# Mess Kit and Other Anti-Air Force Ramblings Split from: Air Force



## Strike (15 Aug 2005)

Of course, then there was the CADPAT model with the buttons covered that was suposed to be issued to the AF first.   Try tellin that to our supply.   I don't understand how SAR bases and units based on a ship can get all this crap before a unit that actually works in the field.   No oeffence to you guys out there.   It's just a little annoying.

That brings up all the nice kit the Army has -- Tac Vest, day pack, and new ruck (what is the volume of that anyway?).   But we're stuck with the old webbing that kills your shoulders, and rucks that have a frame made for someone who's over 6'2" and carry the same amount as the new CADPAT day pack.   Wassup with that?


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (15 Aug 2005)

Ok Strike I don't know who you've been talking too but the new ruck is no where in sight.  The Day pack is nice so far but I haven't had it that long nor field tested it and the TV although I feel fits better isn't much good for offensive operations and has very little space and even less modularity (if that's a word).

The CADPAT with covered buttons is a design compromise so that the military doesn't have to make two different sets of combats.  

As for distribution lets just say that the old cmbt jacket was made in Winnipeg and 2VP (which was stationed in Wpg) was one of the last CMBT ARMS units to recieve it.


----------



## Strike (15 Aug 2005)

The tac vest would give those of us that fly a little closer to the ground a little more leeway if (Heaven forbid) we had to dismount.   No digging around behind the seat for my mags.   The big thought is, should we go down, would we really want to go running around trying to be all stealth like with that wonderful webbing banging about?   No way.   If we had a proper (even modified flying) vest we could grab our weapon and get out.   It's a little faster that getting out, going to the back, untwisting the caribiner (sp?) that is holding the webbing to the cargo net, unclipping it, throwing it on, and running.   Give me a day pack with my SERE kit and I'm a happy camper -- oh, and a C8 too.


----------



## GO!!! (15 Aug 2005)

Strike,

The new Tac Vest is just the old LBV, but in CADPAT, with no pouches on the back. 4 Mags, 2 canteens, and some other tiny little pouches that don't really fit anything all that well. It is just as uncomfortable as the webbing. My unit has tried (and failed) to be issued the old webbing instead, because at least the old stuff can be worn when jumping, and can carry the requisite equipment.

The new day pack is'nt bad.

And pardon me, but you don't need this stuff in the Air Force. I have worn webbing for triple digits some years - deployed and not - and it should be issued to reg force cbt arms units first, and their augmentees. And they should have to give it back when they leave. Giving CADPAT webbing and rucks to the air force is just a waste, unless you are going to start doing army stuff too.


----------



## Strike (15 Aug 2005)

> unless you are going to start doing army stuff too.



I'm Tac Hel.  We are the majority of the AF but are still considered the bastard children.  Include the Herc guys that have been whipping around in the desert too.

When I'm on Ex I don't go staying in a hotel.  That's for when we are doing air shows.  I think the guys that went to Ramore did stay in hotels, but only because the helos could not be co-located with the camp, and the hotel was much closer to them.  Otherwise, we are staying in the same tents and buildings.

The point is, we DO do Army stuff when we're deployed; we live with the Army and we eat with the Army -- unless we bring our own cooks 'cause they kick a$$.  ;D  I still would prefer flying with the Tac Vest available if I were to go down.



> I have worn webbing for triple digits some years - deployed and not - and it should be issued to reg force cbt arms units first, and their augmentees.



Although I agree with the method of issue, this only seems to work when it is most benifitial -- doesn't explain why the Army was getting the new CADPATs with the buttons covered, when it was suposed to start out as AF issue first.

Point is, I want a TV and a C8, 'cause it will sit behind my seat much better and is WAY more accessible in a bad situation.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2005)

Strike said:
			
		

> Although I agree with the method of issue, this only seems to work when it is most benifitial -- doesn't explain why the Army was getting the new CADPATs with the buttons covered, when it was suposed to start out as AF issue first.



The covered buttons, like the CADPAT raingear, are a joint effort mandated by the top, to alleviate the expense of two different projects and two different sets of gear. They do not belong to one service or the other. Nobody was singled out as "They're ours, we get them first". As with most things, someone way out of our loop decides who needs it the most and where it will go first, right or wrong.

As to the vest. Don't the jet jockeys have a vest they wear? I'm sure I've seen AF types walking around with an OD vest. Would that not do for now? As to the C8, they're in short supply, even for the gunfighters. You'd probably get a C7A2 easier. Almost the same and, I would think, adequate for the purpose.

We can't change it for you here, but I bet a well written paper by you, sent through the right channels, will get you an answer. You may not like that answer, but c'est la vie, you tried. You may also want to remember that old adage also, "Don't wish for what you don't really want"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (16 Aug 2005)

"The point is, we DO do Army stuff when we're deployed; we live with the Army and we eat with the Army -- unless we bring our own cooks 'cause they kick a$$."

I'd pay good money to see you guys live with the Army.

"The covered buttons, like the CADPAT rain gear, are a joint effort mandated by the top, to alleviate the expense of two different projects and two different sets of gear. They do not belong to one service or the other. Nobody was singled out as "They're ours, we get them first". As with most things, someone way out of our loop decides who needs it the most and where it will go first, right or wrong."

I thought I said this.  Except we have yet to see the rain gear.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> I thought I said this.   Except we have yet to see the rain gear.



You an' me both, a couple of times around here. Just gotta keep reiterating it, some people don't read well


----------



## Zoomie (16 Aug 2005)

CFL said:
			
		

> I'd pay good money to see you guys live with the Army.



LOL - yup...  A few comments caught around the newly established Airforce/Army defensive position.

"What do you mean porta-potties with baby wipes and satellite TV isn't part of living in the field???"

"Where's my cot?"

"You want me to do what at 0300??"


----------



## GO!!! (17 Aug 2005)

Further to the "Tac" Hel unit in Edmonton,

Remember 2 or three winters ago when 408 needed to be "Op Ready" for some reason?

3VP was Enemy force, and Pl and section raids captured maps, vehicles, officers (until told to stop) etc, with the whole ex culminating in a Coy raid on 408's defensive position. 

