# Non-Commissioned Pilots in the RCAF Discussion



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

Interestingly, many nations don’t have an issue with an E2-E3 driving a bowser to refuel aircraft.  Is this really a stretch to have E4-E6 remotely operating the airborne bowser?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Interestingly, many nations don’t have an issue with an E2-E3 driving a bowser to refuel aircraft.  Is this really a stretch to have E4-E6 remotely operating the airborne bowser?



Many nations don’t have issues with an E-2/E-3 driving a transport truck. Is this really a stretch to have an E4/E-6 flying transport planes?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Many nations don’t have issues with an E-2/E-3 driving a transport truck. Is this really a stretch to have an E4/E-6 flying transport planes?



Nope.  Nor should it be.  Nor is it in some progressive aviation branches. 

Would you not tank from an MQ-25 if you knew it was being remotely piloted by a warrant Officer?


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Many nations don’t have issues with an E-2/E-3 driving a transport truck. Is this really a stretch to have an E4/E-6 flying transport planes?



They aren't E4-E6s but WO1-WO5.



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nope.  Nor should it be.  Nor is it in some progressive aviation branches.
> 
> Would you not tank from an MQ-25 if you knew it was being remotely piloted by a warrant Officer?



Many Army WOs do a pretty amazing job flying all kinds of helicopters into harm's way doing medevacs or air assaults or gunship cover. Not taking away anything from the skill required to fly an RPV tanker but it seems like a pretty tame job compared to that.

 :cheers:


----------



## dimsum (13 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> They aren't E4-E6s but WO1-WO5.
> 
> Many Army WOs do a pretty amazing job flying all kinds of helicopters into harm's way doing medevacs or air assaults or gunship cover. Not taking away anything from the skill required to fly an RPV tanker but it seems like a pretty tame job compared to that.
> 
> :cheers:



That's a blast from the past - I don't think I've seen the term "RPV" in any documentation past the 90s.  NATO seems to have settled on Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) is the commonly accepted term for the larger aircraft, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for smaller ones.  Including the ground control systems, communications systems, etc it's usually termed RPAS or UAS. 

I'm actually surprised the USN called it UAV rather than RPA, but it might be just a mistake from their PAOs.


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's a blast from the past - I don't think I've seen the term "RPV" in any documentation past the 90s.  NATO seems to have settled on Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) is the commonly accepted term for the larger aircraft, or Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) for smaller ones.  Including the ground control systems, communications systems, etc it's usually termed RPAS or UAS.
> 
> I'm actually surprised the USN called it UAV rather than RPA, but it might be just a mistake from their PAOs.



I'm an old guy. I don't have too many synapses left to deal with all the acronym changes that the air force considers essential.

 ;D


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> They aren't E4-E6s but WO1-WO5.
> 
> Many Army WOs do a pretty amazing job flying all kinds of helicopters into harm's way doing medevacs or air assaults or gunship cover. Not taking away anything from the skill required to fly an RPV tanker but it seems like a pretty tame job compared to that.
> 
> :cheers:



Indeed. 

Some don’t see it that way.  Perhaps they haven’t seen them in action. ???


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Nope.  Nor should it be.  Nor is it in some progressive aviation branches.
> 
> Would you not tank from an MQ-25 if you knew it was being remotely piloted by a warrant Officer?



I'll get gas off anyone.  My concern is not with competency. It is with authority (both formal and informal). Rank, to many, is more important quand competency. It can be hard to be heard when people perceive you as under-ranked for your role (and I am not talking purely about flying - it would be transparent. I am talking about participating in a multi-national mission planning for example, or in other forums.) 

The other concern is compensating your workforce commensurate with their responsibilities.  A 10-year US Army WO2 makes $83,900 a year (including BHA/BSA for Pax River as an example). An O-4 with 10 years of service makes $112,000 a year.  That is a huge difference for the same responsibilities. 



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> They aren't E4-E6s but WO1-WO5.
> 
> Many Army WOs do a pretty amazing job flying all kinds of helicopters into harm's way doing medevacs or air assaults or gunship cover. Not taking away anything from the skill required to fly an RPV tanker but it seems like a pretty tame job compared to that.
> 
> :cheers:



I did say planes and I meant that word. There are no WO flying transport planes.  I know the US Army employs WOs as helicopter pilots.  I studied at the US Naval Test Pilot School with a US Army WO and he was both a good person and a great pilot (who participated in many unbelievable missions overseas).


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

So....transports and fighters and remote-controlled flying gas tanks should be piloted by commissioned officers, but helicopters don’t have as much of an important place in operations so warranted officers are ‘good enough’ because they won’t really need
to have any command authority to accomplish their mission?  That’s an incredibly misguided view, I would posit.  


Want to take a guess at what rank the air mission commander was who led the Osama Bin Laden raid? ???


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So....transports and fighters and remote-controlled flying gas tanks should be piloted by commissioned officers, but helicopters don’t have as much of an important place in operations so warranted officers are ‘good enough’ because they won’t really need
> to have any command authority to accomplish their mission?  That’s an incredibly misguided view, I would posit.



G2G, you misunderstood me. I vouch for all pilots to be of the same rank structure. 



			
				Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Want to take a guess at what rank the air mission commander was who led the Osama Bin Laden raid? ???



Remember that WO I studied with at USNTPS?


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> G2G, you misunderstood me. I vouch for all pilots to be of the same rank structure.



So there should be no non-commissioned pilots?



			
				SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Remember that WO I studied with at USNTPS?



You provided no details...nor did you specifically identify his rank, WO1, WO2, CW3, CW4 or CW5.  Are you implying that the  aviator was CW5 Englen?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> So there should be no non-commissioned pilots?
> 
> You provided no details...nor did you specifically identify his rank, WO1, WO2, CW3, CW4 or CW5.  Are you implying that the  aviator was CW5 Englen?



For the reasons I mentioned 2 posts ago, yes. 

It was not him but the WO on my course was part of that raid.  He told us all about it (as much as he could).  I was aware the mission commander was a WO.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> For the reasons I mentioned 2 posts ago, yes.
> 
> It was not him but the WO on my course was part of that raid.  He told us all about it (as much as he could).  I was aware the mission commander was a WO.



Perhaps it’s just me having difficulty understanding your position, Max.  

So aviators uniquely should be commissioned...check.

The OBL mission was incorrectly conducted? ???

...and the USN should operate the MQ-25 with only commissioned officers? ???


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> Perhaps it’s just me having difficulty understanding your position, Max.
> 
> So aviators uniquely should be commissioned...check.
> 
> ...



The raid was not incorrectly executed.  The members of that raid however were of the wrong rank.  iMO, they should have been commissioned officers.  The same people, just a different rank.


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2020)

:facepalm:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (13 Dec 2020)

So have I got it straight that the only reason a pilot should be commissioned is so that people listen to them at the table?
It can't be competency. That doesn't come with rank. That comes from experience, learning and listening, not promotion.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

:2c: the 





			
				Fishbone Jones said:
			
		

> So have I got it straight that the only reason a pilot should be commissioned is so that people listen to them at the table?
> It can't be competency. That doesn't come with rank. That comes from experience, learning and listening, not promotion.



You don’t believe that being of a lower rank may be detrimental when operating with O-4s and O-5s, when those folks don’t know you?  You don’t think those fine pilots deserve the same pay as their commissioned brothers and sisters?

Rank doesn’t give you competency.  But it gives you credibility, when there is no other context. Same thing when a Capt is invited to a meeting composed of Maj and LCol.  That person’s insight has a greater chance of being dismissed (rightly or wrongly) just because that person is a Capt. Rank also brings pay.

I don’t care they are commissioned or not to be honest.  All pilots need to be the same however.  Being not commissioned brings other issues such as who takes command positions and such.  Furthermore, the current non-commissioned pay scales would only exacerbate retention issues.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> :2c: the
> 
> Rank doesn’t give you competency.  But it gives you credibility, when there is no other context. Same thing when a Capt is invited to a meeting composed of Maj and LCol.  That person’s insight has a greater chance of being dismissed (rightly or wrongly) just because that person is a Capt. Rank also brings pay.
> 
> I don’t care they are commissioned or not to be honest.  All pilots need to be the same however.  Being not commissioned brings other issues such as who takes command positions and such.  Furthermore, the current non-commissioned pay scales would only exacerbate retention issues.



This will be my last ‘off-topic’ post in this thread to Max, because there clearly are irreconcilable points of view, but I will make two points that you can have the last word about, and feel that you are right if you so wish:

1) Rank and competency....re: your view.  BS.  Straight up BS.  By way of example, that a CW5 was depended upon for his experienced position within West Wing and E-ring circles for an Op crucial to the country’s psyche indicates your lack of appreciation of experience vis a vis rank. 

2) Hint: it’s not all about the money, Max. I’m sure a whole bunch of guys in the TF get paid notably less than you, yet view their calling to service as well as the slightly lesser pay totally acceptable to keep doing what there doing without any desire whatsoever to push much more paper and much less excitement doing the real deal...

:2c:


----------



## FJAG (13 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> :2c: the
> You don’t believe that being of a lower rank may be detrimental when operating with O-4s and O-5s, when those folks don’t know you?  You don’t think those fine pilots deserve the same pay as their commissioned brothers and sisters?
> 
> Rank doesn’t give you competency.  But it gives you credibility, when there is no other context. Same thing when a Capt is invited to a meeting composed of Maj and LCol.  That person’s insight has a greater chance of being dismissed (rightly or wrongly) just because that person is a Capt. Rank also brings pay.
> ...



I know we're a bit  ff topic: here but I don't buy that at all although I admit that the concept is pervasive all up and down the CoC in the CAF.

To me, rank has several functions of which, IMHO, leadership level, skill and technical supervision level, management level and pay level are probably the most obvious.

Each varies by degree. Leadership happens at both the NCO and commissioned officer level with the scope of the subordinates that are led varying up to a certain point. After that point (say MWO/CWO for NCOs and Col for commissioned officer) the function changes for many personnel from pure leadership to more management.

We also identify skill and technical supervision levels through rank regardless as to whether or not it involves true leadership. That too, however, changes at a certain point to management and probably at a lower rank level (say WO for NCOs and capt or major for commissioned officers.)

Pay level also works primarily by rank and time in rank but has nothing to do with any of the other three other than as a compensation / retention tool.

I think that the actual separation in career streams between NCOs and commissioned officers (besides its historical origin) has more to do with the fact that the commissioned stream is more attuned to develop the future senior management element of the force while the NCO stream is to develop the highly knowledgeable leadership element needed at the troop level.

I think that we have ignored for too long the very valuable service that can be provided by a highly trained core of technical experts / supervisors who do not necessarily need to develop high end leadership skills in order to provide high quality technical supervision. I keep looking at the US Army's criminal investigation branch which is made up of MP NCOs and WOs as investigators. MP commissioned officers (who are not investigators) manage the CID battalions. In Canada we craft some of that on through specialties like artillery instructors in gunnery and assistant instructors in gunnery but we don't have "specialist" ranks to deal with that.

IMHO having every pilot as a commissioned officer is entirely unnecessary. Pilots do not gain one iota of credibility as a result of being lieutenants or captains. Their credibility comes from having been trained to manoeuvre an aircraft through three dimensions. Their authority comes from the regulations that make them i/cs of their aircraft. If they need command authority over their ground crew then having them ranked as WOs would give them that. (Obviously that requires a different rank structure where the WO1 rank does not require initial progression through the NCO grades but to be one issued on completion of their technical/specialty training.)  

The Reg F Army has approximately 2,800 commissioned officers for 18,900 other ranks (1:6.75); the Navy has 1,230 commissioned officers for 6,900 other ranks (1:5.6) while the Air Force has 2,900 commissioned officers for 9,800 other ranks (1:3.37). That's roughly twice the rate as the Army and Navy. (we're not counting the myriad of folks employed in HQs etc outside the three commands)

One can only draw one of two conclusions from that: either the Air Force requires a lot of leadership and management at the top; or the quality of Air Force commissioned officers is so low that the Air Force needs a larger pool of lower ranked individuals to choose from. 

Of course neither is true. Surprisingly, the ratio of rank distribution of Army and Air Force officers is almost exactly the same. It's the same for the Navy although there is a slightly higher upper rank ratio. Basically what we see is that the Air Force has no greater need for the development of high end managers than the Army or Air Force. What it does have is a rank structure, vis a vis of commissioned officer to other ranks, that is out of all proportion to the total size of the force that it must manage, lead or technically supervise. A faint notion of a credibility requirement at the captain and lieutenant level is imaginary / illusionary at best.

I don't blame the Air Force too much here. The problem is that pilots need to be properly paid to be retained and our pay system is singularly inept at rewarding technical competence and skill. Financial reward is for the most part tied to rank. We could conceivably create a much greater flight pay package to make up for that but we would still be left with the fact that unless you enroll as an officer you need to start at private which is pretty much a non-starter. If we want to create a proper career field for pilots then it needs to start with a structure akin to the US's which separates highly skilled technical functions in a separate WO rank stream.

A WO stream for the Air Force would be very useful and would remove for example the four year university requirement and would allow for a wider pilot training pipeline for the Air Force. The Air Force does not need more managers / leaders but more trained specialist whose career is dedicated to time-in-the-airframe rather than taking leadership / management courses and postings. Financial remuneration can always be adjusted off-rank to meet recruiting / retention issues.

There's an interesting and recent article about the US Air Force (which does not subscribe to the WO program the way that the other four services do [not sure yet where Space Force will stand on this]) and how it could be served by accepting flying WOs.

https://warontherocks.com/2019/05/unwarranted-reconsidering-the-air-force-warrant-officer/

 :cheers:


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> Pilots do not gain one iota of credibility as a result of being lieutenants or captains. Their credibility comes from having been trained to manoeuvre an aircraft through three dimensions. Their authority comes from the regulations that make them i/cs of their aircraft. If they need command authority over their ground crew then having them ranked as WOs would give them that. (Obviously that requires a different rank structure where the WO1 rank does not require initial progression through the NCO grades but to be one issued on completion of their technical/specialty training.)



I can tell you that rank is one (of many) measures of what I call "instant credibility".  If you are a Lieutenant-Colonel in a fighter squadron, it means you are a good fighter pilot and you succeeded.  Same thing for Weapon School Graduates.  That patch gives instant credibility.  Of course that credibility can be eroded when an individual does something stupid but without any context, it brings credibility. It's not just about the formal authority provided to pilots (through orders as you say). There is also an informal aspect and rank is part of it.  Not all pilots are equal. I have seen people (mostly from different services) being sidelined because of their rank, when they were highly qualified and competent.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> One can only draw one of two conclusions from that: either the Air Force requires a lot of leadership and management at the top; or the quality of Air Force commissioned officers is so low that the Air Force needs a larger pool of lower ranked individuals to choose from.



Or most of our pointy end trades are entirely staffed by officers, unlike the Army.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> I don't blame the Air Force too much here. The problem is that pilots need to be properly paid to be retained and our pay system is singularly inept at rewarding technical competence and skill. Financial reward is for the most part tied to rank. We could conceivably create a much greater flight pay package to make up for that but we would still be left with the fact that unless you enroll as an officer you need to start at private which is pretty much a non-starter. If we want to create a proper career field for pilots then it needs to start with a structure akin to the US's which separates highly skilled technical functions in a separate WO rank stream.



The US system is no better.  A WO makes on average 30% less than their commissioned officer counterpart. 



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> A WO stream for the Air Force would be very useful and would remove for example the four year university requirement and would allow for a wider pilot training pipeline for the Air Force. The Air Force does not need more managers / leaders but more trained specialist whose career is dedicated to time-in-the-airframe rather than taking leadership / management courses and postings. Financial remuneration can always be adjusted off-rank to meet recruiting / retention issues.



There is already no real requirement for a degree to be enrolled.  One can join under CEOTP and do a degree of their choosing on their own over the years.  I know a former CO (joined after degrees were mandatory for all officers) that did not have a degree. We need more leaders.  Just not the kind you are used to.  We need people to lead in the air, lead tactically.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> Financial remuneration can always be adjusted off-rank to meet recruiting / retention issues.



 :rofl: Oh wait. You are serious. Given how reactive to those issues our system is, this is bound to fail.  Pilot pay adjustment as a retention tool have been discussed for the last 4 years. Crickets still. In the meantime, we lost a record number of pilots.  And our trade suffers.



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> There's an interesting and recent article about the US Air Force (which does not subscribe to the WO program the way that the other four services do [not sure yet where Space Force will stand on this]) and how it could be served by accepting flying WOs.



