# Helicopters and Money



## ruxted

Link to original article on Ruxted.ca

Helicopters and Money

In a recent article The Ruxted Group said: “At a minimum The Ruxted Group believes we need four brigades – that’s 35-50 armoured (tank), reconnaissance, artillery, engineer, signals/electronic warfare, infantry, aviation, medical, intelligence and logistic support units.” Another recent article, in the mainstream media, highlights one critical aspect of the current capability deficiencies: a _transformed_ Canadian military needs more and different helicopters.

Canadians appear, from the polling we have seen, to want the Canadian Forces to go to some of the world’s most difficult places, like Sudan, and, once there, do some very difficult things.

While there is considerable room for debate re: what kind of units might we need- and, once again, we remind readers of some words of wisdom from a former US Secretary of Defence: “...you go to war with the Army you have.  They’re not the Army you might want or wish to have at a later time.” - Donald Rumsfeld, 8 Dec 04 - it is quite clear to us that, for nearly all of the possibilities we can imagine, we will need to have dedicated rotary-wing aviation in support of deployed land forces: helicopters – lots of them.

The Government of Canada has already recognized this and is negotiating to buy some new CH-47 _Chinook_ transport helicopters. That’s a good first step.

Even with the best pilots, whom Canada has, transport helicopters are vulnerable. They, rather like the merchant ships in the Battle of the Atlantic, need protection – armed helicopters of some sort. Such helicopters can do much more than defend the transport helicopters – they can recconoitre and surveille, bring highly accurate direct fire to bear on a wide range of targets, even heavy tanks, and they can use their instrinsic manoeuverability to get to the fight faster in support of our troops when other ground units may be challenged by unforgiving terrain.

There are some tasks for which a large helicopter is ill suited, at least, inefficient. Canada also needs lighter, agile, general-purpose, utility type helicopters suitable for tactical troop and cargo movement, casualty evacuation, and various other tasks. Canada has the CH-146 _Griffon_ helicopter but it currently has limitations regarding unrestricted operations in hot climates and at high altitudes – just the sort of conditions where some strategic problems are likely to occur. 

One of the important characteristics of aviation is flexibility. Helicopters are not much limited by terrain and they move relatively quickly. That means that they can accomplish different tasks in far away places. A utility helicopter, for example, can rapidly switch between delivering troops, evacuating casualties, and delivering cargo, often within the same mission. Similarly, helicopter units are multi-functional:  supporting combat operations overseas they can fly Search and Rescue missions in Canada or peacekeeping and disaster relief operations anywhere in the world.

In Ruxted’s view, Canada needs a holistic helicopter replacement programme to acquire, operate and maintain:

•	New shipborne helicopters for the navy – this is underway, at long last; and
•	New helicopters, of several types (cargo, utility, fire support) -- armed as required to support the army in combat operations – this part of the programme is just beginning and must continue the development of a balanced, capable rotary-wing force.

The key element is, as always, money.

We expended $790 Million to buy 15 _Cormorant_ Search and Rescue helicopters. We are going to pay:

•	$5,000 Million to buy 28 CH-148 _Cyclone_ shipborne helicopters; and

•	$4,700 Million to buy 16 _Chinook_ helicopters.

What we can see is that, at current price/inflation rates, it costs about $225 Million to buy (both aircraft and necessary support infrastructure) and maintain/sustain each large, complex helicopter. According to the authoritative Federation of American Scientists, for a _Chinook_, these “total cost of ownership” figures are consistent with (10 year old) US data. The same source says that the total cost of ownership of a UH-60 _Black Hawk_ utility helicopter or an AH-64 _Apache_ attack helicopter is likely to be higher.  There are, to be sure, alternatives to those two ultra-modern and costly machines. The United States Marine Corps, for example, flies the less expensive, but also less capable, UH-1N _Huey_ and AH-1W _Cobra_ helicopters – updated versions of proven but Vietnam war era machines.

The Ruxted Group does not advocate one aircraft or another, but it does call for billions and billions – a few tens of billions – of new money to be spent sooner rather than later on new army aviation capabilities – armed/attack and utility helicopters, at least. Without that new money to buy those new capabilities the Canadian Forces will be unable to do many of the good things Canadians want them to do. To that end we repeat our call for a budget boost: a big boost and soon, please.


----------



## Fraz

If only the political will and financial coffers existed to give us that boost...


----------



## daftandbarmy

Don't ask, don't get. A few years ago they were going to disband the armoured corps and turn the gunners into mortar platoons. We need to push these types of plans up to the politicians soon and often. After all, how else are we going to defend the arctic etc? Walking takes too much time and boot leather.


----------



## OldSolduer

Any thought of taking rotary wing aviaton and making it Army vice Air Force?


----------



## PO2FinClk

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Any thought of taking rotary wing aviaton and making it Army vice Air Force?


A la 10 TAG fashion?

I am not sure but think I had seen a thread some time ago discussing this.


----------



## benny88

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Any thought of taking rotary wing aviaton and making it Army vice Air Force?


 
  With unification, does it make a big difference anyways?


----------



## OldSolduer

Unification really didn't do much other than make the air and navy pers wear rifle green...which was a travesty.

The US ARMY employs its own aviators as does the US Marine Corps and I beleive the Brit Army and Royal Marines do the same. There fore  the Army does not have to depend on the Air Force for tac hel sp.
Just a thought...


----------



## benny88

Yeah it's definitely an interesting point, to the best of my knowledge it's effective in the US Army and USMC. I don't know enough about the pros/cons to make an educated guess, but I know theres some helo pilots around here that could help.
   Would you also want to make naval helicopters a part of the Navy?


----------



## OldSolduer

Good question, but this is not within my arcs of fire....
Being an Army sort, I took a page out of the USMC book. All the Marine Corps pilots did their officer training with fellow Marines, there fore there is that "bond" in place....one Marine fighting with another Marine.
Are there any rotary wing pilots who have any opinions on this?
Advantages? Disadvantages?


----------



## benny88

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> All the Marine Corps pilots did their officer training with fellow Marines, there fore there is that "bond" in place....one Marine fighting with another Marine.


  

   True, but remember that we're not as segregated as the US Air Force and the US Army, so we do our officer training with people from other elements, giving us some of the advantages of Marine Corps training. I agree the common training is not to the same extent, but I do feel a bond with other people on my course from other trades and elements.


----------



## OldSolduer

Good discussion!

I'm an NCO, but that's never stopped me from thinking. I'm kidding of course...
I can understand you bonding with course mates, but if you know the guy coming to save your bacon wears OD and not AF blue....it can make a difference....in my opinion....I could be wrong and frequently have been known to be wrong...!!!
BTW this is not meant to denigrate any AF pers.....


----------



## Eye In The Sky

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> Any thought of taking rotary wing aviaton and making it Army vice Air Force?



That might work for the TacHel world, not so much for the Maritime Helicopter community  ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell

There is, I think, a good case both pro and con putting _organic_ ‘air arms’ into the army and navy and I know it has been discussed before, here in Army.ca.

That being said the real issue raised by Ruxted is financial.

Changing the C2 arrangements and uniform colours of various air and ground crew is pretty _small change_ compared to the tens of billions needed for new aircraft, of various types, and new facilities to house them and new people to fly and maintain them.

That doesn’t mean C2 doesn’t matter; clearly it is important. But it can and should be addressed when we know that we will get the assets, human and material, we need.

For the moment let’s agree to keep telling our MPs that we need *“billions and billions – a few tens of billions – of new money to be spent sooner rather than later on new army aviation capabilities – armed/attack and utility helicopters, at least.”*


----------



## Edward Campbell

The above being said, I am one of those who never, ever understood the rationale for Air Command, etc. I believe* that naval and army aviation should be integral components of the fleet and the field force – navy and army pilots should fly navy and army helicopters and navy and army technicians should maintain the aircraft.

There is plenty of room for integrated training and for inter-service transfers and so on.

I cannot understand why some army aircraft – especially attack helicopters – cannot be piloted (commanded) by senior NCOs. That’s more controversial, I suppose, than putting integral air arms back into services. The Brits used to do it and they stopped – one assumes for good reasons. I’ll defer to experts on whether or not that could work and whether or not it would be a good idea.


----------
* But I’ve been retired for so long that my ‘beliefs’ are probably on a par with the Sunday funnies.


----------



## benny88

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I cannot understand why some army aircraft – especially attack helicopters – cannot be piloted (commanded) by senior NCOs. That’s more controversial, I suppose, than putting integral air arms back into services. The Brits used to do it and they stopped – one assumes for good reasons. I’ll defer to experts on whether or not that could work and whether or not it would be a good idea.




   Do you think that all pilot slots should be able to be filled by NCO's or just rotary wing? If so, why? I'm not being sarcastic or saying that it shouldn't be done, I'm just curious.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

Seems to work well for the Amercians.  WOs drive their Apache's.


----------



## OldSolduer

In the US Army Warrant Officers are commissioned. There is a difference between our WO rank structure and the US Army.

Have I opened a can of worms?


----------



## benny88

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> In the US Army Warrant Officers are commissioned. There is a difference between our WO rank structure and the US Army.




     True, and it's even more different with WO aviators. Check out this link: http://www.goarmy.com/about/warrant_officer.jsp

    Basically they can sign right up from civilian to "Warrant Officer Candidate" do a 9 week basic, 6 week WO course, then flight training, so they're not exactly the fountains of knowledge and experience that they are in the CF. Essentially, that course progression is fairly close to the CF for pilots (IAP, BOTP, then Primary Flight [doesn't say anything about survival, aeromedical, etc, which I'm sure they also do]) except that they don't get/need a degree.


----------



## Edward Campbell

I’m not pushing for NCO pilots; I just never really understood what happened to them.

During the 2nd World War the British and Canadian Forces had NCO pilots (glider pilots in the army). So, I believe, did the US forces, at the very start if the war. I have read, somewhere, that Gen. Hap Arnold wanted, and got, an all officer flying corps and that the USN and USMC followed suit. Sometime after the war we, Britain and Canada, anyway, mostly followed along the US model.

Here is a link to a 1999 UK parliamentary report that indicates that, then, the UK Army still used NCO pilots but which did not see any benefit in the RN or RAF following suit.

I cannot see any financial benefit in NCO pilots – a sergeant or WO drawing full pilot’s skill pay is no cheaper than a Capt/Lt in the same business. The US system (warrant officer – US type WO - pilots) seemed to me to be aimed at getting a large corps of serving, ‘professional’ line pilots without having to worry about providing them with full officer careers, with all the additional cross-employment and training involved. That, to me, is the sole benefit: (some?), many, (most?) pilots fly aircraft, period – a few, who are commissioned officers, fly and manage and advance up through the officer ranks, as far as their leadership skills and knowledge will carry them.