For the whole Squadron, there was ONE C6 trench and ONE fire trench. The only reaction to enemy fire (ours) was to jump up and place huge OUT OF PLAY signs on everything in sight. 

When "killed" 408 pers objected to lying in the snow as "it's cold - HELLOOOO"

Oh, and watching 408 pers scream in agony - because we had captured their weapons and ammo, and were now dirtying one with the other, and leaving them behind for them to clean - was just icing on the cake.

I have yet, in 7 years in the army to see a "Tac" Helicopter squadron do anything more tactical than fly on windless nights with the doors open, provided all the mags were off of course 

So, NO, you can't have a C8. :threat:


----------



## Good2Golf (19 Aug 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Further to the "Tac" Hel unit in Edmonton,
> 
> Remember 2 or three winters ago when 408 needed to be "Op Ready" for some reason?
> 
> ...



Don't kid yourself, GO...you'll be begging to be Cbt Arms Spec on an MH-47G spewing 6,000 rds/min of 7.26 out of an M-134 mini-gun!  ;D

If you ask nice, we may even give you a set of "honourary" blue name tape and slip-ons!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (1 Sep 2005)

First off, to the question of whether or not Air Force units need CADPAT, army kit, etc.  The reality, whether GO!! likes it or not Tac Hel deploys to the field with the Army in order to support the Army.  Key word, support.  We are not the Army.  We don't pretend to be, but if we are told to go to the field (and do so readily) the reality is that we need to have the proper equipment for the job.  If that involves having the tac vest or any of the other "in short supply" items, then we should get them.  I shouldn't have to go to Base Supply and be told that because I belong to an Air Force unit I can't have the proper equipment.  Last time I checked we are on the same base for a reason.  I have to agree with other contributors that it amazes me that units in Comox get their kit before units in Tac Hel get them.  Once again NDHQ and 1 Cdn Air Div are out of touch with the pointy end of the stick, i.e. operational units.
Just for GO!!'s education (since it is obvious that ignorance has resulted in some misplaced comments), Tac Hel has been in Somolia, Bosnia, Kosovo, Haita, etc. just in the last 15 plus years.  Also, anybody that tells you that Tac Hel doesn't have representation on the ground in Afghanistan is obviously not well informed.  The first experience with the UAVs in Afghanistan had the Ops O coming from Tac Hel, techs from 430 and 438 Sqn, and perhaps other units (I don't pretend to know if more pers came from other Air Force units).  The UAVs now rest within 1 Wing and will be in theatre soon (won't mention when, even though it may already be somewhere on this site).  I highly suggest that pers posting on this site educate themselves prior to offering their opinions, just like I wouldn't dream of offering my opinion on Artillery or Armour issues.
Most people don't know that the idea of using blue nametags, epilets, and t-shirts came from the current CF CWO, who used to be the AF CWO.  Apparently, the former MND (John M) couldn't tell the Air Force pers from the Army pers in Bosnia, so the then AF CWO came up with this idea.  Hmm, the blue beret and EAGLE on the beret and name tag wasn't enough?  Hmm, seems like another case of ignorance, although I suspect the "strong beverages" that the former MND likes may have had something to do with his inability to differentiate between AF and LF.
Yes, the blue nametags and epilets are extremely hard to see.  This brain dead idea should be put out to pasture and a solution implemented.  Like any good soldier, airman, or sailor, if you're going to whine then you should come up with a solution.  An easy one, which most likely won't cost a lot of money since I suspect that we already have a large stock of them, is to utilize the old olive drab ranks with the CADPAT.  I don't ever recall having a problem seeing these types of epilets.
Saluting or not saluting.  Anyone that fishes for salutes should not be an officer.  Saluting goes both ways and is a sign of respect, both for the rank and given back to the person doing the saluting.  There are proper times when to salute and when not to and we all know this, whether you're in the Air Force, Army, or Navy.  Enough said about saluting.
As for Medium/Heavy lift helos, according to the National Post, the AF will submit to the MND this month a proposal to replace the Hercs, SAR a/c (Buffs), and to buy up to 20 Chinooks.  Looks like the medium/heavy lift may be sooner down the road than some people think, although with the Liberals I won't hold my breath (because I'd suffocate myself   ).
1 Wing is not part of the Army.  It is part of the Air Force and reports to 1 Cdn Air Div in Winnipeg.  All Tac Hel units are part of 1 Wing and are lodger units on the Base and thus do not report to either the Base Comd or the Bde Comd.  Therefore, whether or not either wants the Air Force pers at Tac Hel units to wear the blue t-shirt or not does not matter.  Tac Hel units take their orders from 1 Wing.  I am definitely not trying to "snub my thumb" at the Army, but I am just pointing out a reality that Tac Hel units are not in the chain of command of the Army, unless the a/c or portions of the Sqn are given to the Army via TOCA.
The reality is that all three services are going to be expected to work together more often and not fight each other in the very near future.  This involves having the proper equipment and uniforms to do the job.  I agree that the AF needs to go to CADPAT (as Tac Hel has been leading the way for years now), but there is no need for the blue t-shirt, epilets, or name tags.  Let's stop wasting money on these silly ideas and put the money (including manhours, etc) into what we really need in the military (infrastructure, equipment, training, personnel, etc.).

Scoobs out....


----------



## GO!!! (1 Sep 2005)

I won't dig out all of the war stories about the lack of TacHel's tacticality, but I'll leave that part of the argument with the fact that I have flown in Gryphons, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Sea Stallions and Pave Low's, as well as a Puma and numerous civilian birds. All demonstrated a far higher level of speed and tactical movement when required than our venerable 408 squadron, who seems to be unable to even navigate without highway 14 to guide them to Wx.

Furthermore, I have yet to see tachel deploy in a tactical scenario that is on par with what the americans, kiwis or brits do on a regular basis. Just flying to Wx, and staging out of the camp is not tactical, nor is restricting army units to daylight travel. Besides, any helo squadron that is unable to fly with both a full load of troops and fuel has failed to deliver - IMHO.

As for the kit you believe you deserve? When it is issued out to all of the cbt arms units, who use it all the time, you can have it for the walk from the mess tent to the flight line - just like how we can't get issued flight gloves.

