR or PER feedback sessions.  If your supervisor doesn't know what your career goals are and hasn't given you a path to reach them then there's a problem unless you're already mapping your own course.
> 
> ...


Were you a WO when you talked to the 1 Cad CWO? That is much different then a CPL talking to the CWO. 
The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.  
The attitude is we will farm out the work if we can't get Techs. Eventually you run out of those people also.


----------



## SupersonicMax (30 May 2021)

childs56 said:


> Were you a WO when you talked to the 1 Cad CWO? That is much different then a CPL talking to the CWO.
> The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.
> The attitude is we will farm out the work if we can't get Techs. Eventually you run out of those people also.


Can you substantiate your opinion with examples?


----------



## AM Sup (30 May 2021)

childs56 said:


> Were you a WO when you talked to the 1 Cad CWO? That is much different then a CPL talking to the CWO.
> The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.
> The attitude is we will farm out the work if we can't get Techs. Eventually you run out of those people also.


If you look up a few posts or so you'll see I'd addressed your question regarding my rank at the time.  I've already stated my disdain for farmed out maintenance in this thread.  

I've found that the senior folks who are interested in an air tech perspective are few and far between.  I don't see that changing any time soon.


----------



## AM Sup (30 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> Junior? He was likely a warrant or higher based on his handle.


Read my reply right above your post.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> If you look up a few posts or so you'll see I'd addressed your question regarding my rank at the time.  I've already stated my disdain for farmed out maintenance in this thread.
> 
> I've found that the senior folks who are interested in an air tech perspective are few and far between.  I don't see that changing any time soon.


You and I have, undoubtably, met.

I have taken numerous Sea King Dets to sea and the one thing that always impressed me was the ability of the techs use their ingenuity, along with the tools and parts on hand (all fully approved by the WSM, I hasten to add) to give us aircrew a fully serviceable and airworthy helicopter, nearly everyday.

That is much more difficult now, with Sikorsky/L3 in the mix and most of the 1st line maintenance either Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) or grease jobs (yes, I am simplifying).


----------



## AM Sup (30 May 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> You and I have, undoubtably, met.
> 
> I have taken numerous Sea King Dets to sea and the one thing that always impressed me was the ability of the techs use their ingenuity, along with the tools and parts on hand (all fully approved by the WSM, I hasten to add) to give us aircrew a fully serviceable and airworthy helicopter, nearly everyday.
> 
> That is much more difficult now, with Sikorsky/L3 in the mix and most of the 1st line maintenance either Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) or grease jobs (yes, I am simplifying).


No doubt, not sure if you're east or west but I left 443 in 18.... was at 423 from 08-13.

We made a lot of stuff work with what we had.  Tons of credit has to go back to the MSE folks: stokers, electricians, hull techs and of course the deck department for all their support out there.  Having that fabrication and machining experience in those folks along with the rigging support from the desk folks for blade changes etc was invaluable.

Without getting into too much, I'd say there are certain engineering support/approval aspects that produce results much more quickly under the current ISS, but in most areas I'm not a big fan of it and I'd absolutely agree with you.


----------



## TCM621 (30 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> Read my reply right above your post.


Don't take that as a criticism. It sounds like you were doing yeomans work for your techs. It was simply stating the fact that a WO has access no cpl will ever have.


----------



## AM Sup (30 May 2021)

TCM621 said:


> Don't take that as a criticism. It sounds like you were doing yeomans work for your techs. It was simply stating the fact that a WO has access no cpl will ever have.


Not at all, no harm done.  

This was an odd situation where the the SCWO had sent him down to my office just so I could point him towards some techs on the floor.  He specifically wanted to chat with folks in coveralls.  I just grabbed the chance to ask him a couple of frank questions, which ended up stretching into a half-hour or so.  I really had no hope of any satisfaction from the conversation, there were simply a few things I saw wrong in the outfit and I wasn't going to miss my chance to pass it up.  He spent most of the afternoon out chatting with techs, unchaperoned I might add.  I've never seen anything like it.  