One of the continuing characteristics of my time in the service was the ever-present “get well” programmes, about half of them it seemed to me for aircrew. We always seemed to have dire shortages, followed, in just a few years by unmanageable surpluses. In the ‘50s and into the early ‘60s the RCAF had its own version of the Army’s OCP system: a large portion of aircrew billets were filled by young officers recruited right out of high school; they were trained and given ‘short service’ (< 10 year) commissions – very, very few of them were allowed to stay in after their ‘short service’ term expired. That, for a while, seemed to meet the need for a large corps of ‘line pilots’ while avoiding a large surplus of older, less employable officers.

I could _imagine_ that most army pilots could be selected from our quite large pool of young (say with less than five years of service), well educated, suitably qualified serving soldiers who, after the long, arduous training programmes that all pilots must accomplish, would be promoted to sergeant (sergeant-pilot) and would be posted to flying units. I’m guessing that most (just many?) pilots can fly, pretty continuously, in operations until they are 40+ years old – it seems like we could good _mileage_ out of NCO pilots.

I reiterate that I’m in the curiosity rather than advocacy mode here because, for me, *the big issue* remains: we need more, new money for army (especially) aviation equipment and people – after we have both (and the requisite O&M money, too) then we can decide on the suit colours, C2 arrangements and, lastly, the ranks of those who fly and maintain the aircraft.


----------



## aesop081

OldSolduer said:
			
		

> the Brit Army and Royal Marines do the same. There fore  the Army does not have to depend on the Air Force for tac hel sp.



Brit Chinooks and some Merlin Helos are flown by the RAF in support of land forces


----------



## Zoomie

Keep in mind that these NCO aviators in the US Army are still commanded by a US Army Captain.  They are formed in a quasi-platoon formation - with the junior Officer commanding his det of Attack Helos.  Very much like an Armoured Troop.


----------



## Edward Campbell

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Keep in mind that these NCO aviators in the US Army are still commanded by a US Army Captain.  They are formed in a quasi-platoon formation - with the junior Officer commanding his det of Attack Helos.  Very much like an Armoured Troop.



And that is what I imagined *might* happen in the  Canadian Army: an aviation troop/platoon might be commended by a Capt/Lt (already classification trained as, say, an Armd or Log/Tn officer then trained as a pilot) and the aircraft commanders might be Pilot Sgts or Flight Sgts (there's a rank with a familiar ring to it) selected for flight training from the ranks of serving soldiers.


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

I know it has been asked before...and always shot down by the Generals that are at least in the Air side of things...flying NCO's is definitely no a new thing...other nations do infact allow their NCO's to fly more than helicopters...the German Airforce has Sgt pilots who fly the transals. a mini Herc..so why not...they talk about not having enough to to do the job and retention...I would certainly have signed up for it if available and be quit happy flying helicopters for the rest of my career.


----------



## McG

For those proposing it,
Would Pilot NCO be a remuster occupation?


----------



## BLUE GRUNT

> For those proposing it,
> Would Pilot NCO be a re muster occupation?



That would be a very sound proposition, experience is a good thing to have, and no better way than start from the ground up as it were.


----------



## OldSolduer

A very interesting discussion. 
Regarding NCO pilots.....I would think that you'd want some fairly sharp young MCpls/Sgts. Just an opinion.


----------



## benny88

MCG said:
			
		

> For those proposing it,
> Would Pilot NCO be a remuster occupation?



 Also, if you allow direct entry, you could have like 18 yr olds flying helicopters in combat, and this isn't WWII. One thing about getting the degree and the length of flight training for pilots is that the approximate minimum age to be operational is about 25, IIRC.


----------



## aesop081

benny88 said:
			
		

> Also, if you allow direct entry, you could have like 18 yr olds flying helicopters in combat, and this isn't WWII. One thing about getting the degree and the length of flight training for pilots is that the approximate minimum age to be operational is about 25, IIRC.



Age ?

So what ? I have seen some really mature 18 year-olds and i've seen some real babies that are 40+


----------



## benny88

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Age ?
> 
> So what ? I have seen some really mature 18 year-olds and i've seen some real babies that are 40+



   I know that age doesn't equate with ability, and there are exceptions to every stereotype, but I'm freshly 20, and think I need some seasoning to before I am ready to fly in combat, to be honest. And not just flight training, but general experience.


----------



## aesop081

benny88 said:
			
		

> I know that age doesn't equate with ability, and there are exceptions to every stereotype, but I'm freshly 20, and think I need some seasoning to before I am ready to fly in combat, to be honest.



I've never been to Afghanistan but i had just turned 19 the first time some locals ( Serbs)  decided that i should be at the receiving end of automatic fire while i was in the middle of a minefield. I did rather well too. You should give yourself more credit. You would be surprised what you can do under fire pressure.


----------



## benny88

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I've never been to Afghanistan but i had just turned 19 the first time some locals ( Serbs)  decided that i should be at the receiving end of automatic fire while i was in the middle of a minefield. I did rather well too. You should give yourself more credit. You would be surprised what you can do under fire pressure.



   Thanks for that Aviator. I know I could take care of myself and my troops if I'm lucky enough to ever lead any, and hope I would be a credit to the CF. However, if the CF had the CHOICE (which it would in the NCO pilot issue) on whether I should be in combat and in sole control (I know we have no single-pilot helicopters, but the US Army WO's fly in them) of a multi-million dollar helicopter I still think it would be advantageous to give its pilots more experience.


----------



## Eye In The Sky

To the question of making Pilot NCOs a remuster occupation, I am sure that would work.  I would like to know at what percentage the COTP currently is able to fill all the positions for remuster only MOCs such as FE, SAR Tech and AES Op.  If they aren't meeting the requirements of current MOCs available only to remuster types, I would bet a weeks pay that the CMs of the current remuster MOCs would not be happy to have Pilot NCO added to the list.  Who knows, the ones that didn't make Pilot might accept their 2nd choice of MOC "B".

As for the experience of the NCO Pilot, if he has enough experience.  I am more concerned, myself, that  (a) the selection process would weed out the non-suitable applicants (b) the training process would weed out more non-suitable applicants and that the ones who made it through selection AND training would be the ones we would be looking for.  From there, the relevant experience would come thru the OTUs or whatever would be set up.  As for general experience, I am not so concerned if Pilot Bloggins can balance his cheque book and cook veal;  Mrs Bloggins can provide that training  ;D.

I would mostly care about his/her ability to fly the aircraft to support 'the' mission safely, effectively and aggressively or however pilots are supposed to fly helicopters.  Thats not within my lane.


----------



## Blackadder1916

I recall a similiar discussion a couple of decades ago  in the Mess when some British Army helicopter aircrew (2 pilots and 2 observers) were visiting the base.  One of the British pilots (a Captain) was defending the position of NCO pilots against arguments from Canadian pilots (well, actually one rather obnoxious fellow).  The Base Commander (Colonel, a pilot) was siding with the Brit, agreeing with his position that the technical aspects or the tactical requirements of actually flying did not require the education, training or experience of a commissioned officer.   We didn't get the opinions of the other Brit aircrew; the observers (being Sergeants) were probably in the WO & Sgts Mess; the other pilot, who the Captain said was probably the better technical pilot was (being a Corporal) either in the JR's or more likely was smart enough to head off base in search of a livelier atmosphere.  When questioned why the pilot of a helicopter was a Cpl and his observer a Sgt (supposedly all the observers were Sgts) the Brit Capt stated that the observer had the important job in a scout helicopter and therefore needed to be someone with significant experience, all the pilot did was drive the thing.

http://www.army.mod.uk/aac/recruiting/soldier_career.htm


> Aircrew training
> There is also the opportunity for all AAC soldiers to apply to train as an Army helicopter pilot, subject to suitability, aptitude and medical status. You must have attained the rank of Lance Corporal and be recommended for promotion to Corporal. Army pilot selection comprises of aptitude tests, a very thorough medical, Flying Grading and finally a selection interview. The earliest that you could expect to start pilot training is some 4 years after completion of your basic Groundcrew training.
> 
> A limited number of personel may also apply for Aviation Crewman training, where you will be employed as a Doorgunner, Systems Operator or Winch Operator. Selection is similar to pilot training except that you need only be a Class 1 Airtrooper to apply for Avaition Rearcrew, and there is no requirement to undertake Aptitude testing or Flying Grading, however you will still need to pass the medical and interview process