You can do it much more easily using the existing structure. Have more incentive levels for the Capt rank with a higher terminal salary, comparable to what someone would make civi-side with a comparable level of experience (this will allow retention of technical expertise).  Have substantial pay jumps (if promoted) when people are in the promotion window to encourage competition for rank progression (ability to choose from a group of people for promotion rather than a limited number of people). Recognize technical expertise with allowances for specific qualifications.  Include flight pay into base pay. This way, when you are promoted and posted to a ground job, you do not make less than you were before.  Many of those staff jobs are important for the health of the trade. Others are important, at the strategic level, for the institution as a whole. 

I am not sure what you'd get more by having a WO trade, with the same compensation package.


----------



## dimsum (14 Dec 2020)

We are totally off track on this thread - mods, could you split (and combine with one of the myriad "should Pilots be officers" threads)?

My one parting shot would be if WOs (in the US sense) were instituted, that would require us to completely change the rank structure.  

a)  What would be the authority to do so - is it just a DND thing or higher?
b)  What would we call those new ranks?  Obviously Warrant Officer and Chief Warrant Officer are out because of obvious confusion

We're not even following our Commonwealth allies anymore in promoting aircrew NCMs like AESOPs, FEs, SAR Techs, and Loadies directly to Sgt (which is a separate point of discussion).


----------



## PuckChaser (14 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> We are totally off track on this thread - mods, could you split (and combine with one of the myriad "should Pilots be officers" threads)?



Maybe my leave slump has started, but I can't find another thread to merge. I've split this off. If you find one, report a post in it and I can merge everything together.


----------



## dimsum (14 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Maybe my leave slump has started, but I can't find another thread to merge. I've split this off. If you find one, report a post in it and I can merge everything together.



I just looked up "NCM Pilots" and saw these.  Not sure if any of them are worth bringing this discussion to, but some may be brought over here if they have anything interesting.  Some of them are pretty old though.  It's up to you.

https://navy.ca/forums/threads/128980/post-1561349.html#msg1561349
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/126750/post-1527979.html#msg1527979
https://navy.ca/forums/threads/29706/post-306558.html#msg306558


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> :2c: the
> You don’t believe that being of a lower rank may be detrimental when operating with O-4s and O-5s, when those folks don’t know you?  You don’t think those fine pilots deserve the same pay as their commissioned brothers and sisters?
> 
> Rank doesn’t give you competency.  But it gives you credibility, when there is no other context. Same thing when a Capt is invited to a meeting composed of Maj and LCol.  That person’s insight has a greater chance of being dismissed (rightly or wrongly) just because that person is a Capt. Rank also brings pay.
> ...




No. I would assume that people at your level of expertise and professionalism, would put stuff like rank aside and recognise fellow pilots for what they are. Professionals. 

The person at the table I would be most concerned about would be the one that couldn't look past their personal bias over a couple of rank badges vice another's experience and performance. The fact that that WO is present at the table, should dispell any doubts that he belongs there. What would happen if they were a WO today and recieved a battlefield promotion, or a CFR to Major tomorrow? Would he all of a sudden be welcome and listened to at the table by the same one who previously snubbed him for his non officer rank?

I can't help but think it a good thing that those great sticklers of rank and social position, the British, were smart enough to allow WO/NCOs behind the controls of those Spitfire and Hurricanes.

I won't go into the pay thing. I expect if it were a problem, it could be worked out with spec pay and things like that. As it is, those flying without the benefit of a scroll don't seem to be overly concerned about it.


----------



## h3tacco (14 Dec 2020)

Warrant Officers in the US Rank Structure are commissioned officers once they are promoted to CW2 (usually 2 years). 

"Candidates who successfully complete Warrant Officer Candidate School are appointed in the grade of Warrant Officer One. When promoted to Chief Warrant Officer Two, warrant officers are commissioned by the President and have the same legal status as their traditional commissioned officer counterparts. However, warrant officers remain single-specialty officers whose career track is oriented towards progressing within their career field rather than focusing on increased levels of command and staff duty positions (FM 7-0, p. 4-22)"

https://usacac.army.mil/organizations/cace/wocc/woprogram

Not sure why US WO seemingly are always brought up as an example of NCM pilots.


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> ...
> My one parting shot would be if WOs (in the US sense) were instituted, that would require us to completely change the rank structure.
> 
> a)  What would be the authority to do so - is it just a DND thing or higher?
> b)  What would we call those new ranks?  Obviously Warrant Officer and Chief Warrant Officer are out because of obvious confusion



It would require a change to the Schedule of the NDA where the ranks (and the absence of the MCpl) are listed.

In my humble opinion that part would be fairly easy. One such solution would be as follows:

1) return the WO rank to it's previous Staff Sergeant (and an Air Force and Navy equivalent);

2) rename the MWO rank to Sergeant Major (and an Air Force and Navy equivalent);

3) rename the CWO rank to Regimental Sergeant Major (or the ever popular US Command Sergeant Major and an Air Force and Navy equivalent)

4) introduce a new class of member between "Officers" and "Non-Commissioned Members" called "Warrant Officers" which lies in between the existing rank structure in seniority between Regimental Sergeant Major and Officer Cadet. It could use the terms WO, MWO and CWO or any other such designations (such as WO1 etc) depending on how many rank steps one wants.

Now comes the harder part:

5) make the consequential changes throughout the definition section and other portions of the of the NDA to define the roles, responsibilities etc etc of the three rank classes.

6) amend all of the subordinate regulations, directives, policies etc to comply.

While it might be tempting to use a different and simpler system (such as a modified recruiting entry system which would create a two track officer or other ranks career stream (such as no university requirement for officers or a direct entry at the sergeant rank level for specialists) that would not really solve the basic issues.

The trades and skills required by a modern military has for some time been becoming more and more complex. Our current bi-cameral rank structure has it's genesis in an aristocratic officer class leading an uneducated mob rank and file. That basic construct hasn't been true for a half if not a full century. IMHO we need a tri-cameral system where rank is based on the need for leadership at the combat unit level (principally NCMs and officers); a technically skilled operator and supervisor class for the more esoteric functions (principally WOs and some NCMs); and a managerial class for high command (principally officers and some higher WOs and NCMs).

A system that might have worked well for archers and swordsmen and transformed adequately well during the transition to gunpowder might not be the most suitable for AI and UAVs and autonomous ground combat vehicles and cyber warfare in a volunteer force where there is massive competition for the skilled worker/supervisor from civvy street. 

If you feel that we could be well served by adding on a specialty rank structure/career track (and thereby recruiting, training and retention structures) for the ever expanding need for the highly skilled (rather than merely grafting some of those skills onto the existing two-tier career system) then it's worth ripping the band-aid off and making some deep changes.

 :cheers:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (14 Dec 2020)

Most of what I'm hearing here (_okay, reading, for fellow pedants_) is the suggestion that we copy the US Army model, because they are the most familiar organization that has an additional "officer tier" to accommodate officer level occupations that won't be counted against their legislatively mandated cap on number of officers.  However, what number of non-officer (or officer adjacent) pilots would Canada need?  How much of the shortage of pilots is due to the requirement to fill staff billets (either RCAF specific or generic CAF)?  Do we have that many aircraft (and YFR) sitting idle because there's no available backside to stick in the seat?

The US model works for the US military because, frankly, they are bigger, more bureaucratic, more rule bound and more politically controlled that just about any other of our allies.  But their officer career management requirements are widely different from ours, mostly due to legislated decision points about what has to happen if an officer gets to stay.

Do we need pilots who spend most of a career in a squadron actually flying (and doing the other squadron level duties related to operations)?  Of course, but to sound like an old fart, back in the day, we called such a creature "career Captain" (such was not limited only to pilots).  He knew he wasn't going anywhere past that rank, did his job competently and when he got fed up with the organization (usually after 20/25 years or a bit more) tried his hand at something outside the uniform.


----------



## Zoomie (14 Dec 2020)

IMO - we are not short of pilot applicants.  Having a different rank structure for our MOSID won't change anything.  We would have some new rank, still get paid more than a GSO, and enjoy life flying airplanes and not worrying about CFOPP or Strategic level events.  <SIGN ME UP!> 

If we are contemplating NCMs in this career field why not others?  Medical Officers don't lead - so let's make them all Corporals.  Same goes for Legal Officers.  Why are platoon commanders in the CA Officers - it would make more sense for the experienced leadership to be in charge (ie Sgts/WOs).  Company Commanders should be MWOs - Majors are overkill for that job.

H3TACCO covered the US ARMY Warrant Officer entry plan - they are basically Captain's for life, but given a rank structure outside of mainstream Army (with a pay deficit).


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (14 Dec 2020)

It seems to me, someone who is way over his head in this conversation, that what is required is a need to realize we need to "go back to school".  We should be losing lots of (insert any trade here) to civvy street.  We keep getting them young, give them a marketable trade in exchange for thier most awesome ability years, and they move on.  IMO, we need to realize that we should exist to maintain certain tasks, but everything else should be training school, training school, training school....just in case we all of a sudden need to push through thousands of folks real quick.  We can't even train hundreds now.


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2020)

Ditch said:
			
		

> If we are contemplating NCMs in this career field why not others?  Medical Officers don't lead - so let's make them all Corporals.  Same goes for Legal Officers.  Why are platoon commanders in the CA Officers - it would make more sense for the experienced leadership to be in charge (ie Sgts/WOs).  Company Commanders should be MWOs - Majors are overkill for that job.
> 
> H3TACCO covered the US ARMY Warrant Officer entry plan - they are basically Captain's for life, but given a rank structure outside of mainstream Army (with a pay deficit).



Nope. Not corporals but WOs. While I served in the legal branch I often wondered why we took in legal officers at the rank of Captain and then promoted them automatically after two years to major (not sure where that stands anymore it fluctuated between two and four years during my tenure). We had the two standard arguments that were listed above for pilots: credibility by rank and pay. Quite frankly credibility by rank was never an issue for me when I served as a battery captain with the guns. When my corporal medic gave me his opinion on a medical issue I listened to it and took his advice because he had the medical training which I didn't. His credibility came with the training and experience he had.

As to pay. That's the easiest to fix for specialists. If there's a "pay deficit" for WO ranks then it's part of a policy decision based on a myriad of factors. It wouldn't be the first time that a policy doesn't make sense to the rank and file but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an irrational policy.

 :cheers:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> As to pay. That's the easiest to fix for specialists. If there's a "pay deficit" for WO ranks then it's part of a policy decision based on a myriad of factors. It wouldn't be the first time that a policy doesn't make sense to the rank and file but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's an irrational policy.
> :cheers:



I'm following this thread, but with no iron in the fire either way.  

Just to note, though, Officer pay is broken down into GSO, Pilots, Medical and Dental, and Legal.  A top IPC Pilot Captain earns $9941/month, a top IPC GSO Capt / Lt (N) makes $8718.  

*IF* the CAF was to create Pilot NCO and / or Warrant Officers...seems to me the pay could be adjusted for NCMs to something along that line;  maybe a Spec Pay 3 and 4 trade group.  I make more than Standard trade group WOs/PO1s (as a Specialist Level 1); SAR Techs and airborne grease monkeys Flight Engineers make Specialist Level 2, etc. 

Specialist Level 3 - NCO Pilots and Specialist Level 4 - Warrant Officer pilots.  Or, a separate table for Pilot NCM...like the Pilot one for Officers.

:dunno:


----------



## SupersonicMax (14 Dec 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'm following this thread, but with no iron in the fire either way.
> 
> Just to note, though, Officer pay is broken down into GSO, Pilots, Medical and Dental, and Legal.  A top IPC Pilot Captain earns $9941/month, a top IPC GSO Capt / Lt (N) makes $8718.
> 
> ...



I still don't understand the advantages of going through a whole rank structure re-organization that will give a group, doing largely the same functions as their officer counterpart, a lower salary.  As h3tacco said, there is no shortage of applicants.


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2020)

Splitting pilots into non-commissioned flying pilots (whose carers would be spent on the flightline) and pilot-officers (who might get a 50/50 flying / desk ratio) is one way to reduce the demand for pilots overall, and to compensate for the disruption of lifestyle and additional responsibilities associated with a second track.

Frankly, it's well past time to reconsider the team approach to CAF compensation; bespoke payscales for occupations (vs basic, spec 1 and spec 2) makes more sense, provides greater flexibility to respond to the labour market and, in a longer term, probably would save money for the CAF.  We're mired in a 1950s HR mindset in no small part because the CAF has no HR specialists able to progress t othe strategic level (Log HR officers prove my point, thank you).

Pressures on the pilot occupation are due to (a) several RCAF commanders who thought flying wasn't as important as staff jobs, and made employment decisions to reflect that perspective and (b) the RCAF's willingness to take on new fleets without adjusting the training system to produce the requisite number of pilots (or FRP some desks to return pilots to cockpits).


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Dec 2020)

Pilot shortages might accelerate pilotless fighters.


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I still don't understand the advantages of going through a whole rank structure re-organization that will give a group, doing largely the same functions as their officer counterpart, a lower salary.  As h3tacco said, there is no shortage of applicants.



Pay isn't the issue that I look to for doing this. What my opinion is based on is that you can then develop two tracks: one for specialists who can be recruited and trained quicker (no four year university jail) and who will spend their careers in the cockpit developing their skills and not on numerous courses and postings for leadership or management development that take them out of the seat; and a second track that provides some seat time in the airframe for experience and then concentrates on developing leadership and management for higher command. 

As I said before, the Air Force currently has 2,900 officers for 9,800 other ranks; 671 majors, 2,030 captains and lieutenants for  some 390 airframes. Obviously only a small portion of the officers are doing actual flying duties and far fewer are fulfilling leadership functions. It simply doesn't need that high an officer to airframe and officer to other ranks ratio.

 :cheers:


----------



## dapaterson (14 Dec 2020)

No one goes to Portage thinking "If I play my cards right, someday I'll be the A35 at 1 CAD in Winnipeg!"


----------



## FJAG (14 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> No one goes to Portage thinking "If I play my cards right, someday I'll be the A35 at 1 CAD in Winnipeg!"



They could be one of these though for their whole career:



> Warrant
> 
> 150A Air Traffic and Air Space Management Technician
> 150U Unmanned Aircraft Systems Operations Technician
> ...



And I would add some additional stuff to that.


----------



## tomahawk6 (14 Dec 2020)

You could adopt the US Warrant Officer flight program which takes qualified enlisted soldiers and turns them into officers. During Vietnam the demand was high for chopper pilots. It would still take a year for the finished product to get his wings and in combat. But faster than waiting for ROTC to crank out Lt's that would go on to flight school.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> They could be one of these though for their whole career:
> 
> Warrant
> 
> ...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (15 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I still don't understand the advantages of going through a whole rank structure re-organization that will give a group, doing largely the same functions as their officer counterpart, a lower salary.  As h3tacco said, there is no shortage of applicants.



To produce more folks like Capt Paul Turpie, and Capt Mary Cameron-Kelly?

Both are amazing pilots, I've had them both for a Skipper at some point (MCK was my first deployment Skipper), professional officers and damn nice people.  Obviously, too, they are the exception, not the rule where they've managed to stay Junior Officers and continue to do what they love to do;  fly.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Dec 2020)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> To produce more folks like Capt Paul Turpie, and Capt Mary Cameron-Kelly?
> 
> Both are amazing pilots, I've had them both for a Skipper at some point (MCK was my first deployment Skipper), professional officers and damn nice people.  Obviously, too, they are the exception, not the rule where they've managed to stay Junior Officers and continue to do what they love to do;  fly.



These mechanisms exist already.  It is easy to become a “Captain for life” and, if you are competent, keep flying.  Get yourself removed from the merit list or opt out of a PER.  I don’t think we need to create an entirely new rank structure, with less pay (don’t you think it would exacerbate the dis-satisfaction pilots have for compensation, increasing retention challenges?) something that can be managed within individual capabilities.

I really don!t understand.  I am advocating for equal pay and rank for people doing the same work but that’s somehow the unpopular view?


----------



## kev994 (15 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I really don!t understand.  I am advocating for equal pay and rank for people doing the same work but that’s somehow the unpopular view?


I agree with you 
Besides, someone’s gotta keep all these Navs in check.


----------



## FJAG (15 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> ...
> I really don!t understand.  I am advocating for equal pay and rank for people doing the same work but that’s somehow the unpopular view?



I've said this four times already: no one is saying that a flying warrant officer and a flying lieutenant (or WO2 and captain) should be paid any differently vis a vis flight pay. It's the career track that separates them. The WOs keep flying, the captains move on. 

