# The airforce is cheap?



## Daidalous (14 Nov 2005)

I did a spill management course at 81 AEF  in Trenton today, and they had a poster up on there information board  that stated that the Airforce costs every Canadian  $78.  They had other  stats up for fire fighters and cops..  But $78 per Canadian with a budget of over 2 billion is a dam good deal.


----------



## onecat (15 Nov 2005)

78 bucks, that's all the Liberals think your air force is worth.  At least every Canadian gets more out the air force than the gun scam even though we're spending  about the smae on each every year.


----------



## buddyhfx (15 Nov 2005)

Daidalous said:
			
		

> They had other   stats up for fire fighters and cops..   But $78 per Canadian with a budget of over 2 billion is a dam good deal.


Please , give me a break. is this because we get ''box lunches'' because we are shift workers, if it is , please save your money, we'll bring our own lunch'.... We can cook too .. who know??


----------



## Eagle_Eye_View (15 Nov 2005)

LooL
Thats funny. 
Do you have a picture or a link of that poster?   :rofl: :argument:


----------



## Dizzy (17 Nov 2005)

Most pilots I know are as thrifty as scotsmen. Nice to know it applies to our military cousins too. ;D


----------



## bbbb (16 Mar 2006)

An air force is really expensive, it takes a great deal of smart planning and good money management to make an air force work well. Perhaps the military should require all pilot applicants to have their license or commercial license prior to applying? This would cut costs and allow them to evaluate new military pilots starting with more advanced maneuvers.


----------



## Inch (17 Mar 2006)

bbbb said:
			
		

> An air force is really expensive, it takes a great deal of smart planning and good money management to make an air force work well. Perhaps the military should require all pilot applicants to have their license or commercial license prior to applying? This would cut costs and allow them to evaluate new military pilots starting with more advanced maneuvers.



I disagree. Having brand newbies gives the military the opportunity to train pilots the way they want without having to worry about bad habits that have already been formed and can be hard to break.

Besides, are you implying that a commercial pilot could skip Moose Jaw? Go from flying a bug smasher right into formation flying at 250 kts? 

I know you haven't done much military flying, but I'll guarantee your opinion will change after getting to Moose Jaw and seeing how different life as a CF pilot is. 

Skipping PFT is one thing, which I did, but I couldn't imagine ever getting through Moose Jaw without starting from the beginning just like everyone else. Considering PFT is a drop in the bucket and not even at a PPL level, I would say that recruiting only those with PPLs would restrict potential applicants and all to save a few grand. Not worth it IMO.

Now, where I'm coming from, Aviation College diploma, Commercial Multi IFR licence and current Sea King pilot.


----------



## bbbb (17 Mar 2006)

Yes but you have people failing PFT, that is an expensive investment to say the least. Requiring everyone to have a pilot license before hand (PPL with intrument rating, CPL preferably) would vastly diminish the chances of someone failing PFT just because they need more time than 30 hours in the air. If I recall correctly PFT involves NO instrument flying or nav. So why do intrument testing at Aircrew selection? That's just setting people up for failure, telling them they don't need prior flight training and they basicly waste their time because they find out too late that they indeed should have had pilot experience if they expected to pass. The same goes for PFT. Why waste money reteaching basic flying skills? If a guy with a PPL can't land a plane then something is wrong. As for the story of bad habits, yeah I was told that too and the only reason I DID pass was my PPL training. Did well on that PPL flight test.


----------



## Daidalous (18 Mar 2006)

I agree with Inch.  The military want to train there personal there way.  Why because the system says so.


----------



## Inch (18 Mar 2006)

People are going to fail out of the training at some point, it's just a fact of life that not everyone is cut out to do the job. Military flying is a steep learning curve and some people have trouble keeping up. Believe me, I've seen guys with 1700 hrs total time and Commercial licences fail out of PFT and Moose Jaw. If you can't learn what you're supposed to learn in 30 hrs, then you don't have the aptitude to be a CF pilot and even if they gave you more time to learn, you're probably going to have trouble later on anyway. I was taught to land on the deck of a ship with around 100 hrs on the Sea King, guys are flying Hornets with around 250 hrs total time. It's just the way the military works, we don't have endless resources to spend on people that can't learn what they're supposed to learn in the allotted time. 