ARMY AIR CORPS AIRCREW SELECTION AND TRAINING


> *Army Aviation Training*
> 
> The School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop in Hampshire trains Army pilots using the Army's front line aircraft, the Islander, the Gazelle, the Lynx and the Apache AH Mk 1. It also trains soldiers to support these aircraft on the ground, to protect its operating bases, to provide communications between the ground and aircraft, and to arm and refuel them. The training activity conducted by SAAvn is divided into ground training and flying training.
> 
> Ground training is conducted by 2 Regiment AAC and consists of:
> 
> Phase 2 training to provide special to arm training for recruits on completion of their basic training at Winchester Army Training Regiment, and,
> Phase 3 training to provide career progress courses for trained soldiers.
> 
> Flying training is conducted by Flying Wing and consists of:
> 
> Army Flying Grading
> Operational Training Phase of the Army Pilots Course
> Conversion to the Army Air Corps operational aircraft
> 
> The AAC Centre at Middle Wallop is under the ownership of the Army Training and Recruitment Agency (ATRA). There is also a detachment of 132 Aviation Support Squadron, Royal Logistics Corps, which comes under the Joint Helicopter Command, based at the AAC Centre. The Headquarters of the Director of Army Aviation is also based at Middle Wallop. There are 12 Attack Helicopters allocated to the School of Army Aviation for training purposes.
> 
> HQ DAAvn (Director Army Aviation) is responsible for providing advice and support on Army Aviation and AAC training matters. In this regard HQ DAAvn is responsible for the training policy for both aircrew and groundcrew. The School of Army Aviation (SAAvn) undertakes AAC Special-to-Arm training. AAC Soldier Basic Training takes place at ATR Winchester.
> 
> The AAC recruits pilots from three main sources:
> 
> Direct Entry (Officers only)
> The ranks of the AAC (Corporals and above)
> Officers and soldiers from other arms and branches of the Service (Corporal and above)
> Officers join the Corps after completing the Commissioning course at the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst. Unlike the all-officer Navy and Air Force helicopter pilot establishments, *almost two-thirds of AAC aircrew are non-commissioned officers. * Within the Army, NCOs, of at least LCpl rank with a recommendation for promotion, from within the AAC and from the remainder of the Army may also apply for pilot training. NCO pilots spend the majority of their service flying and many go on to be commissioned as Officers, normally to fill specialist flying appointments such as flying instructors.
> 
> *There are three phases to selection for Army pilot training:*
> 
> Aircrew Selection tests are conducted at RAF College Cranwell. These tests are common to the three Services and last two days. Army candidates require a minimum aircrew aptitude score of 80/180 to progress onto the next phase. RAF/RN require higher scores, but the Army is able to accept a lower score at this point, as Army candidates also have to pass Army Flying Grading which the AAC considers a far more accurate indicator of potential to be an Army pilot.
> 
> Army Flying Grading (AFG) is conducted at Middle Wallop. This consists of 13 hours, over a three week period, in a Slingsby Firefly 160. The aim of this course is to test aptitude in a live flying environment and to identify whether students have the capability to become an Army pilot.
> 
> Students who have successfully demonstrated the necessary flying potential at AFG will progress onto the final phase at the Pilot Selection Centre. This is run by HQ SAAvn and selection includes aptitude tests, a medical, and finally a selection interview.
> 
> *Flying training*
> 
> There are several stages in AAC flying training.
> 
> *Groundschool*
> 
> The Army Flying Course starts with four weeks of groundschool instruction at RAF College Cranwell. Students learn the basic building blocks of aviation - such as Meteorology, Principles of Flight, Aircraft Operations, Navigation and Technical instruction.
> 
> *Elementary Flying Training (EFT) *
> 
> EFT is the first element of Army Flying Training at RAF Barkston Heath. This phase consists of 40 flying hours of elementary fixed- wing flying training over 14 weeks on the Slingsby Firefly (260).
> 
> *Aeromedical and Survival Training *
> 
> After EFT, students complete a week of aeromedical and survival training at RNAS Yeovilton, Lee-on-Solent and Plymouth.
> 
> *Defence Helicopter Flying School*
> 
> The Defence Helicopter Flying School (DHFS) at RAF Shawbury provides basic single-engine helicopter training for the three Services and some overseas countries. The DHFS also provides advanced twin-engine helicopter training for RAF aircrew and other special courses for the three Services.
> 
> At the DHFS, much of the training effort is contracted out to FBS Ltd - a consortium of Flight Refuelling Aviation, Bristow Helicopters Ltd and Serco Defence. All DHFS military and civilian instructors are trained by the Central Flying School (Helicopter) Squadron. The single-engine basic flying course incorporates some 36 flying hours over nine weeks on the Squirrel helicopter with the instructors of No 660 Squadron. Army students complete nine weeks training before they leave to start their Operational Training Phase at Middle Wallop.
> 
> *Operational Training Phase (OTP)*
> 
> The penultimate phase is conducted at the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop. Training is focused on converting helicopter pilots into Army pilots. It starts with a week of tactics training, preparing students for the military part of the course. The OTP phase involves 82 flying hours in 18 weeks, and is conducted on the Squirrel helicopter.
> 
> *Conversion to Type (CTT)*
> 
> The final phase is conducted at the School of Army Aviation at Middle Wallop. Before being posted to a regiment, students have to convert onto an operational helicopter type. The Conversion to Type (CTT) course takes around nine weeks. At Middle Wallop, Apache aircrew and ground crew training is conducted by Aviation Training International Limited (ATIL).
> 
> *Conversion to Role (CTR)*
> 
> Once a pilot has been converted onto type at Middle Wallop, he or she will proceed to a Regiment. At the Regiment a special CTR course will be held to bring the pilot up to combat ready status.


----------



## dan_282

NCO pilots would be the best thing ever..I suspect the possibility is rare though..

I couldnt see this happening within a decade, they havent even decided on an attack helicopter type, or one in general..

if they were to come out tomorrow and announce it, id sign up for AVN on the spot..


----------



## Bograt

There are allowances under the current system to provide opportunities for candidates that do not posses a degree to go through pilot training. The understanding of course is that the member would complete their degree after wings.

I am not opposed to the concept NCO pilots. I am sure it has been looked at by more senior pay scales than me. But opening the gates to more senior NCOs may not provide the desired effect. The problem is not just the number of available candidates but it is the training system. Moose Jaw is unable to train more than 100 members a year due to:

Number of IPs
Number of A/C
Housing
you name it

I believe next year they are pushing for 130. With 15-20% attrition at phase II, you can see that it is difficult to keep up with the demographics. The FRP devastated the CF and we are seeing the effects now. As a result we are loosing a generation of experience at the various leadership levels (career Captains to Senior Officers). If a member is committed to becoming a pilot in the CF let them demonstrate this by:
a- acquiring a commercial ticket at an approved school.
b- completing x number of years post secondary.

Instead of revolutionizing the CF pilot system, why not provide opportunities for NCO members to be commissioned from the ranks after achieving wings standard? Since beginning the training system I have always been told that I was a officer first and a pilot second. I am not convinced that this should be changed.


----------



## beenthere

I can recall several discussions over the years where commissioned polots--captains wanted a system where they could be left at captain rank forever and be nothing other than pilots with occasional postings to a relevent ground job such as Base Ops or something similar. Those who wanted to could continue in the regular system with all of the career enhancing courses and postings and continue upward through the ranks. Apparently someone made an official proposal of the idea  and it was nixed. I don't know anything about the proposal or the reason why it wasn't entertained but that was several years ago (early 90's) and lots of things have changed so anything is possible.


----------



## JimMorrison19

IIRC the reason why a lot of countries only allow commissioned officers as pilots dates back to WW2 - something about captured officers whose craft were downed being treated better by the opposing forces. Seems to me like this only makes a marginal amount of sense in certain situations, but it might be some sort of factor in any decision to start allowing NCO pilots.


----------



## Old Sweat

John Terraine discussed the issue in The Right of the Line, The Royal Air Force in the European War 1939-1945. In May 1942 Canada raised the issue at the United Nations' Air Training Conference, citing the inequalities in pay, transportation, staus, messing, etc among individuals performing the same duties, along with the POW issue. While supported by both Australia and New Zealand, the RAF refused to even consider it at the time. Terraine appears sympathetic to the Canadian proposal, noting that the RAF "was still, in 1942, speaking the language of a small regular Service recruited in a country where inequalities found far readier acceptance than in the overseas Dominions."


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Most of the civilian helicopter pilots do not have degrees, they spent all their money and time learning to fly helicopters and working up north. Some do have degrees and some come to the profession from other careers.


----------



## arctic_front

Being as I work in the civilian helicopter world, I have worked with both civilian-only and ex-military pilots.  Both can fly a helicopter.  Some ex mil types really struggle in the civilian world due to lack of some types of training, aka, long-line experience, and I'm pretty sure an experienced civilian pilot would have some difficulty with night time formation flying with NVG's.  Either way, both started out not knowing either how to fly, or the intricacies of the harder parts of the job.  Until a civilian pilot has accumulated a min. of around 1000 hours, he is not given the harder jobs.  By that time, he has proven himself worthy, and shown his maturity.  Same could be said for a soldier who re-signs up for another stint.  Either way, a degree in basket weaving or liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.  A 1000 hr. civilian pilot would make a better prospect for a WO grade helo-pilot than some recent college/university green horn that has to learn from the bottom.  A piece of paper with B.A. after his name, doesn't make him pilot material.  Spending thousands of dollars to 'see' if he can be a pilot sounds like a waste of resources.  I'm speaking strictly rotary-wing here, not the jet-jockey's who may require a higher education in physics or calculus to fly a fast mover.

Like any field, on the job training is where you really start to learn, the school part is just so much theory and book learning.  My point is, a good set of hands on the stick is better than a head full of university mush.

Just  my humble opinion as a civy helicopter AME.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

> Either way, a degree in basket weaving or liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.



And you would be wrong- but thanks for coming out!


----------



## Strike

arctic_front said:
			
		

> I'm speaking strictly rotary-wing here, not *the jet-jockey's who may require a higher education in physics *or calculus to fly a fast mover.
> 
> Like any field, on the job training is where you really start to learn, the school part is just so much theory and book learning.  My point is, a good set of hands on the stick is better than a head full of university mush.
> 
> Just  my humble opinion as a *civy helicopter AME*.



Really?  And you think there's less physics required to fly a helo?  You do know that the wings on a jet are fixed, right?


----------



## aesop081

arctic_front said:
			
		

> Just  my humble opinion as a civy helicopter AME.



You fix them. How does that qualify you to speak about what is required for a person to fly them ?

As SeaKingTacco said, thanks for coming out.

Next


----------



## arctic_front

Sea king Taco....  please enlighten me as to how a liberal arts, or any other degree, is necessary  to flying?

FYI,  I have also flown them too...  as they often have the co-pilot sticks in the other side.  Flying a helo does not require a head full of math as you suggest....  because i know how they work, just as well as any pilot does, in a lot of cases, better than they do. Your welcome.  Civilian pilots do not require even a high school education to fly them, just enough smarts to pass a few tests, so where does the university degree come into this?  Or, the math?  

Just because they are painted green doesn't change the aerodynamic principles involved in making a heavier than air machine lift off the ground.  Fixed or rotary wing.  I am just a little surprised that you assume that an AME is too stupid to understand complex subjects such as ring-state vortices, retreating blade stall, or settling with power.  I also know plenty about navigation, weight & balance, avionics and instrumentation.  How do you even know that I don't have a degree?  The 'E' at the end of AME stands for what, do you suppose?  

I'm not knocking the pilots who went to school to get a degree in a relevant subject, even a B.A., so why do you think it's ok to bash me because I am a lowly 'grease-monkey?'  Sounds pretty elitist on your part.  You'd be surprised at the things i have 'know' about aerodynamics to get that letter 'E' in my 'lowly' title.  I made reference to university degrees as not being entirely relevant to actually flying a helicopter.   Nothing more.

Flying requires eye-hand co-ordination, quick reflexes and decision-making skills.  A degree in nuclear physics or aerodynamics it does not.  I'm open to any legitimate criticism as to why you believe I am wrong.

I work as an aviator, same as you.  People die in my end of the aviation spectrum, same as you.  I work on the same equipment ( UH-1 or Bell medium/Bell Kiowa/206) as some in this forum are familiar with, so I think i have a reasonable and knowledgeable  contribution to the subject.  23 yrs worth of hands-on with helicopters is not irrelevant, be it from a pilot's perspective or an engineer's.  

(Am I under the mistaken impression that a 'forum' is a place to voice opinions openly and read and respond to other's?  )


----------



## Eye In The Sky

What about maintaining tactical/situational awareness "the air picture".

IMO, there is a LOT more to military aviation than the aspect of making an aircraft physically fly.

Pilots are not just pilots in the Air Force, they are Commissioned Officers in the military, and there is a whole other aspect to that not involving flying.

IMO, the problem here is your thinking is 1 dimensional and centric to the flying aspect alone.  Not tactics, war fighting, and the military Officer side of the equation.

Food for thought.


----------



## McG

arctic_front said:
			
		

> ... doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.





			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sea king Taco....  please enlighten me as to how a liberal arts, or any other degree, is necessary  to flying?


I can't speak for the piloting side, but the demonstrated ability to think critically does have a significant value for being an officer.  It is true that having a degree is not proof of intelligence, and the absence of a degree is not even suggestive of an intellectual deficiency.  However, in general, a degree indicates some formal effort has been made toward the betterment of an individual's critical thinking capability.  This first step is of great value, and it is built-upon thought an officer's career.