On top of that the idea that WOs get paid less than their officer counterparts in the US Army is simply false. In the US Army pay would be both basic pay and aviation incentive pay. This chart shows that at the WO1 to WO3 and O1 to O3 level starting basic pay is virtually identical and that at the 38 years of service point, the WO pay is actually higher than a "career captain's" would be. W4s and W5s start a bit lower but also end higher than their O4 and O5 counterparts. The end result is that a long service WO will do just as well, if not better than an O equivalent.

https://militarypay.defense.gov/Portals/3/Documents/ActiveDutyTables/2020%20Military%20Basic%20Pay%20Table.pdf

Aviation Incentive Pay in the US Army (flight pay, if you will) applies to everyone from the rank of WO1 to Col equally with one exception: for officers, aviation incentive pay is reduced after ten years service while for WOs it remains at the year 10 highpoint.

https://www.hrc.army.mil/content/Aviation%20Incentive%20Pay%20and%20Aeromedical%20Waivers%20and%20Suspensions

So equal pay doesn't need to be the issue if we follow the US example which basically leaves you with the idea that every pilot needs the "status" of being an officer. Personally I think that's as much bull as every lawyer needing to be a major to be credible.

 :cheers:


----------



## kev994 (15 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> I've said this four times already: no one is saying that a flying warrant officer and a flying lieutenant (or WO2 and captain) should be paid any differently vis a vis flight pay. It's the career track that separates them. The WOs keep flying, the captains move on.
> 
> On top of that the idea that WOs get paid less than their officer counterparts in the US Army is simply false. In the US Army pay would be both basic pay and aviation incentive pay. This chart shows that at the WO1 to WO3 and O1 to O3 level starting basic pay is virtually identical and that at the 38 years of service point, the WO pay is actually higher than a "career captain's" would be. W4s and W5s start a bit lower but also end higher than their O4 and O5 counterparts. The end result is that a long service WO will do just as well, if not better than an O equivalent.
> 
> ...


I don’t see what you’re accomplishing. If it’s the degree we could just exempt pilots from having a degree and not have to make all these changes.


----------



## dimsum (15 Dec 2020)

tomahawk6 said:
			
		

> Pilot shortages might accelerate pilotless fighters.



Possibly, but that's definitely not going to be anytime soon.  I would guess that the next step in that direction is "Loyal Wingman" or RPAs accompanying manned aircraft, then maybe one person controlling multiple RPAs.  Completely pilotless fighters would be hard to justify at this time for legal reasons regarding weapons release, etc.


----------



## SupersonicMax (15 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> On top of that the idea that WOs get paid less than their officer counterparts in the US Army is simply false. In the US Army pay would be both basic pay and aviation incentive pay. This chart shows that at the WO1 to WO3 and O1 to O3 level starting basic pay is virtually identical and that at the 38 years of service point, the WO pay is actually higher than a "career captain's" would be. W4s and W5s start a bit lower but also end higher than their O4 and O5 counterparts. The end result is that a long service WO will do just as well, if not better than an O equivalent.



You assumed that W1 to W3 are equivalent to O1 to O3.  This is incorrect.  The Time in Service from W1 to W3 is at least 8 years.  The Time in Service from O1 to O3 is 4 years.  For a time in service of 4 years, a W2 will make $4,200 a month whereas the O3 will make $5,900 a month (and marginally more BAH). I excluded the Aviation incentive because it is the same for both. That is a gross difference of $20,400 a month, which is quite substantial. 

For a new O4, promoted at the expected time (9 years of service), the equivalent would be a 2-year W3.  Salaries would be $7,000 (O4) and $5,100 (W3), excluding BAH and aviation incentives.  The gap is just getting bigger (And I used the shortest time to promotion for Warrant Officers - 6 years in grade). 

Also, the Officer Aviation Incentive Pay does not get docked after 10 years.  It gets reduced after 22 years of service. Between 10 and 22 years of service, it remains at $1,000 a month. By that time, the officer pilot is a Colonel, making almost $36,000 more a year. A $300 a month difference ($3,600 a year) won't bridge that gap.

As far as the credibility piece goes, I agree that is should not be a factor, however, in reality, it is. I have observed it personally and I have lived it myself, being in positions (for extended periods of time) under-ranked on two occasions.  Interestingly enough, both times, when I was promoted, the same people that tended to ignore the advice I was providing started listening...  It is not the majority of people but still happened fairly regularly I would say (mostly with people that I never interacted before). Rank was never really a factor for people that knew me.  

Attached is a highlighted pay charts of the US Military for comparison.  The highlights is the expected promotion path (for officers) and the fastest promotion path (for Warrant Officers).


----------



## tomahawk6 (16 Dec 2020)

Been gone for the weekend to sunny Arizona been unplugged and enjoyed the tack of the conversation. The US Army used to be acle to offer commissions to Warrants. During Vietnam it was a jump to Captain. After the war most were seperated via Reduction In Force because most lacked a college degree. I knew a Major who had lacked company command and was desperate he took a support company command.The odds were against him unless he went to the command and general staff college either in person or correspondence. He had been a chopper pilot but an aviation company command wasn't in the cards.The aftermath of war I guess.


----------



## FJAG (16 Dec 2020)

This is going to be my absolutely last post on the subject.

You're leaving out the fact that most officers must spend the first four years of their post high school life as officer cadets going to university of some type before even reaching O-1 rank and pay while aviation candidates for can apply immediately after high school grade 12 after which they are sent on ten weeks BCT and  five weeks WOCS where, upon graduation they are appointed WO1s and sent for aviation training.

I stand corrected on the 10/22 year aviation incentive.

The point on a colonels pay is, however, my point and in fact it happens or should happen earlier because the whole point of "officer" development is to select and prepare the elite few for higher rank and the more complex management responsibilities for the force that come with senior rank. 

Remember that in the RCAF you have: 1xLGen; 3xMGen; 6xBGen; and 36xCol senior leaders whose development is currently being fed by approximately 162xLCol; 671xMaj; 1,319xCapt; and 711xCapt/Lt. Leaving aside my facetious view that squadrons should be commanded by squadron commanders and not wing commanders and that 162 LCols is a bit generous for a fifty some odd squadron air force (which averages out to about 8 aircraft per squadron), we are nonetheless left with a very large base of folks to develop into the 46 above squadron level leaders. The "management" development branch of the RCAF officer corps could be significantly reduced and still ensure a quality end product. Convert 500 to 600 or so of those 2,700 lieutenants, captains and majors to various categories of WOs who would remain with the squadrons as highly skilled pilots (especially aviation) while the officers could move in and out of squadrons for career course, staff positions etc etc. The end result is that you would have a greater number of individuals who would go from high school to trained pilot in a shorter time frame and you would have more pilots actually flying aircraft on a day to day basis. A flying WO program opens up the pipeline to both generating and employing more people in flight positions. That and only that is my reason for suggesting that the WO program would be a benefit for the RCAF.

 :cheers:


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This is going to be my absolutely last post on the subject.



That is too bad, I enjoy reading your point of view!



			
				FJAG said:
			
		

> You're leaving out the fact that most officers must spend the first four years of their post high school life as officer cadets going to university of some type before even reaching O-1 rank and pay while aviation candidates for can apply immediately after high school grade 12 after which they are sent on ten weeks BCT and  five weeks WOCS where, upon graduation they are appointed WO1s and sent for aviation training.



I am not trying to compare earnings at a the same point in two different people's lives (there are too many variables, namely at what age a candidate joined) but rather, compare earnings to a specific skills levels.  The one assumption I made is that a WO with the a given number of years of service has the same skill-level as an Officer with the same number of years of service.  Some may see this as far-fetched (given that O-4s/O-5s typically spend one flying tour followed by a staff tour although that may happen within the CAG staff, still flying)  In any case, the WO's would win on the skill-level if we "reduce" the officers' skills-level compared to a WO of same time of service. This would exacerbate the pay differential.  Some will say that Officers have more "command-related" duties with more responsibilities however I would argue that many of the flying supervisory functions are be performed by the technical experts, the WO cadre. These functions are equally important to your force generation and force employment as your command functions: they ensure the unit maintains tactical credibility by making sure the aircrew cadre can operate effectively and, more importantly, safetly.

I am still favoring a single rank structure with expanded pay-incentives where a Pilot Captain PI 20 could make more than a Pilot Major PI 1 for example. I may put pen to paper and work a hypothetical pay scale that I think could work to incentivize tactical expertise AND promotion (effectively having two tracks: command and technical).

Cheers,


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> That is too bad, I enjoy reading your point of view!
> 
> I am not trying to compare earnings at a the same point in two different people's lives (there are too many variables, namely at what age a candidate joined) but rather, compare earnings to a specific skills levels.  The one assumption I made is that a WO with the a given number of years of service has the same skill-level as an Officer with the same number of years of service.  Some may see this as far-fetched (given that O-4s/O-5s typically spend one flying tour followed by a staff tour although that may happen within the CAG staff, still flying)  In any case, the WO's would win on the skill-level if we "reduce" the officers' skills-level compared to a WO of same time of service. This would exacerbate the pay differential.  Some will say that Officers have more "command-related" duties with more responsibilities however I would argue that many of the flying supervisory functions are be performed by the technical experts, the WO cadre. These functions are equally important to your force generation and force employment as your command functions: they ensure the unit maintains tactical credibility by making sure the aircrew cadre can operate effectively and, more importantly, safetly.
> 
> ...



I'd buy that and expand it to include all aircrew trades, Officer and NCM.  I've always been a fan of the RAF Professional Aviator Spine concept.


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> I don’t see what you’re accomplishing. If it’s the degree we could just exempt pilots from having a degree and not have to make all these changes.



You kind of have a point. I'm a fan of NCO Pilots as an idea, but I struggle with what problem that would solve. 

Is the problem University ROTP takes too long where we could have someone flying a few years sooner, and longer? This is where NCO Pilots makes the most sense.
If its lack of pilots (which we have tons of applicants) than the issue is with the flight training pipeline not with the degree requirement. 
Is it an issue with every CAF Officer is just a CDS in waiting and we are taking butts out of ejection seats for staff jobs? Then it seems like then the RCAF needs to make a linkage between Air Operations Officer and Pilot, where a Pilot that wants to progress and command Sqns/Wings requests to transfer to Air Operations at that point, with the default being Pilots will move slower and bottleneck at LCol unless they pick command, then they sacrifice flight time for career progression.

 I'd argue pay would be an easy fix if the COA was to create NCO Pilots, as we'd be making foundational changes to the rank structure of the CAF anyways.


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Is it an issue with every CAF Officer is just a CDS in waiting and we are taking butts out of ejection seats for staff jobs? Then it seems like then the RCAF needs to make a linkage between Air Operations Officer and Pilot, where a Pilot that wants to progress and command Sqns/Wings requests to transfer to Air Operations at that point, with the default being Pilots will move slower and bottleneck at LCol unless they pick command, then they sacrifice flight time for career progression.



That's a good point and partially because we (as in you, I, and probably most people on this forum) don't know what the Air Ops Officer will be like and the scope of their duties.  

I have heard rumblings that the Aussies are doing just that - they are effectively de-linking staff and command positions from specific trades, as long as they are Air Operations (Pilot, ACSO, AEC, and Air Ops Officer equivalents).  This hasn't been implemented yet, but technically (pun intended) speaking, a fighter squadron could be commanded by an Air Operations Officer LCol, or a Maritime Helicopter squadron be commanded by an ATC LCol.  

I thought it sounded ridiculous, until I remembered that COs aren't really supposed to be "pointy-end stuff" anyway.  That's what the Flight Commanders and line crew are for.  Leadership isn't trade-specific.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (16 Dec 2020)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> That's a good point and partially because we (as in you, I, and probably most people on this forum) don't know what the Air Ops Officer will be like and the scope of their duties.
> 
> I have heard rumblings that the Aussies are doing just that - they are effectively de-linking staff and command positions from specific trades, as long as they are Air Operations (Pilot, ACSO, AEC, and Air Ops Officer equivalents).  This hasn't been implemented yet, but technically (pun intended) speaking, a fighter squadron could be commanded by an Air Operations Officer LCol, or a Maritime Helicopter squadron be commanded by an ATC LCol.
> 
> I thought it sounded ridiculous, until I remembered that COs aren't really supposed to be "pointy-end stuff" anyway.  That's what the Flight Commanders and line crew are for.  Leadership isn't trade-specific.



This is a seriously bad idea.

We already have a problem with Sqn CWOs who have no idea what/how things should work on the shop floor. We have AM Supervisors that have no backgrounds in the fleets that they have been posted, so for the most part, they never venture very far from their offices, cannot provide much in the way of guidance when novel problems emerge and leave the day to day maintenance largely unsupervised.

Now we want to extend this to Sqn COs? How is a non-aviator supposed to effectively know what is happening on the flight line and in the aircraft if they do not fly? How will they, with any sense of authority or knowledge, approve a flying program? How can they truly assess risk, if they themselves have never been in the seat? How do they know if tactics and doctrine are appropriate or need changing? The knowledge levels in the aircraft are not awesome to begin with and we want to dilute supervision even more?

There is already, IMHO, too much “generic anybodies can manage anything” attitude in the RCAF. If you want CO’s to have credibility and not make a mockery of that position, too, we need to reinforce the role of CO’s. Not dilute it further.


----------



## dimsum (16 Dec 2020)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> This is a seriously bad idea.
> 
> We already have a problem with Sqn CWOs who have no idea what/how things should work on the shop floor. We have AM Supervisors that have no backgrounds in the fleets that they have been posted, so for the most part, they never venture very far from their offices, cannot provide much in the way of guidance when novel problems emerge and leave the day to day maintenance largely unsupervised.
> 
> ...



Fair enough.  I had quickly run it through my head when I read it and didn't really sit down and digest it.  I'm not sure how they would deal with flight auth, MALA, etc.  

Anyways, back to the original discussion...


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Dec 2020)

Here's how I would structure the pilot pay in the CAF (attached file).  In order to understand why pilots think their compensation is deficient vis-a-vis the civilian sector, we need to look at their salaries.  The salaries I included, for Air Canada pilots, are the minimum guaranteed (pilots are guaranteed to be paid for 75 hours a month, they get a 50% bonification of their hourly wage past 85 hours and training pilots (aircraft captains with experience) get a 12% bonus on their pay. Those numbers do not reflect any flying above and beyond the minimum 75 hours a month.  Another thing to note is that their payscales are different for each aircraft however the biggest factor is the size of the aircraft.  Widebody pilots make more than narrowbody pilots.  It is important to note that pilots are not expected to do anything else than flying really (flight planning is taken care of by dispatchers).  They are paid from the time they release the parking brake at origin to the time they set it at destination.  Pay rates are determined by the aircraft type, the position a pilot holds (first officer or aircraft captain) and their number of years within the company (not the number of years in a position).

Currently, there is very little financial incentive to stay past the restricted release period (10 years post-wings, approximately 8 years after OFP).  The pay jump at that incentive level is less than $100 a month.  The Capt pay tops up $100 on top of PI8.  We need to incentivize people staying by providing a substantial pay increase at that level. Furthermore, we need to close the gap between military pay and civilian pay (at the 20-year post OFP mark - for all ranks) to match what a person would make if they left after their restricted release period.  If someone left the CAF at the 8-year post OFP mark and became a Narrow Body Captain within normal timelines, they would be making ~15,500/month at the 20-year post OFP mark, ~14,000/month as a Wide Body First Officer and ~22,000/month as a Wide Body Aircraft Captain.  The most likely scenario for someone would be someone becoming a Aircraft Captain on a Narrow Body (it takes longer for Widebody).  Given that the provided pay scales do not include overtime, I put the number at $16,000 for a Captain with 20 years of experience in rank.   The other aspect is incentivizing promotions. There needs to be a significant increase in salary when going from Captain to Major, and from Major to Lieutenant-Colonel.  Furthermore, while an individual is in the promotion window, the increases in pay need to flatten out. 

What can be deduct from my proposed payscales:

1- Someone that leaves at the end of the restricted release period would cost slightly less than they do now;
2- The incremental cost over a 25-year period would be between $817K (Captain for life scenario) to $1.4M (Someone that promotes really fast). Note that the cost of training a new pilot is between $1.5M and $2.5M - it is cheaper to pay our pilots more to keep them than to replace them (of course, this is assuming that paying them more will keep them, but release interviews have shown that salaries of that level would have kept many in).
3- Over a 25-year period, a RCAF pilot would make a comparable salary than if they left the military after their restricted release and became Narrow Body Aircraft Captain, the most likely scenario. 

*ducking for spears*


----------



## dapaterson (16 Dec 2020)

Except the majority of commercial pilots in Canada are not flying Air Canada - they're Jazz or Porter or WestJet Encore or Link, or one of the short haul small northern airlines.  And grossing well south of $100K.

Benchmark against all peers, not merely the highest paid... and include things like paid flight training (Air Canada won't hire you off the street without hundreds of hours), other compensation elements (retire at age 42 with a 50% pension) and the CAF pay solution.

Frankly, when a current Capt 10 makes more than the entire cockpit of a Porter Q400, it's pretty clear that money alone will not solve CAF pilot problems.