The major problem here (as I see it) is the misconception by the air force that they exist for any other purpose than to support army operations and exercises. Just think, if we went to an army air corps, the tachel squadrons could be under the permanent command of the army Bde's that they are co-located with, and be issued all of the webbing they wished.


----------



## mover1 (1 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The major problem here (as I see it) is the misconception by the air force that they exist for any other purpose than to support army operations and exercises. Just think, if we went to an army air corps, the tachel squadrons could be under the permanent command of the army Bde's that they are co-located with, and be issued all of the webbing they wished.



Your right. i better run across the tarmac and tell the Sar Techs and the Maritime Patrol guys that we should all feel ashamed of ourselves because of what we do for the country. Sorry master GO!!! i forgot my place in the world. Please don't send the hounds for me. I be a good servant to you.


----------



## Good2Golf (1 Sep 2005)

Just so guys don't think that Tac Hel (through the airforce) actively tried to shirk supporting the army, the army is not at all blameless in the Tac Hel degrading over the years issue.  In fact...the primary cause of it's "capability degradation" was the Army itself...  Regarding removal from service of the CH147 Chinook, CH136 Kiowa and CH135 Twin Huey, and endorsement of an aircraft such as the B412 (later to be known as the CH146 Griffon) for Army support....it was Comd FMC himself, LGen Ken Foster, who signed the order, not some light blue Air Force guy -- I have a PDF'd copy of it somewhere.  It would also have been nice to have the Army's support at JCRB in Apr 2003 when ERSTA and armed capability in support of armed reconaissance was being discussed.  VAdm Garnett asked the Army rep (I believe it was Gen McDonald) if the Army endorsed what the Air Force was trying to do to increase CH146 relevancy to the land forces...the reply (paraphrased) was that the Army was not in a position to endorse ERSTA at this time..."  thus the capability upgrade died.

Remember, folks are only as good as two things they have, training and kit.  I think Tac Hel folks have just about made as much as they could with the schisse sandwich that leads back nowhere else but FMC HQ in 1990.  Yeah, things are not optimal out there, but it isn't a) not for lack of effort, and b) not like things were fantastic prior to 1990 either.  I was fortunate to have support from my green brethren when I was developing the Army's requirement statement for Dedicated Aviation Support, especially support from MGen Herb Petras and BGen Mike Ward...a far cry from the "sell out" that some will call LGen Foster's decision to substantially cut aviation capability in 1990.  Hopefully things keep developing and we can get back on line providing relevant support throughout the spectrum.  :-\

Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  At least my CADPAT(AR) name and rank aren't made with blue thread...  ;D


----------



## Scoobs (1 Sep 2005)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I won't dig out all of the war stories about the lack of TacHel's tacticality, but I'll leave that part of the argument with the fact that I have flown in Gryphons, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Sea Stallions and Pave Low's, as well as a Puma and numerous civilian birds. All demonstrated a far higher level of speed and tactical movement when required than our venerable 408 squadron, who seems to be unable to even navigate without highway 14 to guide them to Wx.
> 
> Furthermore, I have yet to see tachel deploy in a tactical scenario that is on par with what the americans, kiwis or brits do on a regular basis. Just flying to Wx, and staging out of the camp is not tactical, nor is restricting army units to daylight travel. Besides, any helo squadron that is unable to fly with both a full load of troops and fuel has failed to deliver - IMHO.
> 
> ...



I will not sink to GO!!'s level and insult the Army because I respect them and for what they do.  Perhaps GO!! should learn some respect for his fellow Canadian Force's members.  First off, the Griffon was not our choice, as detailed in the last reply.  We were stuck with it and are doing what we can with it.  I state again, Tac Hel is not the Army.  Tac Hel exists to support the Army.  Also, check your spelling of our helo, it is GRIFFON.  Also, should you not want to fly with 408 Sqn the next time you are in the field, just don't get on the helo.  Your choice.
Your ignorance astounds me.  Check your facts.  Griffons are equipped with NVGs and heads-up-display just for night flying.  I have a vague memory of our Griffons transporting the Army troops at night time.  Perhaps you should give your friends at 2 CMBG, specifically 3 RCR a call before you display your ignorance once again.
As for an Army Air Corps.  No problem.  Then perhaps you can learn what it takes to fly a helo and keep it in the air.  A lot harder than what you think.  
Flight gloves:  last time I checked you aren't in the Air Force and have no requirement for flying gloves.  Since Tac Hel pers are in the field and are expected to operate in the field, then they do deserve to have the proper equipment.  Do you fly an a/c?
The role of the AF is not to soley support the Army.  That ignorant opinion is the reason why these problems exist today.  Check your history.  Did the Germans or Japanese do so well without Air Superiority near the end of WWII?  Did the war in the Pacific end because the Army invaded the Japanese mainland?  No, the American AF ended it with the bomb.  All services work together to accomplish the aim.  If your isolationist thinking was more prevalent in the CF today, then any mission would sure be doomed for failure.

In summary, your silly and childish comments about the mess tent, etc. only demonstrate your ignorance once again.  I state again, educate yourself prior to offering your opinion.


----------



## Zoomie (2 Sep 2005)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Flight gloves:  last time I checked you aren't in the Air Force and have no requirement for flying gloves.  Since Tac Hel pers are in the field and are expected to operate in the field, then they do deserve to have the proper equipment.



Interesting debate between the Rotorheads and the crunchies - I shall remain neutral and only fan the flames a little bit.

Scoobs, this debate was initially centered around the AF pers not getting C-8's and TacVest - how is this equipment essential in any means for AF pers?  If you are ever in the position to slam a mag home and strike the forward assist, you are dead already!  The army would be better served with flying gloves (which is essentially what the new gloves in CTS are) than the AF would be with any of the high-speed kit of the LFC.