----------



## aesop081

arctic_front said:
			
		

> FYI,  I have also flown them too...  as they often have the co-pilot sticks in the other side.



Well, in that case i can add pilot time in the CH-146, CT-142, CT-114 and CP-140 to my logbook....sweet !

 :



> because i know how they work, just as well as any pilot does, in a lot of cases, better than they do. Your welcome.



I'm glad you know better, you're supposed to. But then again, theres a difference between what technical manuals say, and what happens in real flight.




> so where does the university degree come into this?  Or, the math?



Pilots are officers. Officers have degrees. Is that simple enough for you to understand ?



> Just because they are painted green doesn't change the aerodynamic principles involved in making a heavier than air machine lift off the ground.



It certainly changes the scope of responsabilities of the pilot/crew.



> I am just a little surprised that you assume that an AME is too stupid to understand complex subjects such as ring-state vortices, retreating blade stall, or settling with power.



I'm certain that you understand it well. While you understand it, others actualy live it. Theres a key difference there.




> I also know plenty about navigation, weight & balance, avionics and instrumentation.



I know plenty about aircraft maintenance. Thats why i am trained to do basic AFRP and A, B, A/B checks on my aircraft. That doesnt make me a technician does it ?



> so why do you think it's ok to bash me because I am a lowly 'grease-monkey?'



I never insulted your background. I question wether it made you qualified to speak on pilot / aircrew requirements.




> I work as an aviator, same as you.



You work IN aviation, same as me.

http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&defl=en&q=define:aviator&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Arctic Front,

I'm not dissing AMEs.  You just came to a perfectly natural and ill-informed conclusion that Officer Aircrew (I'll leave the NCMs out of this for now to keep things cleaner) don't require degrees.  If by this you mean "to fly an airplane, one does not require advanced education" you are perfectly and completely correct.  Officers (which all pilots are in the CF), however, require degrees, because when you take the fullness of a typical pilot's career into view, actually flying duties form a small portion of what they are required to do.  By this, I mean staff work, leadership, tactics, etc.  As Aircrew advance in rank, their higher level eductaion comes more and more into play.  In short- aircrew in the CF are Officers first.

You could have avoided most of the pile-on which you have suffered here by simply rephrasing your initial post on this topic in the form of a question ie- "why do pilots in the CF require degrees?"

Cheers.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

Yet the US army seems quite happy have NCO's fly their gunships, and since they fly far more helo's and different types than any other western country, one can consider them SME's on the subject. So clearly we know from both the largest Western military and from civilan use that university degrees are not a critical requirement of the job. Considering the skill shortages facing the military, one would think they would bend over backwards to get trained pilots. Training them to work in the tactical environement would also likely be cheaper than working raw recruits through the current system only to find they can't fly well and may also be tactical dunces as well. The current system worked in Canada, due to the small numbers required, as our role and fleet begins to expand again, new ways of doing the job need to be given fair consideration.


----------



## McG

Are you sure the US has NCO pilots?  A US Warrant Officer is not an NCO.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> Yet the US army seems quite happy have NCO's fly their gunships,



US Army Warrant Officers are not NCOs. They are specialist officers as oposed to generalists.


----------



## aesop081

Colin P said:
			
		

> Considering the skill shortages facing the military, one would think they would bend over backwards to get trained pilots.



IMHO, we do not have a shortage of applicants for the pilot MOC but we do have a shortage of training space and resources. Bringing in more applicants (officers or otherwise) will do nothing to help any shortages at the operational units.


----------



## Colin Parkinson

MCG said:
			
		

> Are you sure the US has NCO pilots?  A US Warrant Officer is not an NCO.



You are correct a CWO pilots appear to be commisioned officers in the US army, now that is strange, but a WO is not yet a commisioned rank either, but holds a Warrant.

http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/archives/2007/07/072407-Apache_save.aspx
http://www.militaryspot.com/military-rank.htm

How to become a WO in the US Army
http://www.usarec.army.mil/hq/warrant/download/Warrant_Officer_RPI.pdf

The nice thing about been proven wrong here is you certainly learn something new.


----------



## KingKikapu

I feel sorry for arts degree holders because they always get picked on, and I don't understand why.  They learned how to critically analyse and disseminate information like the rest of us.  I respect that, and I suspect it would help them greatly in any venture.  Stop using them as scapegoats.


----------



## Loachman

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And you would be wrong- but thanks for coming out!



He's absolutely _right_.

Degrees were not required for most officer classifications for decades. It became universal again at the time that two of the three military colleges were cut as part of the post-Cold War "peace dividend" slashings. Coincidence? Stated reason or not, it certainly appeared to me to be nothing more than a means of justifying the continuing expense required to maintain RMC when the other two were closed.

I went through as OCTP - no degree. A larger percentage of the DEO candidates on my courses washed out than us unedumacated bums. Their degrees did not help them get through, or be better pilots if they did.

The military training given was perfectly adequate, including the various staff etcetera courses later.

I continue to view the requirement for a degree as a needless waste of time and tax money at the entry level.

As for Army and Navy pilots - yes.

NCO pilots, at least in the Army - yes.

The current system and structure, on the Tac Hel side, is cumbersome, expensive, and ineffective.

You do not need two people in each cockpit trained to lead and command acting as drivers, any more than you need a commission to command a LAV III or a tank.

Battlefield helicopters are vehicles with a different method of mobility - rotary wings instead of tracks or wheels.

I have written about this here in numerous threads in the past.

I missed this whole discussion while I was in Wainwright cut off from the interweb while on my Sperwer course, or else there would be lengthy rants from me in this one too.


----------



## SupersonicMax

I'll jump here.  I'm not a helo pilot (thank god ), I fly fast jets.  



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Either way, a degree in basket weaving or liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot.



Maybe it doesn't help, maybe it does.  For myself, I feel it helped me tremendously.  Not for the material I learned during the degree, but rather the way of approaching a problem and solving it and the study habbits.  But it depends on every individual and how they use the skills they learn from their degree.  A degree isn't about the subject you're studying but rather, developping problem solving skills.  The subject is just a way of delivering that.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> A 1000 hr. civilian pilot would make a better prospect for a WO grade helo-pilot than some recent college/university green horn that has to learn from the bottom.



Civilian flying is very different than military flying.  There are commercial pilots and airline pilots that go through the CF Pilot Training system and yes, some of them fail.  In the end, everyone has to learn from the bottom again, the CF way.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> A piece of paper with B.A. after his name, doesn't make him pilot material.


The piece of paper with the B.A. doesn't make him pilot material, the Aircrew Selection process makes him pilot material.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Spending thousands of dollars to 'see' if he can be a pilot sounds like a waste of resources.


It's spending thousands of dollar to form an officer. 



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I'm speaking strictly rotary-wing here, not the jet-jockey's who may require a higher education in physics or calculus to fly a fast mover.


I don't think you can really speak for any pilot here (unless you have a license or are in the process of getting one).  Riding shotgun doesn't mean you understand everything the pilot does.  

While having a science/engineering background may help you understand concepts on the ground, you never actually do math and physics in the plane (god, my brain cell (yup, no mistake, no s after cell... Singular) has already the hardest time making simple additions).  The ability to process information fast is much more useful that any type of theory/math/physics.  We sometimes have to use "math" in the cockpit, however it's Grade 6 level math.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Like any field, on the job training is where you really start to learn, the school part is just so much theory and book learning.  My point is, a good set of hands on the stick is better than a head full of university mush.


Again, it's not the theories you learned that you use but the problem solving skills you got in University.  In that respect, I do believe that a University degree is usefull for any Officer trade, pilot included.

Max


----------



## arctic_front

Eye In The Sky:

With utmost respect, I have to ask, what university teaches those things?  Except RMC?  No civilian university offers courses in military tactics or strategy except a military college.  You learn those things after you join the military.  I'm not trying to disrespect military officers or the military in general.  I'm stating only that a university degree doesn't make a person a pilot.  A gifted intellectual does not make you a pilot.  An un-educated slob may be a gifted pilot based on his ability.   My point is just that the military discards gifted pilots on a basis of a university education, when that education is not a requirement to be a pilot.  Unless the candidate is a total dummy, he can learn the tactics and the rest of the regime, on the job,  like every other pilot candidate.   Requiring a university education smells strongly of elitism.   Flying is a hands-and-feet job.  Mission planning is a learned job like most jobs.

Obviously, skill alone is not enough.  Intelligence is required.  A simple aptitude test can suffice.  The rest can be taught.  A university education of any kind may be helpful, but it doesn't make you a better warrior.  It certainly doesn't make you a better pilot.   A degree in an unrelated field to aviation serves no purpose.  It is a cop-out to fulfill a minimum requirement for entry and nothing more.  I would offer this:  Canada needs a strong military academy  program to teach our future warriors,,,,,  opps,  silly me....  we used to have one....  where did it go?    

In these times, to close doors instead of opening  them, for potential members of the elite of the elite military, is simply foolish.  Doors should  be opening, not closing.  Keep the standards very high.  Allow no person past those very   high standards unless they meet the requirements, but an artificial standard of elitism is not helping.  Smarts, skills, talent, intelligence is what the CAF needs.  University is not a true measure of ability.  Intellect is the true measure.  Don't dumb-down a thing, but require a minimum intelligence.  A university degree doesn't make you a better warrior,  or make you smarter, just more educated. They are mutually exclusive.

Talent and ability is what the CAF needs, not elitists


----------



## KingKikapu

A few things:


University education sharpened my analytical and problem solving skills a great deal.  That is something I will cherish and apply for as long as I can think on my own.
University is elite?  Have you seen some of the people coming out of school?
If you use intellect as one of your standard measures, then what do you propose we use as a testing methodology for candidate pilots?


----------



## Loachman

arctic_front - You are out of your lane, as you have no direct knowledge of the military, however I agree with much of what you say.

And Max - you would have done just as well without a degree, as thousands of us have done in the past.

KingKikapu - my analytical and problem-solving skills are quite adequate, I believe, without university. I developed them through military training beginning at the age of seventeen. Generations of pilots were adequately screened, trained, and tested without university.


----------



## KingKikapu

I'm sure they are, and I apologize if you thought I was implying that they weren't.  I actually believe that you are right in that it probably isn't too beneficial to be university trained to be a pilot.  It might help the admin end of things.  Can it really hurt to have more education though?  All other things remaining the same that is.


----------



## Loachman

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> I'm sure they are, and I apologize if you thought I was implying that they weren't.



No apology necessary, and I didn't. You have to try much harder to annoy me - and that's not a direct challenge.

I was just pointing out that these skills can be honed within our own system, and are.



			
				KingKikapu said:
			
		

> It might help the admin end of things.



We teach that, too.



			
				KingKikapu said:
			
		

> Can it really hurt to have more education though?  All other things remaining the same that is.



