# RCAF aircrew shortage



## daftandbarmy (1 Sep 2018)

Ashkan08 said:
			
		

> CAF to replace the RAF in patrolling the black sea. Will be interesting to see how our CF-18's compare to Su 30's. Might even cause the government to be more serious in looking for a new fighter jet.
> https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/news_157836.htm



Wow. Mali, now this.

I can hear the RCAF starting to burn out from here....


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (1 Sep 2018)

The RCAF has been burning out since Op Mobile 2011 and with Op Impact (plus all the remaining commitments). All aircrew trades are at critical manning and we can’t seem to produce enough newly Wing qualify folks to replace the attrition. It’s really bad.


----------



## Ashkan08 (1 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> The RCAF has been burning out since Op Mobile 2011 and with Op Impact (plus all the remaining commitments). All aircrew trades are at critical manning and we can’t seem to produce enough newly Wing qualify folks to replace the attrition. It’s really bad.



So we don't have enough pilots and other aircrew trades? I thought we had too many people applying for these positions ( mainly the pilot positions). How are we expecting to man the Australian hornets and the permanent jet replacement if we can't man our current CF-18's and other aircraft.


----------



## PuckChaser (1 Sep 2018)

Its a training system issue. It takes time to produce highly technical trades like aircrew. We have a similar problem in the CA and I bet the RCN sees it too. Your best instructors are needed in line units, reducing the instructors available to increase production at the entry levels, impacting people available as instructors 5-8 years from now. Its a vicious circle from all the cuts in the 1990s.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2018)

If, after twenty years, the CAF hasn't figured out how to conduct effective individual training, it's a cop out to blame cuts made a generation ago.


----------



## YZT580 (1 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If, after twenty years, the CAF hasn't figured out how to conduct effective individual training, it's a cop out to blame cuts made a generation ago.


  Flat out not true.  In the seventies the liberal government imposed a total hiring freeze.  The results, for civilian ATC was a cronic staff shortage that resulted in hiring first fired Americans and then fired AC pilots through the late 80's and 90's. It took almost 20 years to just get back to the staffing levels of the 70's never mind meeting the needs for expansion.  Training programmes can only accept a finite number of bodies.  Only a limited number of individuals make for good instructors.  Dumping too many bodies on an instructor only results in burn out without achieving any significant staffing improvements.  Choosing just anybody to be an instructor instead of going with your best only results in more failures: a waste of extremely valuable time which cannot be regained.  Just as the new ship replacement strategy is planned for a decades long period of time and cannot be effectively shortened so too a pilot training programme is planned to produce X qualified competent crew per year.  If you want to increase that number you have to go back and start with identifying new instructor positions.  Those man-years have to be approved and balanced against the other requirements of the system.  Once approved, a selection board has to identify suitable candidates and then those candidates have to be replaced in their present position and trained: requiring other training assets to be freed up to conduct the necessary instruction.  It is a years long process and every step has to be justified to a civil bureaucracy; in itself no easy task.  So it isn't fair to fault DND for the lack of pilots.  They are meeting the system designated quotas.  Blame instead the system that doesn't provide for planned growth.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Sep 2018)

The RCAF has known about problems for a generation and has not addressed them.  They have avoided solution spaces such as treating pilots as specialists and employing them primarily on flightline duty and removing them from generic staff positions.  They have refused to rethink pilot training which would stream helo vs fixed wing much earlier and relieve some pressure points in the system, and deliver pilots to OFP earlier.  They have built contracts that incentivize training foreign pilots over Canadian pilots.

If a problem arose twenty years ago and you've been unable to solve it, the problem isn't what happened twenty years ago - the problem is you.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (2 Sep 2018)

As YZT mentioned, it’s a very complicated problem and an expensive one too. I can speak for AES Op, it costs $990 000 (2 CAD numbers) to train an operator from day 1 to a level A category on the CP140. The lack of instructors available is problematic, since you’re robing Operational Sqns to fill the school. The lack of real estate, combined with a lack of airplane doesn’t help the training system to pump out numbers.


----------



## CBH99 (2 Sep 2018)

I'm throwing a question out there in regards to the topic being discussed -- then _perhaps_ we should get this thread back on topic in regards to protecting Latvia from the imaginary Russian invasion...feeling like there are a few Air Force threads this particular topic belongs in more-so than here?


My question is -- and please only answer if your someone with some legitimate knowledge on the matter:

*What are 3 things the RCAF could do and/or should do, that would ease the strain on pilot & aircrew availability?*


^^ Very open ended question, and would love to see what suggestions come forth from people with experience & in the know.  More simulators?  More pilots in the front line squadrons rather than filling staff positions?  A dedicated training squadron with organic instructors, so we aren't robbing squadrons of qualified people to teach?  A few more airframes?  Changes to the training system to make it more streamlined (referring to a comment about funneling people earlier in their careers?)

Genuinely wanting to hear what could be/should be done differently for us to improve this issue?


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm throwing a question out there in regards to the topic being discussed -- then _perhaps_ we should get this thread back on topic in regards to protecting Latvia from the imaginary Russian invasion...feeling like there are a few Air Force threads this particular topic belongs in more-so than here?
> 
> 
> My question is -- and please only answer if your someone with some legitimate knowledge on the matter:
> ...



This just in... we're not the only ones with an aircrew issue:

Managed shortfall

The pilotless cockpit is estimated by some to be a decade away, though militaries, despite embracing unmanned drones, will take decades more to be totally comfortable with the idea of no pilots in their fighter, transport, maritime patrol and tactical aviation fleets.

In the meantime, they will have to continue applying innovative and focused personnel strategies to attract and retain the aircrews and technicians needed to keep those aircraft flying. And if some do seek opportunities in the commercial sector? Canadian aviation will be the beneficiary of well trained, high quality people.

https://www.skiesmag.com/features/managed-shortfall/


----------



## Gunner98 (3 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm throwing a question out there in regards to the topic being discussed -- then _perhaps_ we should get this thread back on topic in regards to protecting Latvia from the imaginary Russian invasion...feeling like there are a few Air Force threads this particular topic belongs in more-so than here?
> 
> 
> My question is -- and please only answer if your someone with some legitimate knowledge on the matter:
> ...



How about 3 words rather than 3 things:  Anticipate, Adapt, Act - sound familiar - the latest commitments involved little anticipation and no time for adaptation and the government skipped right to act.  The questions you are asking have little to do with reality when the first two steps are omitted. The Defence plan has People First.  Strong, secure and engaged - really.  We are not strong or secure but we are engaged on too many fronts to sustain.  The Defence plan promised:

• 88 new advanced fighter aircraft
• Next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP-140 replacement)
• Next generation air-to-air tanker transport
• Replace utility transport aircraft
• Range of remotely piloted systems
• Space capabilities (global satellite communications, surveillance of space, ISR)

http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2017/mdn-dnd/D2-386-2017-2-eng.pdf


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Sep 2018)

Simian Turner said:
			
		

> How about 3 words rather than 3 things:  Anticipate, Adapt, Act - sound familiar - the latest commitments involved little anticipation and no time for adaptation and the government skipped right to act.  The questions you are asking have little to do with reality when the first two steps are omitted. The Defence plan has People First.  Strong, secure and engaged - really.  We are not strong or secure but we are engaged on too many fronts to sustain.  The Defence plan promised:
> 
> • 88 new advanced fighter aircraft
> • Next generation multi-mission aircraft (CP-140 replacement)
> ...



All programs to start after the next election, pending budget, public opinion, the whims of bureaucrats, and what ever the magic eight ball says.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> *What are 3 things the RCAF could do and/or should do, that would ease the strain on pilot & aircrew availability?*



1. Treat pilots as specialists, and only rarely post them out of hard flying positions.  Given the significant cost to train pilots to wing standard, having them fly desks is a waste of an expensive, rare resource.

2. Revisit MND recommendation 10A - Degreed Officer Corps, Reg F.    Not all officers require degrees.  Raising the requirement to Maj and above, for example, would reduce the requirement for ROTP intake and thus reduce the timeline to OFP for officers.

3. Implement the recommendations from the CAF Establishment Study.  The problem space of TEE/TES is understood; there's a lack of willingness to admit that we have overbuilt Trained Effective Establishment without considering the institutional pieces needed to enable it (BTL, SUTL, SPHL, NES...).


----------



## daftandbarmy (4 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 2. Revisit MND recommendation 10A - Degreed Officer Corps, Reg F.    Not all officers require degrees.  Raising the requirement to Maj and above, for example, would reduce the requirement for ROTP intake and thus reduce the timeline to OFP for officers.



Good heavens, are you suggesting that we re-introduce 'Sergeant Pilots'!? How dare you, Sir  :sarcasm:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sergeant_pilot


----------



## dimsum (5 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 1. Treat pilots as specialists, and only rarely post them out of hard flying positions.  Given the significant cost to train pilots to wing standard, having them fly desks is a waste of an expensive, rare resource.



I'm not sure how it's going, but there was a push to start an Operations Officer trade (probably following the RAAF) that would help alleviate a bit of a the shortfall from posting Pilots, ACSOs and such to Ops positions.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (18 Sep 2018)

Link to article,

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/air-force-pilots-shot-1.4827862

The Royal Canadian Air Force is contending with a shortage of around 275 pilots and needs more mechanics, sensor operators and other trained personnel as well in the face of increasing demands to conduct and support domestic and international missions.
The Air Force says it is working to address the deficiencies and that they have not negatively impacted operations.
Still, officials acknowledge the situation has added pressure on Canada's flying corps and will represent a real challenge for the foreseeable future.
"Right now we're doing everything we can to make sure we recruit, train and retain enough personnel to do our current mission," said Brig.-Gen. Eric Kenny, director general of air readiness.
"In the next 20 years, it's going to be a challenge to grow the force at the rate that we would like."