As far as PFT being an expensive investment, it's a fraction of the cost to operate the Harvard and any of the follow on trainers. The cost per hour of flight at PFT is maybe $200/hr, the Harvard costs in the thousands, hell, it burns $250/hr in fuel alone, not even including everything else that's associated with it. So PFT is a drop in the bucket compared to the tens of thousands of dollars that it costs later on.

PFT is a bit of a misnomer. It's more of a selection phase than a training phase. Aircrew selection tests certain abilities but any pilot will tell you that the only way to know for sure if a person has the aptitude and motor skills to fly an aircraft is to put them in an aircraft and let them fly. This is what PFT does, Nav and instrument flying are skills that can be taught later when you've made it to Moose Jaw. 

Mandating that all applicants have a PPL is just ridiculous since there is no quality control over flight training at private schools. Transport Canada just doesn't get that specific. The military on the other hand does. Example, on a PPL flight test, it's perfectly fine to be up to 200 ft off your altitude, in the military if you're off by 20 ft and not correcting to the ideal, you'll fail. There is also no limit on how much flight time you can have before attempting a PPL flight test, in the military we work on maximums, always shooting to accomplish what needs to be accomplished in the shortest amount of time while still being safe and effective.


----------



## Astrodog (18 Mar 2006)

Not to mention you are eliminating a huge cross section of folks that can't afford to burn the 10k+ or whatever it is now to get a PPL...


----------



## Good2Golf (18 Mar 2006)

Like Inch said, PFT is primarily selection...seeing how quickly and accurately you can learn to fly, in the manner in which the military wants you to fly.  You have to hit levels of skill that are higher than some guy hacking potentially away at a PPL until he passes a checkride and comes in to the recruiting centre to join up.  PPL doesn't have as much correlation to ability to excel in military operations as some would think.  Oh, and Instrument flying absolutely SHOULD be a part of aircrew selection -- it's a very important part of flying operations in the military.

bbbb, some of your comments are not consistent with fact regarding the CF Pilot training program, which has been turning out highly capable aviators for decades using a proving selection and training methodology, and evaluating all aspects of future employment is necessary.  Phrases such as "Why waste money re-teaching flying skills?", "...setting people up for failure..." and "...they basically waste their time because they find out too late that they indeed should have had pilot experience if they expected to pass" are not consistent with how we select and train pilots the way we do, to the desired standards we set out.  The CF does not try to minimize hurt feeling if folks don't make the grade during training, nor is the CF in the business of trying to correct potential bad habits instructed to candidates in a previous life unless the instructors believe the candidate can continue to learn and meet the required standard...we're in the business of ensuring that qualified pilots operate the air force fleets as effectively and safely as possible.   

I didn't have a PPL before I joined the military, but at ACS I apparently had the "aptitude" to fly according to the CF's evaluation criteria, as have many others.  On my PFT course, we actually had more guys pass that didn't have any pilot license than those who had one.  Furthermore, my course at the Big 2 had a number of community college guys who skipped PFT.  Some were quite capable, but some of them took longer than average to qualify to wings standard, much in part due to "bad habits" taught to them or allowed to grow unchecked in previous flying.  In my experience, I have found there to be greater variation in pilot quality/competence associated with personality and aptitude than with previous flying experience.

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## redsquadone (12 Jul 2006)

A little story for you.....When the 8AMS Mechanics get sent over for a tour at Camp Mirage...(Can't say where that is :-X) They get sent over for 2 months, back home for 2 months, over for 2 months, back home for 2 months, over for 2 months, and then back home. Why is that? Because then you don't have to pay them the extra when they would do a straight 6 month tour. Is the Air Force cheap? You make the call.