No, not at all. Education is a good thing. I only wish to point out that it is not necessarily relevant or of direct benefit to certain jobs/functions.


----------



## arctic_front

Re: Helicopters and Money
« Reply #55 on: Today at 06:27:23 »
 MilPoints  Quote
I'll jump here.  I'm not a helo pilot (thank god ), I fly fast jets.  

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Either way, a degree in basket weaving or liberal arts sure doesn't sound to me like something very 'useful' to be a officer or a pilot. 

Maybe it doesn't help, maybe it does.  For myself, I feel it helped me tremendously.  Not for the material I learned during the degree, but rather the way of approaching a problem and solving it and the study habbits.  But it depends on every individual and how they use the skills they learn from their degree.  A degree isn't about the subject you're studying but rather, developping problem solving skills.  The subject is just a way of delivering that.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
A 1000 hr. civilian pilot would make a better prospect for a WO grade helo-pilot than some recent college/university green horn that has to learn from the bottom. 

Civilian flying is very different than military flying.  There are commercial pilots and airline pilots that go through the CF Pilot Training system and yes, some of them fail.  In the end, everyone has to learn from the bottom again, the CF way.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
A piece of paper with B.A. after his name, doesn't make him pilot material.
The piece of paper with the B.A. doesn't make him pilot material, the Aircrew Selection process makes him pilot material.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Spending thousands of dollars to 'see' if he can be a pilot sounds like a waste of resources. 
It's spending thousands of dollar to form an officer. 

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
I'm speaking strictly rotary-wing here, not the jet-jockey's who may require a higher education in physics or calculus to fly a fast mover.
I don't think you can really speak for any pilot here (unless you have a license or are in the process of getting one).  Riding shotgun doesn't mean you understand everything the pilot does.  

While having a science/engineering background may help you understand concepts on the ground, you never actually do math and physics in the plane (god, my brain cell (yup, no mistake, no s after cell... Singular) has already the hardest time making simple additions).  The ability to process information fast is much more useful that any type of theory/math/physics.  We sometimes have to use "math" in the cockpit, however it's Grade 6 level math.

Quote from: arctic_front on Today at 00:21:33
Like any field, on the job training is where you really start to learn, the school part is just so much theory and book learning.  My point is, a good set of hands on the stick is better than a head full of university mush.
Again, it's not the theories you learned that you use but the problem solving skills you got in University.  In that respect, I do believe that a University degree is usefull for any Officer trade, pilot included.

Max


Max, I appreciate your input as you have covered the bulk of my post.  Thank you.  

I am not dissing pilots, I'm maybe dissing the the system.  Sure, being a pilot is hard.  So is every other trade in the CAF.  As the GRUNT who spends hours making your ship good to go, so you can do your job, (which is appreciated by THIS civilian) I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night?,,,,,  or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?    I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....  he understands it's systems better than you, can trouble-shoot it better than you....  you getting my point?  Not Dissing you....  you do your job well....  he does his job better.  He has too.  He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.  He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition.  

He knows that his flight crew, who become friends, are out over the water in the dark...  he knows the dangers you face....  he knows your wife and your kids.....  he does what he does because he is dedicated to his job and his machine.  He loves what he does.  He loves that he has earned your trust, and he wouldn't want to do anything else.  He is a master at his job.  But with all that responsibility, and in MY view, he has every bit the same responsibility as you have as a pilot, lives are on the line, same as you.  He loves his job as much as you.  

So how come you need a degree to carry the same responsibility as he carries every day?  Are you saying you carry more?  He doesn't have a degree....  is he too stupid to carry the same responsibility?.....  after-all...  he doesn't have a degree!  He has the required training, he has earned the position of 'crew chief' after years of doing his job well...  But he is a lowly grease monkey.  Is  he is a dim-wit grunt...?  
He didn't go to university, so he must be stupid.  But you pilots put your very life in his hands every single time you go flying.... 

If you pilots need a degree to fly....  shouldn't your crew-chief need one too?  He has your life in his hands every time to leave the ground.  Do you respect his skill?  Do you appreciate it?....  of course you do!    Is he smarter than you?  Dumber?..  He doesn't have a B.A, or a M.D, or a PhD.   But he can make you live or die.  How can that be?  If he doesn't have a degree in ANY field, and he has just as much responsibility as you......  how can that be?

I guess it must be pure fluke that you survive each and every flight.  Some un-educated dumb-ass just checked the oil and tire pressure before you slipped the surly bonds of earth to allow you to take flight.  After-all, 
some non-university educated flunky just did the pre-flight on your machine.

Are you feeling guilty yet, Sea King Taco?....  you should be.    "thanks for coming out" was the quote as you dismissed my honest comments...  

Max, again with all due respect, you don't learn problem solving skills in university, you learn them even better in the REAL world.  University is great for learning formulas and theories, but universities fill your head with bullshit.  walk the walk with your crew chief just ONE day and you'll realize the folly of your words.  Theories work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.  Reality bites.  

I will say again, Max, thank you for addressing me with respect, and my respect goes back equally to you for being a gentleman.  University doesn't make you smarter.  LIFE makes you smart.  Your crew chief is proof of that.  Pay attention.


----------



## arctic_front

KingKikapu said:
			
		

> I'm sure they are, and I apologize if you thought I was implying that they weren't.  I actually believe that you are right in that it probably isn't too beneficial to be university trained to be a pilot.  It might help the admin end of things.  Can it really hurt to have more education though?  All other things remaining the same that is.



Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree.  Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.

I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.   McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.  Military men and women deserve better.


----------



## Loachman

Again, you are out of your lane, as you have no direct experience with our circumstances. Continually stating things with which you have no direct knowledge as fact will bite you here. Please be careful how you say things.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> As the GRUNT



A "Grunt", in the strict sense of the colloquialism, is an Infantryman.

Techs do not use the term when referring to themselves.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night?,,,,,  or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?



Yes. The vast majority of us do. The rest have problems and wonder why.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief



We do not have crew chiefs, at least not in Tac Hel.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....



No, he/she could not, nor are they permitted to.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> he understands it's systems better than you,



He/she had better.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> can trouble-shoot it better than you....



Generally with input from the crew.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> you do your job well....  he does his job better.



No, he/she does not.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.



We are all undermanned, and have our challenges, and they always blame me if something goes wrong mechanically.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition.



The first and last are untrue, and I've not got the time to call up the pay rates, but yes, they are lower.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> So how come you need a degree to carry the same responsibility as he carries every day?



We do not, as thousands of military pilots have proven in the past, but the responsibilities are nowhere near the same regardless. We are responsible for more than airworthiness.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Are you saying you carry more?



Yes. Mission accomplishment is more than airworthiness. Civilian pilots are not putting weapons on targets, or moving troops into and out of hostile situations, in a carefully choreographed ballet involving large numbers and varieties of people, machines, and lethal weapons operating in four dimensions.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> He didn't go to university, so he must be stupid.



I didn't, and I'm not - I even used "colloquialism" earlier, and have used even bigger words before.

But seriously, you are exaggerating a little...



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> But you pilots put your very life in his hands every single time you go flying....



I do like to take hostages along for rides as often as possible, to give them a little incentive - not that they know that they are hostages.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> If you pilots need a degree to fly....



We don't, even to choreograph lethal four-dimensional ballets.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> "thanks for coming out" was the quote as you dismissed my honest comments...



It was, in my opinion, somewhat brusque, however you have inserted yourself into a conversation without understanding the circumstances. That never goes over very well here.


Your presence is welcome here, but, again, please be careful how you word things and do not try to tell us what our lives are like until you know.


----------



## KingKikapu

arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree.  Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.
> 
> I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.   McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.  Military men and women deserve better.


Uh you quoted the wrong guy.  You're looking for Loachman.

Personally, I'm far more impressed with people who push themselves physically/mentally (degree or not) with humility than people who do the same, but espouse warrior bravado crap.


----------



## Loachman

arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sir, and I do mean Sir,



There is no rank here.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane,



You are, and moving even farther.

You have no direct knowledge of the CF, yet you persist in trying to tell us what it is like and/or what it should be like.

I agree, as I have said, that your premise regarding university is correct, however you are going way beyond that.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.



You are telling *me/us  * this?



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I would heartily agree with you IF Canada had a proper military academy to train our military.  Education is always a plus.  But a 'liberal' education is not a net benefit to a warrior class student.  West Point, Annapolis or the Air Force Academy is useful.   McGill or any other Canadian institute of higher learning just doesn't cut it.



What do you know about our training system?

Anyway, I have to go and get ready to look for bad guys. I'll be back in a few hours.


----------



## Pelorus

If civilian universities are only good for filling students' heads with "bullshit", and teaching concepts that "work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.", I wonder where the designs and plans for the helicopters you guys are flying and maintaining came from.  God?  Santa?   ???


----------



## Loachman

I would like to point out that none of us flying them used that term.


----------



## Pelorus

Loachman said:
			
		

> I would like to point out that none of us flying them used that term.



I realize that it was only one specific user.


----------



## SeaKingTacco

Loachman and Arctic_Front,

Just to be clear- crystal clear- we are in heated agreement.  Piloting skills and university education are independent of each other.  Hell, Piloting and Officership can be independent of each other- many nations have proven that in the past and continue to do so today.

Arctic_front kicked this whole mess off with an ill-informed post about the CF that did not describe reality.

Let's talk reality: 1.  All pilots in the CF are Officers.  Whether it should be that way is the subject of one of these threads around here that just goes around in circles without resolving anything.

2. All Officers in the CF require degrees.  Again we can debate whether or not it is a good idea, but it is still a requirement.  The fact that Loach doesn't have a degree puts him increasingly in the minority. Does that make him a bad person, officer or pilot?  No, of course not.

I used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for Officers- until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there.


----------



## observor 69

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Loachman and Arctic_Front,
> 
> I used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for Officers- until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there.



I  used to be of the opinion that degrees were unnecessary for NCMs  until I got one myself.  Bit of a revelation, there.


----------



## Nfld Sapper

arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sir, and I do mean Sir, you may think I'm out of my lane, but I disagree



You are so far outside your lane that no amount of engineer support will get you back into your lane.

My 2 cents worth, your milage will vary.


----------



## 22B

Let me jump in here.  I was a M/Cpl Combat Arms, got out, and have been a Commercial Helicopter since 1980.  A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever, unless you move into non flying managment, and then, only a Business degree would be of any value.  I have worked with many ex Mil pilots, some fit well, some don't fit at all.  Based on that observation, I consider each on their own merits. It is fun, though, when they askwhat Sqn I flew with, I tell them 408, but from a Lynx (No, not the Brit Helicopter).  I will be the first to admit that there are far more civilian pilots who would not blend well with the Military, but for the most part, its irrelevant.  The one thing I really wanted to do, but missed out by two days, was to deliver 408's 206 back after maint.  The entry in the Log Book would have been most interesting, to say the least.  For the record, I fly lights and mediums and have about 7000 hours. (All as a M/Cpl 011)


----------



## KingKikapu

I also agree that whole civilian university comment was out to lunch regarding theory.   Just the other day I made a high precision ring laser gyroscope used in inertial navigation systems aboard jet fighters for fun.  This isn't exactly something that I would do on a weekend had I not earned my degree, but it has immediate applications for jets and satellites, among other things.