The shortfall in pilots and mechanics was referenced in an internal report recently published by the Department of National Defence, which also flagged underspending on maintenance for bases and other infrastructure, as well as reductions in annual flying times thanks to Conservative-era budget cuts.
Some of those issues have since started to be addressed by the Liberals through their new defence policy, but the personnel shortage remains an area of critical concern given the need for pilots and others to fly and maintain the military's various aircraft fleets at home and abroad.
Those include the planes and helicopters involved in Canada's military missions in Iraq, Latvia, Mali, and Ukraine; domestic search-and-rescue aircraft; and the CF-18 fighter jets deployed in Romania and guarding against a foreign attack on North America.

The Air Force is authorized to have 1,580 pilots, but Kenny said in an interview that the Air Force is short by around 17 per cent, or about 275 pilots. It is facing similar deficiencies when it comes to navigators and sensor operators who work onboard different types of aircraft as well as mechanics, he added.
'It's definitely a challenge'
Kenny also acknowledged the threat of burnout as service members are forced to pick up the slack left by unfilled positions, and the added challenge in the coming years as the Air Force receives new drones, fighter jets and other aircraft — which will require even more people to fly and maintain.
Efforts have been made to address the shortfalls, including more focus on retaining service members with tax breaks, additional support and services for family members to ease military life, and plans to free up experienced personnel by assigning administrative staff to do day-to-day tasks.
Several initiatives have also been introduced to speed up recruitment and training and attract older pilots back into the Forces, which has borne some fruit, while the military looks at changing the length of time pilots and others are required to serve before they can leave.
But the current training system means the Air Force can only produce 115 new pilots each year, which commanders have said is insufficient to meet its needs given the number that have been leaving for commercial opportunities in recent years.

The Department of National Defence is drawing up plans for a new system that officials hope will be in place by 2021 and include the ability to expand or shrink the number of trainees in any year given the Air Force's needs.
Kenny said the shortfalls will remain a challenge since the current system will remain in place for several more years — and because it takes four and eight years to train a pilot from scratch.
"We know what capabilities we're receiving and now we can start working to make sure that we have personnel that are trained to be able to meet those requirements," he said. "But I'm not going to lie: It's definitely a challenge."


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Sep 2018)

Time to open up a trial run for NCM Pilots? I guess it's the training system that's the problem though...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2018)

Or, retention bonuses?  The USAF is implementing ones for aircrew and maintainers.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (18 Sep 2018)

Imo cutting the excess of secondary duties and the ever increasing amount of dog and pony show tasking would be a good start.


----------



## blacktriangle (18 Sep 2018)

An even better idea, EITS. 

I know two dudes ("geek" type + SOF guy) in the US military that both re-upped for nice bonuses. 

So...is anyone listening?


----------



## CBH99 (18 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Imo cutting the excess of secondary duties and the ever increasing amount of dog and pony show tasking would be a good start.




Dog & pony show taskings?   Genuinely curious what your referring to?  

**No biased intended...I have 0 experience in this area at all, just the general idea of what various types of planes do.  Are you meaning like airshows & such?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (18 Sep 2018)

I was referring to the outside work weekend tasking, show the uniform sort of thing. I can only speak from my experience, but I've noticed a significant increase in those sort of tasking and secondary duties. For example just to name one; originally what had started as a simple RCAF run to counter-act the Army run, now has grown into a significant event that not only draws all the resources available on the Wing, but requires up to a year a continuous committee meetings to prep it.

Adding to this, the shortage of qualified aircrews is stretched so far that we seeing more members wearing multiple hats at the same time, without being properly trained nor compensated for it. 

Again this is one example, but something is clearly wrong when we have aircrews on their BB dealing with non-mission related issues while flying.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2018)

The butter on the bread is thin in some units for sure.  At this time, I have 2 positions I'm filling (both are separate, full time jobs), plus 1 Wing and 2 Sqn secondary duties.  They all compete against each other daily.  Going away is a "break", all I have to worry about then is flying the YFR allotted and picking restaurants.

I find that 'non-operational' things sometimes trump "operational" things;  tail wagging the dog.  Huge frustration the past few years...add that to it a next-to-impossible to complete *to do* list each day, and people will start to burn out.  Throw in op tempo and time away from your postal code...


----------



## dimsum (18 Sep 2018)

Certain Mess Exec positions having to be aircrew are great in theory, but then you end up with people who aren't three over half the time.


----------



## MarkOttawa (18 Sep 2018)

Tweet from Matthew Fisher:
https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/1042177394432454658



> Matthew Fisher
> ‏ @mfisheroverseas
> 
> "Canadian air force short 275 pilots."
> Accurate story. Why extreme attrition?Big reason is F-35 procurement fiasco.Waves of expensively trained pilots quit because of govt dithering on that.Their fury has been out there to be written about for several yrs...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## w0ngt0ng (18 Sep 2018)

Does this mean faster CT for aircrew trades ?  :nod:


----------



## kratz (18 Sep 2018)

w0ngt0ng said:
			
		

> Does this mean faster CT for aircrew trades ?  :nod:



No.

The news article quoted above mentioned DND hopes to have systems in place for 2021.


----------



## SupersonicMax (18 Sep 2018)

MarkOttawa said:
			
		

> Tweet from Matthew Fisher:
> https://twitter.com/mfisheroverseas/status/1042177394432454658
> 
> Mark
> Ottawa



There are so many reasons why people leave...  if only we only have a single reason to consider going someplace else..


----------



## MJP (18 Sep 2018)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> There are so many reasons why people leave...  if only we only have a single reason to consider going someplace else..



I agree, and tend to dislike the boiling down of complex issues like this into one or two issues.  There are a number of factors to consider and not all of them have the same degree of effect nor are all of them purely CAF centric issues.  We just happen to get airtime on the news better than mining companies struggling to find people to work in remote spots for an example.  

EITS, SSM and other RCAF dudes & Dudettes,

Interested to hear some of your ideas on the issues and potential solution(s).  

I am having a good chuckle at the reddit thread https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadianForces/comments/9guq8w/canadian_air_force_short_275_pilots_as_attrition/ on the same issue.  Most of the comments are naive at best but there are some decent nuggets, including some that have popped up here by some very smart regular posters.


----------



## dapaterson (18 Sep 2018)

The CAF's attrition rate is lower than our allies.  Take out pre-DP1 training failures; retirements at CRA; and retirements with an immediate annuity and you're left with... well, not a lot of room for "retention".

In fact, I'd argue we need (a) higher attrition; (b) greater selectivity throughout the promotion pyramid; (c) streamlined training; and (d) reduced reliance on sponsored education plans for entry.  Taken together, we could simultaneously have a smaller requirement for BTL and higher attrition.

That the RCAF can only train 115 pilots per year is an RCAF failure, not a CAF (writ large) problem.  That it in turn results in large backlogs on the BTL is the RCAF inflicting institutional damage on the CAF.  (And, at times, it seems to be an almost deliberate tactic by the RCAF - a constant pilot shortage means constant requirements to pay pilots more... hardly an incentive for the pilots running the RCAF to solve the problem).


----------



## Eye In The Sky (18 Sep 2018)

Assuming what you said is accurate, that is only the pilot mafia.  As the article notes, it is more than just pilots.



			
				Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> The Royal Canadian Air Force is contending with a shortage of around 275 pilots and needs more mechanics, sensor operators and other trained personnel as well in the face of increasing demands to conduct and support domestic and international missions.





> The Air Force is authorized to have 1,580 pilots, but Kenny said in an interview that the Air Force is short by around 17 per cent, or about 275 pilots. It is facing similar deficiencies when it comes to navigators and sensor operators who work onboard different types of aircraft as well as mechanics, he added.



I know my trade is not at PML, and there is RUMINT about needing more of us in the near future to fill slots outside the LRP and MH worlds.  Supply (TE output) and Demand (operational sqn's) isn't matched, and solving that issue will require funding.  



> The Air Force says it is working to address the deficiencies and that they have not negatively impacted operations.



This suggests that the serviceable flyers, maintainers and support are busier than they should be.  



> "Right now we're doing everything we can to make sure we recruit, train and retain enough personnel to do our current mission," said Brig.-Gen. Eric Kenny, director general of air readiness.



The retain piece is one that could be improved thru better career management practices...



> The shortfall in pilots and mechanics was referenced in an internal report recently published by the Department of National Defence, which also flagged underspending on maintenance for bases and other infrastructure, as well as reductions in annual flying times thanks to Conservative-era budget cuts.



This is the type of *reporting* that annoys me.  The Liberals have been at the helm now for approaching 3 years...when will things stop being 'Harpers fault!'.

I can't speak for others, but the shortages in things I notice, like basic flying gear such as flight suits, gloves, rescue knives...have cropped up in the past 1-2 years.  




> Some of those issues have since started to be addressed by the Liberals through their new defence policy...



 :



> Several initiatives have also been introduced to speed up recruitment and training and attract older pilots back into the Forces, which has borne some fruit, while the military looks at changing the length of time pilots and others are required to serve before they can leave.



SO, if the problem is not limited to pilots, but all aircrew, flightcrew, and maintainers...why only speak to and/or address the pilot issue?  (IIRC, BGen Kenny was 4 Wg Comd...fighter guy)


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2018)

Why only speak to pilots?  Because it's the only one I know well enough to discuss.  But training for aircrew is all under the RCAF.  If we don't train enough Air Coffee Service Officers, that's an RCAF issue - and the responsibility falls to Comd, RCAF.  If the air tech schools under the command of Comd RCAF can't meet demand, again, that's Comd RCAF to address.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (19 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Why only speak to pilots?  Because it's the only one I know well enough to discuss.  But training for aircrew is all under the RCAF.  If we don't train enough Air Coffee Service Officers, that's an RCAF issue - and the responsibility falls to Comd, RCAF.  If the air tech schools under the command of Comd RCAF can't meet demand, again, that's Comd RCAF to address.