----------



## SupersonicMax (16 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Except the majority of commercial pilots in Canada are not flying Air Canada - they're Jazz or Porter or WestJet Encore or Link, or one of the short haul small northern airlines.  And grossing well south of $100K.



Most RCAF pilots that go to the airlines either go to Air Canada or Westjet (mainline).  



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Benchmark against all peers, not merely the highest paid... and include things like paid flight training (Air Canada won't hire you off the street without hundreds of hours), other compensation elements (retire at age 42 with a 50% pension) and the CAF pay solution.



Pension is clearly not working at keeping people.  After 11 to 16 years of service, the extra 9 to 14 years is too much for many.

That is why I started the comparison at the OFP level.  It is irrelevant that the CAF is paying for your training in how someone looks at their options. After 8 years post OFP, a pilot should have well North of the minimum required for Air Canada (1,000 hours) and Westjet (1,500 hours).  The RCAF experience has a positive influence in hiring decisions within the major airlines.



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> Frankly, when a current Capt 10 makes more than the entire cockpit of a Porter Q400, it's pretty clear that money alone will not solve CAF pilot problems.



Except that it is not the jobs people are after.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (16 Dec 2020)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> I'd argue pay would be an easy fix if the COA was to create NCO Pilots, as we'd be making foundational changes to the rank structure of the CAF anyways.



Keep the same ranks;  adapt the NCM pay (either via implementing Spec 3 and 4 groups), or have a separate table for NCO/WO Pilots like the Commissioned pay tables.   :2c:


----------



## Mick (16 Dec 2020)

For reference:

(I assume these to be pre-covid numbers)

Air Canada: Fleet 166 / 4500+ pilots
WestJet: Fleet 125 / 1500+ pilots

Jazz: Fleet 108 / 1500+ pilots
Encore: Fleet 47 / 500+ pilots
Porter: Fleet 29 / ~300 pilots 

Of the former RCAF pilots that I know, the vast majority have been hired directly into AC, AC Rouge, and WJ mainline.

Airlines like Porter were encouraging applicants with as low as 200 hours to apply - again, pre-covid.

Pay is not stellar for the first few years at a major airline, but improves at year 5.


----------



## Halifax Tar (17 Dec 2020)

I have a close friend who is private pilot for a local Mr. Moneybags.  He seems to make good money.


----------



## captloadie (17 Dec 2020)

While I think the salary issue plays some part in the decision making process for pilots, at least for the AM guys I know who have left, the bigger issue is the work life balance, and the work schedule.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does the CAF compete with a job where you work 14 days a month, each of which you get to fly, vs. 21-23 days (not of your choosing) a month where as many as half may not be doing flying duties. How do we incentivize individuals to look after all the paperwork, lead subordinates, do all the other career stuff (even if not for promotion) when they can take a Big Red job and be paid to pick up a flight plan, fly the plane, and then get off and wonder when the hotel bus arrives (if they even have to RON at all). At the end of the day, I don't think we can, unless we drastically change the employment model of CAF pilots.

Perhaps it is time to admit that it isn't a retention problem, it is now the normal career path for potentially the majority of CAF pilots. Yes, there will be sunk costs in both training dollars, and experience, but maybe its time to just accept that as the cost of doing business.

There will always be a line up of new recruits coming through the door who want to be pilots. For every ten that reach Wings status and then qualify on type, maybe only 4 want to make it a long term career after their restricted release period, and the CAF should plan for this. 

Or, and this would be a dick move to do, maybe we don't pipeline guys into airframes that let them be widebody ACs at the age of 25, so that at the ended of the restricted release period their resumes are quite as competitive with the mainstream Airlines.


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

captloadie said:
			
		

> While I think the salary issue plays some part in the decision making process for pilots, at least for the AM guys I know who have left, the bigger issue is the work life balance, and the work schedule.
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but how does the CAF compete with a job where you work 14 days a month, each of which you get to fly, vs. 21-23 days (not of your choosing) a month where as many as half may not be doing flying duties. How do we incentivize individuals to look after all the paperwork, lead subordinates, do all the other career stuff (even if not for promotion) when they can take a Big Red job and be paid to pick up a flight plan, fly the plane, and then get off and wonder when the hotel bus arrives (if they even have to RON at all). At the end of the day, I don't think we can, unless we drastically change the employment model of CAF pilots.



But you get to break the sound barrier while raking bogies with 20mm cannon, and dropping bombs on bad guys, and then the women hang off you and stuff like that. 

I don't know about you buddy, but I'm sold.


----------



## Old Sweat (17 Dec 2020)

If you will allow a superannuated brown job to intrude, aircrew retention has plagued the RCAF for just about as long as I can remember. As a lieutenant in a very junior staff job in HQ 4 CIBG in Germany in the mid-sixties, I remember our brigade commander's less-than-enthusiastic response when Air Marshal Rhyno (sp??) stated to the assembled commanding officers and staff of the brigade, that we would all be pleased to know that the senior air staff had come up with a solution to a massive wave of releases of RCAF pilots. And yes, this was a product of the massive expansion in the west's civil aviation fleet, and just maybe any number of master plans didn't work in the long term.

Note: to be honest, there was a built in steady state of attrition in the RCAF back then. A large number of aircrew had short service commissions, and would be released after about five years commissioned service. Very, very few were able to convert to a regular commission, so the flying training organization had a built in busy state, no matter what else was happening. This changed, but did it do much to stem the drain in aircrew? 

Over the last 50 plus years, some very smart people have devoted tons of effort to addressing the issue. Their success has been variable, but as a whole not all that good.


----------



## FJAG (17 Dec 2020)

An article from around a year ago with respect to the US problem re ilot attrition:



> Army hikes bonuses for first time in decades to stem pilot exodus
> By SLOBODAN LEKIC | STARS AND STRIPES Published: February 3, 2020
> ...
> Last year, the Army’s pilot attrition rate grew to a record 10% of its force, due largely to aging aviators and competition. More than 40% of its warrant officers had more than 17 years of service, Army officials said in April.
> ...



Full article here.

Makes me think that captloadie is bang on: this is the new steady state career profile and we need to adjust our pilot production pipeline accordingly. (As an aside, note the aviation WO statistic that 40% of the WOs had more than 17 years service. That leads to the conclusion that retention is less of a problem with either aviation or with WOs then jet and transport jockeys)

 :cheers:


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2020)

You cannot focus on production to fix your staffing shortages.  This reduces the overall level of experience and, thus, the overall capability. To build experience you need to fly quality hours. And that takes years.  A fresh pilot out of the OTU is not equal to a pilot with 2-3,000 hours of experience with many qualifications. At the rates we are seeing attrition, even producing more pilots will lead to a decrease of experience that will lead to capabilities that we will have to give up (and they can't come back without a significant time and money investment).  

We need to focus on retention to focus on the quality of the force (this is, I would argue, a much bigger problem than the number of pilots itself).


----------



## daftandbarmy (17 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> You cannot focus on production to fix your staffing shortages.  This reduces the overall level of experience and, thus, the overall capability. To build experience you need to fly quality hours. And that takes years.  A fresh pilot out of the OTU is not equal to a pilot with 2-3,000 hours of experience with many qualifications. At the rates we are seeing attrition, even producing more pilots will lead to a decrease of experience that will lead to capabilities that we will have to give up (and they can't come back without a significant time and money investment).
> 
> We need to focus on retention to focus on the quality of the force (this is, I would argue, a much bigger problem than the number of pilots itself).



The Army is in a similar fix: retention is apparently much, much 'harder' than simply recruiting more 'cannon fodder'.


----------



## dimsum (17 Dec 2020)

FJAG said:
			
		

> This leads to the conclusion that retention is less of a problem with either aviation or with WOs then jet and transport jockeys)



My guess is that helicopter companies don't hire nearly as many as the airlines.  

Also, the licenses are different, so a rotary-wing pilot would need to get the appropriate licenses.  While the fixed-wing folks do need to get a CPL and ATPL on their own dime, they have a leg up in that it's still based on fixed-wing stuff.  

I don't really keep in touch with that stuff anymore so I may be wrong though.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

Transport Canada does give credit to RCAF pilots who have qualified to wings standard, and the conversion is very straightforward. 

Converting an RCAF RW ticket to CPL (helicopter) is just as straightforward as the fixed wing side, plus any military fixed wing experience gained prior to Ph3 training will count towards a fixed wing TC license as well.

But it is true that there are fewer civilian RW jobs out there, and a lot of them (most of them?) don't operate out of major airports in (or near) major cities.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Dec 2020)

My understanding is that the entry level jobs outside the military in RW generally demand more hours and some specific experience.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

Just did quick search of helicopter companies.  Looks like anywhere from 600 to 1500 hours required.  I'm not sure what the average RW pilot would have in the logbook once they're in a position to make a career change,  but I don't think 1500+ is an unreasonable guess.

A lot of northern "bush" flying sure, which might not be appealing for pilots (and families) who are considering a civilian job.

On the fixed wing side, one could leave the RCAF with some good aircraft command time, but they'd still be looking at several years as FOs in the airlines.  Very long wait, especially at WestJet.


----------



## dapaterson (17 Dec 2020)

I was looking over a 2010 report on the industry that flagged challenges in getting helicopter flight school grads enough hours for entry level positions.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2020)

mick said:
			
		

> Just did quick search of helicopter companies.  Looks like anywhere from 600 to 1500 hours required.  I'm not sure what the average RW pilot would have in the logbook once they're in a position to make a career change,  but I don't think 1500+ is an unreasonable guess.
> 
> A lot of northern "bush" flying sure, which might not be appealing for pilots (and families) who are considering a civilian job.
> 
> On the fixed wing side, one could leave the RCAF with some good aircraft command time, but they'd still be looking at several years as FOs in the airlines.  Very long wait, especially at WestJet.



Before the pandemic hit, someone could be an AC within 2-5 years after being hired at Air Canada.  COVID is temporary and the pilot shortage will keep growing once the pandemic is under control.


----------



## kev994 (17 Dec 2020)

Someone needs to train the new pilots, it continues for a long time after type qual and it takes a while to develop the instructing skill set. Not to mention to instruct the instructors. When we try to jam too many new pilots into a unit it becomes a cluster&@$$ and nothing gets accomplished. Way off topic.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I was looking over a 2010 report on the industry that flagged challenges in getting helicopter flight school grads enough hours for entry level positions.



I'm sure that's accurate, so former military pilots may have an advantage, plus they are all IFR-rated.  But again, the jobs may not be desirable due to where they're based.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Before the pandemic hit, someone could be an AC within 2-5 years after being hired at Air Canada.  COVID is temporary and the pilot shortage will keep growing once the pandemic is under control.



I see you edited that claim a bit.  Yes, the upgrade time was shorter at AC, mainly due to retirements and the acquisition of the 737 MAX (a lot of pilots with 737 experience were hired).  

I would be surprised if any former RCAF pilots went from hired to Capt in 2 years.

The wait at WJ is significantly longer.

The industry doesn't expect a recovery to anything approaching pre-covid reality until at least 2023.


----------



## SupersonicMax (17 Dec 2020)

mick said:
			
		

> I see you edited that claim a bit.  Yes, the upgrade time was shorter at AC, mainly due to retirements and the acquisition of the 737 MAX (a lot of pilots with 737 experience were hired).
> 
> I would be surprised if any former RCAF pilots went from hired to Capt in 2 years.
> 
> ...



I added Air Canada to be clearer and added a time-window for upgrades, to remove the impression that everyone was upgraded within 2 years.

Wesjet is indeed longer as the AC cadre is younger than ACs.  The fleet expansion (767s) however did provide some movement.

My point with the recovery is that we cannot bank on COVID and say we fixed our retention issues.  Those issues, in possibly a short 2 years, we will be back to where they were on 1 March 2020.  We will start losing record numbers of pilots again. Plus, our pilots actually gained a lot of relevant experience during that time whereas others may not have, increasing RCAF pilots’ marketability.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

But, back to the point of this thread - it's been an interesting discussion, but I think SSM has the most realistic solution.  A mix of financial incentives, career tracks (command vs technical), perhaps revisiting the requirement to have a degree.  Easier to accomplish than creating a new rank structure.

Is Op Talent still looking at this?


----------



## kev994 (17 Dec 2020)

mick said:
			
		

> But, back to the point of this thread - it's been an interesting discussion, but I think SSM has the most realistic solution.  A mix of financial incentives, career tracks (command vs technical), perhaps revisiting the requirement to have a degree.  Easier to accomplish than creating a new rank structure.
> 
> Is Op Talent still looking at this?


Word on the street is that it’s still trucking along, slowed slightly by children screaming in the background as people try to work from home. Rumours are pretty similar to what Max proposed.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I added Air Canada to be clearer and added a time-window for upgrades, to remove the impression that everyone was upgraded within 2 years.
> 
> Wesjet is indeed longer as the AC cadre is younger than ACs.  The fleet expansion (767s) however did provide some movement.
> 
> My point with the recovery is that we cannot bank on COVID and say we fixed our retention issues.  Those issues, in possibly a short 2 years, we will be back to where they were on 1 March 2020.  We will start losing record numbers of pilots again. Plus, our pilots actually gained a lot of relevant experience during that time whereas others may not have, increasing RCAF pilots’ marketability.



Re post-covid recovery, no disagreement there.

My response was more to dispel the notion that a military pilot could walk into any airline and be a Captain within 2 short years.   But, you are correct  that the upgrade at AC could be quick.

Just out of curiosity, were any of your former colleagues able to upgrade that quickly?

WJ is 7-8 years to upgrade, regardless whether your last ride was a Hornet or a Q400.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Word on the street is that it’s still trucking along, slowed slightly by children screaming in the background as people try to work from home. Rumours are pretty similar to what Max proposed.



Interesting.  Thanks.


----------



## kev994 (17 Dec 2020)

My buddy did his Air Canada course in March (really bad timing), at the time the course was told that most of the narrow body pilots would be AC in 2 years; retirements, expansion, and crew day changes driving it.


----------



## Mick (17 Dec 2020)

Interesting - I'd heard that new guys at AC were being told 2 years to upgrade when they show up for their courses, but haven't heard if that's actually the reality, notwithstanding 2020.

Yep, a friend of mine got the "welcome to WestJet" and "your 737 course is postponed indefinitely" calls within days of each other.


----------



## quadrapiper (18 Dec 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ...there was a built in steady state of attrition in the RCAF back then. A large number of aircrew had short service commissions, and would be released after about five years commissioned service.


Was there any cunning reason for this? Avoiding having to figure out progression for too many aircrew?


----------



## Old Sweat (18 Dec 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> Was there any cunning reason for this? Avoiding having to figure out progression for too many aircrew?



I think that it was picked up from the RAF, which apparently was doing this in the 1930s and later, to build up a pool of trained pilots available off the street in the even of war. Not 100% sure, but I developed this impression from reading credible histories.


----------



## daftandbarmy (18 Dec 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think that it was picked up from the RAF, which apparently was doing this in the 1930s and later, to build up a pool of trained pilots available off the street in the even of war. Not 100% sure, but I developed this impression from reading credible histories.



FWIW, Crab Air currently requires 12 years minimum service for their Jet Jockeys.

Fun fact: dual UK/other nationals are eligible 

https://www.raf.mod.uk/recruitment/roles/roles-finder/aircrew/pilot


----------



## quadrapiper (19 Dec 2020)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I think that it was picked up from the RAF, which apparently was doing this in the 1930s and later, to build up a pool of trained pilots available off the street in the even of war. Not 100% sure, but I developed this impression from reading credible histories.


That makes sense; haven't done any significant reading, but picked up the impression that growing the national civil pilot supply was seen as a good thing post WWI, even without the "in case of war" motivation.


----------



## FJAG (19 Dec 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> That makes sense; haven't done any significant reading, but picked up the impression that growing the national civil pilot supply was seen as a good thing post WWI, even without the "in case of war" motivation.



Germany did it by training thousands of cadet glider pilots (In the absence of being denied an air force)

 :cheers:


----------



## Blackadder1916 (19 Dec 2020)

quadrapiper said:
			
		

> That makes sense; haven't done any significant reading, but picked up the impression that growing the national civil pilot supply was seen as a good thing post WWI, even without the "in case of war" motivation.



The through-put of Cold War era RCAF pilots may not have been the result of a deliberate effort to grow a civil pilot supply or even the "in case of war" motivation.  Well, the "in case of war" reasoning may have some basis, but it was probably more to do with immediate requirements due to the size of the RCAF at the time (50s/60s) and the need for pilots to man the dozen fighter squadrons overseas on NATO duty as well as the squadrons on the NORAD mission.