Next week an electrical engineering grad student and I are going to attempt to make a real time interferometric optical autocorrelator with femtosecond speeds.  Because we can, and because one of these babies will be very useful for ultra fast physics.  

Theory is serving me very well.  You are right in that it probably wouldn't help me instinctively fly better.  Other moc's might benefit from a myriad of other skill sets learned at civilian universities.  We should not discount them just because they aren't always hands-on.


----------



## Zoomie

Wading in again for the first time since March.

The CF is not short of flying pilots - we are short pilots to fill ground jobs.  Ground jobs are usually considered staff jobs - thus an Officers' domain.


----------



## aesop081

22B said:
			
		

> A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever,



Pilots,as of right now, are all officers. Officers require degrees. The argument of wether they need one to fly is irrelevant.


----------



## Strike

Zoomie said:
			
		

> Wading in again for the first time since March.
> 
> The CF is not short of flying pilots - we are short pilots to fill ground jobs.  Ground jobs are usually considered staff jobs - thus an Officers' domain.



Beg to differ on the tac hel side.   ;D  Mind you, we're also short on techs so the resulting serviceability rate makes it all a moot point.


----------



## SupersonicMax

arctic_front said:
			
		

> Sure, being a pilot is hard.  So is every other trade in the CAF.



Did I say anything that would mean that the only hard trade in the CF is Pilot?



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> As the GRUNT who spends hours making your ship good to go, so you can do your job, (which is appreciated by THIS civilian) I have to ask, respectfully, do you know how hard and how long your engineer/tech worked all night?



I know they work hard and they know we work hard.  I have yet to spend less that 10 hours at work any given day for the last year and a half.  



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> or how many months he spent learning the same technical skills you have?



Really?  I didn't know the techs at my Squadron could fight an other aircraft or do bomb runs.  The fact is they don't.  Just like I can't fix a leak in the Hydraulic system.  Different trades, different required set of skills.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I'd give dollars to donuts that your crew chief on that sea king/ Cormorant/ Griffon could do a much better job starting that ship on any given day than you.  He could probably fly it nearly as good as you....



I can buy that a tech may be able to take off, land, fly in cruise.  However, I can guarantee you that he can't do the simple task of following an IFR clearance and not get violated by ATC, unless he has some previous IFR experience.  Nevermind flying formation or flying a BFM mission.  So, no, I do not think he could fly is nearly as good as me.  Just like I don't think I could fix an airplane nearly as good as him.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> he understands it's systems better than you, can trouble-shoot it better than you....



Sure he does and sure he can trouble-shoot better than I can.  That's his job.   My job is to assist him if I snaged the airplane.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> He is under-manned, short of supplies, parts, and ultimately wears the blame if anything goes wrong mechanically.  He works twice as many hours, gets paid half as much, and gets zero recognition.
> 
> He knows that his flight crew, who become friends, are out over the water in the dark...  he knows the dangers you face....  he knows your wife and your kids.....  he does what he does because he is dedicated to his job and his machine.  He loves what he does.



We are undermanned, short of hours and if anything goes wrong during a mission, the blame comes to me.  I work on average 11h a day, get 1/2 of what a similar type civilian pilot gets.  We don't do it for the fame or the pay, but for the love of flying. They are not the only one that do it for the love of the job.




			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> He is a master at his job.



You think that we don't strive for perfection?  We probably are the most perfectionist bastards around... 



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> But with all that responsibility, and in MY view, he has every bit the same responsibility as you have as a pilot, lives are on the line, same as you.  He loves his job as much as you.


  

The techs are responsible for my life and I trust them with it.  But, I'm responsible for the life of people I don't even know.  What if I drop my bomb on the wrong target?  That's quite the responsability, isn't it?  



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> If you pilots need a degree to fly....



Have I said you need a degree to fly?  I merely said that it helped me do well on my flying courses.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> I guess it must be pure fluke that you survive each and every flight.  Some un-educated dumb-*** just checked the oil and tire pressure before you slipped the surly bonds of earth to allow you to take flight.  After-all, some non-university educated flunky just did the pre-flight on your machine.



Yup, and I also do my walkaround after they do theirs.  Did I call techs dumb-*** because they don't have a degree???



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Max, again with all due respect, you don't learn problem solving skills in university, you learn them even better in the REAL world.  University is great for learning formulas and theories, but universities fill your head with bullshit.  walk the walk with your crew chief just ONE day and you'll realize the folly of your words.  Theories work great in theory...  but they seldom measure up in practice.  Reality bites.



Do you have a degree?  If you don't you can't really tell what University teaches you right?  I strongly believe that University does teach you problem solving skills, so does most of my ex-Profs.  And yes, I agree that you ALSO learn them in the real world.  University ISN'T about learning formulas and theories.  It uses this method of delivery (or whatever the artsmen use) to teach you more profound skills, like problem solving.  The problem is that most officer applicants are young and do not have the life experience to draw from and therefore, most often lack the problem solving skills, maturity and life skills in general.  Going to University may or may not (depends on the individual) help in some aspects.  I sure think it did for me.  As you mature and get older, you start getting experience you can draw from when you're faced with a new problem.

On weather days, or when I don't fly, I do go out with the techs and watch their work, simply because I'm interested (I make sure they know it's purely by interest and not to "watch" them before I do so).  

The procedures the AMEs or Techs use everyday come from theories.  Don't forget that.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> University doesn't make you smarter.  LIFE makes you smart.  Your crew chief is proof of that.  Pay attention.



For me,  University was a big eye opener on what the world has to offer and how to achieve my goals in life.  So far, so good.  I have achieved everything I wanted to achieve so far.



			
				arctic_front said:
			
		

> Aviation, be it military or civilian is about SKILL.  Military aviation is about  A WARRIOR instinct, and guts.  You will never learn THAT in any Canadian university.




I beg to differ.  I think it's more about taking the right decisions are the right times, and take those decisions fast.  That's what differenciate the good pilots from the excellent pilots. After a few hundred hours on type, the skills (aka:  hands and feet) are pretty much the same for everyone (unless you're a total bag of hammers, but that's a different subject). 



			
				22B said:
			
		

> A University Degree is not required to fly, and  is of no benefit what so ever, unless you move into non flying managment, and then, only a Business degree would be of any value.





			
				Loachman said:
			
		

> And Max - you would have done just as well without a degree, as thousands of us have done in the past.



No, a University is not required to fly.  But I think it does offer some benefit, especially in the early stages of flying.  After 10 000 hours of flying, I doubt that the skills you got through University are usefull at all when you fly.  You rely on you past flying experience.  However, in the early stage, you do not have that experience to rely on, therefore, when you're faced with a new situation, you can use what University gave you, analytical and problem solving skills, to come up with a solution that makes sense and will keep you out of trouble. 

Personally, I joined the CF at 16.  I can say with much confidence that if I had gone through my flight training at that age, I would not have done as good as I did after my degree.  Would I have passed?  I think so.  But I think I would have stuggled a lot more.  Not because of hands and feet, but because of how quickly I can take the right decision. But I guess we'd have to go back in time to know that for sure!


arctic_front :  The problem here is that you do not have any real flying experience and no (assumtion here) experience in University.  You offered an ill informed opinion on both subjects.


----------



## Strike

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> I can buy that a tech may be able to take off, land, fly in cruise.  However, I can guarantee you that he can't do the simple task of following an IFR clearance and not get *violated by ATC*, unless he has some previous IFR experience.  Nevermind flying formation or flying a BFM mission.  So, no, I do not think he could fly is nearly as good as me.  Just like I don't think I could fix an airplane nearly as good as him.



I always laugh when I hear that term.   ;D

Now, back to business.  As you were.


----------



## aesop081

Strike said:
			
		

> I always laugh when I hear that term.   ;D




 :rofl:


----------



## CBH99

I know its been a few months since anybody has posted on this topic, but procurement of capital projects has always been a strong interest of mine.

Would someone in the know, or someone from the world of flight, be willing to share their ideas on how we could procure aircraft in a way that is more efficient than currently exists?  Or structure the Air Force (Or Army and Navy) in a way that makes more efficient use of our aircraft and resources?

What sparks my interest in hearing what you guys have to say about it is my frustration with what appears to be a huge amount of beauacracy when it comes time to purchase aircraft.

The 16 new model chinooks come to mind, as well as the Cyclones.  Purchasing aircraft, especially small numbers of aircraft, shouldn't be this complicated...should it?  How do countries with larger air forces procure their aircraft?  Even with parts/training/support - the huge amount of time for all the red tape & beauacracy to clear must dramatically increase costs - thereby reducing the number of aircraft we can procure?

As I said, I know this topic has been dead for a few months...but I am posting in the right thread.  Suggestions/Ideas from those in the know??


----------



## aesop081

CBH99 said:
			
		

> How do countries with larger air forces procure their aircraft?



Take a look at how the US manages to make a disaster of almost every major program these days and you will see that this is not a "Canada-only" problem.

Look up US programs such as KC-X, CSAR-X, LCS, FCS, the ever-expanding costs related to the JSF program, political fighting over F-22 production.......


----------



## Loachman

OH58D was intended to be an interim machine until RAH66 entered service. Then it was supposed to be an interim machine until RH70 entered service. Now, over more than two decades and a few billion bucks later, it's intended to be an interim machine for the foreseeable future.


----------



## ezbeatz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Pilots,as of right now, are all officers. Officers require degrees. The argument of wether they need one to fly is irrelevant.



I have a university degree. I want to fly. How relevant is my "higher" education? Well, it was in music   ;D

That said, I've always been strongest in math and science which I think is critical if you want to fly.


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> That said, I've always been strongest in math and science which I think is critical if you want to fly.



Being able to coordinate you eyes, hands and feet are what i consider *critical*

I dont ever evaluate how good one of my pilot is by his math skills or science knowledge.


----------



## Loachman

Good judgment is also critical.

Good judgment comes from experience.

Experience comes from bad judgment.


----------



## GAP

Loachman said:
			
		

> Good judgment is also critical.
> 
> Good judgment comes from experience.
> 
> Experience comes from bad judgment.



Ohhhh....I just knew there was a reason for doing all those dumb things...... ;D


----------



## Loachman

Bad judgment is, by far, the more fun choice of the two...


----------



## ezbeatz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Being able to coordinate you eyes, hands and feet are what i consider *critical*
> 
> I dont ever evaluate how good one of my pilot is by his math skills or science knowledge.



Hand-eye cordination is a physical attribute that's definately needed but I was refering to academic qualities, of which math and science is by far the most important for flying.


----------



## Loachman

Why?