All true.  I have a feeling the Div Commanders are addressing the concerns.  There are initiatives under way now to "do what can be done" until the new program (FAcT) comes online.  I don't know enough about the nuts and bolts of FAcT (Future Aircrew Training) to say anything other than the name at this point, and my focus is directed towards the post-TE *stuff* anyways - this is more for the intial TE folks from my view of the world.

Solutions will include funding, of course, and efficiencies.

Future Aircrew Training Program (PSPC website)

Oh. I should clarify...when I said this...



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> SO, if the problem is not limited to pilots, but all aircrew, flightcrew, and maintainers...why only speak to and/or address the pilot issue?  (IIRC, BGen Kenny was 4 Wg Comd...fighter guy)



It was directed towards BGen Kennys' interview comments, not your post.  He's a fighter guy...sometimes they forget there are other Commissioned and NCM aircrew.     Maybe all Pilots should start off on Aurora's.  They don't even start the engines in our fleet.  The only way a 140 will move if it only has pilots on it...is with a tow crew.   ;D


----------



## Quirky (19 Sep 2018)

Would be interesting to see statistics on what fleets retain more pilots that others, saying the RCAF is short 200 pilots is rather vague. I know first hand that there isnt much interest in Moose Jaw for pilots to transition to fighters. You go through all that time training only to fly 80s era obsolete jets in Cold Lake or Bagotville for 10-15 years. Seems like the most popular route now is multi engine then a transition into the airlines after enough hours. The industry will be needing thousands of pilots in the coming years, with opportunities to live in a city and be home on a set schedule. 

Being around aircrew for over a decade and seeing all the side-show bullcrap they go through, which has nothing to do with flying, I wouldn’t want to be a pilot in the RCAF either.


----------



## Zoomie (19 Sep 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> and be home on a set schedule.


Misnomer - I’ve been a CF pilot for 14 years and guarantee I have a better home life and schedule than most airline pilots.   The big pest drawback of me going to Big Red anytime soon is the huge pay cut ($125k to $40k) and the horrible home life.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2018)

From what I can see, the attrition rate of pilots in the MH Fleet is not excessively high. We are short pilots, mostly because of training system bottlenecks- mostly at the OTU.

However, we are REALLY short of ACSOs and AESOps. Production of these two trades has nearly collapsed; it is a phsyically demanding job and we break them (sometimes permanently) all too frequently and fixing these problems doesn't get the heat and light it should at HHQs. The few qualified MH ACSO/AESOps that we have left are being literally run into the ground.

A larger CF problem is that we are addicted to staff jobs and massive, HQ bloat. Trim some of that back, and there would not not be same pull to get people off the flight line and into desk jobs. That won't solve the whole problem, but as someone mentioned upthread, there is no silver bullet for the aircew issue.


----------



## dapaterson (19 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> _*A larger CF problem is that we are addicted to staff jobs and massive, HQ bloat.*_ Trim some of that back, and there would not not be same pull to get people off the flight line and into desk jobs. That won't solve the whole problem, but as someone mentioned upthread, there is no silver bullet for the aircew issue.



This x1000.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (19 Sep 2018)

The Australians have an interesting program where higher ranking officers can agree to revert in rank, but be pay protected, in exchange for "just" being a line pilot at a working rank (Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr).

not sure if that would work for us...


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The few qualified MH ACSO/AESOps that we have left are being literally run into the ground.



This is our issue in the LRP fleet as well.   

If we could pull back a few AES Ops from 402 it'd make a world of difference.   We should have 5 ASO instructors at 404 (for 4 students), we have 2 instructors and 6 students.  Doesn't sound that bad, 2 instructors for 6 kids, but throw in staff events (which require 2 bodies), back-filling for other Sqns, exercises, deployments, and secondary duties, and you'll quickly see why our folks are burning out.   

Flying is almost an inconvenience now, there's so much other work to do and flying just seems to get in the way.  Which sucks, because what we do is fun!


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Sep 2018)

It probably doesn't help that they have (or at least had) ACSO and AES Op at places like CFEWC doing ground tours...


----------



## Sub_Guy (19 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> It probably doesn't help that they have (or at least had) ACSO and AES Op at places like CFEWC doing ground tours...



I think we need those folks there.  EW is part of what we do.  

It’s a shitty situation.


----------



## dimsum (19 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> The Australians have an interesting program where higher ranking officers can agree to revert in rank, but be pay protected, in exchange for "just" being a line pilot at a working rank (Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr).
> 
> not sure if that would work for us...



It's called Spec Aircrew, but they can only have so many people do it and it's only for a few years before you have to re-apply.


----------



## blacktriangle (19 Sep 2018)

Dolphin_Hunter said:
			
		

> I think we need those folks there.  EW is part of what we do.
> 
> It’s a shitty situation.



Fund some PS positions. At least half to become PS. There are already PS positions at that unit. Bonus = AES Op retirement gig. 

Already done in CFINTCOM and the Cyber world.


----------



## SupersonicMax (20 Sep 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> EITS, SSM and other RCAF dudes & Dudettes,
> 
> Interested to hear some of your ideas on the issues and potential solution(s).



Here's the top 3 dissatisfier that I am willing to discuss publicly for Fighter Pilots:

1- No future.  For anyone that is in from a couple years behind me and older (the 13-20 years in guys), there is no hope of doing anything than what we are doing now.  There is no money being invested in capabilities that would put us back to where most modern countries are right now.  Aussie F/A-18 buy certainly doesn't help.  In a sense, we're back to where we were in the early 2000s in terms of relative capabilities.

2- Bullshit-to-fun ratio is too high.  We're swamping guys with bullshit such as AFOD, APOC, OPMEs, meaningless financial courses (section 32/34.  The perception is that these are courses designed to shift the accountability to the lower levels should something happen).  You first tour and a half should be focused on tactical development and we are expecting guys to do this while sending them on Officer Development courses (that frankly, they don't GAF about). There is a perception that those BS courses are more important than being a good tactician and develop as a good tactical leader.

3- Pay. Most senior guys feel underpaid, given the amount of responsibilities, the hours they put in and the sacrifices they and their family put in, 110K a year for a senior Capt doesn't feel like enough and most would rather take a pay cut for a couple of years and work 80 hrs a month and that works strickly involve flying an aircraft.

Obviously, the fact that people leave just exarcerbate 3 as we have less people and the demand doesn't seem to decrease.

The solution cannot be unidimentional.  I believe money is part of the solution but is not THE solution.  There needs to be a drastic shift in how we employ the fighter force and how serious it is taken (ie: add/improve capabilities).  This would solve issues 1 and 2.  Without a shift in minset, money will just keep people a little while longer: they will eventually still get sick of it.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (20 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Fund some PS positions. At least half to become PS. There are already PS positions at that unit. Bonus = AES Op retirement gig.
> 
> Already done in CFINTCOM and the Cyber world.



That doesn't really help us. We need those folks to come back to flying fleets, with the EW expertise. Not just disappear into CFEWC forever. Those ground jobs are actually useful ground jobs, if managed correctly.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Sep 2018)

MJP said:
			
		

> EITS, SSM and other RCAF dudes & Dudettes,
> 
> Interested to hear some of your ideas on the issues and potential solution(s).



I'll give my  :2c: as a LRP "dry sensor" type.  

1.  The RAAF piece was mentioned, I'll speak to the PA (Professional Aircrew) *spine* the RAF guys I talked to explained.  Basically, you can apply to go PA;  you'll spend your career, if selected, never progressing in rank the same as others would but will remain a career flyer.  However, you go onto a different pay table/scale - pay/pension would still benefit despite never becoming something like a Master Aircrew - their equivalent of our CWO.  The CAF option now is to 'opt out', so you could remain in your current rank, but not stay a career flyer and still end up at a billet that doesn't involve flying.  Personally, I have little desire for more rank other than how it will affect my "best 5" for pension and of course, my take home pay.  If the RCAF came out with PA, I'd be chasing it - I joined my trade to fly.

2.  Introduce a Selection process similar to the way SAR Techs do it, but for AES OP.  Aptitudes, spatial ability, multi-tasking, have a Selection Week that all applicants go to, pick the best of the applicants.  There was a trial at a mini-ACS but it was only 1/2 day.  Selection will let you assess people on quantified criteria that is the same for all, and might expose some people to aspects of what we really do.  Some of those people might think "oh this isn't what I thought it was".  Either way, you have the best shot at getting the best people into the training system.  This Selection will also help determine, if done right, which people have aptitudes/abilities in the things MH does, Acoustics, EW aspects, etc.  Right now, the way we select and employ Junior AES Ops for LRP or MH isn't necessarily done based on aptitudes, etc.

3.  Training - streamline it from the Basic Course to the LRP and/or MH operational training.  This is actually in progress now, and is on the RADAR of HHQ.  I've been involved in this some, and I can say 99.9% "things will be changing" before the planned 2021 kick-off of FAcT.

4.  Right now, our trade is competing thru the various TEs and line Sqn's for Sgt/MCpl pers.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation;  to put out more Junior AES Ops, we need to increase people going thru 402.  The only way to get more Instructors at 402 is to bleed them from the OTU units (406, 404) or the operational MH and LRP Sqns.  SKT has already given some insight into the reality of the MH Sqns right now.  The LRP ones are also hurting for those exact same folks;  top-category Sgt/MCpls to train students on the basic LRP courses, and to be Crew Leads, Standards & Training, etc.  The reality is, the Senior trade leadership will have to make hard choices that will affect either (1) initial occupation training (2) operational training units or (2) operational units.  It takes about 4-5 years now, roughly, to grow a top category operator.  # 3 above is very important right now and is being focused on with deliverables expected from HHQ in the very near future.

5.  Growth and retention.  We need to grow numbers, but we also need to keep the people we've already invested training into.  Some of that will come with reduced op tempo for key people (top category, serviceable flyers), some will come if we select/employ people based on a balance of their abilities and desires.  I also know of a few people who've released because they wanted to fly and got promoted out of those positions.  