I certainly get more access to 'some' upper folks now than I did before, but it's not really a free for all.  It's very rare that I'm asked for an opinion, more the provision of metrics or assistance developing COAs.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 May 2021)

AM Sup said:


> No doubt, not sure if you're east or west but I left 443 in 18.... was at 423 from 08-13.
> 
> We made a lot of stuff work with what we had.  Tons of credit has to go back to the MSE folks: stokers, electricians, hull techs and of course the deck department for all their support out there.  Having that fabrication and machining experience in those folks along with the rigging support from the desk folks for blade changes etc was invaluable.
> 
> Without getting into too much, I'd say there are certain engineering support/approval aspects that produce results much more quickly under the current ISS, but in most areas I'm not a big fan of it and I'd absolutely agree with you.


We’ve met.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2021)

dimsum said:


> Wait, it isn't? I would have thought that any "large aircrew wing" trade was its own trade.
> 
> Isn't the difference between TT and LM similar to the difference between AVN/AVS Tech and FE?



You'd think...but, LM is officially a "specialized flight crew" badge.  CFP 265 updates and the social media site posts in past years are sort of misleading.  LM is an Occupational Specialty with Traf Tech as the sole feeder trade, much like Flight Nurse is an Occupational Specialty of the Nursing Officer MOSID.

I don't know why the "LM should be it's own MOSID" idea was shot down, I just heard it was from a friend at 1 CAD.  I know there is some talk about Door Gunners attempting the same change as well, and unfortunately the LM subj might have set an unfortunate precedent.  Seeing the Flight Attendant recruiting drive on now, I wonder why they aren't all OTd in a"Flight Crew" MOSID with sub-occ for each of the Flt crew specialities (AES Op is 00019-01, AES Op - Jnr is 00019-02, so it's done already).  

Source:  CFP 154 Annex E



kev994 said:


> Apparently they’re both Air Force and Army


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2021)

childs56 said:


> The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.



That hasn't been my reality;  I am a OT from the Cbt Arms, who OT'd to ATIS and then OTd to AES Op, with my last OT being over a decade ago.

I had a definitely "challenging" op tempo from around 2014-2018, but treatment (Cpl to WO) has been great, and the Sqn, Wing and Air Div leadership I've interacted with has been top notch for the most part.

Can you narrow down a little what you mean by "running the show"?


----------



## Sf2 (2 Jun 2021)

The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday.   Surprised no comments.


----------



## kev994 (2 Jun 2021)

Sf2 said:


> The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday.   Surprised no comments.


At first glance it appears that with my quals I would be paid better as a Capt than my current rank as Maj. The briefer for 15 Wing was adamant that they could come up with something fair so I’m trying not to get overly bent out of shape yet.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jun 2021)

CBI 204.04 still applies.  A promotion to Maj would take someone to the next higher Major pay incentive.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

I don't think the new pay scales will do much with retention to be honest.  The Capt pay takes too long to increase significantly (ie: people will be past restricted release before pay becomes competitive). Coupled with years of pay well below what Capts are making now (below GSO for 8-9 years!), I predict it will lead to many leaving after their commitment is up.

The new scales do somewhat incentivize promotions but not everyone wants that and the pay scales make me thing that this was overlooked or not understood. 

My prediction: Many Majors and LCols will stick around for 5 more years, to increase their pension. The CAF will see this as "success." Until, in 5 years, all these folks retire.  There is also 0 incentive to be promoted to Col or BGen other than ambition.


----------



## kev994 (2 Jun 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CBI 204.04 still applies.  A promotion to Maj would take someone to the next higher Major pay incentive.


In my specific case, on implementation day I’m 31 days short of Capt PI 17, which is a huge jump. It will be interesting to see how that works out.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

dapaterson said:


> CBI 204.04 still applies.  A promotion to Maj would take someone to the next higher Major pay incentive.


Not retroactively though.


----------



## TCM621 (2 Jun 2021)

Sf2 said:


> The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday.   Surprised no comments.


Lots of comments but mostly just anger at the way it was handled, locally anyway. 

I personally think it is a stupid move, at least with Pilots but I think SAR techs might have issues as well. 

It's overly complicated. They couldn't explain how it would work properly. It removes any incentive to be on the pointy end over a desk because you can earn 6 figures in Ops as well as behind the stick. And it kicks the rest of the RCAF in the face. Even the command team recognized that it would create division especially in multi trade fleets like the Aurora. Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot. 

The SAR techs are a little different but the biggest issue I for see is that it doesn't appear to be link to a qualification anymore and you could have students earing 6 figures. 