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> math and science is by far the most important for flying.



What do you fly again ?

Yeah thats what i thought.......:


----------



## ezbeatz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> What do you fly again ?
> 
> Yeah thats what i thought.......:



Oh right CDN Aviator, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, etc., those are completely useless for flying. Totally forgot man. I mean, why would a pilot need to be good with numbers?


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Oh right CDN Aviator, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, etc., those are completely useless for flying. Totally forgot man. I mean, why would a pilot need to be good with numbers?



Hey man what do i know, i dont have a music degree or jump out of planes. I just fly on a 160 000 lbs multi-engined warplane and trained do everything but physicaly move the controls........

Chemstry ? Its a wonder how i managed to have the airplane pointed in the right direction, i have always sucked at chemistry.....

:


----------



## Roy Harding

ezbeatz:

You do realize that you are arguing with CF airmen who have thousands of hours of flying experience, don't you?

I spent four years jumping out of military aircraft - and I have never considered that that experience gave me any insight into flying the damned things - I was just happy to get the hell out of them.

I think you're attempting to learn something here - and you've come to the right place for it.  Just pull in your horns a bit, stop being argumentative - and ask your questions.  I think you'll learn more that way.


Roy Harding
Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## SupersonicMax

ezbeatz,

Any education is good, provided it's used in the right way.  People with no science background did make it through pilot training.  It is NOT rocket science.  As it's been mentionned before, hand/eye coordination is way more important.  The hability to quickly process information is a close second, IMO.  That, you can get with any kind of education.


----------



## Loachman

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Oh right CDN Aviator, trigonometry, physics, chemistry, etc., those are completely useless for flying.



That's the most intelligent thing that you've said so far.


----------



## aesop081

I went to an airshow last summer and met an interesting fella....

I'm standing there, next to my airplane and he proceeds to tell me that the plane can fly backwards. When i told him that it does no such thing, he told me that he had read in a book that the engines could go in reverse and that i obviously have no clue about my own airplane. he then left with his freinds and told them all about how the thing can fly backwards.......

Some posts in here remind me of the incident.......

Dont get me started about the one guy who was convinced that the MAD in the tail of the aircraft pulls submarines out of the water......

Whoever said that theres no such thing as a stupid question has never been to an airshow.


----------



## Jammer

That's priceless.
One time...in Germany.... I saw CH-53s flying upside down in formation too.


----------



## SupersonicMax

Standing by the F-18 at Abbotsford Airshow:  is that a military aircraft?


----------



## PMedMoe

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> Standing by the F-18 at Abbotsford Airshow:  is that a military aircraft?



No, it's a commercial plane.  For _very_ exclusive (and rich) clients.


----------



## George Wallace

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> No, it's a commercial plane.  For _very_ exclusive (and rich) clients.



No.  It's an inflatable.  A balloon.  A tool for deception.  Go hit it.


----------



## ezbeatz

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> Hey man what do i know, i dont have a music degree or jump out of planes. I just fly on a 160 000 lbs multi-engined warplane and trained do everything but physicaly move the controls........
> 
> Chemstry ? Its a wonder how i managed to have the airplane pointed in the right direction, i have always sucked at chemistry.....
> 
> :



Hey man, your the pilot. Can't argue with that. I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Hey man, your the pilot. Can't argue with that. I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.



ezbeatz,

Unless you can prove, here and now, what your expertise is in flying, please refrain from now on in telling our trained aircrew what their job is, or what it entails.

Anything else along these lines will be considered trolling.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Loachman

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Hey man, your the pilot.



No, he's not, as he'll certainly let you know.

He is, however, an essential crewmember on his aircraft and knows somewhat more about this than you.



			
				ezbeatz said:
			
		

> I'm just saying a pilot has to be good with numbers. You plan a flight, you have to use vectors, time, airspeed, know how much your fuel weighs, what the distribution of weight in your aircraft is, the wind velocity and direction, etc. It all involves math. Being good at math won't make you a good pilot but a good pilot is good at math. The kind of math you do in your head while multitasking. A good pilot also needs to be physically and physiologically capable of doing their task as well, which is what you were alluding to.



It's simple and basic. I fly the thing. I do not design it. It is not rocket surgery.

I remember a few numbers and I add and multiply occasionally.

I finished Grade Thirteen Calculus with 10%. I forgot algebra and trigonometry and any other metries and stuff the second that I was finished highschool, which was some time before the final year was actually over. I have never needed them in the real world.

Stop trying to tell me what my job entails.


----------



## aesop081

ezbeatz said:
			
		

> Hey man, your the pilot.



I am not a pilot.  I am, however, trained to do most of the things you mention. I do all this and i am a math retard. the science of flight hs already been done for me, same with the science of all the electronic gizmos i operate. The big math has been done by engineers and turned into nice tables in manuals for us to use and the CF has seen fit to issue me with a wonderful 3 inch round plastic computer to avoid having to calculate too much.

Doesnt take too much math to determine my ETA when i have 200 miles to go and i am flying at 240 knots.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I am not a pilot.  I am, however, trained to do most of the things you mention. I do all this and i am a math retard.


Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?


----------



## aesop081

recceguy said:
			
		

> Did you stay at a Holiday Inn last night?



 :rofl:


----------



## aesop081

May i suggest that this thread be split ( same with the cyclone thread) and that the 2 parts be merged ?


----------



## GAP

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> May i suggest that this thread be split ( same with the cyclone thread) and that the 2 parts be merged ?



That should be easy....get rid of the garbage and you only have to merge a dozen posts..... ;D


----------



## drunknsubmrnr

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> I went to an airshow last summer and met an interesting fella....
> 
> I'm standing there, next to my airplane and he proceeds to tell me that the plane can fly backwards. When i told him that it does no such thing, he told me that he had read in a book that the engines could go in reverse and that i obviously have no clue about my own airplane. he then left with his freinds and told them all about how the thing can fly backwards.......
> 
> Some posts in here remind me of the incident.......
> 
> Dont get me started about the one guy who was convinced that the MAD in the tail of the aircraft pulls submarines out of the water......
> 
> Whoever said that theres no such thing as a stupid question has never been to an airshow.



Oh....THATS why they had the tow line eye at the top of the fin. Let me guess...

When you're flying backward, you spear the eye of the tow line with the MAD and carry the submarine away. Am I right?

And the Sea Things grab it with a hook on the dipper?


----------



## Jammer

...and airplanes cannot be bump started..that's why they have "NO PUSH" painted on them


----------



## CBH99

Back to getting this thread a little bit more on topic...

What about integrating air assets into the battalions/brigades as organic assets, without rebranding them by branch??

For example...keep the air assets air-force as they are now.  But have a fixed number of assets integrated into the battalion/brigade level to increase the capability and potency of the deployed force??  (i.e., a 1,200 or 1,300 member BG would automatically have 8 Griffons and 2/3 Chinooks at their disposal.)

I'm looking for feedback on the concept rather than the actual number of airframes.  Would this not streamline deployments by guaranteeing access to airlift without having to bring the air force in seperately??  

**To clarify, I'm talking about having helicopter airlift available in theatre when required.  I am not talking about strategic/tactical airlift to deploy a force.**


----------



## Loachman

There has already been a Tac Hel Squadron co-located with each Reg Force Brigade for over three decades. The solid line in the org chart goes from Squadron to 1 Wing, but there is a dotty line between Squadron and Brigade. The G3 Aviation in each Brigade Headquarters has the authority to task the affiliated Squadron with operational training missions in support of his/her Brigade and Command and Liaison missions for the Brigade Commander.

The exception is 2 Brigade, as 427 Squadron was taken from 1 Wing a few years ago and reassigned to SOFCOM, leaving other Squadrons to take up the slack.

Our earlier Aviation doctrine stated that there is a continual requirement at Brigade level for light helicopters (think Kiowa) for reconaissance and fire direction and occasional requirement for utility (Griffon) and attack helicopters. The latter two become continual requirements at Division level, where an occasional requirement for medium transport (Chinook) appears, becoming continual at Corps level. This is perfectly valid today.

It does ignore special cases, such as airmobile formations that are found in some Armies elsewhere, but we seem unlikely to follow such a logical route.


----------



## CBH99

Ah.  I understand what your saying in terms of the org chart and the level of aviation assets designated for the brigade/division/corps level.  I'm thinking about something more along the battalion level though.

Using Afghanistan as an example, we have roughly a roughly 1300 BG.  It took years to deploy Griffons - something that no doubt cost lives and put many at increased risk.  If there were automatically a fixed number of aviation assets available at the battalion level, some of those risks could have been minimized.

In how this relates to the thread, I'm suggesting that we don't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on hundreds of new airframes like the article seems to suggest.  (Although a dedicated attack helo would be nice, realistically this won't be happening anytime soon.)  I'm simply trying to explore the idea of having a fixed number of airframes integrated/attached to battalion sized units (Since thats our most common deployed force size) to increase their capability and potency - rather than bring the air assets in after they have already been deployed for a while.

(I'm definately a bit out of my lane in regards to this, so I'm totally open to any feedback/suggestions/ideas anybody in the know has.  Been in the army for 9yrs now, trying to understand the rationale for the way some of our assets are used, thats all.)


----------



## aesop081

CBH99 said:
			
		

> It took years to deploy Griffons -



Thats a political decision that no amout of reorganization of assets would have changed.


----------



## Michael OLeary

So let's do some math .....

What would you consider a useful amount of "lift" for a Battalion to have as integral aviation assets? How about enough for a dismounted company?  

4 Griffons per platoon, 4 more for Coy HQ and attachments (recce, snipers, FOO/FAC, sappers, etc.)

So, 16 Griffon per Battalion.

9 battalions of Reg F infantry - 9 x 16 = 144

Estimate 25% of the fleet out of commission at any one time (repairs, inspection, lifecycle refurbishments, etc.) - now we're up to 192 airframes.

Now, compare that with the current inventory of 85 Griffon.

(And let's not forget the costs and manning requirements to fly and support these new aircraft.)


----------



## Loachman

CBH99 said:
			
		

> Ah.  I understand what your saying in terms of the org chart and the level of aviation assets designated for the brigade/division/corps level.  I'm thinking about something more along the battalion level though.



Helicopters are grouped at the lowest level that has a continual requirement. A battalion does not have that, or anywhere close. What would they do? A doctrinal (and in this case, doctrine is driven by the equipment - that was bought for political reasons - rather than equipment being bought to support doctrine) Brigade does not even have sufficient employment for the twenty-four-Griffon Squadron that it's supposed to have. Under our older doctrine, that was a Divisional UTTH Squadron.

If you scattered helicopters among all battalions, you'd have to constantly regroup them for larger operations.

Helicopters are very hard to camouflage. How many big, fat, juicy, obvious targets would you want to have scattered around your position in the forward area?