Essential equipment for a TacHel unit should be bug bars, chem lights, kevlar helmets, etc - not gucci TacVests or assault rifles.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Sep 2005)

Scoobs,

If your a pilot, I hope you take valium. Your way to hyper to be flying anything I'm in. And we like your gloves cause they work, and we use them all the time. Even the US has recognised the usefullness of this type of glove and offers them for sale to all, in the PX. We buy them cause we can't get them issued. Maybe we should offer you the same option for our kit. Take a chill pill.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Sep 2005)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I will not sink to GO!!'s level and insult the Army because I respect them and for what they do.   Perhaps GO!! should learn some respect for his fellow Canadian Force's members.   First off, the Griffon was not our choice, as detailed in the last reply.   We were stuck with it and are doing what we can with it.   I state again, Tac Hel is not the Army.   Tac Hel exists to support the Army.   Also, check your spelling of our helo, it is GRIFFON.   Also, should you not want to fly with 408 Sqn the next time you are in the field, just don't get on the helo.   Your choice.
> Your ignorance astounds me.   Check your facts.   Griffons are equipped with NVGs and heads-up-display just for night flying.   I have a vague memory of our Griffons transporting the Army troops at night time.   Perhaps you should give your friends at 2 CMBG, specifically 3 RCR a call before you display your ignorance once again.
> As for an Army Air Corps.   No problem.   Then perhaps you can learn what it takes to fly a helo and keep it in the air.   A lot harder than what you think.
> Flight gloves:   last time I checked you aren't in the Air Force and have no requirement for flying gloves.   Since Tac Hel pers are in the field and are expected to operate in the field, then they do deserve to have the proper equipment.   Do you fly an a/c?
> ...




First off, the GRIFFON is a decent helicopter. I have taken the time to compare the numbers as to the capabilities of the CH146 to the old twin huey's and have come to the conclusion that 1) you are unable to fly the 146 to the edge of the envelope, or 2) simply unwilling.   Nuff said on the caps of the griffon.

TacHel may EXIST to support the army, however, what the CF intends and what the CF achieves are often miles apart. I sit on certain meetings (like the airborne co-ord) and every time, every statement from the blue side of the table is centered on them leaving earlier and doing less. Ie "do you really need to jump 3 times EACH? We could be gone by 1300 if you only jumped once!"

As to the night capabilities of the Griffon, once again, capability wasted. I have flown in griffons at night, with the aircrew wearing NVGs. It would have been far more impressive if they had neglected to fly over the objective 3 TIMES before dropping us off at the LOD, instead of the LZ, and then sat there, rotors turning for 11 MINUTES!!! Mind you, I have only seen this impressive feat once - I hope you did an equally stellar job for our friends out east.

Army Air Corps? The USMC, US Army, Brits and Kiwis use this system in conflicts around the world and have for fifty years - but I suppose you know better....

Sooooo... you need webbing more than the Cbt arms for....how many tactical exes do you do in a year? But I should'nt have flight gloves because "I have no requirement.."   That's pretty good logic.....

And in fact, I do fly aircraft, as do ALL of the members of my immediate and extended families. It is no dark art, and not all that hard - I even have 55 hrs on my rotary qual - so can the "ignorant" lines. You are a skilled cab driver - and don't you forget it.

As for the quote about the Germans and Japanese lack of air superiority in WWII, the comparison between a tachel sqn and the USAF in 1942-44 is ludicrous, but I suppose it panders to the typical pilot's delusions of grandeur. 

The USAF   was busy engaging in the incendiary bombing of Japanese cities for the two years preceding VJ day, but were still unable to prevent such events as the battles for Midway, Iwo Jima or Hong Kong, mainly because they were not engaged in the tactical level targeting, being preoccupied with the strategic. This is due to the fact that only armies can take and hold ground, the AF and Acorps exist to facilitate this end.

In conclusion, I have had the privilege of flying with a number of excellent pilots in excellent AC.   Most of them were American, but we cannot compare ourselves to them all of the time. The best pilot I have ever seen in a griffon wore DPM,   because he was a brit - how embarrassing watching him demonstrate the capabilities of the griffon to the pilots who fly them. How about a knife edge landing in a Chinook in Afghanistan in a dust storm? Nope, no tachel pilots there either. Just good ole' army air corps. 

Before I finish, just a few words on the "upgrades" the AF believed would benefit the griffon. I recall machine guns and hellfire or TOW missiles. Right. You want missiles when you are afraid to contour fly in Wx, and make all of the troops in the back unload and clear their wpns before boarding. Lets learn to walk before we run there boys.

Could you outline the field trg you have? I'm sure it is extensive, but I'm just curious.


----------



## Good2Golf (2 Sep 2005)

Actually, until the CTS gloves (CWW? other?) came on line, bombadiers were in fact authorized to draw flight gloves to handle the rounds -- DLM paid DSSPM an amount equivalent to the number of flying gloves issues to artillerymen so the AF wasn't able to whine about the Army leeching of AF kit.   Of course, flying gloves (and flying jackets) have not been on the official scale of the 911 sup tech standing behind the supply counter, AFAIK...   ;D

p.s.   given the shite heating of the CH146 in the winter during door open ops, I actually prefer wearing some of the army gloves...the crappy little brown gloves really are exactly that...crappy little brown stuff. 

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Sep 2005)

I'm thinking now would be a good idea to seperating this pissing match.


----------



## GO!!! (2 Sep 2005)

No way! I am on the edge of my seat waiting for his scooper's reply!


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (2 Sep 2005)

What I meant was take your conversation and seperate it from the original question


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> The way I understand it, is that if you are required to wear something, and unable to get it from the supply system, they cannot make you pay for it out of your own pocket.



Mess kit?


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Mess kit?



You are* NOT * required to have mess kit


----------



## Neill McKay (6 Jul 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> You are* NOT * required to have mess kit



Unless there's been a recent change, reg. force officers are required to have it within six months of commissioning.  Reserve officers and all NCMs may get it if they wish, but aren't required to.


----------



## navymich (6 Jul 2006)

Neill McKay said:
			
		

> Unless there's been a recent change, reg. force officers are required to have it within six months of commissioning.



Really?  I haven't heard that one before.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> Really?  I haven't heard that one before.