All these allowances were designed to compensate the person who spends more time in the field or flying than the person riding a desk. Sure the vast majority of Pilots or SAR techs would prefer to be doing their job rather than being chain to a desk but that also involves being away more, working less regular hours, etc and now there is nothing to compensate them for that.


----------



## dimsum (2 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot.


"Well then maybe they should OT to Pilot"    

I say this as a joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually think that way.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> And it kicks the rest of the RCAF in the face. Even the command team recognized that it would create division especially in multi trade fleets like the Aurora. Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot.


It's all about market value.  Short of fixing systemic issues, money, comparable to the private sector, is what will keep people in.  Same thing as doctors, dentists and lawyers.

FWIW, the co-pilot will likely make less than the any ACSOs on the plane.  PIs are tied to qualification.  First Officer won't make it past PI 12 (which is where the pay increases towards market value). Up to Capt PI 9, pilots will make less than GSOs.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2021)

Maybe I'm getting older and simple;  anything that increases my pension is a good thing for me.  AIRCRA is extra money, for certain but to put it into context, I was flying 120hrs/month on IMPACT for Lvl 2 AIRCRA ($397/month).  That works out to about $3.31/hr; needless to say...I wasn't flying "for the money".  My Ops FPS, HA - HA bonus, RA etc were all the same as those folks at ASAB who were not flying.  I'd like to think people who wear wings are doing so because they enjoy military aviation, not purely for that AIRCRA (that isn't worth that much, after taxes...).

I'll take, say $400-$500...add it to my current pay (happily!)...and then I can see value in it "in the future".  I'm talking the 65 years old, retired, indexing and suddenly that (70% of $400/500/month) addition to my pension.  If I depart the fix before my wife, she should have some extra funds every month because "AIRCRA was absorbed into salary".  Maybe not enough to buy that yacht...but some.

The big question from the v-briefing I attended yesterday was the "so, should we stop getting AIRCRA now so we don't end up in an arrears situation in year?" from one of the Plts.

I was more interested in the SAR Tech piece, as that is likely a model that has potential to hit my trade.  I thought "those are some decent numbers".  Am I being too positive?  I saw the Gates for Pilots and they seem to make more sense...I'm not sure there is a selling piece for NCMs who are say, WOs, who are working in a Standard flight and therefore should make more than the Sqn Ops WO, who is standards qual'd/experienced but moved to Ops for a different tic in the box...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (2 Jun 2021)

I’ve spoken to a few pilots around Sqn. While not a scientific survey, the senior pilots seemed to be in favour of it, while the junior pilots were concerned about losing money.

The ACSOs are already used to being in charge of people that make more money than them. I was speaking to the WComd about that and told him that I figured being boss of people that make more money than you does not take money out of your own pocket, so don’t worry about it.


----------



## Halifax Tar (2 Jun 2021)

kev994 said:


> In my specific case, on implementation day I’m 31 days short of Capt PI 17, which is a huge jump. It will be interesting to see how that works out.


Is that PI meaning Pay Incentive 17 ?


----------



## kev994 (2 Jun 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Is that PI meaning Pay Incentive 17 ?


Yes. Looking at it as ‘had I stayed as a Capt’. And I am actively using the quals proposed as gates.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2021)

Halifax Tar said:


> Is that PI meaning Pay Incentive 17 ?


SAR Techs are going up to a PI Basic -> PI 14 model for all ranks.  Cpl 5A PI 14 = $12k and change/month.  CWO PI 14 = $15k and change a month.

Starting pay, Cpl 5A, PI Basic;  $8995.  That is substantially more than I currently make as a Spec 1 WO.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Jun 2021)

When they were getting Spec 2 plus SAR allowance, how much were they making?


----------



## dimsum (2 Jun 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The ACSOs are already used to being in charge of people that make more money than them. I was speaking to the WComd about that and told him that I figured being boss of people that make more money than you does not take money out of your own pocket, so don’t worry about it.


Hopefully that doesn't translate to "let's not change anything" then.  This initiative, if thought out, can (and should) be applied to all trades that have that sort of progression.  ACSO, AES Op, AEC come to mind right away, but I'm sure there are others.