----------



## cp140tech (12 Jul 2006)

We had the same deal here in Greenwood wrt people in the sandbox.  The problem for us is being shorthanded by the loss of experienced personnel for long periods.


----------



## Gunner (12 Jul 2006)

redsquadone said:
			
		

> A little story for you.....When the 8AMS Mechanics get sent over for a tour at Camp Mirage...(Can't say where that is :-X) They get sent over for 2 months, back home for 2 months, over for 2 months, back home for 2 months, over for 2 months, and then back home. Why is that? Because then you don't have to pay them the extra when they would do a straight 6 month tour. Is the Air Force cheap? You make the call.



Of course, you could argue that 99% of the population actually pays to go to locations where Camp Mirage is.   

Personnel on temporary attached posting (less than 59 days) are entitled to the same monetary compensation (hardship, risk, FSP, etc) as someone who is posted for the six months.  They receive similar pre/post deployment leave (prorated to the length of time in theatre) but they do not receive HLTA (although time earned in theatre can be converted to Special Mission Leave).

The two month tours are very popular with Air Force personnel for a variety of reasons.  I suspect, the reason the position is split into 2 month tasks is it negates the HLTA requirement and the Air Force will not have to backfill you for the HLTA period (loss of 2 people vice 1).

Bottom line is the member does not suffer.


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2006)

Gunner said:
			
		

> Of course, you could argue that 99% of the population actually pays to go to locations where Camp Mirage is.
> 
> Personnel on temporary attached posting (less than 59 days) are entitled to the same monetary compensation (hardship, risk, FSP, etc) as someone who is posted for the six months.  They receive similar pre/post deployment leave (prorated to the length of time in theatre) but they do not receive HLTA (although time earned in theatre can be converted to Special Mission Leave).
> 
> ...



+1

We did the 56-day thing (12V) for Bosnia at 1 Wing not to dick anyone out of benefits, but because we were pers limited and didn't have enough folks to beef up the TO&E's to cover off HLTA.  There was no intent to mess with folks.  This kind of thing only worked in Bosnia because we have been there for so long and it was considered minimal risk of shuffling folks in and out of a mature theatre.  You likely would not see that on the next Tac Hel rotos...we haven't done that for TUAV and most likely wouldn't happen for BHH either.

p.s.  The Air Force bought my my wonderful 2-in-1 goretex rainjacket that Cobra-6 tried to snarf right off my back in AFG!  If Army guys are lowing their ethical standard to rob AF guys of kit   then the AF can't be that all that cheap, can it?

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GAP (12 Jul 2006)

Duey said:
			
		

> If Army guys are lowing their ethical standard to rob AF guys of kit   then the AF can't be that all that cheap, can it?



Cheap...heck no...they had oodles more stuff than us....they were just fair game, is all


----------



## Good2Golf (12 Jul 2006)

GAP said:
			
		

> Cheap...heck no...they had oodles more stuff than us....they were just fair game, is all



LOL  Actually, I chose to let Cobra-6 think he had a chance of frikking off with my 2-in-1...all this after I invited him to my crib in the 'hood.  Bad, bad Cobra-6!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (24 Jul 2006)

I agree with Duey.  I was the SAMEO at 427 Sqn while 12V was on.  This is only done when we are operating in a "mature" theatre, like Bosnia was.  It would not be done for a first tour.  This would still be 6 months long for everybody.  For the 12V, there were a select few positions that were designated as 6 months, while most were of the 56 day variety.  Someone could not go for longer than 3 stints (3 times 56 days), without approval from higher (wasn't given once for 427 Sqn's turn).  Most techs went for a least two 56 day stints.  Some techs liked it, but some didn't as it was very hard on the family for the coming and going on two different occasions.  Plus, some wanted the full 6 months for a variety of reasons such as pay, time in theatre, etc.  I would say that most preferred it.  The 12V concept had to be done as the three tac hel units covering the tours off were simply getting burned out.  
The unit supporting the tour was hit hard as it was almost impossible to know who was going to be around the following week in terms of authorizations (A or C levels) for signing off a/c.  Remember, there was the pre-embarkation and post-embarkation leave to take and this put a serious dent in our signing authorities.  I remember having to call in a C level FE from home in order to release an a/c for flight because we didn't have any techs that had it.  We had to put 6 a/c in long term storage as we couldn't keep up with the inspections and flying at home seemed to carry on as usual.  There seemed to be an opinion within 1 Wg HQ that the unit wasn't really deployed and the tasks didn't drop off like they would if the whole unit was deployed for 6 months rather than the 12V concept.