I'll be sure to mention it to the ones wearing bars in DEU with white shirt and bow tie then.  Not saying you are wrong though


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

I would realy like to see what CF policy (CFAO or whatever) that says you have to have mess kit six months after comissioning.........just for curiosity's sake


----------



## Gunner (6 Jul 2006)

> I would realy like to see what CF policy (CFAO or whatever) that says you have to have mess kit six months after comissioning.........just for curiosity's sake



It may be contained in A-AD-265-000/AG-001 (Canadian Forces Dress Instructions) and I'll leave it to one of the keeners on this site to check it at work through the DIN (go through the DHH site).

From a Regimental perspective, the RCA Standing Orders (www.artillery.net) dictates that mess dress uniform is for wear in preference to No 3 order of service dress .... The following personal may wear it:

a.  newly commissioned Regular or Reserve Officers during the six months accorded them to obtain mess dress;

b.  officer cadets; and 

c.  non-commissioned members of both Regular and Reserve Forces.

(see article 810 of the RCA Standing Orders.)


----------



## aesop081 (6 Jul 2006)

Thanks Gunner


----------



## Teddy Ruxpin (6 Jul 2006)

The six month directive (for Regular Force officers) is certainly contained within Dress Regulations.  I was looking something up yesterday and noticed the applicable paragraph.

Chapter and verse to follow tomorrow.


----------



## Bullit (7 Jul 2006)

A-AD-265-000/AG-001
(page 2-1-14)

WEAR OF MESS DRESS 
57. Acquisition
a. All Regular Force officers are required to be
in possession of mess dress No. 2, which
shall be procured at individual expense.
Newly-commissioned officers are required to
obtain this order of dress not later than six
months after commissioning.

b. Mess dress No. 2 is optional for Regular
Force non-commissioned members and all
members of the Reserve Force. Acquisition
is the responsibility of the individual.

c. army colonels, on promotion to that rank,
may elect to continue to wear their previous
branch/regiment mess dress, with current
rank insignia, instead of the pattern
authorized for army colonels (less honorary
and Royal appointees) and described in
Chapter 6, Appendix 1 to Annex B,
paragraph 8.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

Popurhedoff said:
			
		

> This was part of a nefarious plot to divert their attention from the fact that the Air Crew are getting C8's and Sig Saurs P226's for PDW in the TacHel world.



Good first step!

Now all they need is a helicopter that is deployable and some aircrew with the stones to fly it lower than 2000 feet!

AdminHel!


----------



## Zoomie (8 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Now all they need is a helicopter that is deployable and some aircrew with the stones to fly it lower than 2000 feet!



That's a pretty bold statement to make Go!! - I know that my rotor-head brethren get vertigo at anything over 500' AGL - talks with TacHel drivers leads me to believe that the lower they go, the more fun they have.  Must be a training versus operational dogma - when they carry the pax (you crunchie types) they don't want to un-necessarily put you in harms way by flying too low.  The rest of the time I am sure that they are down to 8' AGL with their skids just above the grass.


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2006)

Zoomie.......i may be wrong but i think GO!! is refering to the fact that on past operations, we seldom saw tachel operating down low (i.e. in the threat evelope for ground fire).....but i'm sure he'll come back and explain what he meant.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

Sigh.

What I meant was that:

1. The Gryphons are largely undeployable. If anyone can list when they've been deployed anywhere but the "mature" rotos to Bosnia, I'm all ears.

2. The "Tac" in my experience is wildly overstated. I've spent plenty of time in the Gryphons, and their pilots, as a group, have a penchant for flying high and fast, during the day, and little else.

3. Constant protests that the "rules" prohibit anything else don't hold much water when British and Kiwi exchange pilots are flying so low the gophers are scattering while the other pilots on the lift insist on staying at altitude. When asked why, the Canadian pilots stutter and the kiwi says "it was authorised, so I did it".

4. Loadies and their gunnery "skills". <tee hee> on our last ex, one loadie saw some enemy, and attempted to engage them with his door mounted C6. He had no luck, as he had numerous stoppages, never getting off a round. Fortunately, there was an infantry officer present who informed him that the belt on his wpn was in the box and feed tray upside down.

More?


----------



## Gunner (8 Jul 2006)

> If anyone can list when they've been deployed anywhere but the "mature" rotos to Bosnia, I'm all ears.



Haiti....

I know the intent of your post and I agree that the Griffon is not a good "military" helicopter. I have no doubt our tac hel fellows could do awesome things with a proper platform and the planned procurement of the Chinook will go far in addressing our lift capabilities.  Griffon and Chinook, can Apaches be far behind!


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> 3. Constant protests that the "rules" prohibit anything else don't hold much water when British and Kiwi exchange pilots are flying so low the gophers are scattering while the other pilots on the lift insist on staying at altitude. When asked why, the Canadian pilots stutter and the kiwi says "it was authorised, so I did it".



Ok, so the rules did not expressy restrict the activity .  Does that make it right ?  Did the situation require pilots to be flying in the weeds ?

Not too long ago, a pilot friend of mine retired and his advice was to ask "Is it legal ? Is it safe ? Is it smart ?"  Sure it might have been legal for those exchange pilots to be down in the weeds, it may have been safe as well, but was it smart ( as in reqired) ?  Its always , IMHO, to be dealing with emergencies at higher altitudes than at 15-50 feet.  We can fly the Aurora at 100 feet above the waves if we so wish...but do you think its smart to do if its not needed by the situation ?  If the threat dictates that aircraft should be flown low then by all means, go down NOE and stay there but if the threat doesnt require it......why not be at 2000 feet ?

And as far as the topic is concerned.....my blue nametags have never seen the light of day, My CADPAT uniforms are still in the plastic bag they came in and the name tags that i wear day to day are OD green with some black  on them............as with all the other badges i have on.


----------



## GO!!! (8 Jul 2006)

aesop081 said:
			
		

> Ok, so the rules did not expressy restrict the activity .  Does that make it right ?  Did the situation require pilots to be flying in the weeds ?



If you want to play it that way, then yes, the Exercise situation required it, there was an EN AA threat, and we were tactical. In the "Real World", no, it was not required, there were no Grenobians with MANPADS, but by that logic, you should never train at all! 

We are constantly told to "train like you fight", it is frustrating when the AF does not do it as well. I thought we were a team!