It makes sense for a TACCO crew commander, for example, to get paid more than the B-Cat, but especially rolling of AIRCRA to pay for pension reasons.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (2 Jun 2021)

dapaterson said:


> When they were getting Spec 2 plus SAR allowance, how much were they making?



Cpl 5A, Spec 2, PI 4 is $6811.  Rescue Specialist Allowance starts at $595 and maxes out at $970 (for over 216 points).  So, max "as of today" is $7781.

Probably not a lot of Cpls out there with 216 points...that would = 18 years in SAR Tech positions that involved 'doing SAR'.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

For those wondering what pay scales we are talking about, they can be found here: Chapter 204 - Pay of Officers & Non-Commissioned Members - Canada.ca


----------



## TCM621 (2 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> It's all about market value.  Short of fixing systemic issues, money, comparable to the private sector, is what will keep people in.  Same thing as doctors, dentists and lawyers.
> 
> FWIW, the co-pilot will likely make less than the any ACSOs on the plane.  PIs are tied to qualification.  First Officer won't make it past PI 12 (which is where the pay increases towards market value). Up to Capt PI 9, pilots will make less than GSOs.



I understand the reasons behind it and it makes sense. Primarily I have an issue with the idea that Capts who fly all the time and are constantly on TD will be making the same as the guy riding a desk and having dinner with his family every night. Allowances are supposed to be compensation for that extra hardship. 

I also have a major issue with the tone deaf way they presented it. We already have a "Pilots are a bunch on entitled brats" subcurrent in the RCAF and this will exacerbate it. Especially since they had no concrete plans for paying the people who spend 12 hour + days making 40 year old aircraft safe to fly anything beyond an almost cost of living adjustment. 



Eye In The Sky said:


> Maybe I'm getting older and simple;  anything that increases my pension is a good thing for me.  AIRCRA is extra money, for certain but to put it into context, I was flying 120hrs/month on IMPACT for Lvl 2 AIRCRA ($397/month).  That works out to about $3.31/hr; needless to say...I wasn't flying "for the money".  My Ops FPS, HA - HA bonus, RA etc were all the same as those folks at ASAB who were not flying.  I'd like to think people who wear wings are doing so because they enjoy military aviation, not purely for that AIRCRA (that isn't worth that much, after taxes...).
> 
> I'll take, say $400-$500...add it to my current pay (happily!)...and then I can see value in it "in the future".  I'm talking the 65 years old, retired, indexing and suddenly that (70% of $400/500/month) addition to my pension.  If I depart the fix before my wife, she should have some extra funds every month because "AIRCRA was absorbed into salary".  Maybe not enough to buy that yacht...but some.
> 
> ...


The issue I have with the way we do allowances is that there is no benefit to being in a high tempo position anymore. I'm not sure exactly if AIRCRA works the same so correct me if I am wrong but for sea pay and field pay, you don't even needs to go to sea or the field. You just have to be in a designated position. In the old days if you got posted to a unit with a high tempo you could expect a financial reward for that while the person who was at a unit that rarely went into the field got a social reward in terms of family life. This appears to take it one step further. If you have the same MOC you get the same pay whether you are flying all over Hell's half acre with the Hercs or in a staff job in Winnipeg.


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

Also, of interesting note, pay is now also protected for pilots forced to COT, as CBI 204.03(3) was repealed.

It used to read:

"204.03(3) (Exception - compulsory occupational transfer) Paragraph (2) of this instruction does not apply to:


pilots who are paid under CBI 204.215 (_Pay_ - _Officers_ - _Pilots_); or
non-commissioned members who are appointed to the rank of officer cadet or to whom an officer entry plan referred to in CBI 204.211 (_Pay_ - _General Service Officers_ - _Officer Entry Plans_ - _Lieutenant, Second Lieutenant and Officer Cadet_ ) applies."


----------



## kev994 (2 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Also, of interesting note, pay is now also protected for pilots forced to COT, as CBI 204.03(3) was repealed.
> 
> It used to read:
> 
> ...


As someone who is mostly deaf from flying hercs I have to say Wooooooooooooo!!!!


----------



## SupersonicMax (2 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> Primarily I have an issue with the idea that Capts who fly all the time and are constantly on TD will be making the same as the guy riding a desk and having dinner with his family every night. Allowances are supposed to be compensation for that extra hardship.