The terms of service for a potential pilot back in those days were either a "permanent commission" if one had a university degree (preferably from a service college or by a subsidized plan) that basically guaranteed one could stay to a pension or a "short service commission" for those without a degree that was for six years following wings standard.  At an appropriate period of service those with a SSC could be offered a permanent commission if they were judged worthy.  I recall reading a transcript of a parliamentary committee from the mid 1950s in which one of the big giant heads from National Defence was questioned about the reasoning of putting all those trained pilots out on the street in their early to mid thirties after having provided service to the country.  While there was some discussion about the reasonableness of discharging these officers who "had no other skills" when other duties could be found for them, the upshot was that approximately 60% of SSC were converted to permanent commissions.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (21 Dec 2020)

Came across this while looking for something else.  It's somewhat applicable to the discussion as it deals with compensation of pilots and with one of the few models of "NCO pilots".

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/868940/20200121-FOI13609_AAC-Response.pdf

I particularly noted this:



> Current AAC Manning Situation
> 
> 11. Pilot risk cohorts. Analysis identifies five key AAC pilot cohorts that currently pose a
> significant manning risk and require immediate measures to improve retention. These are, in
> ...


----------



## MilEME09 (7 Jan 2021)

Here's a interesting report from 1997 that looked into this very issue.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Here's a interesting report from 1997 that looked into this very issue.


I read the report and it is very shallow and only skims the surface without addressing any issues beside saving a few bucks.  You have to remember the context of the 90s (aviation industry, FRPs, trying to save every buck, demographics, etc).

There is no chance in hell you’ll retain pilots on a WO salary in today’s world.  Remember: we’re having a retention issue.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> There is no chance in hell you’ll retain pilots on a WO salary in today’s world. Remember: we’re having a retention issue.



The NCM perspective on that might be different, though.  Many NCMs might love to be pilots if they had that option to pursue "in a NCM trade", which would be different than competing for Commissioning and the pilot trade via that avenue.  Some who apply for Pilot via UTPNCM might not be selected for Commissioning, but show aptitude towards pilot and get an offer for the WO flying trade.  They'll never fly fighter or Globemasters, but they'd still fly.  

And...for most if not all...it would be a pay/pension boost.  I'm a WO locked into Spec 1 by trade;  if WO Pilot was "Spec 4" or a different table altogether like it is for Officers, I might be one of those who gave it a whirl (well, if I was younger...).


----------



## kev994 (7 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The NCM perspective on that might be different, though.  Many NCMs might love to be pilots if they had that option to pursue "in a NCM trade", which would be different than competing for Commissioning and the pilot trade via that avenue.  Some who apply for Pilot via UTPNCM might not be selected for Commissioning, but show aptitude towards pilot and get an offer for the WO flying trade.  They'll never fly fighter or Globemasters, but they'd still fly.
> 
> And...for most if not all...it would be a pay/pension boost.  I'm a WO locked into Spec 1 by trade;  if WO Pilot was "Spec 4" or a different table altogether like it is for Officers, I might be one of those who gave it a whirl (well, if I was younger...).


That doesn’t solve any problems though, we have tons of applicants but not enough training bandwidth the replace the much more experienced people who are leaving.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Jan 2021)

I thought FAcT was going to solve all those issues.  Isn't it ready to implement "now"?


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jan 2021)

I don’t think an NCM pilot would be easier to retain or train than our current crop of Officer Pilots.  We have ”Captains for life” in our trade because of a genuine lack of desire to do anything else than fly.   They don’t get distracted by having to take higher education (ie Masters), have zero incentive to grind CAFJODs or any other DP2/3 education. 

Do NCO pilots get upgraded to Command?  Maybe they only get to monitor the AP/FD on long trans oceanic flights (aka Relief Pilot) - they wouldn’t care if they get upgraded as they have no intention of leaving to go to Big Red, right?


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2021)

Is that going to solve anything? Why would a NCM have any less civilian career ambition than an Officer pilot? If that NCM pilot had a CPL, multi-engine rating and other quals desired by Big Red, why wouldn't they try to poach him or her just as much as an Officer?


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> Is that going to solve anything? Why would a NCM have any less civilian career ambition than an Officer pilot? If that NCM pilot had a CPL, multi-engine rating and other quals desired by Big Red, why wouldn't they try to poach him or her just as much as an Officer?


It's a bit apples and oranges. In the US, flying WOs are all in the Army and they fly helicopters while the Air Force and Marines are all flying officers (and the Navy too these days although I think they had flying WOs in the past for aviation as well)

Civvy jobs for helicopter pilots are far from lucrative.

🍻


----------



## PuckChaser (8 Jan 2021)

I think that's important to state, FJAG. If we're talking about NCM pilots for the CAF are we talking about all airframes, or certain airframes? Does that mean we move TACHEL to CA and Martime Hel to RCN as there's less requirement for that shiny Big Red contracts?


----------



## kev994 (8 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> It's a bit apples and oranges. In the US, flying WOs are all in the Army and they fly helicopters while the Air Force and Marines are all flying officers (and the Navy too these days although I think they had flying WOs in the past for aviation as well)
> 
> Civvy jobs for helicopter pilots are far from lucrative.
> 
> 🍻


When I was OUTCAN with the USCG two of my coworkers had learned to fly with the US Army, they had only ever flown helicopters, zero fixed wing time. One guy got a job with a commuter airline and they gave him $50,000 to go get his fixed wing licenses. Then they gave him another $10,000 for convincing his buddy to work for them.


----------



## dimsum (8 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> PuckChaser said:
> 
> 
> > I think that's important to state, FJAG. If we're talking about NCM pilots for the CAF are we talking about all airframes, or certain airframes? Does that mean we move TACHEL to CA and Martime Hel to RCN as there's less requirement for that shiny Big Red contracts?


But RN and other naval forces also use commissioned officers as pilots.  The USN hasn't had WOs in those positions for over 50 years - I'm not sure the RN, RCN, etc ever had NCMs as pilots.

The split to other services is another issue but again, not really sure how that would solve anything if rotary-wing folks can get poached by the airlines.  Kev994's scenario may just be in the US but I suspect Canadian airlines are hiring based on total time, not just multi-engine time?  I'm not sure.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (8 Jan 2021)

I have seen Maritime Helicopter Pilots hired away by the mainline airlines, despite having very little fixed wing time in their logbook.

Apparently, that twin turbine time is valuable on civvy street.


----------



## kev994 (8 Jan 2021)

Sometimes it just depends on how the company’s insurance policy is written.


----------



## SupersonicMax (8 Jan 2021)

The minima for pilots differ from company to company. 

Here's what you need at AC (Flying time/Licensing):

2000 hours of fixed wing flying time
Canadian Airline Transport Pilot Licence (ATPL), current Group 1 (Multi-engine) Instrument Rating
Here's what you need at Westjet (as a FO):

1500 hours total time
250 hours fixed-wing pilot-in-command time
Transport Canada Airline Transport Pilot’s license (ATPL), current Group 1 (Multi-engine) Instrument Rating
Here's what you need at Westjet Encore (as a FO):

1000 hours total time
150 hours fixed wing pilot-in-command time
Transport Canada Commercial Pilot’s license (CPL), current Group 1 (Multi-engine) Instrument Rating
So, someone who has flown helicopters for their entire career would not meet the minimum requirements for Air Canada.

There are minimum flying time requirements for each license.  For example, to get a CPL, you need 200 hours in an aeroplane with a minimum of 100 hours of Pilot In Command time, and 20 hours of cross-country time.  Commercial Pilot License - Helicopter holder may credit 100 of the 200 hours required in an aeroplane provided they completed the required 65 hours of dual instruction (which should be done on Phase IIA).

The ATPL requirements are a little more complex but you can find them here.


----------



## kev994 (8 Jan 2021)

Morningstar (They have the FedEx contract in Canada) uses Total Time, but you’d still need a fixed wing commercial license with the requirements that Max pointed out. But a Caravan pilot doesn’t get paid very well and I can’t imagine anyone with minimal fixed wing hours being competitive on one of their bigger machines.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2021)

PuckChaser said:


> I think that's important to state, FJAG. If we're talking about NCM pilots for the CAF are we talking about all airframes, or certain airframes? Does that mean we move TACHEL to CA and Martime Hel to RCN as there's less requirement for that shiny Big Red contracts?


I've stopped following how flight training works in Canada so am far from an expert in this field but when we first started this portion of the thread, I took my position from the viewpoint that:


we have far more commissioned officers in the Air Force than are needed to fill the above-squadron leadership needs of the force and therefore could do with less officers;
the skill for flying aircraft is not related to rank and can be taught to anyone with the requisite skills;
helicopters and fixed wing aircraft are different beasts requiring different flying skills and should (if not already) be taught in separate streams from day one of the course if for no other reason than efficiency;
these days being an officer requires a university degree. Flying aircraft does not. We can streamline the recruiting and "time into cockpit" cycle if we have a separate flying warrant officer stream but we do need a separate career path that can move a flight student directly to a warrant officer rank after completing training (either our current NCM structure or a revised one like in the US);
a move to such a system ought to dramatically speed up the production of new pilots to replace attrition;
with a significant number of WO pilots, we can keep people more within the cockpit and in squadrons and not cycling through unnecessary leadership development courses, staff positions etc;
I'm pay neutral on this. If we think we need to pay pilots significantly more, than we can do it through specialist allowances. There is no need to make pay rank dependent.
For me the proof in the pudding is that the system works successfully for the US Army Aviation. I'll hold back my opinion as to whether or not it also works with fast air or multi-engine in hard Air Force and Navy squadrons. although at first blush I see no reason why it couldn't so that some positions in the squadron are commissioned and others are not. (I note for example that the US Coast Guard aviators are commissioned, but do not need a degree to join - having achieved appropriate marks on five key College Level Examination Program tests is sufficient.)

For me the key factor is that IMHO the commissioned officer system is designed to provide a) leadership and b) a development system for senior management. Only some pilots need to be leaders and even fewer need to be senior managers. A separate stream that puts a large number of folks into the cockpit quickly and keeps them working full-time in the squadrons regardless of air frame and regardless how long their career is seems to me a positive thing.


🍻


----------



## kev994 (8 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> I've stopped following how flight training works in Canada so am far from an expert in this field but when we first started this portion of the thread, I took my position from the viewpoint that:
> 
> 
> we have far more commissioned officers in the Air Force than are needed to fill the above-squadron leadership needs of the force and therefore could do with less officers;
> ...


We have hundreds of BTL pilots waiting for various courses, I don’t see how changing their rank is going to dramatically increase production.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> We have hundreds of BTL pilots waiting for various courses, I don’t see how changing their rank is going to dramatically increase production.


How many of those are in RMC etc?

If I have things right, RMC is still four years and for an aviation pilot you need the following additional training:

BOTC - roughly 3 months;
Second Language training - roughly up to 7 months;
Primary flight training - Portage - roughly 3 months;
Basic flight training - Moose Jaw - roughly 8 months; and
Advanced flight rotary - Portage - roughly 4 months
Assuming some of that is done during the summer months while at university (maybe 8-9 months in total) that still means at least another 16 months of training after graduation to get wings status - so roughly 5.3 years in service on BTL from commencement to wings.

If we take a WO candidate you skip the university and language training and end up with:

a BOTC equivalent - roughly 3 months (some of which could be skipped for serving NCMs); and
flight training - roughly 15 months.
That has your candidate in the BTL stream  for only 1.5 years from commencement to wings.

(As an aside the US Army "High school to flight school" candidate will do:

Basic combat training - 9 weeks;
Warrant Officer Candidate School - 6 weeks;
Initial Entry Rotary Wing - 7.5 months; and
Advanced Graduate Flight Training - 3-6 months depending on specialty
Basically 15-18 months from commencement to wings)

It reduces the size of the BTL to probably roughly 1/2 of what it is now (assuming that you still need to put some candidates through the full commissioning stream) and gives you the ability to ramp up speedy production when needed.

🍻


----------



## kev994 (8 Jan 2021)

Excluding those at RMC. My unit has ~ a dozen 2Lts waiting for BFT, Multi/Helo School, plus ~8 Lt/Capt waiting for their Herc course with 5 or 6 more on their way that we know about. There are pilot 2Lts at the Wing OR pushing paper, they’re everywhere. Sure, you’d save 4 years of RMC but it’s still not going to increase the number that we can put through Moose Jaw, Portage, or any of the OTUs, not to mention that they’re still training for 2-3 more years after they show up at the unit post-OTU. So it doesn’t increase production, it just makes them younger.


----------



## FJAG (8 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> Excluding those at RMC. My unit has ~ a dozen 2Lts waiting for BFT, Multi/Helo School, plus ~8 Lt/Capt waiting for their Herc course with 5 or 6 more on their way that we know about. There are pilot 2Lts at the Wing OR pushing paper, they’re everywhere. Sure, you’d save 4 years of RMC but it’s still not going to increase the number that we can put through Moose Jaw, Portage, or any of the OTUs, not to mention that they’re still training for 2-3 more years after they show up at the unit post-OTU. So it doesn’t increase production, it just makes them younger.


Maybe with the money we save on the BTL and professors at RMc etc (not to mention 2nd Lts pushing paper) we could afford to hire a few more pilot instructors and buy a few more gallons of kerosene to increase the throughput.

🙂


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> Excluding those at RMC. My unit has ~ a dozen 2Lts waiting for BFT, Multi/Helo School, plus ~8 Lt/Capt waiting for their Herc course with 5 or 6 more on their way that we know about. There are pilot 2Lts at the Wing OR pushing paper, they’re everywhere. Sure, you’d save 4 years of RMC but it’s still not going to increase the number that we can put through Moose Jaw, Portage, or any of the OTUs, not to mention that they’re still training for 2-3 more years after they show up at the unit post-OTU. So it doesn’t increase production, it just makes them younger.


Outside observation, given the training problem isn't unique to just pilots, perhaps we have to look more at the long term not the short term. Long term could we create a larger pilot instructor Cadre by having pilot NCOs? Would be an interesting topic of study.


----------



## Zoomie (10 Jan 2021)

Is the training backlog due to insufficient # of QFI’s, # of aircraft avail to fly each wave, training airspace, fuel (YFR), etc etc?  

 We are a different airforce from the 60s and 70s, where there were training bases all over the prairies, hundreds of airplanes to train on,  uncontested airspace to train within.  We are much more lean, reliant on expensive simulation devices and have a finite budget to work within.   

Making NCO pilots won’t boost numbers or magically produce pilots, pumping another billion dollars into 2CAD would make a difference.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Is the training backlog due to insufficient # of QFI’s, # of aircraft avail to fly each wave, training airspace, fuel (YFR), etc etc?
> 
> Making NCO pilots won’t boost numbers or magically produce pilots, pumping another billion dollars into 2CAD would make a difference.


If its budgetary (fuel for example) that's one issue, if its AC or trainers then I think we need to look long term for a solution in order to achieve long term gain. I have said it a few times for the army side of things to temporarily rob units of instructors to push more people through the schools. Perhaps we need to do the same for the RCAF, pull two pilots from each squadron back to the flying schools, add contractors as needed, after about 2 years we would hopefully start clearing backlog.


----------



## kev994 (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> If its budgetary (fuel for example) that's one issue, if its AC or trainers then I think we need to look long term for a solution in order to achieve long term gain. I have said it a few times for the army side of things to temporarily rob units of instructors to push more people through the schools. Perhaps we need to do the same for the RCAF, pull two pilots from each squadron back to the flying schools, add contractors as needed, after about 2 years we would hopefully start clearing backlog.


We did that several times over. It just moves the problem around. At one point at the unit we had 14 First Officers and 3 instructors. It was a struggle to keep them all current let alone teach them to be Aircraft Commanders.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2021)

The problem for aircrew (not just pilots, but also ACSO and AESOp production) is not at the winged grad level. We have an ample supply of on OJT folks in all three aircrew occupations waiting for the Cyclone OTU. That is where the bottleneck exists. There are just not sufficient quantities of trained and experienced aircrew to simultaneously carry out operations at sea and have a sufficiently large enough instructor cadre (we need both simultaneously. If you shutdown sea going deployments to feed the school house, in a year or so your pool of future instructors will have dried up, because no one will have gained the operational experience and development they need to be an instructor) to beat down the backlog. This is what as known as a wicked problem- there are no magic solutions besides time and patience (Well, maybe culling the number of staff jobs that have to be filled would help some. And better aircraft serviceability). Interestingly, the MH fleet is not really short of pilots relative to the other aircrew. Our problems lie more at the ACSO and AESOp  level. My sense is that introducing a WO pilot stream would not help 12 Wing.


----------



## dimsum (10 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> This is what as known as a wicked problem- there are no magic solutions besides time and patience (Well, maybe culling the number of staff jobs that have to be filled would help some. And better aircraft serviceability). Interestingly, the MH fleet is not really short of pilots relative to the other aircrew. Our problems lie more at the ACSO and AESOp  level. My sense is that introducing a WO pilot stream would not help 12 Wing.