----------



## aesop081 (8 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> If you want to play it that way, then yes, the Exercise situation required it, there was an EN AA threat, and we were tactical. In the "Real World", no, it was not required, there were no Grenobians with MANPADS, but by that logic, you should never train at all!
> 
> We are constantly told to "train like you fight", it is frustrating when the AF does not do it as well. I thought we were a team!



If the scenario required it, then NOE flying should have been the order of the day, IMHO.  I did not have that information in your previous posts.  I do however hope you will consider what i said in the future.

And also, dont paint us all with the same brush.  I'm pretty sure that we, in the CP-140 community, train exactly as we would fight.  If you doubt it, i will gladly arrange a flight with us for you to come and see.  Bring a puke bag.....


----------



## Good2Golf (9 Jul 2006)

Probably fair to say that not all Tac Hel units are of like mind....


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> Probably fair to say that not all Tac Hel units are of like mind....


considering GO!!!'s and my experiences with them here, and mine in Pet, I can say "Oh, yeah!"


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (9 Jul 2006)

Would you not put your more aggressive pilots into Tac Hel?


----------



## GO!!! (9 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> Would you not put your more aggressive pilots into Tac Hel?



You mean, the ones with black lace underwear, as opposed to white?

JK,


----------



## Zoomie (9 Jul 2006)

Dude - if you have a loadie flying in the back of a Griffon with you, you've got a lot more problems than a C-6 with stoppages.

Can't say that I have worked for a TacHel unit before - so nothing I can say will have any bearing to this conversation.  What I can say is that TacHel units deploy wherever the brass tells them to go.  They were in Haiti, Bosnia, Somalia and other $hit-holes across the world.

Maybe Duey can shed some light as to why your experiences with the rotor-head boys was less than favourable.  Everyone of those guys that I know would relish the thought of flying low and fast - maybe they really didn't want you guys puking and $hitting your pants while in flight.  We are taught right at the get-go to fly fast and low.  A Sea-King came to visit us once at Moose Jaw - I flew that thing so low that we had to look both ways when flying over train-tracks!

Like AESOP said - we usually always train as we fight.  Most times we take it easy when we have inexperienced air-crew on board.


----------



## paracowboy (9 Jul 2006)

I don't know why this is, but there is a distinct difference between the pilots who'd fly us around in Pet (and the ones I've worked with from out of Quebec) and the ones out here in Edmonton. Not necessarily in skill, but very noticeably in attitude. Not just in the air, but in most respects. It's very odd to me. While I've talked with a few pilots, one-to-one, and they've been pretty much the same as the ones I've talked to in Pet, the Unit, as a whole entity (if you follow me) gives a very strange vibe, and does some very strange stuff on Exercise.

And of course, GO!!! using his usual size: extra-large/extra-wide brush, is busily painting away.


----------



## mover1 (10 Jul 2006)

I have flown with the Tac Hel Sqn out of Edmonton on a few occasions. We were only slinging targets onto the ranges in Cold Lake but the pilots seemed to like to keep low and in the weeds out of fear of getting whacked by a stray fighter plane who himself was flying low and in the weeds.

 Our flight plan didn't call for it but the pilot thought we were safer by flying low, besides it made a rather routine day of slinging kind of fun.

I find some army guys are very negative when it comes to the Airforce... Jealousy I guess


----------



## Inch (11 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Good first step!
> 
> Now all they need is a helicopter that is deployable and some aircrew with the stones to fly it lower than 2000 feet!
> 
> AdminHel!



2000ft? You know this how? By looking at the radalt of course, oh, wait a minute, the radalt only reads up to 1000ft. If you're looking at the barometric altimeter, then news flash for you, that reads altitude above *sea level*, in Moose Jaw for example, the elevation of the field was 1900ft, so flying at 2000ft on the baralt is 100ft above the ground. 

It's been my experience that most crunchies don't know the first thing about flying, in fact I know a few army officers that are pilot failures, so be aware of your sources for critiquing us.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> Sigh.
> 
> What I meant was that:
> 
> 1. The Gryphons are largely undeployable. If anyone can list when they've been deployed anywhere but the "mature" rotos to Bosnia, I'm all ears.



1. It's Griffons and Haiti has already been mentioned.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> 2. The "Tac" in my experience is wildly overstated. I've spent plenty of time in the Gryphons, and their pilots, as a group, have a penchant for flying high and fast, during the day, and little else.



Not sure what unit you're flying with, but if it was the boys out of Cold Lake, they're not TacHel. Any time I went flying in the Griffon while I was waiting for training, we were 4-10 ft above the ground and making aggressive climbs to avoid fences. 

Come to think of it, when I'm flying Sea Kings for anything other than instrument flying (which your guys may have been doing since it is a monthly requirement for us and we try to get it in when we can), I rarely go above 500ft. When I do it's briefly for a radar picture or practice autorotations. So I have my doubts that a TacHel crew would be bombing around at 2000ft when low flying is their bread and butter.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> 3. Constant protests that the "rules" prohibit anything else don't hold much water when British and Kiwi exchange pilots are flying so low the gophers are scattering while the other pilots on the lift insist on staying at altitude. When asked why, the Canadian pilots stutter and the kiwi says "it was authorised, so I did it".



I've flown with a British exchange pilot and it was my experience that he wasn't as shit hot as he would have led everyone to believe. I'm with the other zoomies, just because it was done doesn't mean it was prudent. You're in the back of the aircraft without comms, how the hell do you know the whole picture as it applies to the aircraft you're in? You don't.



			
				GO!!! said:
			
		

> 4. Loadies and their gunnery "skills". <tee hee> on our last ex, one loadie saw some enemy, and attempted to engage them with his door mounted C6. He had no luck, as he had numerous stoppages, never getting off a round. Fortunately, there was an infantry officer present who informed him that the belt on his wpn was in the box and feed tray upside down.
> 
> More?



Loadie on a Griffon eh? Not in this country. We've never had problems with our AESOps or Navigators using the C6 to great effect in the Sea King, I doubt that an experienced FE that you would find on a Griffon would be any different.


----------



## GO!!! (12 Jul 2006)

Inch said:
			
		

> 2000ft? You know this how? By looking at the radalt of course, oh, wait a minute, the radalt only reads up to 1000ft. If you're looking at the barometric altimeter, then news flash for you, that reads altitude above *sea level*, in Moose Jaw for example, the elevation of the field was 1900ft, so flying at 2000ft on the baralt is 100ft above the ground.