Helicopters require significant logistical support (fuel, parts, and ammunition) and manpower for maintenance and crewing. How many big, fat, juicy, obvious, and highly flammable fuel trucks do you want driving past your trench? Utility and Attack hels would typically live about 30 - 50 km behind the FEBA in a conventional war scenario for that reason, and that's a little bit far for a battalion commander to visit. That's only ten to fifteen minutes of flying time, though, but out of range of most threat weapons, and more static - necessary for many maintenance functions.

And where does this concept end? If you're going to put hels into battalions, why not tanks, and guns, and bridges?



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> Using Afghanistan as an example,



Afghanistan is a special case, and is no reason to change organizations that have been developed over many decades and have stood the tests of time and combat. There is also more than one battalion in TFK. Don't forget the PRT and the OMLTs. We had one US Infantry Battalion under command when I left, and there is another now and an MP Battalion as well. By grouping at higher levels and pooling, we have more hels available than just our own when required, and can work for others. This uses our flexibility to the maximum extent. Grouping at too low a level destroys that.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> If there were automatically a fixed number of aviation assets available at the battalion level,



When I left KAF, we had no battalion location, only FOBs with about a company in each. There would have to be much more space in each of those to park helicopters, many more people to crew and maintain them (and there is a much greater maintenance burden in that environment), which would impose a significant logistical burden on each FOB and the convoys that have to supply them, and the hels would be much more vulnerable to enemy attack. They would also attract it, which would probably do little for the morale and wellbeing of the other inmates. It does not take much to damage a helicopter - a few mortar or rocket fragments - to the point where it is not going to be useable; minimizing the exposure to such risk is the best method of preventing such damage.

And for what benefit? Nothing in our AO was over twenty minutes from KAF. What could/would they do that they cannot do more efficiently from KAF?



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> some of those risks could have been minimized.



Nope. Possibly the opposite.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> In how this relates to the thread, I'm suggesting that we don't need to spend tens of billions of dollars on hundreds of new airframes like the article seems to suggest.



You'd spend far more to do what you propose than to do things the way that we do now, as it would not be efficient.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> I'm simply trying to explore the idea of having a fixed number of airframes integrated/attached to battalion sized units (Since thats our most common deployed force size) to increase their capability and potency.



Where and when warranted, this has happened. Our ACE Mobile Force commitment to Northern Norway during the Cold War involved an Infantry Battalion and three Kiowas, the minimum number required to have a reasonable chance of having a section of two serviceable and available for an extended period. Tasks included recce, FAC, Air OP, radio relay, and C&L. That required seventeen people: three flying pilots, one detachment commander/ops pilot, three observers, two signallers, and eight techs. Larger helicopters are far more labour intensive, however. We have also deployed hels to Somalia and Bosnia in support of battalion-sized groups.

This is easy to do for specific operations with "independent" small forces, but it is not the "normal" situation.



			
				CBH99 said:
			
		

> rather than bring the air assets in after they have already been deployed for a while.



As has been pointed out, this was a function of the political situation rather than anything to do with helicopter doctrine and organization.


----------



## thunderchild

I am a pilot (civi/cadet) and with out a tech a busted aircraft is just busted, with out a pilot a operational aircraft is a well taken care of but just a useless as the busted aircraft.  One trade helps the other trade have a purpose.  I'm surprised at all the "I'm better because " crap.


----------



## Don2wing

Well this item would be considered under this topic and it is about the Cormorant and the acquired American Kestrels.  http://skiesmag.com/news/article/RCAFconsidersputtingVH71sintoservicetocovermidlifeCormorantu


RCAF considers putting VH-71s into service to cover mid-life Cormorant update 

Facing a mid-life update of its AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and the prospect of having one or two out of service at any given time to accommodate it, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is considering putting some of the erstwhile U.S. presidential Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel variants it acquired in 2011 into service. 
2015-03-11 14:12:47 
by Ken Pole 
  http://verticalmag.com/images/news/article_files/686119628604502.jpg

The RCAF's fleet of AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants is facing a mid-life update. Mike Reyno Photo

Facing a mid-life update of its AgustaWestland CH-149 Cormorants and the prospect of having one or two out of service at any given time to accommodate it, the Royal Canadian Air Force (RCAF) is considering putting some of the erstwhile U.S. presidential Lockheed Martin VH-71 Kestrel variants it acquired in 2011 into service.

In 2005, the U.S. Navy chose the VH-71s as replacements for the Sikorsky VH-3D Sea Kings and VH-60N White Hawks operated by Marine Helicopter Squadron One (HMX-1). Four years later, the new Obama administration pulled the plug when program costs for the 23 aircraft had doubled to US$13 billion. Nine, including two heavily-instrumented for certification, had been delivered to the Navy by a Lockheed Martin-led team in partnership with AgustaWestland and Bell Helicopter — and it was those aircraft that Canada purchased for a fire-sale C$164 million in 2011.

The official RCAF line from the outset was that the Kestrels would be strictly for spares. “This package is considered an excellent one-time opportunity for the . . . Canadian Forces to address long-standing CH-149 Cormorant fleet availability issues related to the availability of spare parts,” the Department of National Defence (DND) said in a statement at the time.

“We bought them for spares and that was the intent,” BGen Phil Garbutt, Director of Air Force Development, acknowledged in a recent Skies interview. “We bought them specifically to ensure that we had sufficient life-blood of spares for the fleet and with the intended purpose of bringing up the reliability and serviceability numbers for the Cormorant. And it has served that purpose.”

The original contract for 15 search-and-rescue (SAR) CH-149s was based on the DND’s ability to afford an appropriate number of aircraft being ready to fly at any one time. Despite improvements by AgustaWestland and IMP Aerospace (the Cormorants’ in-service support provider), Garbutt said, “We’ve never seen that level of serviceability and therefore we’ve had to make some pretty tough decisions.”
The key decision was to withdraw Cormorants from 8 Wing Trenton, Ont., and redeploy them to 9 Wing Gander, Nfld. and 14 Wing Greenwood, N.S. The balance of the current fleet of 14 (one was lost to a crash during a night training exercise with a Canadian Coast Guard ship off Nova Scotia in July 2006) is at 19 Wing Comox, B.C.

That left Trenton, at the heart of a vast region which includes swaths of the Great Lakes and the North, with a SAR mix of Bell CH-146 Griffons and older Lockheed Martin C-130 Hercules. Garbutt said the Griffons have been doing “great work” but have “challenges” operating at night and over water as well as limited mission endurance. “It is a tactical aviation helicopter; it was not designed to be a search-and-rescue helicopter,” he pointed out. “Had it competed in the Canadian SAR helicopter [CSH] competition back in the late ‘90s, it would not have been a compliant helicopter. But it is what it is. We do want to return to an environment where we have a CSH-compliant helicopter operating at all four bases.”

Garbutt noted that the withdrawal of Cormorants from Trenton had demonstrated that 15 were not enough to cover the country’s requirements — hence the prospect of pulling at least some of the VH-71s out of the spares inventory. “Can you strike a nice balance between that cache of spares and possibly converting a few of those aircraft over into flying assets?” Garbutt asked theoretically. “It’s an option that we are examining as part of the analysis for the Cormorant mid-life update.”
The update, which should enable the RCAF to keep flying its mainstay SAR platform until about 2025, includes an electro-optics package which can be critical to successful SAR missions in degraded weather, as well as navigation and communications improvements and modifications to the patient-treatment area to maximize space and improve efficiency. Supplemental oxygen systems are also part of the package for operations above 10,000 feet, and while the allowable maximum gross weight is being increased to 15,000 kilograms (33,070 pounds), no engine enhancements are being contemplated. Not included in the mid-life update is a possible Cormorant simulator.
Asked whether the work would be done in Canada or at AgustaWestland facilities in England or Italy, Garbutt said that while a lot of it depends on what the solution would be, the government’s procurement strategy, and a follow-on “value proposition” guide argues for the work being done domestically. Jeremy Tracy, Ottawa-based head of region-Canada for AgustaWestland, told Skies that the company’s “exclusive arrangement” with IMP for the update and conversion meant that work “would be completed in Canada” in accordance with the government’s requirements.
AgustaWestland has been lobbying for some time to have seven of the Kestrels configured as Cormorants. Tracy told Skies during a visit to the company’s facility in Yeovil, England, that the added capability would not only facilitate full SAR capability to Trenton but also be a useful sovereignty tool in the North. Basing the helicopters full-time in the Arctic probably would be impractical, but an air transportation kit which was part of the U.S. would enable rapid loading into a Boeing CC-177 Globemaster III transport at Trenton for northern deployment.

The idea of operating the Kestrels isn’t new. Nearly two years ago, when he was still Minister of National Defence, Peter MacKay actually ordered the RCAF to reconsider its “spares only” position. At the time, MacKay was wrestling with Auditor General Michael Ferguson’s scathing critique of the RCAF’s entire SAR program. Among other things, he said the DND simply “does not have enough suitable . . . aircraft.”
hen Ferguson recommended that the DND “give priority to the acquisition of new aircraft that are best suited for search-and-rescue activities and ensure that it has sufficient numbers” for its mission, the DND replied that it was planning to purchase new SAR platforms. These, however, would be a fixed-wing replacement for the older Hercules and the six remaining 50-year-old de Havilland Canada CC-115 Buffalo aircraft based in Comox, B.C. “With respect to SAR helicopter fleets,” the DND continued, “improvements have recently been made to the availability of the Cormorant fleet, allowing it to fly a record number of hours . . . and the Griffon fleet has undergone enhancements, which are allowing it to provide a more robust SAR capability.”
In a briefing note prepared for MacKay’s successor, Rob Nicholson, and released to The Canadian Press under the Access to Information Act, DND said that expanding the main SAR helicopter fleet by converting the Kestrels would break a DND commitment that they would be used only as a parts source for the Cormorants. Dan Ross, the Assistant Deputy Minister (Materiel) at DND, had stated unequivocally in December 2010 that the Kestrel acquisition was “not to procure flyable assets.” Rather, it was a unique opportunity “to procure a package of spares and assembled spares (airframes which were left in varying states of assembly) to support the existing Cormorant search-and-rescue fleet.”
The RCAF did eventually assess the feasibility of putting at least some Kestrels into service but evidently was concerned at the time that the airframes are uncertified and lack valid airworthiness certificates. The briefing note states that the use of them as a parts source has saved the DND $24 million when compared with having to purchase them commercially.
Since the Kestrels have an average of only 30 hours on them, including one which logged more than 100 hours of qualifying time, there is an argument that they can be readily converted. That would facilitate both the Cormorant MLU and a return to Trenton. Tracy confirmed that AgustaWestland and IMP had concluded, after detailed study, that conversion would be quicker, cheaper and simpler than buying new airframes. “A complete fleet of Cormorants, to the CH149B standard for SAR, would enable crew and parts commonality across Canada for the next 20-plus years,” he told Skies. “Then there’s the proven capability of the Cormorant, which has been demonstrated repeatedly over the past 12 years.”


----------