Agreed.  The best way is to remove the staff jobs, which hopefully the Air Ops Officer trade will help.  There will probably always be a need for aircrew staff jobs as SMEs, etc but do they need to be filling Wing Ops and Sqn Ops positions?  

I also agree that everyone looks at Pilot retention (with the obvious job transfer dilemma) but ACSO/AES Op retention is a problem too.  I can't remember if it's still true, but for a while ACSO was more in the red than Pilot.  For the Aurora and MH fleets, not having enough of those makes the aircraft flyable, but not able to do its job.  

If we were to expand the discussion, there were NCM Navigators in WWII but again, it wouldn't help the current personnel throughput problem.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Making NCO pilots won’t boost numbers or magically produce pilots, pumping another billion dollars into 2CAD would make a difference a lot more staff officers in Winnipeg.


FTFY.


----------



## Good2Golf (10 Jan 2021)

In the short-sighted view of supporting Ops in as unreduced manner as possible, I’m hard pressed to find meaningful examples where the FG side of things at the respective (all Aircrew MOSIDs) OTUs and OTFs, hasn’t be disproportionately under staffed.  This is a significantly greater issue than what an optimal Officer/NCM aircrew composition could look like.


----------



## FJAG (10 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The problem for aircrew (not just pilots, but also ACSO and AESOp production) is not at the winged grad level. We have an ample supply of on OJT folks in all three aircrew occupations waiting for the Cyclone OTU. That is where the bottleneck exists. There are just not sufficient quantities of trained and experienced aircrew to simultaneously carry out operations at sea and have a sufficiently large enough instructor cadre (we need both simultaneously. If you shutdown sea going deployments to feed the school house, in a year or so your pool of future instructors will have dried up, because no one will have gained the operational experience and development they need to be an instructor) to beat down the backlog. This is what as known as a wicked problem- there are no magic solutions besides time and patience (Well, maybe culling the number of staff jobs that have to be filled would help some. And better aircraft serviceability). Interestingly, the MH fleet is not really short of pilots relative to the other aircrew. Our problems lie more at the ACSO and AESOp  level. My sense is that introducing a WO pilot stream would not help 12 Wing.


That's a very astute definition of the problem but I think when faced with a conundrum like this you can't simply ignore it and go on as per usual; you have to pick the least evil solution and go with it.

On the one hand we know we have insufficient throughput to grow (or sustain) the force due to a shortfall of human and equipment resources. On the other hand, we suspect that allocating resources from operational units to training units could impair the pool of future instructors. 

IMHO, a semi-pause where a portion of the resources are switched from operations to training for a few years will generate a larger force downstream to reallocate to operations and consequentially the availability of more operationally experienced instructors. Whether that actually has a lasting impact on retaining instructor capable personnel is a question and is probably a risk that may need to be taken. (I'll leave open the question as to whether or not we have enough simulators to ramp up throughput but that too may be a resource allocation that requires solving)

In this case the usual rule that "insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result" applies. If throughput is a recognized ongoing problem, it must be solved, not ignored.

As an aside, back in the seventies I went to Staff School in Toronto where one of my syndicate mates was a CF 104 pilot (I told you I'm that old). I was surprised to learn that when he graduated from his CF104 course, he was immediately retained at the school as a CF104 pilot instructor rather than being sent to an operational squadron. Apparently the best students were immediately rerolled to doing basic instruction of the next few serials of new students and then after a few years sent on to Germany.

🍻


----------



## kev994 (10 Jan 2021)

That works on a training aircraft where it takes a year to make an instructor, but not on a complex aircraft with a complex mission set. A Herc, for example, it takes ~4 years to make an instructor and not everyone can do it. And only the units have the capacity to make Aircraft Commanders and instructors, so it doesn’t really work for the OTUs. 
Throwing piles of cash at the instructors until they stop leaving, now that might work.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

kev994 said:


> That works on a training aircraft where it takes a year to make an instructor, but not on a complex aircraft with a complex mission set. A Herc, for example, it takes ~4 years to make an instructor and not everyone can do it. And only the units have the capacity to make Aircraft Commanders and instructors, so it doesn’t really work for the OTUs.
> Throwing piles of cash at the instructors until they stop leaving, now that might work.


Would we be able to ask our allies for assistance on some platforms? Or contract more outside instructors? Hercs for example?


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2021)

The issue is not production of new wing grads.  The issue is the retention of experienced aviators in the operational units.  We need to generate at the line unit level (ie: make a new Hornet driver a combat-ready wingman, the a 2-ship lead, then a 4-ship lead and finally an instructor - similar concepts apply to other communities) Without that experience, the system cannot pull itself ouf of the hole.  Having 17 brand new wingman on squadron doesn’t do anyone any good.  What happens and what has been happenning for several years now is that those few instructors get abused and fly most of the hours available, leaving those that really need the hours, the inexperienced, with flying the bare minimum (and sometimes less).

There are several ways to do this, some that are within the CAF’s control such as keeping people at line units longer (which leads to a reduction of NWG production and some staff-jobs that go unfilled) and others, make being in the CAF more tolerable and others, which the CAF can only influence, by giving people the compensation they deserve.


----------



## kev994 (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Would we be able to ask our allies for assistance on some platforms? Or contract more outside instructors? Hercs for example?


The ground school at the OTU has been contracted to civilians for a long time already. I think they’re making a run at beefing up the instructors at the OTU again this APS, but it’s a bit of a balancing act since the units need instructors to keep making Aircraft Commanders, and then the ability to teach instructors is a whole other skill set that’s perhaps under-appreciated on paper. There’s no specific qualifications for teaching instructors but the guy who just finished his IP upgrade likely can’t do it.


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> The issue is not production of new wing grads.  The issue is the retention of experienced aviators in the operational units.  We need to generate at the line unit level (ie: make a new Hornet driver a combat-ready wingman, the a 2-ship lead, then a 4-ship lead and finally an instructor - similar concepts apply to other communities) Without that experience, the system cannot pull itself ouf of the hole.  Having 17 brand new wingman on squadron doesn’t do anyone any good.  What happens and what has been happenning for several years now is that those few instructors get abused and fly most of the hours available, leaving those that really need the hours, the inexperienced, with flying the bare minimum (and sometimes less).
> 
> There are several ways to do this, some that are within the CAF’s control such as keeping people at line units longer (which leads to a reduction of NWG production and some staff-jobs that go unfilled) and others, make being in the CAF more tolerable and others, which the CAF can only influence, by giving people the compensation they deserve.



Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?


----------



## FJAG (10 Jan 2021)

Not about to argue (a lot) with guys in the field (we get that a lot from the grunts in the arty forums) but, correct me if I'm wrong here: with respect to a given airframe there's basic instruction in just the operation of the airframe and then more complex instructions on it's operational/combat use, correct? And secondly, is there a formal course for teaching a 2-ship lead or 4-ship lead or is this conducted at the operational squadron more or less as OJT?

🍻


----------



## kev994 (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?


For the legacy Herc airframe hours tends to be the limiting factor, they need to be overhauled every so many hours and there’s limited capacity for the contractor to do it. YFR is rarely a problem, there’s usually more money for jet fuel if you need it, the odd year there’s been issues. The techs are in the same boat as us though, so even if we had more airframes they might not have the capacity/experience to keep them running. Then there’s all the other trades, a couple years ago there was a desperate shortage of Flight Engineers, I think that’s sorted out though.
Edit: as Max mentioned the limited number instructors also tends to be an issue.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2021)

Respectfully, new wing grads is part of the problem set.  When your pers production system can't meet current attrition rates you need to retain people longer; CAF retention is relatively strong compared to allies.

Hundreds of BTL pilots awaiting training is a major resource drain, both in cost and lost years of obligatory service post OFP.  Successive RCAF commanders have failed to address it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (10 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Respectfully, new wing grads is part of the problem set.  When your pers production system can't meet current attrition rates you need to retain people longer; CAF retention is relatively strong compared to allies.
> 
> Hundreds of BTL pilots awaiting training is a major resource drain, both in cost and lost years of obligatory service post OFP.  Successive RCAF commanders have failed to address it.


Right, but that is what I have been saying- it is a drain. A pilot who is waiting for an OTU slot counts against an operational line serial. Operational Training Unit/Op Sqn absorption rates are the issue. 2/3 CFFTS pump out an oversupply of what the Sqns can absorb but everyone keeps screaming to strip trained folks out of Ops Sqns to go to Moose Jaw/Portage. In my view, if we can stop raiding Op Sqns for experienced folks for even 24 months, we could catch up and get healthy.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2021)

The concept of flying jobs getting in the way of more important staff jobs needs to be excised from certain sectors of the RCAF... how many aircrew are in non-flying positions despite wanting to fly?


----------



## MilEME09 (10 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> The concept of flying jobs getting in the way of more important staff jobs needs to be excised from certain sectors of the RCAF... how many aircrew are in non-flying positions despite wanting to fly?


Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?


----------



## dimsum (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?


AKA the Air Operations Officer.









						Air Operations Officer (AOO)
					

The Evolution of Support: The Air Operations Officer   Aerospace Control Officers (AEC) make ideal candidates for an occupational transfer to the new Air Operations Officer (AOO) occupation. If you are interested in becoming an AOO, talk to your local Personnel Selection Officer. Photo: Sgt Paz...




					navy.ca


----------



## Blackadder1916 (10 Jan 2021)

This paper from CFC, touching on some of the issues discussed here, may be of interest to some.

RCAF LEADERSHIP AND THE CULT OF THE PILOT: REASSESSING A WWII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE


			https://www.cfc.forces.gc.ca/259/290/405/286/snook.pdf


----------



## dimsum (10 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> This paper from CFC, touching on some of the issues discussed here, may be of interest to some.
> 
> RCAF LEADERSHIP AND THE CULT OF THE PILOT: REASSESSING A WWII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
> 
> ...


I wonder if that paper was part of the reasoning for the start of the Air Ops Officer trade?  I know it's been debated before, but could AOOs eventually command Sqns, Wings, etc?  

It would take a big cultural shift (not just Pilots but ACSOs, etc) to make it happen.


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2021)

MilEME09 said:


> Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?



Not really. Besides, yearly flying rates is a delicate balance between procurement of parts (linked to our National Procurement budgets managed by DGAEPM), maintenance capacity (linked to maintainers and their own qualifications), POL prices and fleet Estimated Life Expectancy (linked to Capital procurement - You fly more, your aircraft will last you less time and require a replacement sooner).  Each fleet is allocated a number each year based on that balance.  IIRC, most fleets, in the recent past under-flew their allocations (or at least the RCAF did as a whole). Merely increasing flying hours will not fix the issue - you still need people flying those hours.  And in order to fly productive hours, we need Instructor Pilots, which we are short on.  IPs are already close to burnout and increasing their workload will just push them out, IMO.



FJAG said:


> Not about to argue (a lot) with guys in the field (we get that a lot from the grunts in the arty forums) but, correct me if I'm wrong here: with respect to a given airframe there's basic instruction in just the operation of the airframe and then more complex instructions on it's operational/combat use, correct? And secondly, is there a formal course for teaching a 2-ship lead or 4-ship lead or is this conducted at the operational squadron more or less as OJT?
> 
> 🍻


That is correct.  There are formal courses to teach wingmen, 2-ship leads, 4-ship leads (we call those "tactical levels")and there is a different qualification to assess their combat readiness in those positions.  A year's worth of flying is a balance between giving guys some "free" time in the aircraft to learn without supervision (we call that Continuous Training - CT.  People fly in the position they are qualified to do) and banging away at upgrades (we call those upgrades an X board, in reference to the board with the syllabus on it, and once a mission is completed, we X it out). There are different philosophy on who and when to upgrade. My take on it is to put people on the upgrade syllabus as soon as they are mature enough and tactically ready. 

Given our mission set is expansive (Defensive Counter Air, NORAD (which is subdivided in incepteption of Dangerous Military Aircraft, Operation Noble Eagle (airliners) and counter-narcotics), Close Air Support, Scene Commander/Armed Recce and self-escort strike), it is a really difficult balance to be had. You want people to practice in their tactical level in scenarios that go beyond what was taught on the syllabus but we also need to push people through the upgrade programs to replace people leaving.  3 years on Squadron is not nearly enough to get a good return on investment.



MilEME09 said:


> Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?



Yes but not all positions.  Certain positions, such as positions within the Fighter Capability Office (Directorate of Air Requirements for Fighters) or at 1 Canadian Air Division (such as positions within the Senior Staff Officer Fighter shop), NORAD and NATO need an intimate understanding of the aircraft, the tactics and the environment we operate into.  Having said this, there is a lot of fat indeed but in the last 4 years, we have eaten that fat.  We have issues filling what we consider our "core" positions.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> 3 years on Squadron is not nearly enough to get a good return on investment.


What do you feel would be reasonable first / second tour lengths to adequately generate effective combat power (understanding that you're discussing fighter pilots and not necessarily other airframes or aircrew types)?


----------



## SupersonicMax (10 Jan 2021)

Gut feel: at least 6 years. I'd have to crunch some numbers to see what is realistic.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Jan 2021)

Blackadder1916 said:


> This paper from CFC, touching on some of the issues discussed here, may be of interest to some.
> 
> RCAF LEADERSHIP AND THE CULT OF THE PILOT: REASSESSING A WWII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
> 
> ...


Like the Army has the 'Cult of the Combat Arms Officer' and the Navy has the 'Cult of the Naval Warfare Officer'? 

Just sayin'


----------



## FJAG (11 Jan 2021)

daftandbarmy said:


> Like the Army has the 'Cult of the Combat Arms Officer' and the Navy has the 'Cult of the Naval Warfare Officer'?
> 
> Just sayin'


Which was fine with me when the artillery was part of the combat arms. This combat support thing ...........  😠 

🍻


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2021)

Aircrew don’t reach OFP until they have completed their first OTU.   2Lts , Lts and Captains who are in the training system still or posted to their first squadron aren’t taking up a line number at their units, they are all consider BTL.  Oblig service doesn’t exist for flying, it’s just a Restricted Release Period, which has recently been extended to 12 years for pilots.   First tour pilots are guaranteed 4 years for their first flying tour, most second (and third) tour pilots get 4 years too (some get 7 years).  Majors only get 3 years and then off to something else (cycle for career O-4s is Fly-Staff-Fly-Staff)


----------



## SeaKingTacco (11 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> Aircrew don’t reach OFP until they have completed their first OTU.   2Lts , Lts and Captains who are in the training system still or posted to their first squadron aren’t taking up a line number at their units, they are all consider BTL.  Oblig service doesn’t exist for flying, it’s just a Restricted Release Period, which has recently been extended to 12 years for pilots.   First tour pilots are guaranteed 4 years for their first flying tour, most second (and third) tour pilots get 4 years too (some get 7 years).  Majors only get 3 years and then off to something else (cycle for career O-4s is Fly-Staff-Fly-Staff)


That is not completely correct. I bet that if you look into it, you will discover that aircrew posted to your Sqn awaiting an OTU are, in fact, taking up a line serial. I know for a fact that is the case in the MH Sqns.


----------



## dimsum (11 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> That is not completely correct. I bet that if you look into it, you will discover that aircrew posted to your Sqn awaiting an OTU are, in fact, taking up a line serial. I know for a fact that is the case in the MH Sqns.


I was definitely on a line serial after wings but before OTU.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (11 Jan 2021)

There's likely some variation on this between fleets, even Sqns.  I was in an MMO position until graduating MOAT;  makes sense as I didn't have the qual to hold a line NASO position.  

I'm not sure what the CAF or RCAF official policy is on the subj, but I'm sure whatever it is...it isn't being followed 100%.


----------



## Good2Golf (11 Jan 2021)

Tac Hel appears the same as MH.  New wings grads are posted to a unit line ID position in the squadron’s establishment.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2021)

If your unit has an open line number - the CM will post them in to it.  If you are a Pri A unit that needs its line numbers full of OFP aircrew - DMilC will use the MMO/BTL tool for all non-OFP pers.

This is a national (read DMilC) policy - same goes for non-OFP Captains not receiving PERs.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

Other than remusters, the phrase "non-OFP Captain" should not exist.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Other than remusters, the phrase "non-OFP Captain" should not exist.



I am not sure how you could do this, without heavily penalizing people awaiting their OTU (some of my friends waited 3 years!)

In order to be promoted to Lt/Capt, an officer needs DP1 completed (basic training, environmental qualification and basic occupational qualification).

In the pilot's case, basic occupational qualification is the reception of Wings.  Given pilot training is lengthy, this often equates to a promotion to Captain after receiving wings. If you want to move that stake to OTU completion, That's an additional 2-3 years as a 2Lt rather than a Captain, a reduction of $84K in compensation. If the system was streamlined and fast, I could agree to this.  In its current state, not a chance I would penalize people because of the system's ineptitude at planning.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

Given the size of the BTL backlog drives this in part, should the RCAF reduce pilot recruiting until the backlog is largely eliminated?