Things are going to change, but it won't be overnight and there are some hard choices to be made.  If we need to cut back on FG to concentrate on Trg/FE activities for a few years, then the leadership needs to ensure that FG is actually be reduced to achieve the desired outcome.  If not, the vicious cycle will continue.

My last point - if the power was given to me, I'd shut down the trade training in Wpg, implement the Selection phase, move the 402 instructor positions to 404 and 406 Sqns and would revamp training to a Basic MH AES OP and Basic LRP AES Op stream.  I think that would be the most efficient way to conduct training and produce the #s we need.  Because of how short we are, ANY training not required is too much right now.

I wish I had more time/mental energy to be more concise.  Flew today, and back at it tomorrow...


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> That doesn't really help us. We need those folks to come back to flying fleets, with the EW expertise. Not just disappear into CFEWC forever. Those ground jobs are actually useful ground jobs, if managed correctly.



I guess I look at it a different way. Skills retained when a member retires or decides to settle down. Positions filled on the ground leaving those still able/wanting to serve in flying positions. What happens when someone in an aircrew position can't fly anymore due to a medical issue? I've heard of instances of people released or COT to something completely unrelated. Anyways, it was just a thought. I appreciate the feedback. 

EITS - so they ditched the ASC selection? I remember reading about the trial a few years back I think. What was the consensus on that? 

AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:

Anyways, I was very impressed by the majority of RCAF aircrew I met. As a whole, I think only SOF ever made a similar impression. All the best to you guys and gals...


----------



## Eye In The Sky (20 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> EITS - so they ditched the ASC selection? I remember reading about the trial a few years back I think. What was the consensus on that?



I'm not sure, actually.  I know it was a 1/2 day which to me isn't close to ideal.  It was 'what could be done' at the time, from what I've heard.



> AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:



Odd, my CFAT met the required levels...but I have a GED (and 2 college diploma's but no HS math).


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> That the RCAF can only train 115 pilots per year is an RCAF failure, not a CAF (writ large) problem.  That it in turn results in large backlogs on the BTL is the RCAF inflicting institutional damage on the CAF.  (And, at times, it seems to be an almost deliberate tactic by the RCAF - a constant pilot shortage means constant requirements to pay pilots more... hardly an incentive for the pilots running the RCAF to solve the problem).



The Devil’s advocate would point out that the RCAF never asked to outsource pilot training for alternate service delivery (ASD) in the mid-90s, with the very clearly voiced concern at the time of lack of organizational resilience to adjust to required/imposed/unforecast factors...Institutional (read CAF and especially the GoC) all the way.  The situation today is simply the result of the symptomatic response of a subordinate part of the organization.

:2c:

Regards
G2G


----------



## blacktriangle (20 Sep 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Odd, my CFAT met the required levels...but I have a GED (and 2 college diploma's but no HS math).



I sh*t you not. Grade 10 "academic" math vice the "applied". CFAT wasn't an issue. It's on the recruiting page, and in the Occ Specs. IIRC, for ACSO they were only concerned about CFAT score and if you had the requisite number of basket-weaving courses. 

It would have been nice to have a chance to pass/fail on merit and demonstrated performance. It's too late for me, but maybe in the future they can use your "selection" idea to separate those who can from those who cannot. 

Have a safe flight.


----------



## dapaterson (20 Sep 2018)

G2G: Ack; but if after more than two decades, the RCAF hasn't figured it out...


----------



## Good2Golf (20 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> G2G: Ack; but if after more than two decades, the RCAF hasn't figured it out...



Or they have, and determined the @$$-pain and anti-continuous improvement push-back from higher to try and creatively (partially) address the issue, wasn’t worth the vain effort. :dunno:

Regards,
G2G


----------



## Sub_Guy (21 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:



So why not apply for UTPNCM then?   

The issues with the sensor operators can be traced back to leadership.   A serious of stellar decisions now have the trade on the brink of collapse.   Which is sad, as it’s a fucking fantastic job.


----------



## jaysfan17 (21 Sep 2018)

kratz said:
			
		

> No.
> 
> The news article quoted above mentioned DND hopes to have systems in place for 2021.



I was glad someone asked that question. It's too bad that they wouldn't make the CT process quicker for those looking to get into aircrew trades. One of the trades on my CT that I've applied for is AESOP. One can only hope if that were true....


----------



## Flathame (22 Sep 2018)

Shortage of qualified aircrew is definitely one of the biggest problems. Is the training system bad or is it the people that are being recruited? I can't tell at this point.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Sep 2018)

Yes recruitment needs fixing. For example they’re only recruiting 9 direct entry AESOP this fiscal year, despite the fact our trade is in significant demand. I like VOTs, but robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t help. Our training system was designed on the 90s numbers. For example here at 402, our school should have 2 floors allocated for training, 2 PCTs, 6 modernized Dash8 vs 4 old ones. 
There’s a lot of talk about FAcT however the more the RCAF is realizing that it won’t fix everything. It’ll probably fix the problems with the pilots because they’re the one managing the project. When it comes to the other aircrew trades, we are simply an afterthought. If I had a crystal ball, the way things are going, when FAcT rolls out in 2023, 402 Sqn will still be here in Winnipeg flying the Dash8.


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Sep 2018)

What's the capacity of your training system though? There's no use taking in 45 direct entry AESOPs if the training system can only produce 25 a year to their OFP. Not to mention that St. Jean is a broken institution causing its own bottleneck at the BMQ level before they even get to PAT.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Sep 2018)

Right now we are mandated to graduate approx 24 AES Ops per year. We could do more for sure. They are COAs to use parallel training via private contractors.


----------



## jaysfan17 (22 Sep 2018)

That's unfortunate that there are so little AESOP's being recruited and graduating. 

Is the issue that people aren't applying for this particular trade or there is not enough serial's being run? Or both?



			
				PuckChaser said:
			
		

> There's no use taking in 45 direct entry AESOPs if the training system can only produce 25 a year to their OFP.



Why not? In theory couldn't you stick whoever's left of the 45 on PAT and they wait for the next serial (assuming the budget's in place to pay for it)?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Sep 2018)

We crunched the numbers and we need at least 45 new AES Ops per year out of 402 in order to keep up with the attrition and the new upcoming positions.


----------



## jaysfan17 (22 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> We crunched the numbers and we need at least 45 new AES Ops per year out of 402 in order to keep up with the attrition and the new upcoming positions.



Ah, I didn't realize how significant the demand was.


----------



## dimsum (22 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> If I had a crystal ball, the way things are going, when FAcT rolls out in 2023, 402 Sqn will still be here in Winnipeg flying the Dash8.



In a funny and ironic turn of events, imagine sending Nav and AESOP students to Australia instead of the other way around (back in the day).


----------



## PuckChaser (22 Sep 2018)

luttrellfan said:
			
		

> Why not? In theory couldn't you stick whoever's left of the 45 on PAT and they wait for the next serial (assuming the budget's in place to pay for it)?



You want to drive people out of the CAF? Have them sit for a year on restricted posting away from their families before they start a rather long QL3 (I assume) course that is also away from their families before they're actually OFP and posted. Have you ever been to a PAT Platoon? I know the CA is going to make it worse, but even a RCAF PAT Platoon doing WASF for a year is going to suck a whole heck of a lot.



			
				Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> We crunched the numbers and we need at least 45 new AES Ops per year out of 402 in order to keep up with the attrition and the new upcoming positions.



Is that possible without emptying the line Sqns of instructors? I know with Sigs we have a heck of a time either posting good people to the school to teach, or even getting good people on tasking to instruct. Line units just need them too much. Vicious circle.


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Sep 2018)

When we recruit direct entry AES Op, once BMQ completed, we post them to the nearest base/Wing/armoury to their home. They are on TD while attending BAQC here in Winnipeg. Once they graduate, they get posted to one of their choices.


----------



## CBH99 (22 Sep 2018)

I realize this thread is aircrew dominated & you guys are talking about all kinds of specifics within the RCAF that folks outside the RCAF wouldn't understand in the depth or complexity that you do.  And it's good to read all the different perspectives on these issues, as there is more to be gained from an insider's perspective.

I'll ask again what I asked about a month ago, in a different thread:


*If you could choose 3 things the RCAF could implement in the next year or two to help address this issue - what would they be? *  

(Any and all reasonable suggestions would be appreciated!  More training at unit level?  More folks hired?  Expanding instructor/training aircraft inventory?  As someone with 0 RCAF experience, really curious to hear what the working folks have to say about what could be done, reasonably, to fix this)


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (22 Sep 2018)

My top three that IMO would improve the issue:
1. Money for A/C modernization and infrastructure; 
2. Get rid of the non sense secondary duties; and
3. Introduce retention bonuses.


----------



## kev994 (22 Sep 2018)

1. Quit the non-stop barrage of new rules that require more work. 2. Knit some more instructors to share the workload. 3. 20 year pension plan.


----------



## dimsum (22 Sep 2018)

1.  Boots (or flight suits, judging by some I've seen)
2.  Beards
3.  Weed

Did I get it right?    :rofl:


----------



## BurmaShave (22 Sep 2018)

CBH99 said:
			
		

> I realize this thread is aircrew dominated & you guys are talking about all kinds of specifics within the RCAF that folks outside the RCAF wouldn't understand in the depth or complexity that you do.  And it's good to read all the different perspectives on these issues, as there is more to be gained from an insider's perspective.
> 
> I'll ask again what I asked about a month ago, in a different thread:
> 
> ...



Looking at the production end of things: anything we do to get above 115 new wings grads per year needs money, potentially a lot of it.

From a Moose Jaw level, we’re at max capacity. If they wanted to boost it, we’d need more planes (and so more instructors and maintainers), more sims (one’s down right now, and it’s causing a backlog), and ideally the ability to fly in light ice. Any of that is a huge expense: planes are $6 million, sims are $15 million.