Why you are right, none of us ever carry altimeters for anything, like parachuting maybe, or dead reckoning from long periods of time in the air due to having jobs outside the military that necessitated helo travel. Some of us are even smart enough to differentiate between ASL and AGL. Not everyone though.  :



> It's been my experience that most crunchies don't know the first thing about flying, in fact I know a few army officers that are pilot failures, so be aware of your sources for critiquing us.


....and I beat up a pilot before I joined the military. I guess you're *all * wimps. You can borrow my broad brush if you like.



> 1. It's Griffons and Haiti has already been mentioned.


Noted, I stand corrected.



> Not sure what unit you're flying with, but if it was the boys out of Cold Lake, they're not TacHel. Any time I went flying in the Griffon while I was waiting for training, we were 4-10 ft above the ground and making aggressive climbs to avoid fences.


408 Sqn, based in Edmonton. I've never seen that type of flying out of a Canadian pilot. I guess they save all the good times for the guys on PAT platoon. 



> Come to think of it, when I'm flying Sea Kings for anything other than instrument flying (which your guys may have been doing since it is a monthly requirement for us and we try to get it in when we can), I rarely go above 500ft. When I do it's briefly for a radar picture or practice autorotations. So I have my doubts that a TacHel crew would be bombing around at 2000ft when low flying is their bread and butter.


Bread and butter or not, they fly high and fast, nearly all of the time they fly us around. 



> I've flown with a British exchange pilot and it was my experience that he wasn't as crap hot as he would have led everyone to believe. I'm with the other zoomies, just because it was done doesn't mean it was prudent. You're in the back of the aircraft without comms, how the hell do you know the whole picture as it applies to the aircraft you're in? You don't.


If you turn around, you'll see an extra headset, it is for what we call a "chalk commander" or the senior man of the troops whom it is your job to transport. We are also given things called "orders" which include met reps, tactical situations, routes, timings, LZ/PZ and a host of other things. We know exactly what is going on in the context of the exercise scenario. It makes our little infanteer heads spin though, so we write it all down. When we're doing a raid though, and our H c/s flies over the objective on the way in _and_ out with his spotlight on to blind us with our NVGs, hes wrong. Full stop.



> Loadie on a Griffon eh? Not in this country. We've never had problems with our AESOps or Navigators using the C6 to great effect in the Sea King, I doubt that an *experienced* FE that you would find on a Griffon would be any different.


I see. Should we question FEs as to their seniority before we allow one to man a C6? It is "his" bird, but we might actually need that gun to shoot someone, so it has to be loaded properly. Please advise.


----------



## Infanteer (12 Jul 2006)

What does this have to do with a blue name tag?


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jul 2006)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> What does this have to do with a blue name tag?



You would think that after 8543 posts you would be able to figure that one out on your own  ;D

P.S. Its another army VS air force thing.......


----------



## Scoobie Newbie (12 Jul 2006)

The famous or is it infamous Army.ca tangent.


----------



## aesop081 (12 Jul 2006)

Quagmire said:
			
		

> The famous or is it infamous Army.ca tangent.



a little from column A, a little from column B......


----------



## Inch (12 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Why you are right, none of us ever carry altimeters for anything, like parachuting maybe, or dead reckoning from long periods of time in the air due to having jobs outside the military that necessitated helo travel. Some of us are even smart enough to differentiate between ASL and AGL. Not everyone though.  :



BS. I fly for a living and I have a hard time telling how high I am without looking at my instruments. What are your altimeters set to? You are aware of pressure changes aren't you? Of course you are.



> ....and I beat up a pilot before I joined the military. I guess you're *all * wimps. You can borrow my broad brush if you like.



Exactly why I said "in my experience, most..." which in English means that I wasn't painting everyone with a broad brush, but only the ones I have met.



> 408 Sqn, based in Edmonton. I've never seen that type of flying out of a Canadian pilot. I guess they save all the good times for the guys on PAT platoon.



We don't have PAT Platoons for pilots awaiting training, but hardly a point worth bringing up.



> Bread and butter or not, they fly high and fast, nearly all of the time they fly us around.



Matter of opinion I guess, I have a lot of good buddies that love flying low and fast in the Griffon.



> If you turn around, you'll see an extra headset, it is for what we call a "chalk commander" or the senior man of the troops whom it is your job to transport. We are also given things called "orders" which include met reps, tactical situations, routes, timings, LZ/PZ and a host of other things. We know exactly what is going on in the context of the exercise scenario. It makes our little infanteer heads spin though, so we write it all down. When we're doing a raid though, and our H c/s flies over the objective on the way in _and_ out with his spotlight on to blind us with our NVGs, hes wrong. Full stop.



Agreed on the last sentence. As for your extra headset, which radios do you have selected? All of them or just the tactical freq? We have the capability to listen to 4 different radios in the Sea King, up front we listen to two of them while the back enders handle the other 2 and share the UHF with us. Our pax in the back very rarely have radios selected, if they do its just so they know when to shut up on the ICS.



> I see. Should we question FEs as to their seniority before we allow one to man a C6? It is "his" bird, but we might actually need that gun to shoot someone, so it has to be loaded properly. Please advise.



Never said that, our guys in the Sea King don't shoot the C6 unless a qualified FPSO and RSO is on board. If they're qualified FPSO, why would they be loading the C6 wrong? I just can't see it though I'm sure you did for yourself and it wasn't one of those embellished 2nd hand stories, right?


----------



## beenthere (13 Jul 2006)

Their's no place better than this one to argue trivial crap. CADPAT name-tags??
When I started flying there was an army and an air force and army flyers weren't accepted by either. The army folks referred to us as pansies because we lived better than they did when we ventured into the field and the air force called us pongos and said that we had no business in the air and belonged in the mud.
It's interesting to see that nothing has changed and despite years of progress in equipment and better educated people occupying both crew and passenger seats the same mentality prevails allowing both crew and their cargo to work together in almost total ignorance of what their respective roles are.
There have always been rare exceptions of course but just as sure as the sun rises in the east which also has rare exceptions the same arguments continue.
Thanks for the memories guys.