----------



## dimsum (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Other than remusters, the phrase "non-OFP Captain" should not exist.


That's not limited to Pilots.  ACSOs have at least a year (usually more like 18-24 months) wait until OTU after wings.  OTU itself can be something like 8-10 months, dependent on aircraft type. 

Most folks in the OTU are Capts, or get promoted to Capt by the end of the course.  I can think of maybe 1-2 people who were post-OTU Lts when I was on squadron.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2021)

If we reduce the SIP for pilots/acsos this year, will DMCG increase the SIP dramatically when the backlog is gone and we need to feed the schools?  Most probably they will just give the SIP to other trades and then conveniently forget about that when we ask for what we didn't spend - almost exactly like spending your L101 every year...


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2021)

OFP definition for Pilots/ACSO/FE/AESOP is completion of their first aircraft certification post Wings.   I have a Captain Pilot that I've already deployed to Kuwait and is awaiting the conversion training for CC-2995 (late 2022) - he won't be OFP until after he graduates that course.  This definition was made in order to stop non-OFP aircrew from collecting aircrew allowance - side effect being that they aren't OFP and hence won't receive an annual PER (even if they deploy).


----------



## dimsum (11 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> side effect being that they aren't OFP and hence won't receive an annual PER (even if they deploy).


Is that new?  I recalled getting Annual and Theatre PERs pre-OTU.  

So does that mean the Theatre PER means nothing for that member because they are pre-OTU?  That's not right.


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

DGMC doesn't assign SIP.  And there are sufficient pilots in the pipeline for about six years... All drawing salary while they wait their turn, all counting against the CAF's maximum number of personnel... BTL is part of the 71,500 target; if BTL exceeds allocation, then TES isn't filled.

Until the RCAF can sort out training progession and capacity to get to OFP in a reasonable timeline, why recruit in numbers that merely perpetuate or worsen the problem?


----------



## dimsum (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Until the RCAF can sort out training progession and capacity to get to OFP in a reasonable timeline, why recruit in numbers that merely perpetuate or worsen the problem?


I wonder why the CAF doesn't make widespread use of lateral recruitment.  I've met some Brits and a Belgian who have come over, but it's not a common thing.  The Australians are famous for poaching trained military members, so why can't we?  

There would be a bit of integration training of course, but you're saving a ton of training costs compared to someone off the street.


----------



## Zoomie (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Until the RCAF can sort out training progession and capacity to get to OFP in a reasonable timeline, why recruit in numbers that merely perpetuate or worsen the problem?


Agree 100% - we don't need more baby-Pilots.  We need to retain our experience via appropriate methods and stop the airline poach.  COVID doesn't count either as the hiring spree will continue in less than 2 years.  Max has already addressed this numerous times - the only way to retain is to be competitive.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> . . . The Australians are famous for poaching trained military members, so why can't we?



Australia December 2019






Canada December 2019


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

There's the urban legend that a non-zero number of pilots accepted FRP from Canada, incentives from the Aussies, then incentives from Canada, all to jump to and fro amongst the two militaries.


----------



## kev994 (11 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> I wonder why the CAF doesn't make widespread use of lateral recruitment.  I've met some Brits and a Belgian who have come over, but it's not a common thing.  The Australians are famous for poaching trained military members, so why can't we?
> 
> There would be a bit of integration training of course, but you're saving a ton of training costs compared to someone off the street.


We did a bit when the Brits downsized, 435 had a former RAF pilot. I recall CBC did a short article criticizing the hiring of a tanker pilot that didn’t have any A310 time. They didn’t bother pointing out that he had a crap-ton of Herc time and a crap-ton of tanker time, and he was hired for the Herc tanker. Facts don’t make good news I guess.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (11 Jan 2021)

From a British Army Air Corps report (2015) that I linked to in a previous post on this thread, they also discussed the loss of pilots to private sector and foreign militaries.



> e. Foreign military.
> 
> (1) *Canadian Air Force.   The Canadian Air Force are currently recruiting OF3 / 4 to fill structural gaps in their manning as they cannot grow their own aircrew at this rank. The financial package is not known but is comparable to UK salary but includes Canadian citizenship and continues to attract those seeking a perceived improvement to their work / life balance and quality of life.*
> 
> ...


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

There are Canadian immigration / employment regulations, applicable to the CAF as well, which have the effect of slowing the process.


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> There are Canadian immigration / employment regulations, applicable to the CAF as well, which have the effect of slowing the process.


They tend to get put aside when we hire experienced folks.  I know 4-5 pilots that were hired from the French Air Force, Belgian Air Component and Royal Navy.  Their journey was rather quick.


----------



## kev994 (11 Jan 2021)

I can’t seem to find the bit complaining about hiring an AAR pilot without A310 experience, but it does seem the big hoopla was about hiring foreign pilots when the Air Force could ‘just’ train them. https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.the...ing_foreign_pilots_to_fly_frontline_jets.html


----------



## dapaterson (11 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> They tend to get put aside when we hire experienced folks.  I know 4-5 pilots that were hired from the French Air Force, Belgian Air Component and Royal Navy.  Their journey was rather quick.


Less "put aside" than "staffs in the recruiting and PLAR systems ordered to do their jobs effectively".


----------



## SupersonicMax (11 Jan 2021)

dapaterson said:


> Less "put aside" than "staffs in the recruiting and PLAR systems ordered to do their jobs effectively".


More like pre-established processes.  Those processes were established when the program was stood up back in the early 2010s.  They were not given citizenship but rather a fast-tracked permanent residency.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> Is that new? I recalled getting Annual and Theatre PERs pre-OTU.


It isn't new, and it isn't new that mbrs who were actually on the BTL received PERs, either.  It also isn't new that people who supposed to get PERs were told they weren't entitled to a PER "because they weren't MOAT qualified" (which actually  had nothing to do with the equation at that time).  LRP isn't_ exceptional_ at understanding/applying CFPAS policy.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> The problem for aircrew (not just pilots, but also ACSO and AESOp production) is not at the winged grad level. We have an ample supply of on OJT folks in all three aircrew occupations waiting for the Cyclone OTU. That is where the bottleneck exists. There are just not sufficient quantities of trained and experienced aircrew to simultaneously carry out operations at sea and have a sufficiently large enough instructor cadre (we need both simultaneously. If you shutdown sea going deployments to feed the school house, in a year or so your pool of future instructors will have dried up, because no one will have gained the operational experience and development they need to be an instructor) to beat down the backlog. This is what as known as a wicked problem- there are no magic solutions besides time and patience (Well, maybe culling the number of staff jobs that have to be filled would help some. And better aircraft serviceability). Interestingly, the MH fleet is not really short of pilots relative to the other aircrew. Our problems lie more at the ACSO and AESOp level. My sense is that introducing a WO pilot stream would not help 12 Wing.



What if the trg and staff from 402 were re-allocated to their respective fleets and the "common to all" training at 402 was incorporated into the fleet OTU/MOAT courses?  402 doesn't produce OFP aircrew...is there continued justification for its existence (other than it will be swept into the FAcT dustpan)?


----------



## dimsum (12 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> What if the trg and staff from 402 were re-allocated to their respective fleets and the "common to all" training at 402 was incorporated into the fleet OTU/MOAT courses?  402 doesn't produce OFP aircrew...is there continued justification for its existence (other than it will be swept into the FAcT dustpan)?


We're straying from the topic, but how would ACSOs and AES Ops get streamed to those fleets?  Purely their preference?  Pick from a hat?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Jan 2021)

Well, officially, 402 isn't a "selection school".  I've advocated before for the need for a (stronger) selection process and used the SAR Tech selection as a successful RCAF implementation of "test the mbr for suitability before investing training and YFR into them".  Needs of the service, posting preferences, QOL considerations (spouse job, etc) could .  I can't speak for ACSOs, but AES Ops the "needs of the trade" trump all else anyways.  In recent times, people who wanted MH were fed to LRP because of the OTU situation.   In the future, if say, FWSAR needs an infusion of button monkeys, that is where they will go...despite all else.  

If OTU is the bottleneck, what resources do we have "now" that can be reallocated to the OTUs?  Or do we just maintain the orbit on the status quo, expecting FAcT to solve the issue?  I'm speaking to all MOSIDs that FAcT is (supposed to be) addressing, so it kind of makes on 'on topic'?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jan 2021)

dimsum said:


> We're straying from the topic, but how would ACSOs and AES Ops get streamed to those fleets?  Purely their preference?  Pick from a hat?


It is a reasonable question. The Nav School prepared me not at all for the Sea King OTU. I could have basically had some Met/ air regs ground school, skipped the CT-142 and graduated from 406 Sqn as a TACCO with about the same results. Now, the course content has changed somewhat since then...

So- is the juice of the basic flying schools worth all the squeeze? Can we do more at the OTUs (assuming resources get shifted back to them) and less at Portage/Moose Jaw/Winnipeg? How much do we need to keep selecting during aircrew training and how much do we train? 

I get that a jet ranger/CT-142/Harvard 2 hours are way cheaper than Cyclone/Aurora/CF-18 hours, but what is the balance that needs to struck between basic air sense/aircraft handling and the advanced stuff?


----------



## BurmaShave (12 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is a reasonable question. The Nav School prepared me not at all for the Sea King OTU. I could have basically had some Met/ air regs ground school, skipped the CT-142 and graduated from 406 Sqn as a TACCO with about the same results. Now, the course content has changed somewhat since then...
> 
> So- is the juice of the basic flying schools worth all the squeeze? Can we do more at the OTUs (assuming resources get shifted back to them) and less at Portage/Moose Jaw/Winnipeg? How much do we need to keep selecting during aircrew training and how much do we train?
> 
> I get that a jet ranger/CT-142/Harvard 2 hours are way cheaper than Cyclone/Aurora/CF-18 hours, but what is the balance that needs to struck between basic air sense/aircraft handling and the advanced stuff?


From a new pilot perspective, I think we need to go the other way. The multi-engine course is super short; it's basically an exposure course. 5 clearhood (basic aircraft handling) rides, test, 2 night flights, 2 nav trips, 2 round robins, 2 cross countries, final test. I have less than 50 hours multi-engine (plus 50 sim, you basically do the course in the sim first and then confirm in the aircraft). Everything else, I'm learning on my next airframe. King Air is under $2k per hour. Globemaster is 25x that. When I was in Portage, there was pushback from the OTUs 'cause too many people were sucking/failing; they wanted a 150 hour multi-engine course.

Right now, we already train at a pace that, by civilian standards, is absurd. 18 hours on the Grob (and by the end of it, you're doing loops), then right onto 1100hp of Harvard. 100 hours of that - covering basic flying, aerobatics, instrument (blind) flying, 500ft navigation, and formation flying - and then (in my case), you're on to the aforementioned multi course. So here I am, a winged pilot with 160 hours. 160 hours isn't even enough for a commercial pilot's license (the "can fly crappy bush planes" one, not the 1500 hour "can fly for Air Canada" one).


----------



## SeaKingTacco (12 Jan 2021)

BurmaShave said:


> From a new pilot perspective, I think we need to go the other way. The multi-engine course is super short; it's basically an exposure course. 5 clearhood (basic aircraft handling) rides, test, 2 night flights, 2 nav trips, 2 round robins, 2 cross countries, final test. I have less than 50 hours multi-engine (plus 50 sim, you basically do the course in the sim first and then confirm in the aircraft). Everything else, I'm learning on my next airframe. King Air is under $2k per hour. Globemaster is 25x that. When I was in Portage, there was pushback from the OTUs 'cause too many people were sucking/failing; they wanted a 150 hour multi-engine course.
> 
> Right now, we already train at a pace that, by civilian standards, is absurd. 18 hours on the Grob (and by the end of it, you're doing loops), then right onto 1100hp of Harvard. 100 hours of that - covering basic flying, aerobatics, instrument (blind) flying, 500ft navigation, and formation flying - and then (in my case), you're on to the aforementioned multi course. So here I am, a winged pilot with 160 hours. 160 hours isn't even enough for a commercial pilot's license (the "can fly crappy bush planes" one, not the 1500 hour "can fly for Air Canada" one).


Thanks Burmashave. I asked my question because I am genuinely curious what the basic school’s flying syllabus is these days. So, it seems we cannot get much more efficiency in time out of the 2/3 CFFTS mill.


----------



## dimsum (13 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> It is a reasonable question. The Nav School prepared me not at all for the Sea King OTU. I could have basically had some Met/ air regs ground school, skipped the CT-142 and graduated from 406 Sqn as a TACCO with about the same results. Now, the course content has changed somewhat since then...


That's fair.  There was a post on Vector Check about a separate rotary Pilot trg system without Harvard II, so maybe there's a reasonable proposal for a separate MH TACCO/AES Op training stream as well that bypasses the flying portion of Nav school.

Mods:  We can split the ACSO/AES Op discussion from this.


----------



## Zoomie (13 Jan 2021)

We had Phase 2 Grob for a while - helo pilots identified early on during Phase 1 that they wanted to fly fling wing - they never went to MJ (ever).   Spent their entire training in Portage after doing Ph2 in the Grob vice H2 - I suspect we could skip the Grob completely.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (13 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> We had Phase 2 Grob for a while - helo pilots identified early on during Phase 1 that they wanted to fly fling wing - they never went to MJ (ever).   Spent their entire training in Portage after doing Ph2 in the Grob vice H2 - I suspect we could skip the Grob completely.


I actually never, ever understood why we sent all of our pilots to Moose Jaw and gave them fixed wing time, when 50% of them are destined to be rotary wing pilots, forever.  Would that not be an obvious solution to some of the throughput issues- have two streams of rotary pilot and fixed wing pilot? Honest question- not trolling.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2021)

There are phases of flight where aircraft and helicopters behave near identically, particularly when it comes to instrument flight. The speed at which instrument flight unfolds, particularly at Harvard (or Tutor for us old guys) speed, is both a good training and to some degree filtering element.  Over my career, much of what I used in real life (esp. IFR) was mentally tied right back to Ph.2 (CT-114 for me), and not Ph.3 (CH-136 and CH-139).

Regards
G2G


----------



## dapaterson (13 Jan 2021)

SeaKingTacco said:


> I actually never, ever understood why we sent all of our pilots to Moose Jaw and gave them fixed wing time, when 50% of them are destined to be rotary wing pilots, forever.  Would that not be an obvious solution to some of the throughput issues- have two streams of rotary pilot and fixed wing pilot? Honest question- not trolling.


Question was raised 20+ years ago in a pilot occupational analysis.  Recommended that pilot be split into two occs.  Rejected by the Air Force to permit easier movement between a/c types.

And so here we are...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2021)

So, in an attempt to re-establish the datum ... 


is there any value (fiscal and/or operational) to having NCM and Commissioned pilot trades in the CAF?
if there is value in NCM pilots, what fleets would they realistically be posted to?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> So, in an attempt to re-establish the datum ...
> 
> 
> is there any value (fiscal and/or operational) to having NCM and Commissioned pilot trades in the CAF?
> if there is value in NCM pilots, what fleets would they realistically be posted to?


I think it's been well argued that in our current environment, NCM pilots would not help with any of our issues therefore there is no value in creating a pilot NCM trade.  A dual stream (at the officer level - this should be addressed in the next pay review for pilots) would fix the issues an NCM pilot stream could potentially solve (career captains).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> A dual stream (at the officer level - this should be addressed in the next pay review for pilots) would fix the issues an NCM pilot stream could potentially solve (career captains).



What is the general consensus of what the Pilot Capt rates _should_ look like, compared to now (Pilot, Capt Basic = $6687/month, Capt PI 10 = $9941/month)?


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> What is the general consensus of what the Pilot Capt rates _should_ look like, compared to now (Pilot, Capt Basic = $6687/month, Capt PI 10 = $9941/month)?


I posted this earlier:


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2021)

Copy - my bad, I didn't see it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (13 Jan 2021)

My next question is related to trg/OTU bottleneck.  If anyone has insight into the pilot side of the FAcT project, would you give FAcT a thumbs-up, or thumbs-down rating (overly simplified but...) and why?  Training in FAcT is supposed to (the last I heard) converge and include "crew" training for the involved trades...if it isn't going to work well for one, that will impact the others.


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> My next question is related to trg/OTU bottleneck.  If anyone has insight into the pilot side of the FAcT project, would you give FAcT a thumbs-up, or thumbs-down rating (overly simplified but...) and why?  Training in FAcT is supposed to (the last I heard) converge and include "crew" training for the involved trades...if it isn't going to work well for one, that will impact the others.


Given the RFP went out last month, I don’t think we have a solid idea of what will be provided.  I would be curious to see what the RFP says though!