We could rethink helo training. Right now we spend $750,000 on a Phase II slot, give prospective pilots 80 flights hours on effectively a prop fighter, and then send em off to Portage to relearn everything. Maybe Phase II Jet Ranger would be a better option?

That, of course, would require more equipment and instructors in different places ($$), and a rethink of our current selection process (which happens at the end of Phase II). Would it be worth it? I’m totally unqualified to say.

I’m not even sure Phase II production is part of the problem. The gun squadrons (Jets) said they can’t take all the folks the training system is giving them. Several other OTUs’ wait times are through the roof. Maybe production isn’t the solution.


----------



## dapaterson (22 Sep 2018)

Streamlined rotary wing training was proposed is an occupational analysis nearly two decades ago, as I recall. The high mucky mucks of the Air Force refused.


----------



## Good2Golf (22 Sep 2018)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Streamlined rotary wing training was proposed is an occupational analysis nearly two decades ago, as I recall. The high mucky mucks of the Air Force refused.



“It’s better if we train everyone through Basic (old name for Ph II) on the jets (Tutor), so that community transfers (as rare as they were in the day) take less time and money...”

#pennywisepoundfoolish


----------



## jaysfan17 (22 Sep 2018)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> You want to drive people out of the CAF? Have them sit for a year on restricted posting away from their families before they start a rather long QL3 (I assume) course that is also away from their families before they're actually OFP and posted. Have you ever been to a PAT Platoon? I know the CA is going to make it worse, but even a RCAF PAT Platoon doing WASF for a year is going to suck a whole heck of a lot.



I get that PAT Platoon sucks, but if you really wanted the trade/job than they wouldn't quit (barring any personal or other issues that arise that would give you no choice but to step away or release). That's just my view, but I get where you're coming from.


----------



## kev994 (22 Sep 2018)

Production is only part of the solution. Once they get on squadron you need someone who can teach them, and people with those skill sets are disappearing fast.


----------



## runormal (22 Sep 2018)

luttrellfan said:
			
		

> I get that PAT Platoon sucks, but if you really wanted the trade/job than they wouldn't quit (barring any personal or other issues that arise that would give you no choice but to step away or release). That's just my view, but I get where you're coming from.



100% disagree. If my employer made me wait a year to do the training that I signed up for, I'd start looking elsewhere and very quickly. Especially as DE candidate, who knows nothing about the CF. I had to wait 2 weeks for training for training at my civy job when I got out of University. All I could do was read manuals, since I didn't even have access to the system that I was hired on for. That sucked, and while I was thankful for the job, I was glad that it didn't drag on for much longer. 

I'd be more understanding and willing if I was either an OT or CT/OT, because in theory I could be tasked out to do something else while I wait for training since I might have some transferable skills.


----------



## blacktriangle (22 Sep 2018)

luttrellfan said:
			
		

> I get that PAT Platoon sucks, but if you really wanted the trade/job than they wouldn't quit (barring any personal or other issues that arise that would give you no choice but to step away or release). That's just my view, but I get where you're coming from.



I get what you are saying, but from experience (albeit dated) I respectfully disagree.


----------



## Sub_Guy (22 Sep 2018)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Production is only part of the solution. Once they get on squadron you need someone who can teach them, and people with those skill sets are disappearing fast.



☝️  This.

Everyone keeps looking at how to boost numbers, through recruitment and streamlined training, but few are looking at how to keep experience.  We are bleeding dry.  

No one really cares if a school can pump out 36 or 40 grads a year, if there’s no personnel to mentor them on Sqn then what’s the point?   We need to retain talent.


----------



## Zoomie (23 Sep 2018)

1) More L101 for TD and FG;
2) More YFR and the PERs needed to support that increase; and
3) more freedom for FG missions/destinations.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (23 Sep 2018)

Ref the direct entry or remuster baby AES Ops, being on the guys who has to deal with them at the line units after they are qualified on an operational aircraft, I'll take 2 remusters over 3 direct entry types any day of the week.  Overall they're more useful and have the perspective of the side of the grass that isn't so green, and they appreciate the perks.  They are also more useful once they reach top category and that is what we need right now more than 'just numbers'.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (23 Sep 2018)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ref the direct entry or remuster baby AES Ops, being on the guys who has to deal with them at the line units after they are qualified on an operational aircraft, I'll take 2 remusters over 3 direct entry types any day of the week.  Overall they're more useful and have the perspective of the side of the grass that isn't so green, and they appreciate the perks.  They are also more useful once they reach top category and that is what we need right now more than 'just numbers'.



True, but for the long term health and staying power of your trade, having some DEAs around are an important factor in lowering the overall average age of your trade. We also break them, physically, less frequently.


----------



## FSTG (23 Sep 2018)

Don't know if it's the same for ACSO, but it's been almost 8 months since my CFAT and i'm not even scheduled yet to write the ACS for PLT as DEO, which is the next step for me. I don't think it's related to application profil (engineering degree, good GPA, fit, no criminal record or stain of any kind and was told i performed very well in the CFAT). I can see how people are discouraged from following the lenghty process even if its not my case.


----------



## blacktriangle (23 Sep 2018)

I'd be curious, what's the highest rank that someone from the AES Op DE trial has achieved so far? I know they changed the career progression model when the DE trial started, but some of these guys have to be MCpl by now? How are they doing?


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (23 Sep 2018)

Yes they are MCpls and even Sgts by now. IMO they are young, keen, and eager to change the trade for the better.


----------



## Sub_Guy (23 Sep 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> I'd be curious, what's the highest rank that someone from the AES Op DE trial has achieved so far? I know they changed the career progression model when the DE trial started, but some of these guys have to be MCpl by now? How are they doing?



They are doing pretty good, however I’ve noticed that many lack leadership skills.  Quite a few of them have flown through the ranks rather quickly (attrition) and haven’t had enough time/experience to properly develop.

That being said I feel every AES Op should be promoted to Cpl after MOAT/OTU.  This would go a long way to improving morale for the young kids.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> True, but for the long term health and staying power of your trade, having some DEAs around are an important factor in lowering the overall average age of your trade. We also break them, physically, less frequently.



Very much so.  Data/knowledge from the DE trial kickoff until about a year and a half ago resulted in a change in the intake from high % of DE and less % of OTs, to a target of 65% OTs.  Granted, that was what the 4 Horsemen said at a townhall in the spring of '17.

There needs to be a balance, and I think we're closer to the right balance with the increase in OT %'s.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Yes they are MCpls and even Sgts by now. IMO they are young, keen, and eager to change the trade for the better.



Where the real weakness shows;  their knowledge and ability at the Sqn's as Leads.  They just don't have the experience and knowledge background...less ability to do the straight NCO function on a crew.  And that is a significant piece of the Lead's job.  L/AES Op has many pieces in that pie.  They also demonstrated a significant gap in knowledge/skill/ability on crew as A cats, and it was painful in some cases.

Higher % of OTs should mitigate this issue, as well as the trg revamp...hopefully this will result in a Lead course/qual in the end.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (24 Sep 2018)

EITS,

To play Devil's Advocate- I see that as less the fault of the DEA Sgt and more of the Sqn.

Where was his/her developmental opportunities and mentoring.

The RCAF has been addicted to AESOps largely showing up with the NCO piece weighed off and has never made the cultural/institutional shift necessary to deliberately develop those skills.

It is a constant source of frustation of mine that the AESOp occupation receives almost no Chain of Command oversight/intervention.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (24 Sep 2018)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> EITS,
> 
> To play Devil's Advocate- I see that as less the fault of the DEA Sgt and more of the Sqn.



Partially the Sqn, but I think it more lies with the trade itself;  no adjustment in training was made for the DEs who would progress up the ranks, it was business as usual and now we are seeing the deficiencies.  I raised the issue at the NASO Partial QSWB in spring of 2017, and the FIC ground school was added as part of the OJTP.  But...they aren't even tested on the material and don't get the MITE code or anything because they do not finish the complete AIMB qual.   ???  However, there are opportunities now to revisit, restructure and improve and change will be happening.  We can't continue to do business as usually.  402 needs more instructors, 404 and 406 (I'm assuming...) are short-handed and so are the operational Sqns.  We're holding on, but not much more from my view.  



> Where was his/her developmental opportunities and mentoring



They do get them, but for the DEs it is without the benefit of formal training like PLQ before they begin taking on Jr NCO roles.  Of  NASO MCpl's right now on our crews, all of them are A/L.  This is a pan-CAF issue IMO so not one the trade can solve.  I believe we need to re-align and OJTP, pull the stuff out that should be included in a DP3B/6A course and not "expect" people to be able to succeed as MCpls/Sgts in the trade.

Mentoring - A Cats are mentored by their Leads, Leads are mentored by Stds & Trg and AES Op Leader oversees all.  At this time, though, out of 4 of us who are AES OP Stds & Trg (we have 1 Stds O and 1 Trg O for both ASO and NASO), 3 of us are also double-hatted as Leads.  The demands of both roles take away from the time to do the individual ones with the right time and focus.  This situation is, hopefully, temporary and won't exist by APS (for the NASO piece).  Because we aren't dedicated in the crew rooms as Leads, the mentoring on the crew level falls to the MCpls - who are all A/L at this time.



> The RCAF has been addicted to AESOps largely showing up with the NCO piece weighed off and has never made the cultural/institutional shift necessary to deliberately develop those skills.



100% agree.  I can only speak for the LRP side, but I am confident our SCWO will make the best decisions to realign how we do business.  Everything is being looked at; the MWOs and CWOs want to hear from the Snr NCO/WO levels on what we think.  It's refreshing, and I'm thankful to have been able to add my  :2c: on my area.  



> It is a constant source of frustation of mine that the AESOp occupation receives almost no Chain of Command oversight/intervention.