----------



## Good2Golf (13 Jul 2006)

Beenthere, save for computers on desks vice typewriters, everything else would feel very familiar!  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (14 Jul 2006)

Duey. In the good old days 1THP even had a motorcycle.   8)


----------



## beenthere (14 Jul 2006)

Duey. In the good old days 1THP  had a motorcycle and a Hiller  8) Kind of a double post because I'd forgotten to include the CH-112 Hiller Sports Helicopter.


----------



## Good2Golf (14 Jul 2006)

beenthere said:
			
		

> Duey. In the good old days 1THP  had a motorcycle and a Hiller  8) Kind of a double post because I'd forgotten to include the CH-112 Hiller Sports Helicopter.



Hey beenthere, I think LGen Cuppens had Hiller time, IIRC.  I was just shooting the poop with past 450 HCol Lorne Rodenbush a month or so ago about 1 Thump days leading into 450 Tp Hel Sqn...was also sharing stories with Les Rowbottom, as well...some real great old gents from tactical aviation's early days.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## beenthere (14 Jul 2006)

The Hiller wasn't the greatest helicopter by any means but it was quite useful within the unit for utility duties. It seems that when 1 THP was formed they were allowed a very generous shopping list for support equipment. Some of the people who were around at the time were very canny individuals who knew the system which was considerably different than todays in that $ weren't spent for a lot of the equipment because the supply depots were already full of it and they used a combination of bs and the old boy system to get lots of equipment. 
They also got lots of personnel although when I look back they certainly needed them because the experience level was pretty low as most of them were recent converts to aviation and their only experience was on L-19s and Hillers. Turbine engines and electronics were space age technology alongside of what they had came from and there was quite a learning process. The process definitely wasn't easy and there were lots of events that were costly. It wasn't without humour either and some of the people and what they did were classic.
Les Rowbottam was classic himself and had great insight and a sense of humour that made for some great statements and comments.


----------



## bison33 (15 Jul 2006)

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I won't dig out all of the war stories about the lack of TacHel's tacticality, but I'll leave that part of the argument with the fact that I have flown in Gryphons, Chinooks, Blackhawks, Sea Stallions and Pave Low's, as well as a Puma and numerous civilian birds. All demonstrated a far higher level of speed and tactical movement when required than our venerable 408 squadron, who seems to be unable to even navigate without highway 14 to guide them to Wx.
> 
> Furthermore, I have yet to see tachel deploy in a tactical scenario that is on par with what the americans, kiwis or brits do on a regular basis. Just flying to Wx, and staging out of the camp is not tactical, nor is restricting army units to daylight travel. Besides, any helo squadron that is unable to fly with both a full load of troops and fuel has failed to deliver - IMHO.
> 
> ...



Not sure if I should say your jealous about not being in the air force or just still full of P&V....and jealous about not being in the air force ;D
You need to lighten up, if you've ever talked to anyone in the air force ,many of us are retreads from the army who saw the light. Can you see it yet?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jul 2006)

> You need to lighten up, if you've ever talked to anyone in the air force ,many of us are retreads from the army who saw the light. Can you see it yet?



Like me, for instance.  Check my profile.  I was jumping out of Hercs before you were even out of Junior High.

GO!!- I'm not impressed by your latest uninformed, broad-brushed ramblings on helicopters, tactical flying and airmanship.  You are going to find that we rotorheads, since we are used to being the redheaded stepchildren in a fighter-centric Air Force, are going to band together and defend one another.

I have no idea why a Griffon may have been flying at 2000 feet on an exercise that you were also on.  So you're not impressed.  I'll get over it.  So a FE had the belt in the C6 upside down.  You going to tell me that no infanteer in the history of the Army has ever done the same thing?  No, of course not- that would ruin the point of your humorous little anecdote. Not to defend the FE- I hope he learned from his mistake.

My first thought is just to throw up my hands in disgust.  Just when it was looking like the Rotory Wing Community was coming out from underneath our evil overlords in the Air Force, we get body slammed by the JARMY- who knows even less than the Air Force knows about helos.

Look, my Army brethern.  We are here, ultimately,  to support you.  If you have any questions about why or how we do things- ask.  We are more than happy to answer them for you.

If all you want to do is trade insults, believe me- I have a career full of watching Infantry units screw the pooch.  Bring it on...


----------



## paracowboy (15 Jul 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> If all you want to do is trade insults, believe me- I have a career full of watching Infantry units screw the pooch.  Bring it on...


no, because if it gets to that I will ban my fellow Patricia, myself. 

Now, since this is a split-topic: What the hell *is* the subject, anyway? I lost track in the original thread, and I can't figure it out in this one.


----------



## SeaKingTacco (15 Jul 2006)

> no, because if it gets to that I will ban my fellow Patricia, myself.



After cooling off for an hour or so, I would unreservedly like to offer my apologies.  There was no need for me to raise the temperature even further.

I have no idea what the point of this thread is anymore.  Recap, anyone?


----------



## navymich (15 Jul 2006)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> I have no idea what the point of this thread is anymore.  Recap, anyone?


The latter part of the thread was what was split from the "AF CADPAT name tag and rank" thread.  But I notice looking through all of the posts that the oldest was almost a year ago now.  I suspect that this is where all good (and bad ) AF posts go to linger when they become off-topic of their thread.  Not that posts around here become off-topic at all... :


----------



## Michael OLeary (15 Jul 2006)

navymich said:
			
		

> The latter part of the thread was what was split from the "AF CADPAT name tag and rank" thread.  But I notice looking through all of the posts that the oldest was almost a year ago now.  I suspect that this is where all good (and bad ) AF posts go to linger when they become off-topic of their thread.  Not that posts around here become off-topic at all... :



And now that you have inserted a post providing credible information, it must itelf be removed for being off the non-topic which the thread heretofore constituted, and it needs to be sent to its own special forum hell.


----------



## Zoomie (16 Jul 2006)

I like to eat cheese....


----------



## Fishbone Jones (16 Jul 2006)

.................and....................done. Good night, gentle folk.


----------