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jan 2021)

I participated in that OA.  It was primarily budget focused for practical purposes, with secondary considerations


SupersonicMax said:


> I think it's been well argued that in our current environment, NCM pilots would not help with any of our issues therefore there is no value in creating a pilot NCM trade.  A dual stream (at the officer level - this should be addressed in the next pay review for pilots) would fix the issues an NCM pilot stream could potentially solve (career captains).


Thats a facile interpretation, Max.  If you're saying NCMs wouldn't resolve the "current situation" (OTF/OTU backlogs and disproportionately high pre-OFP composition of established positions), that's a foregone conclusion as it would no doubt take CMP and the RCAF together until the F-35 is due for its mid-life upgrade, to get the pers structure adjusted to support NCM pilots.  The RCAF isn't even considering 'Specialist Aircrew' (like the RAF Flt.Lt and Sqn.Ldr-for-life types.  You continue to believe it boils down to pay, and I think that isn't true.  I know a number of NCM aircrew who CFR'd and fly now, and they all said that they would also have been quite happy to keep flying as an NCM doing what they do.  At the very least, I would say that "non-yellow" CH-146 and the CH-147F would able to be supported by NCMs pilots.

Regards
G2G


----------



## SupersonicMax (13 Jan 2021)

Pay is not the only factor but, after reviewing data on release interviews, it is one of the biggest dissatisfiers for people.  The CAF can’t move base and can’t change QoL to the level people would like (the missions still need to happen - workload can’t decrease significantly) therefore pay is probably the only big dissatisfiers the CAF can influence.
Sure, NCMs could fly aircraft.  But in our context, it would not improve our situation. If we want to pursue the “technical” stream, there are means within our processes to make that happen (CAG-level decision wrt postings, removal from merit list), albeit informally.  Many whom I considered extremely competent pilots left the CAF because of money, QOL and location.  The vast majority said they would come back if the pay is along the lines of what I proposed.
Regardless of rank, what the CAF offers has to be more attractive than what the industry offers.  People don’t join solely out of patriotism anymore.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (14 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Given the RFP went out last month, I don’t think we have a solid idea of what will be provided. I would be curious to see what the RFP says though!



I'm also curious what the draft looked like.  I read somewhere the expected throughput for pilot production under FAcT was supposed to increase slightly (in the 105-120 annually range).  I'm not sure what current production is.

Anyone curious about FAcT, here's a link to the PSPC FAcT Program page.


----------



## Messerschmitt (23 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> I posted this earlier:
> 
> 
> View attachment 64356


Is this your own doing? Or did you get this from somewhere official? I was hearing about a new pay scale that supposedly is actually in the works and was going to hit this new fiscal year (although improbable because of covid some say)

Have you heard anything about that? Absolutely nothing official about a new pay structure, just hear say and people posting payscales in another forum.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jan 2021)

This is my own doing, what I believe would be a fair market payscale for pilots, targeted at keeping people after certain gates.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jan 2021)

Op Experience specifically addresses Pilot retention, of which one focus is realignment of RCAF pilot pay scale with industry standard.   This OP is very much still in motion, along with Op Talent.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jan 2021)

Sure, we’ve all heard the rumours.  But AFAIK, nothing concrete was put forth regarding pay increase nor initiatives related to Op EXPERIENCE for that matter (after 2 years!!!). Either internal communications are ineffective or not much has been done.  Even status updates on the various Op EXPERIENCE initiatives would be seen in a positive light.


----------



## Weinie (23 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> This is my own doing, what I believe would be a fair market payscale for pilots, targeted at keeping people after certain gates.


Just out of curiosity, would a pilot, under your proposed payscales, maintain these rates of pay, if they were deemed unfit to no longer fly?


----------



## Eaglelord17 (23 Jan 2021)

They don't even need to try and make a new payscale, if they really wanted to they could just set it up to give signing bonuses like they can be authorized to, just make it a lump sum signed with every contract and pay out over the length of the contract yearly or semi-yearly to make up the difference. 

Out of curiosity though how are CAF pilots doing in comparison to civvy pilots at the moment on pay? I imagine they are in a much better situation with this pandemic.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> Just out of curiosity, would a pilot, under your proposed payscales, maintain these rates of pay, if they were deemed unfit to no longer fly?


Under CAF policy, I think they would maintain their pay. Because they are unfit for the CAF doesn’t mean they would be unfit in Transport Canada’s eyes. And we still need pilot staff officers.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jan 2021)

Eaglelord17 said:


> Out of curiosity though how are CAF pilots doing in comparison to civvy pilots at the moment on pay? I imagine they are in a much better situation with this pandemic.


Highest IPC Captain (pilot) is making about what a 5 year co-Pilot makes at AC.   They are all still making that kind of money due to a very strong union at Big Red.  The only pilots furloughed at AC were those under 3-4 years seniority (ie those still on fixed pay).


----------



## dapaterson (23 Jan 2021)

Keep in mind that since the Treasury Board ministers approve CAF pay rates, any proposal to amend them is a Cabinet Confidence and should not be shared outside of those with a need to know before it is approved.

Senior leaders occasionally forget who holds what authority, and should probably err on the side of not sharing ideas they lack the legal authority to implement... Building expectations and making promises with timelines they don't control brews dissatisfaction.

There's also much more work in changing rates of pay to align with changing marketplace demands than in reflecting inflation.


----------



## Weinie (23 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> *Under CAF policy, I think they would maintain their pay*. Because they are unfit for the CAF doesn’t mean they would be unfit in Transport Canada’s eyes. And we still need pilot staff officers.


You are likely right. But if they are unfit for CAF service, they should be released, and then, if still fit in TC's eyes, they could feed in to the supply and demand for civilian pilots. 

As to staff officers, where do you draw the line? How do you rationalize paying a pilot who flies for two years, gets broken, and then serves for 27 more in a staff position, with an artificially elevated (in his/her case) salary that now no longer reflects current experience/value? Wouldn't the new Air Ops O be a better solution to billets currently being filled by out of seat/trade pilots, thus increasing the aval pool of pilots?

I am not trying to be argumentative here. Rather, I am trying to understand how you can equate market forces, which value a commodity, to deal with this. Market forces have some influence, but are not all-encompassing.  

I have watched the CAF throw money at a variety of occupations and trades in an effort to be competitive with the civilian market. ( Medical, Dental, Legal and SOF all come to mind). In some cases, it had a temporary effect, but people still left, for a number of reasons. Economics was sometimes a factor, but not all the time.

Your suggestion would mitigate some of the problem, but probably not enough to make a noticeable difference.


----------



## SupersonicMax (23 Jan 2021)

Well, it could be mitigated by having lower salaries while someone builds experience (as in my proposed pay scale) to avoid this.  Someone with 10+ years of experience as a pilot is likely still extremely useful in staff job.  That expertise is not lost.  COT to Air Ops for unfit pilots is an option but that pay would stick (bit not increase).


----------



## FJAG (23 Jan 2021)

SupersonicMax said:


> Well, it could be mitigated by having lower salaries while someone builds experience (as in my proposed pay scale) to avoid this.  Someone with 10+ years of experience as a pilot is likely still extremely useful in staff job.  That expertise is not lost.  COT to Air Ops for unfit pilots is an option but that pay would stick (bit not increase).


That really depends on the staff job. There are very few where the expertise in flying actually matters. Most are administrative jobs that basically push paper around.

Sorry. I just don't buy into the "throw money at the problem" scenario. We can make the same argument for virtually any skilled trade right down to infantry, tankers and gunners. Their situation differs in that there is no great civilian job market to draw them away. 

If you need to pay people for flying in order to keep them in the flying field away from the civilian job market then make it a flight allowance which is only payable to those actually flying. It incentivizes staying in or going back to flying positions where the need is. A grounded staff officer looses his marketability. Personally I'd rather see the excess money paid to hiring many more skilled maintainers (and spare parts) for the squadrons than feeding already fat staff officers' pocketbooks.  (Air Force - 2,900 officers (not counting those in other headquarters etc); 9,800 NCMs  - )

Oops. My cynicism is showing again.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Jan 2021)

I don’t know any dedicated Pilot staff officer positions that involve pushing paper around.  Most are tactical level operations positions that require experienced operators (ie Pilot, ACSO, AEC).  Ottawa is a different story as I have zero clue what happens there - probably lots of short days and dry cleaning DEU.

If a pilot goes on PCAT and loses their medical, they are released or offered COT.  We don’t employ career Captains in a staff job - they will always eventually be pulled back to their flying community by their respective SOAs.  

Penalizing a Pilot by going to a staff job (ie removing pay more than just flight pay) would cause our ranks to hemorrhage even more as every pilot will enjoy a staff tour eventually.


----------



## Weinie (23 Jan 2021)

Zoomie said:


> *I don’t know any dedicated Pilot staff officer positions that involve pushing paper around.  Most are tactical level operations positions that require experienced operators (ie Pilot, ACSO, AEC).  Ottawa is a different story as I have zero clue what happens there - probably lots of short days and dry cleaning DEU.*
> 
> If a pilot goes on PCAT and loses their medical, they are released or offered COT.  We don’t employ career Captains in a staff job - they will always eventually be pulled back to their flying community by their respective SOAs.
> 
> *Penalizing a Pilot by going to a staff job (ie removing pay more than just flight pay) would cause our ranks to hemorrhage even more as every pilot will enjoy a staff tour eventually.*


That was not my point.

And yes, you have (probably fortunately) little awareness of the sheer amount of staff jobs filled by operators from all arms, including pilots, that exist in Ottawa. I am 100% confident that the staff jobs at Sqn level are both meaningful and relevant, likely the same could be said for some percentage of jobs at Wing/Division. But my conversations with most folks during my last 15 years at NDHQ (yes I know) lead me to believe that there are a shitload of pilot guys/gals (from Capt to Col) who would rather be flying. (and most of whom will never pilot an AC again). They are filling staff jobs that could be better filled by others, but the RCAF has determined that only a Pilot can fill that spot.  (hmmmmm...trying to keep PML numbers doesn't necessarily translate into a long-term retention strategy.)


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jan 2021)

FJAG said:


> If you need to pay people for flying in order to keep them in the flying field away from the civilian job market then make it a flight allowance which is only payable to those actually flying. It incentivizes staying in or going back to flying positions where the need is.



The sounds like Aircrew Allowance...and it isn't much.  Aircrew Allowance (AIRCRA) isn't based on trade, but on points (every month you are in a flying position and collect AIRCRA= 1 point, basically).  

Should pilots make more AIRCRA than the other Commissioned/Non-commissioned aircrew trades?  I say "no"; they already make more than me and other Aircrew trades of comparable rank by virtue of the Pilot pay table amounts.

Ref: the topic of "should pilots maintain vested rights to pay for COT (Medical)"...why not?  The rest of the CAF does.


----------



## Weinie (25 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> The sounds like Aircrew Allowance...and it isn't much.  Aircrew Allowance (AIRCRA) isn't based on trade, but on points (every month you are in a flying position and collect AIRCRA= 1 point, basically).
> 
> Should pilots make more AIRCRA than the other Commissioned/Non-commissioned aircrew trades?  I say "no"; they already make more than me and other Aircrew trades of comparable rank by virtue of the Pilot pay table amounts.
> 
> *Ref: the topic of "should pilots maintain vested rights to pay for COT (Medical)"...why not?  The rest of the CAF does.*


I asked that question. We have been debating whether or not Pilots should be paid more from a retention standpoint. Their actual value to the institution is as a pilot, their value to external market forces is as a pilot. If they can not fulfill that value equation, then their desirability (market value) drops significantly. You wouldn't pay a high-precision welder with nervous tics a lot of money.


----------



## SupersonicMax (25 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> That was not my point.
> 
> And yes, you have (probably fortunately) little awareness of the sheer amount of staff jobs filled by operators from all arms, including pilots, that exist in Ottawa. I am 100% confident that the staff jobs at Sqn level are both meaningful and relevant, likely the same could be said for some percentage of jobs at Wing/Division. But my conversations with most folks during my last 15 years at NDHQ (yes I know) lead me to believe that there are a shitload of pilot guys/gals (from Capt to Col) who would rather be flying. (and most of whom will never pilot an AC again). They are filling staff jobs that could be better filled by others, but the RCAF has determined that only a Pilot can fill that spot.  (hmmmmm...trying to keep PML numbers doesn't necessarily translate into a long-term retention strategy.)


Not sure about other communities, but we don’t put Capt to LCol in staff job that don’t absolutely require a pilot. We simply cannot afford it.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Jan 2021)

Weinie said:


> I asked that question. We have been debating whether or not Pilots should be paid more from a retention standpoint. Their actual value to the institution is as a pilot, their value to external market forces is as a pilot. If they can not fulfill that value equation, then their desirability (market value) drops significantly. You wouldn't pay a high-precision welder with nervous tics a lot of money.



I'd typed out a reply "why not pilots, we do it for all trades"...and then thought "I'd better read the policy...".    

CBI 204.03 Pay on occupation transfer

204.03(2) (Rate of pay - compulsory occupational transfer) Subject to paragraph (3), the rate of pay of an officer or non-commissioned member who was compulsorily occupationally transferred shall be the greater of:


the rate of pay established for the pay increment determined in accordance with CBI 204.015 (_Pay Increments_) for the member's rank, pay level and new trade group that is nearest to, but not less than, the rate of pay the member was receiving on the day immediately prior to the member's transfer, but not to exceed the rate of pay for the highest pay increment in the new rank and trade group; or
the rate of pay before the change of military occupation until the rate of pay in the new or downgraded military occupation for the rank, pay increment and, if applicable, pay level and trade group is greater than or equal to the rate of pay before the change of military occupation and any higher pay increment for the rank and, if applicable, pay level and trade group to which the member would have become entitled had the member remained in the former military occupation;
together with any upwards adjustments to the rates of pay determined under subparagraphs (a) and (b) that may be established from time to time.

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_).

I'll assume you knew the current policy and it was me that did not.

I'm not sure I agree with the current policy;  why only pilots?  What if a MO COTs for any reason to HCA?  or Log?


----------



## Good2Golf (25 Jan 2021)

An MO, I’m sure, would be OT’ing to RP (retired person) or PP (private practice), vice HCA or Log.  Probably same for LegalO.  Probably why only PLT and not PLT/MO/LegalO.


----------



## Blackadder1916 (25 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> . . . why only pilots?  What if a MO COTs for any reason to HCA?  or Log?



While it might be conceivable that an MO would voluntarily change occupations (I did know one doctor who went RCE/LEME but that was in the Militia), about the only circumstance that would preclude a physician from being unable to meet the standards of his occupation is if he no longer had a "license to carry out the unrestricted practice of medicine in a Canadian province or territory" (as per CBI 204.216) and even then I've known of occasions when the CF continued employing unlicensed military physicians in medical jobs that did not require them to have any patient contact (_except for one instance when the MO deployed with us to Africa_) or to provide any clinical opinion.  While a pilot could be removed from flying because his medical category changed, his med cat could still meet CEMS, however, if a doctor's med cat falls below the minimum standard it's below the minimum standard for almost every other occupation.


----------



## Weinie (25 Jan 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> I'd typed out a reply "why not pilots, we do it for all trades"...and then thought "I'd better read the policy...".
> 
> CBI 204.03 Pay on occupation transfer
> 
> ...


Actually, I didn't, but it doesn't change my response. If market value is the determinant of pay, which we have used to determine other specialist Officer and NCM pay rates, and then a person can not deliver that which the market values, then they should not be compensated in any manner than others in a similar market.

I do not know the answer to the current pilot conundrum, but as I have stated before in this forum, throwing money at it will not be the panacea.


----------



## SupersonicMax (9 Feb 2021)

Eye In The Sky said:


> CBI 204.03 Pay on occupation transfer
> 
> 204.03(2) (Rate of pay - compulsory occupational transfer) Subject to paragraph (3), the rate of pay of an officer or non-commissioned member who was compulsorily occupationally transferred shall be the greater of:
> 
> ...


I was unaware of this CBI.  Good to know! Hypothetical question I am not sure ever happened but interesting thought experiment nonetheless to see gaps in policy.  A pilot, let's stay Major, is forced to COT for medical reasons. I am assuming here they go back to Capt in his new trade. Would they be paid as Capt Basic under the GSO payscale?  I would expect, in the CBI, something along the lines of being paid the equivalent of their current pay/incentive level but on the GSO scale rather than the pilot scale?


----------



## Eye In The Sky (10 Feb 2021)

The post I made earlier seems to be the direction WRT pay for COT (NCM or Officer).  Maybe I am reading it wrong (it was a long day...), but I think a Pilot Major who was COTd to a GSO classification and dropped to Capt, would be at PI 10 on OT.

".._.but not to exceed the rate of pay for the highest pay increment in the new rank and trade group_" (excerpt from the CBI I posted above, Para 1)


----------