It is now, at very high levels.  The trade has been given some marching orders.   :nod:  From what I've seen so far, for LRP I think 402 trg is lined up, 404 is in the process AFAIK...the OJTP needs to change, and I think we need to develop a DP3/6A course and revisit our current Category system.  I think 402 and 404 need to be priority for MCpl/Sgt positions...if we don't increase the #s only they can produce for LRP, we will never flush out the crews.  Mitigate this by reducing the op tempo of 405 and 407 temporarily.  This is a high level decision, but is the only way forward I can see.  

Don't get me wrong, I know DEs I went thru the 'Peg with who are at 402, 404, etc and are doing very well.  I also know I have a B Cat Cpl who used to be a Inf MCpl with tons of experience who could mentor them on NCO skills - simply because of his decade + of experience.  It's not the fault of the DE NCOs, by any means...I just look at it from a 'what do we need from my view of the world', and a higher intake of OTs for the near future has a change of mitigating situations like are happening now, where Stds & Trg are also filling 75% of the Lead jobs.

Lastly, I hate to complain too much because I know the NASO situation is far better than the ASO one.  There are ideas that have a huge chance of solving many issues LRP faces now, eg - with the 402 trg now including ASO type stuff, do we need to produce a LRP ASO B and NASO B cat...why not just a LRP Jnr Operator?  Realign our Category system more like the RAAF one (which I hope we do).


----------



## Sub_Guy (25 Sep 2018)

I know there are some discussions on how to make things work, and I’ll be honest, the most recent idea I’ve heard is going to put the final nail in the AESOp coffin.   Someone, somewhere thinks all AESOps should be trained on everything.  This speaks volumes about how clueless the leadership is in the trade.  There are only a handful of Acoustic trained AESOps in the fleet, and I would bet if you asked SET for his opinion you’d get the same answer.   I find our leaders have undervalued what an LRP ASO has to know, I’ve heard the “one sensor” comment one too many times.  I’m certain our MH brothers on the VDQ are realizing how challenging tracking can be and are realizing it’s not just another sensor.

Trying to man 402 to 100% has nearly killed us, I can’t speak for 406, but I’ve been feeling the burn for years at 404.  As I’ve mentioned before I laugh when I hear about manning issues at 402.  I’ve really enjoyed working my ass off to make things work, and I’ve been constantly asked to do more with less.  I get it, we all are doing more with less, but when a CWO stands in a room and tells me 402 is the priority I damn near have to be strapped to my seat. 

If anything 402 could stand to lose a few instructors.   The training at 402 needs to be adjusted anyway.  When someone gets posted to 404 they are given a FIC and they are off to the races (assuming it’s the same at 406).  But, I’ve heard that when you get posted to 402 it takes a lot longer than a 2 week FIC before they can instruct.  If this the case, it’s inefficient. 

As I’ve mentioned it’s been one bad decision after another and now I’m supposed to believe that the next one will be great?   We need someone to step in and tell us what to do, because clearly we can’t do it ourselves.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (25 Sep 2018)

The idea only makes sense if you consider how the RAAF does it.  Everyone comes off MOAT as a C Cat...and all they do is RADAR, EO and Ord basically, for the first year.  After that, some of them 'upgrade' and go on to specialize in Acoustics or ESM...and become B Cats.  A Cat would be their Stds & Trg types.  Something like that.

Now for us;  coming out of Wpg, they have 3 weeks I think?  of MVASP, plus they are doing ESM, RADAR, and MAD (I think).  Make MOAT into 2 parts, 1 wet and 1 dry.  They come out "LRP Jnr Op" and can operate to the required PLs (TBD) and go on "OJTP".  They split time on both wet and dry, and are then selected based on abilities, proficiencies, & preference to either a Acoustic Senior Operator or an ESM Senior Operator (names are just mine).  Introduce a DP3 course that covers the tactics and leadership stuff....this will allow us to streamline the OJTP to get people into the Senior Operator (aka A Cat) seats...

I was at the first WG meeting;  SET ASO and GZ were both present, and this was brought up and neither said "no it won't work".   :dunno:

I was sitting next to GZ and, knowing the life he's suffered thru the last 2 years, I thought if anyone he'd be the one to say "this won't work" but...that wasn't the case.  

I know your pain, seriously...you know what things have been like for us across the parking lot; it's been awhile since I slept in my own bed and it will be awhile yet before I do again.  Been like that for 4 years now.  But...for me to get what more of what I need, and GZ needs...we need more baby operators from you and the other side of the pit.  For you guys to get more people to us, you need to get more people from 402.  MH also needs more people...which puts more demand on 402 to crank people out.  If 404 and 406 need people...where is the only place they can come from?  the line sqn's.  And we're hurting.  So, for me, when I think thru this, the one thing that needs to happen is the one that will end up fucking me over again next APS...bleeding some of our A Cats out to the TEs.  That will negatively affect me directly again this APS...but, honestly, I don't see a way around it...if you don't get more instructors, you can give us more B cats.  

What is a better option IMO?



			
				Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'll give my  :2c: as a LRP "dry sensor" type.
> 
> 2.  Introduce a Selection process similar to the way SAR Techs do it, but for AES OP.  Aptitudes, spatial ability, multi-tasking, have a Selection Week that all applicants go to, pick the best of the applicants.  There was a trial at a mini-ACS but it was only 1/2 day.  Selection will let you assess people on quantified criteria that is the same for all, and might expose some people to aspects of what we really do.  Some of those people might think "oh this isn't what I thought it was".  Either way, you have the best shot at getting the best people into the training system.  This Selection will also help determine, if done right, which people have aptitudes/abilities in the things MH does, Acoustics, EW aspects, etc.  Right now, the way we select and employ Junior AES Ops for LRP or MH isn't necessarily done based on aptitudes, etc.
> 
> ...



402 isn't going away, there is no viable Selection Phase (its done unofficially...)…the only fix I see that can be done in short time...reduce operational to beef up the TEs.  "go slow now so you can go fast later"

That could mean another year of ass-pain for me trying to work for the AFC and STFC (TC)...but I don't know what else would give the TEs MCpl/Sgts...and I've had my fill of years of ass-pain from IMPACT.   ullhair:


----------



## TCM621 (25 Sep 2018)

Eagle Eye View said:
			
		

> Imo cutting the excess of secondary duties and the ever increasing amount of dog and pony show tasking would be a good start.



Soldiers have been complaining about that for centuries and it never stopped people joining. We have cut way, way down on the parades and such in the last 20 years. One could even argue a correlation between declining prevalence of traditional military ceremonies and general "spit and polish" and declining enrollment/retention.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Sep 2018)

The very, very last thing my Sqn needs right now is anything that involved parades, polish and marching.  It would do nothing to increase anything that needs to be improved, and do lots to frustrate and lower the morale of already a couple of dozen very busy people.


----------



## dimsum (27 Sep 2018)

Tcm621 said:
			
		

> Soldiers have been complaining about that for centuries and it never stopped people joining. We have cut way, way down on the parades and such in the last 20 years. One could even argue a correlation between declining prevalence of traditional military ceremonies and general "spit and polish" and declining enrollment/retention.



That *may* be true if folks were just sitting around twiddling their thumbs.  EITS will attest to this but there are folks I haven't seen in months because barely any of us are around the unit or if we are, we're doing day-flights instead of away trips.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (27 Sep 2018)

Yup, the ever-revolving door...


----------



## daftandbarmy (3 Oct 2018)

Supply and demand..... welcome to the seller's market for aircrew


Canada faces severe shortage of pilots and aircraft workers

https://ottawacitizen.com/news/local-news/canada-faces-severe-shortage-of-pilots-and-aircraft-workers


----------



## Quirky (3 Oct 2018)

Perfect timing, when my IE25 expires in less than ten years I can apply at a maintenance organization that pays just as well, but more importantly, flies modern aircraft. Nothing like training our people to fly/maintain sometimes half a century old aircraft. Technology and modernization will quickly leave the RCAF behind.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (4 Oct 2018)

Quirky said:
			
		

> Nothing like training our people to fly/maintain sometimes half a century old aircraft. Technology and modernization will has quickly leave left the RCAF behind.



 :nod:


----------



## MilEME09 (4 Oct 2018)

Recently the CBC posted an article, apparently this shortage is not just a RCAF issue, the civilian industry will be facing a shortage of over 7500 pilots, aircrew and mechanics within 25 years at current recruiting/attrition rates. The question I then wonder is it maybe that schools like SAIT should do more to encourage people to take programs like aircraft mechanics? maybe subsidies for students? tax incentives? If i had the money I can say I'd probably consider changing careers into being an aircraft mechanic.


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Oct 2018)

MilEME09 said:
			
		

> Recently the CBC posted an article, apparently this shortage is not just a RCAF issue, the civilian industry will be facing a shortage of over 7500 pilots, aircrew and mechanics within 25 years at current recruiting/attrition rates. The question I then wonder is it maybe that schools like SAIT should do more to encourage people to take programs like aircraft mechanics? maybe subsidies for students? tax incentives? If i had the money I can say I'd probably consider changing careers into being an aircraft mechanic.



Why not become an AVN tech in the RegF then?


----------



## daftandbarmy (5 Oct 2018)

Spectrum said:
			
		

> Why not become an AVN tech in the RegF then?



I know a guy who is a helicopter tech in Vancouver and has been doing it for 20 years. They tried to recruit him a few years ago and he replied something like 'I'm getting twice the pay and home every night.... nope.'


----------



## blacktriangle (5 Oct 2018)

daftandbarmy said:
			
		

> I know a guy who is a helicopter tech in Vancouver and has been doing it for 20 years. They tried to recruit him a few years ago and he replied something like 'I'm getting twice the pay and home every night.... nope.'



Trust me, I get it. However, he has 20 years experience.