Summary, 12V is could for a mature theatre, it is good for most pers, but it is bad for the main supporting unit.


----------



## Loachman (24 Jul 2006)

Scoobs said:
			
		

> There seemed to be an opinion within 1 Wg HQ that the unit wasn't really deployed and the tasks didn't drop off like they would if the whole unit was deployed for 6 months rather than the 12V concept.


Ummm... Nope, not going to say a thing.

But, dealing with 1 Wg on a regular basis, there's a lot of pressure on those guys as well.


----------



## Good2Golf (24 Jul 2006)

The thing with protecting units from HHQ professionally is that you can't formally beef on HHQs without eroding vertical loyalty.  The mess.....that's another thing.  Having worked Op-level and Tac-level HQ as well as unit ops, I can objectively say there is a lot of stuff that gets filtered out before it hits the units.  Although my personal opinionsof each may vary, there isn't a single Comd 1 Wing who didn't look after the best interests of his units....I have seen things that would really make you wonder what some folks are thinking.  I'm sure it's the same as Strat and Joint as well...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Scoobs (25 Jul 2006)

I'm sure that 1 Wg HQ stopped some tasks, but in my opinion not enough.  If we were deployed for 6 months, I know that we would not have received as many tasks as we did when we were on the 12V.  

Loachman, I'm not speaking just about what techs or myself thought, I heard this sentiment from some pilots as well.  Also, when a unit cannot do their 600 hr inspections and need to put 6 a/c into storage in order to have enough techs to attempt to maintain some serviceable a/c, then I believe that the unit is overtasked.  At that time, 427 had two main priorities and I know you know which two they were.  I asked directly to 1 Wg HQ which was priority.  The answer: both.  Both?  That isn't usually good for a unit to have two main priorities.

I have no doubt that any 1 Wg Comd woudn't look out for for his units, but I still believe 427 Sqn was overtasked due to the unique situation it was in with the two main priorities.

Also, I kept these opinions I had to myself and did not express them to the techs.  This would have eroded loyalty and I knew which way was the proper way to question what was going on.  That is why I asked 1 Wg HQ and didn't ask the techs on the floor.  I formulated my opinion based on what I saw personally (O and T meetings, morning prayers, daily experience) and from listening to the techs and some pilots.  Note I said listening, not agreeing with, but part of a SAMEO or D/SAMEO's job is to listen to what is going on in his maint org in order to gauge the moral of his/her section.


----------



## Loachman (25 Jul 2006)

It's all in your frame of reference, Scoobs.

While each Sqn may have slightly different circumstances at any given time, they're all just variations on a theme. Everybody's struggling to do more with less and nobody's really any better or worse off than anybody else.

I hear it all of the time from everybody when I go hunting for avn support for somebody/something - and I know exactly what I'm going to hear when I phone, even before dialling. Exercise in futility or not, I still have to call, though - it's my job to do so even when I know the answer.

Being caught in the middle isn't much fun, anymore than being caught at the end of the chain.

The problem is CF wide.

When the White Paper was slashed in 89 and things started to rapidly go downhill after a couple of years of build-up and promises of more I began saying that "five years from now these will be the good old days" and that line's held up well. That may be changing, but it's still going to take years before we get back up to that high point. We've fallen so far.


----------