That's what TD allowances and AIRCRA allowances are for.  Granted, they would need to be upped a bit.



TCM621 said:


> I also have a major issue with the tone deaf way they presented it. We already have a "Pilots are a bunch on entitled brats" subcurrent in the RCAF and this will exacerbate it. Especially since they had no concrete plans for paying the people who spend 12 hour + days making 40 year old aircraft safe to fly anything beyond an almost cost of living adjustment.


So, because it could upset some folks, we should just let the bleeding happen?  And also, Captains will make the same as other Captains GSOs (or less, for now) for almost a decade before they can aspire to better salaries, and this is contingent upon getting certain qualifications. 

I do think the pay raise missed the mark on the target audience.  The pay raise is great for LCol and good for Majors but those folks are generally close enough to retirement that the pension is what will keep them in rather than a pay boost.  I predict a bigger exodus of Capts at the end of their restricted release period given the kick in the teeth from a lower salary (compared to before) and the time it takes to make up for the "lost" income.


----------



## daftandbarmy (2 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> That's what TD allowances and AIRCRA allowances are for.  Granted, they would need to be upped a bit.
> 
> 
> So, because it could upset some folks, we should just let the bleeding happen?  And also, Captains will make the same as other Captains GSOs (or less, for now) for almost a decade before they can aspire to better salaries, and this is contingent upon getting certain qualifications.
> ...




There are also some unintended consequences connected to incentive pay programs:

Research: How Incentive Pay Affects Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Trust​Most managers would agree that motivated, productive employees are crucial for organizational success, regardless of company size, industry, or corporate strategy. The question is how to motivate them. Offering employees performance-based incentive pay is one common approach, and it usually takes one of two forms: bonuses are offered to individuals based on assessments of their performance, or bonuses are offered as organization-wide incentives, such as profit-related pay or share ownership.

Sometimes, these incentives work in ways managers intended them to. But there are ways in which these methods of performance pay can backfire, causing contentious behaviors among employees, complaints about unfair pay distribution, or overwork and stress. Although these critical issues represent real problems for many businesses, little progress has been made in gathering evidence on how different incentive pay schemes — performance-related pay, profit-related pay, and share ownership — might affect employee well-being.

But our results regarding work intensity and individual-based incentive pay should give managers pause. In some circumstances, performance-related pay may be experienced as a burden that only provides extra pay for workers through an intensification of the work process. This raises critical questions regarding the extent to which individual-based incentives can influence employee well-being in a sustainable way.

Research: How Incentive Pay Affects Employee Engagement, Satisfaction, and Trust


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> For those wondering what pay scales we are talking about, they can be found here: Chapter 204 - Pay of Officers & Non-Commissioned Members - Canada.ca



And, here for SOF and SAR Tech.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2021)

TCM621 said:


> The issue I have with the way we do allowances is that there is no benefit to being in a high tempo position anymore. I'm not sure exactly if AIRCRA works the same so correct me if I am wrong but for sea pay and field pay, you don't even needs to go to sea or the field. You just have to be in a designated position. In the old days if you got posted to a unit with a high tempo you could expect a financial reward for that while the person who was at a unit that rarely went into the field got a social reward in terms of family life. This appears to take it one step further. If you have the same MOC you get the same pay whether you are flying all over Hell's half acre with the Hercs or in a staff job in Winnipeg.



You're correct on the "in a designated flying position".  Heck you can be grounded on a T Cat for several months, with "unfit flying duties" as a MEL and you still get AIRCRA (up to the 180 day mark...).

There are other benefits to being at the pointy end, aside from AIRCRA which I already broke down for LRP flying in Iraq/Syria as around 3 bucks an hour.

Financially, I always made WAY more money off Ops FSP/HA/RA and /or the TD itself than AIRCRA will ever be worth.  Speaking from a purely monetary perspective, even exercises were normally "pretty gucci" as we'd be on full per diem, in hotels, etc.  One example, I went to Scotland for a month in  hotels, lived well while there, traveled on non-flying days to castles, historical sites, etc.  I maxed out my tax free amount of 'stuff to bring home' ($800 CAD), and I had money 'left over' when my claim was finalized.  Exercise locations themselves are pretty gucci;  UK, Sicily, Norway...