Mbr mentioned funds were an issue and wanted some kind of tax incentive. An Avn tech Cpl will make 70k + quick enough, not amazing but better than a kick in the nuts...


----------



## MarkOttawa (11 Oct 2018)

Summary of piece at Macdonald-Laurier Institute:



> The pilot retention crisis facing Canada’s air force: New MLI commentary
> 
> The Canada-US relationship has been front and centre in public view over the past year, with trade disputes and contentious renegotiations around NAFTA, which was successfully concluded in the renamed United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. So far, the bilateral security relationship has largely escaped scrutiny.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## GarryB (25 Oct 2018)

1) Many potential pilot recruits would not want to risk the chance of being assigned rotary wing vice fixed wing.

I've been told that approx. 62% of the RCAF cockpits are rotary and, given the huge advancements in drone technology, many jobs in the civilian rotary world have become obsolete. Thus little future on the outside for rotary experience compared to the immense shortages facing the fixed wing and airline industries.

2) Requiring 3 years of additional service after an OTU is a huge deterrent for prospective recruits which could extend their obligatory service once in the RCAF

The realities are that the easiest and fastest, least risk way into the airlines (and aviation industry as a pilot) means not joining the military.

Loved the airforce training and career I had but given the scenarios today not sure I would have joined.  Sad but true...


----------



## Zoomie (26 Oct 2018)

ATPL-H holders are rare and sought after in civilian market, much better starting wages for helo drivers.

Pilots owe 7 years after Wings, the 3 year restricted release policy won’t impact the NWG on their first OTU.

Who’s grass is greener?   I live a much better home life in the AF vice if I was turning pairings at Big Red or the Teal machine.  I’m home every night, work short days, don’t fly in stupid weather, never feel pressured to fly.

We don’t have a shortage of people wanting to fly and serve their nation - we just have a throughput issue.


----------



## bradley247 (26 Oct 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Pilots owe 7 years after Wings, the 3 year restricted release policy won’t impact the NWG on their first OTU.



It affects their second tour though, and greatly affects their decision to stay. With training delays and tour lengths these days, the majority of pilots on orphan fleets will be forced to sign a 3 year RR that goes past their 7 if they want another flying tour, which in turn forces them to sign an additional 4 year TOS for the “privilege” of being allowed to keep doing their job (as your TOS must cover the entirety of the RR period).

 I know multiple experienced pilots who, forced to choose between a ground tour or losing their move, have refused to sign a new RR and released because of that policy.



			
				Ditch said:
			
		

> Who’s grass is greener?   I live a much better home life in the AF vice if I was turning pairings at Big Red or the Teal machine.  I’m home every night, work short days, don’t fly in stupid weather, never feel pressured to fly.
> 
> We don’t have a shortage of people wanting to fly and serve their nation - we just have a throughput issue.



Consider yourself lucky then, because not all fleets are like that. We are so short of people in my community that we are burning people out. People are running on five or less days off a month for months on end (which they will never get back), and they’re away from their families for months each year. The rare times they are home, they’re inundated with mandatory fun and other BS.  

As a result we are hemorrhaging pilots, and every single one I’ve spoken to that has left says the grass is much greener on the other side; their quality of life is better, they have a schedule they know in advance and guaranteed days off each months. 

Pumping new pilots into the RCAF isn’t going to solve the problem. We have an experience shortage as much as we have a pilot shortage. You can only decrease the experience level so much before planes start to crash and people start to die.


----------



## Zoomie (27 Oct 2018)

bradley247 said:
			
		

> I know multiple experienced pilots who, forced to choose between a ground tour or losing their move, have refused to sign a new RR and released because of that policy.


Why didn’t they just take the ground tour?  That’s why they exist, to give drivers some rest and M-F schedule.

Can’t whine about a tough flying schedule and then balk at the opportunity to take a break.



> People are running on five or less days off a month for months on end (which they will never get back), and they’re away from their families for months each year. The rare times they are home, they’re inundated with mandatory fun and other BS.


That’s a failure in Squadron leadership.  Weak backbone and the inability to say “no”.  MALA , FRMS, HPMA - all good four letter acronyms to combat everything you just listed.

I manage a team of operational crews on a 24/7, 365 mandate - I ensure they get their 8-10 SDOs per month and manage them accordingly if they need a break.

Someone is saying “yes” to the RFEs that your Squadron is flying, find out who that person is and have a frank discussion with them, vice an anonymous website.

Throw me a PM if you like and I will chat with your OpsO - I undoubtably know someone around his/her office and can strike up a conversation.


----------



## bradley247 (27 Oct 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> Why didn’t they just take the ground tour?  That’s why they exist, to give drivers some rest and M-F schedule.



You missed the point. It’s not about getting a break, it’s about being penalized no matter what if they want to keep doing their jobs. It takes away their options and forces their hand. 

If they do another flying tour, they don’t have the luxury of sliding over to another squadron flying the same aircraft. They are forced to sign a 3 year RR and a 4 year TOS. Depending when they get posted, that can make it 5-6 years before they could release with a move. 

If they take the ground tour, they are now going to go uncurrent, and be forced to sign a 2 year RR, and once again a 4 year TOS if they ever want to fly again. 

Don’t forget as well that those RR periods aren’t reciprocal, they have no obligation to keep you flying for those three years. I’ve seen more than one person posted to a ground tour or shipped off to Moose Jaw a year or two into their 3 years. 

People who want to keep their options open face the choice between a 100% chance of losing their move (worth tens of thousands potentially) or just walking away, many are choosing the latter. I’m in the same boat in the coming year and strongly considering the latter as well; I actually want to stay and fly, but I feel like the penalty for staying is so high that it’s essentially a now or never decision, get out now or commit for life. 



			
				Ditch said:
			
		

> That’s a failure in Squadron leadership.  Weak backbone and the inability to say “no”.  MALA , FRMS, HPMA - all good four letter acronyms to combat everything you just listed.



It’s an institutional failure, not a squadron failure. We are desperately short on crews, and most of the BS we put up with is outside of the squadrons control. 

MALA and FRMS do nothing to take long term fatigue into account. If I got enough sleep in the last week, I should be 100% ready to go, but nowhere does it account for not having enough SDOs in the past quarter.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Oct 2018)

bradley247 said:
			
		

> I they take the ground tour they are now going to go uncurrent, and be forced to sign a 2 year RR, and once again a 4 year TOS if they ever want to fly again.



There are clever ways to get around that, such as keeping the guys on staff tour with a minimal currency such that they don’t require an OTU after they get back.  That’s what we do.


----------



## garb811 (27 Oct 2018)

Sorry for wandering in on this one, but I recall there used to be a program to keep pilots current even when posted to a desk job, along the lines of continuation jumping for airborne folks not posted to a jump position.  Has that fallen by the wayside? Tracking that would be hard to do for those bound to a desk in Ottawa but if someone is posted to an active Wing, wouldn't it make sense to give them cockpit time even if they are posted to Wing Ops or whatever?


----------



## kev994 (27 Oct 2018)

If someone is a current AC for a platform flown on the wing and has time to fly regularly, then sure. But right now we have more FOs than we know what to do with so we have no capacity to fly more FOs. And then there are quarterly sims that they need to go to Trenton for a week for... it’s not feasible for more than 1 or 2 augmentees.


----------



## SupersonicMax (27 Oct 2018)

garb811 said:
			
		

> Sorry for wandering in on this one, but I recall there used to be a program to keep pilots current even when posted to a desk job, along the lines of continuation jumping for airborne folks not posted to a jump position.  Has that fallen by the wayside? Tracking that would be hard to do for those bound to a desk in Ottawa but if someone is posted to an active Wing, wouldn't it make sense to give them cockpit time even if they are posted to Wing Ops or whatever?



There is no formal program.  It is normally an arrangement between the individual, his unit and the supporting Wing.  We send guys from Winnipeg/Ottawa back to the Wings to get at least one flight every 365 days (which is the absolute minimum in order not to do an OTU).


----------



## GarryB (9 Nov 2018)

Ditch said:
			
		

> "ATPL-H holders are rare and sought after in civilian market, much better starting wages for helo drivers."
> 
> Flying with a guy the other day who does IFR training in helos and said less than 10% of the guys are finding employment in the civilian world.
> 
> ...


----------



## Gorgo (7 Feb 2019)

A quick question:  What is the reason for the fact that pilots have to be officers?  There have been times in the past when NCMs have been allowed to get their wings and fly.  And given the current pilot shortage, wouldn't this serve as a way to maintain and enhance current operational readiness?

After all, if someone from the technical trades is allowed to become a pilot, s/he would have the background about understand his/her aircraft's systems.  While I assume pilots are trained to understand same at 2 CFFTS/3 CFFTS, having the extra technical background experience would help a lot.


----------



## SupersonicMax (7 Feb 2019)

Our techs know very well one type of systems.  Pilots need to have a good understanding of all systems.  And that’s one part of what a pilots needs to understand of dozens.  I don’t think a tech would make a better pilot than a non tech because of the training they get.  We don’t have a shortage of pilot applicants.  We have a shortage of experienced pilots.  That is sqarely due to how the organization treated us over the years and an aviation’s socio-economy.


----------



## Good2Golf (7 Feb 2019)

Organizational pre-conceived ideas about responsibility and aptitude keep the CAF/RCAF from considering non-Officer pilots these days.  The internal narrative has changed from the days when a Sgt could be a pilot and command a crew of 15, including a commissioned officer door gunner.  I’ve seen aircraft technicians become flight engineers and then commission (because those are the rules) to become a pilot....and a darned good one at that, but those are exceptions, and clearly had appropriate aptitude prior to considering applying to be a pilot (who “just happened to be” an NCM prior to pilot application).

As far as I know, there is no serious consideration to have NCMs pilot manned aircraft. 

Regards
G2G


----------



## dimsum (7 Feb 2019)

Good2Golf said:
			
		

> commissioned officer door gunner



I would VOT tomorrow to do that.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (7 Feb 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I would VOT tomorrow to do that.



Or you could just go MH!   ;D

You'd even get free swimming lessons as a bonus!!!!!!!


----------



## Loachman (7 Feb 2019)

Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> A quick question:  What is the reason for the fact that pilots have to be officers?  There have been times in the past when NCMs have been allowed to get their wings and fly.  And given the current pilot shortage, wouldn't this serve as a way to maintain and enhance current operational readiness?



While I am generally in favour of NCO Pilots in Tac Hel, how would this solve a Pilot shortage? The training would have to be the same length, it would take the same length of time to achieve the same experience levels to become fully useful, and pay should be the same for the same qualifications and responsibilities. If paid less, these hypothetical guys would be even more likely to jump to the civ world, to which they would be equally attractive.



			
				Fred Herriot said:
			
		

> After all, if someone from the technical trades is allowed to become a pilot, s/he would have the background about understand his/her aircraft's systems.  While I assume pilots are trained to understand same at 2 CFFTS/3 CFFTS, having the extra technical background experience would help a lot.



Aside from what Max has already explained, we are not exactly flush with experienced techs either. It takes a few years to train them and get them to useful levels of experience as well, so yanking them out of their occupations and putting them through another lengthy training and experience-building process benefits neither community.


----------



## MarkOttawa (10 Feb 2019)

Somehow one has some doubts how successful...



> Clock ticking as Air Force looks to stop hemorrhaging experienced pilots
> 
> A shortage of experienced pilots is forcing the Royal Canadian Air Force to walk a delicate line between keeping enough seasoned aviators available to train new recruits and lead missions in the air.
> 
> ...



Mark
Ottawa


----------



## brihard (10 Feb 2019)

Same dilemma some other trades are facing (MPs come to mind). We train people up with highly transferable skills that are in demand due to demographic pressures, and then we pay them significantly less than their civilian counterparts. Labour is a market, and supply and demand don’t care about our problems. Money talks, so throw enough money at the problem to keep them around. As much as we all love to rip on pilots, they put a ton of time, effort, and smarts into getting pretty good at something few people can do. Can’t blame them if they pay back what’s expected and then gravitate towards a much bigger paycheck.


----------



## dimsum (10 Feb 2019)

Brihard said:
			
		

> Same dilemma some other trades are facing (MPs come to mind). We train people up with highly transferable skills that are in demand due to demographic pressures, and then we pay them significantly less than their civilian counterparts. Labour is a market, and supply and demand don’t care about our problems. Money talks, so throw enough money at the problem to keep them around. As much as we all love to rip on pilots, they put a ton of time, effort, and smarts into getting pretty good at something few people can do. Can’t blame them if they pay back what’s expected and then gravitate towards a much bigger paycheck.



Exactly.  Some people think this is the first time it's happened too.


----------



## Loachman (10 Feb 2019)

The last Pilot Get Well Programme (1997/1998ish) did not do so well. Depending upon experience levels, some Pilots were eligible for a $75000.00 bonus for signing on for another five years, some for $50000.00, and some for none. One-third of the money was to be paid immediately, and one-third on the first and second anniversaries of re-signing.

This caused several problems and irritations.

COs had Captains making more money than them over three years.

It created first-, second-, and third-class Pilots; guess how the latter two components felt.

It put takers into higher tax brackets, so it was not as generous as it seemed (spreading it out over five years did not occur the the grown-ups).

It came with a five-year restricted release period. That meant that those in the "treat-me-nicely" pensionable/almost pensionable segment of their careers could be posted to whatever crappy job or location that needed filling with no recourse.

It was, essentially, a big, fat, wet, juicy, wriggling worm on an enormous sharp, barbed hook.

Only a few who had already decided to stay in for that long no matter what happened swallowed it. The rest did not want to jeopardize their freedom.

I was eligible for the full amount, but did not take the hook - and was damned glad that I did not.

Somebody needs to study the irritants, take them seriously, and relieve them as much as possible. More money would likely help, but it has to be a real pay increase rather than bait, but the irritants have to be corrected.

Rolling Aircrew Allowance into pay would be one possible method of achieving that, rather than double-penalizing people who want to fly by sticking them into non-flying positions while simultaneously stripping them of part of their income.


----------



## Sub_Guy (10 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Rolling Aircrew Allowance into pay would be one possible method of achieving that, rather than double-penalizing people who want to fly by sticking them into non-flying positions while simultaneously stripping them of part of their income.



This could work.  Submarine Crewing Allowance works this way.  Submariners get two allowances, however SUBCRA ceases 3 years after a submariner is posted ashore (or out of a submarine position).


----------



## kev994 (10 Feb 2019)

Where is this ops trade we are allegedly getting? I would settle for someone to handle some paperwork so I can actually spend some time instructing.


----------



## daftandbarmy (11 Feb 2019)

kev994 said:
			
		

> Where is this ops trade we are allegedly getting? I would settle for someone to handle some paperwork so I can actually spend some time instructing.



You've hit the nail on the head. It seems it's not all about 'carrots and sticks'... which means we're pretty much sc$ewed because that's all we know how to do to motivate people....


Motivating Employees Is Not About Carrots or Sticks

Anticipate roadblocks to enable progress. When you ask anything significant of team members, they will undoubtedly encounter roadblocks and challenges along the path to success. Recognize that challenges can materially impact motivation. Be proactive in identifying and addressing them. What might make an employee’s work difficult or cumbersome? What can you do to ease the burden? What roadblocks might surface? How can you knock them down? How can you remain engaged just enough to see trouble coming and pave the way for success? Employees are motivated when they can make progress without unnecessary interruption and undue burdens.

The bottom line is: Don’t rely on outdated methods and tricks to motivate employees. Talk with your team about the relevance of the work they do every day. Be proactive in identifying and solving problems for your employees. Recognize employee contributions in specific, meaningful ways on a regular basis. Connect with your own motivation, and share it freely with your team. Put away the carrots and sticks and have meaningful conversations instead. You’ll be well on your way to leading a highly motivated team.

https://hbr.org/2017/06/motivating-employees-is-not-about-carrots-or-sticks


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2019)

Loachman said:
			
		

> Rolling Aircrew Allowance into pay would be one possible method of achieving that, rather than double-penalizing people who want to fly by sticking them into non-flying positions while simultaneously stripping them of part of their income.



I'd prefer to see the RCAF go with a Professional Aircrew career track, like the RAF does.  Folks in the PA track (the RAF guys I know called it a 'spine'), they go onto a different pay table.   PA never will go to a command level (SCWO, WCWO, etc) but they'll always stay in a flying position of some sort, whether operational and an OTU, etc.  

Because of the separate pay table, they are able to continue to get pay raises and pension benefits that are commensurate, but recognized for their operational/flying abilities, vice their MWO/CWO skills.

Best of both worlds!  Right now my only option to keep flying it to 'opt out' and hope I don't get a ground job.  If they did this with all air/flight crew trades, I think you'd greatly improve the corporate knowledge at the flying sqn's.


----------



## dimsum (12 Feb 2019)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> I'd prefer to see the RCAF go with a Professional Aircrew career track, like the RAF does.  Folks in the PA track (the RAF guys I know called it a 'spine'), they go onto a different pay table.   PA never will go to a command level (SCWO, WCWO, etc) but they'll always stay in a flying position of some sort, whether operational and an OTU, etc.
> 
> Because of the separate pay table, they are able to continue to get pay raises and pension benefits that are commensurate, but recognized for their operational/flying abilities, vice their MWO/CWO skills.
> 
> Best of both worlds!  Right now my only option to keep flying it to 'opt out' and hope I don't get a ground job.  If they did this with all air/flight crew trades, I think you'd greatly improve the corporate knowledge at the flying sqn's.



I like the idea in theory, but does the RAF have a limit to the PA system?  It might be extreme, but what happens if all (or enough) aircrew take the PA track that no one (or very few) get promoted and posted to those leadership positions?


----------



## SupersonicMax (12 Feb 2019)

If we integrate PA, it has to be competitive and only give to the best tactical experts.  

EITS:  you can be removed from the merit list without opting out.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2019)

Dimsum said:
			
		

> I like the idea in theory, but does the RAF have a limit to the PA system?  It might be extreme, but what happens if all (or enough) aircrew take the PA track that no one (or very few) get promoted and posted to those leadership positions?



The way it was explained to me, there are a certain amount of positions for each trade/rank.  It is a competitive process; some are selected, some aren't and can try again later.

Now that Seedcorn is over, there are less RAF folks around but I will ask for more certainty.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (12 Feb 2019)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> If we integrate PA, it has to be competitive and only give to the best tactical experts.



Agreed, as some might see it as a way to increase pay/pension because they see that as 'more certain' than promotions. 



> EITS:  you can be removed from the merit list without opting out.



Copy that but the effect is still the same;  less pay now and reduced pension in retirement.  Our current system offers only one way for financial betterment.


----------



## Quirky (13 Feb 2019)

The RCAF will be a great training pipeline for airliner pilots for the foreseeable future. If I was in the big 2 right now there is no reason why I’d want to make a career of flying for the Forces (postings/aircrew retention problems etc). Unless someone is really passionate about being a fighter pilot, I don’t see a justifiable enough reason(s) to stick it out long term.


----------



## Loachman (13 Feb 2019)

The last time that that happened was around 1993 or so, just after the Force Reduction Programme kicked off.

Despite Air Command pointing out the impending disaster, higher direction was to pay people to get out anyway. Reductions in recruiting and training were also part of that deal.

The Pilot Get Well Programme followed FRP four or five years later as desperation blossomed.

Somewhere in between, a lot of airline guys lost their jobs when the industry took a downturn. A lot of Res F Pilots in 411 Squadron in Downsview were affected - Air Canada laid off everybody with less than thirteen years' seniority.


----------