I seriously lucked out and did a Det once for Projection;  started off with a 2 week layover (prev-COVID) in a 3rd location in hotels with rentals, then stayed in Hawaii, Guam, Okinawa, Tokyo, Misawa (including extra "waiting for parts" days in Okinawa, Guam and Hawaii ) and included a Remembrance Service at Asan Beach in Guam, complete with a fly-past from a B-52 from Andersen.  I also brought home my $800 CAD and a bit more in shopping (once in a lifetime opportunity, right?) and had a decent amount of change left over when my claim was finalized.

Those all easily outweigh the AIRCRA/"someone at the OSS makes the same salary as me" aspects....

(After writing that, I can't understand why people aren't fighting to get into LRP...  🤷‍♂️ )


----------



## Sf2 (3 Jun 2021)

Here's a plot twist.   What about 427 Sqn pilots?   Historically, they didn't get AIRCRA because they get SOA instead.   Now they will essentially get both since AIrCRA gets rolled into base salary?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Also, of interesting note, pay is now also protected for pilots forced to COT, as CBI 204.03(3) was repealed.



WAG here, but the assumption must be that anyone who is a COT 'for inefficiency' will be at the lower PIs anyways, and this protects those who suddenly find themselves AF3 after years of flying for the Mob.


----------



## dimsum (3 Jun 2021)

Sf2 said:


> Here's a plot twist.   What about 427 Sqn pilots?   Historically, they didn't get AIRCRA because they get SOA instead.   Now they will essentially get both since AIrCRA gets rolled into base salary?


I don't begrudge them that.  Can you even go straight to 427 as a first-tour?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (3 Jun 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> You're correct on the "in a designated flying position".  Heck you can be grounded on a T Cat for several months, with "unfit flying duties" as a MEL and you still get AIRCRA (up to the 180 day mark...).
> 
> There are other benefits to being at the pointy end, aside from AIRCRA which I already broke down for LRP flying in Iraq/Syria as around 3 bucks an hour.
> 
> ...


Because, every time I ride on the SGOD, it turns into a low level torture fest and I puke. For hours. No thanks. I will take my 2.5hr mission and my rack on a ship (even a moving one) any day.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (3 Jun 2021)

Ya...I guess AES OPs are at least sitting facing forward or rear most of the time (we ran RADAR/ESM from one of the ASO seats on IMPACT...that was weird at first).  I remember a few on the TacRail who did not enjoy MAD flying, MAD Comps (Blk 3 MAD comp is much easier on the crew...).

I always felt bad for the folks who took the airsickness meds.  _Especially_ if they took them and then we CNXd.


----------



## lenaitch (8 Jun 2021)

Apologies perhaps for taking this thread on a bit of a tangent, but a friend of ours through our daughter has been fighting release due a medical condition.  During that time, courses, promotion and posting were all on hold as he worked through the various appeal avenues.  Last summer he was told all is good - they are re-drafting the 'universality' guidelines.  He got his courses, a promotion and a cross-country posting.  Sold his house and had the confidence to start a family.  Two days ago, he received his notice of release.

He is otherwise extremely fit, well educated and dedicated (well, perhaps not now) and, in my opinion, an asset to the CAF.

I'm not going to pass judgement on whether the medical condition does or doesn't justify release, but perhaps if the CAF didn't jerk its people around it might get a better reputation as an employer.

End rant.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jun 2021)

Yeah a good friend of mine was medically released from the CAF for UoS.  He received his notice just after he returned from a combat sortie in Iraq.  Talk about a backwards system....


----------



## TCM621 (8 Jun 2021)

lenaitch said:


> Apologies perhaps for taking this thread on a bit of a tangent, but a friend of ours through our daughter has been fighting release due a medical condition.  During that time, courses, promotion and posting were all on hold as he worked through the various appeal avenues.  Last summer he was told all is good - they are re-drafting the 'universality' guidelines.  He got his courses, a promotion and a cross-country posting.  Sold his house and had the confidence to start a family.  Two days ago, he received his notice of release.
> 
> He is otherwise extremely fit, well educated and dedicated (well, perhaps not now) and, in my opinion, an asset to the CAF.
> 
> ...




That sucks. I know someone in the exact opposite position he works two half days a week with no real hope of getting better and they won't release him. It seems like the medical system will always give you the opposite of what makes sense.


----------

