# Tac Hel



## Scoobs

Zoomie, actually the original topic was Cadpat and the blue nametags, etc.   I commented on that and never stated that it was necessary for Tac Hel to have the C8.   What Tac Hel needs are the same basic equipment that anybody in the Army gets, including RMS clerks, etc. that deploy with the Army.   I'm not saying that we need the same equipment as the infantry, etc.   But, when I go to supply to get the tac vest instead of webbing (GO!!, never did I say that Tac Hel needs more webbing) and I'm told that I can't have it because I'm a member of an AF unit, then there is something wrong.   That was my point.   Why can Tac Hel pers not have the same BASIC equipment that everybody in the Army can have.   That includes non-combat MOCs.   A tac vest is an item that a person gets when they deploy overseas.   From my time in the ARMY, I learned that you train with the equipment that you will use in ops.   Thus, the need to have tac vest and the proper equipment.
It is true that I have flight gloves, but I would gladly return them if I could get the Army cadpat gloves as these are better suited for my job.   But I can't as they won't be issued to me.   Why?   The simple reality is that any CF member, be it Army, AF, or Navy, should they be at a unit that deploys to the field, they should be able to get the same basic equipment as any non-combat MOC in the Army would get.
The Griffon.   This a/c was not the choice of the operators, nor the maintainers.   The a/c can perform well for what it was designed for and if you choose the missions for it.   However, it is not a be all helo like the Government wanted the public to think it was.   Thus, the new CDS (and I highly respect him since we finally have a CDS who remembers that he wears a uniform first) is pushing for a new medium/heavy lift helo.
Doing what the CF intends to do with the Griffon.   Considering what I said above about the Griffon, I agree that the Army is sometimes disappointed with the results they receive.   However, it is important to realize that the Army has taken a considerable long time to tell 1 Wing what they wanted Tac Hel to do. This has improved dramatically with the Army sitting down with 1 Wing and telling them what they want from Tac Hel.   GO!!, if you're not satisfied with what support you are getting, then this needs to be brought up at the "hotwash" or after action report.   My problem that I had with you was your approach.   Insulting fellow CF members is not the way to get your point across.   People get their backs up against the wall if this approach is taken.
Capabilities of the pilots at night.   I am NOT a pilot, as has been assumed by other pers on this site.   However, I have many friends who are pilots.   As in any trade, some are more experienced than others.   Thus, mistakes are made and not everybody gets 100% satisfaction.   GO!!, you are concentrating on specific examples of when you weren't satisfied.   However, I would venture to say that there are far more satisfied customers than unsatisfied.
Army Air Corps.   I never mentioned this until GO!! brought this up.   However, I am in the AF and am actually a proponent of this idea as I agree that the Army would most likely be better served if Tac Hel was in the Army Air Corps.   Thus, I stated "No problem".   However, the reality is that this would not work.   For example, the entire training system for pilots, FEs, maintainers, etc. is run by the AF.   Right now we have a shortage of maintainers throughout the AF.   Putting Tac Hel in the Army will only result in increasing the shortage of maintainers and pilots.   That is the reality as most AF techs would not want to be a part of the Army.   Plus, the cost of setting up identical training systems would be ridiculous.   Spending money on new a/c, infrastructure, etc. makes a lot more sense.
Flight gloves.   I see that I got the response that I wanted from GO!!.   Now you know what it feels like for an AF pers to go to supply on an Army base and ask for basics like gloves and be told that you can't have them because you're not in the Army (even though you deploy to the field).   Whether or not pers on this site think that Tac Hel doesn't do anything when they go to the field is their choice, but the fact remains that they do deploy and are expected to function in the field.   No one can debate that.
Ignorant comments.   I used the word ignorant because when one offers their opinion about something that they don't know about, then that is ignorance.   Having flying time has nothing to do with the comments that were made by GO!!, such as the mess tent ones, comments about Tac Hel in general when his experience seems to come from a few bad experiences with 408 Sqn, and the big one, the Air Force exists only to support the Army.   So, I will not "can" the ignorant comments as long as they are continued to be made.   These comments stop and I will stop the ignorant comments.
WWII.   Actually GO!! I brought up these comments in regards to your comment that the AF only exists to support the Army.   Never did I compare a Tac Hel unit to the USAF.   My point was to counter your comment about the AF.   Once again, I state that I am NOT a pilot.   You don't have to be a pilot to be insulted by ignorant comments like the AF exists only to support the AF.   I am positive that GO!! would be just as insulted if I made a comment about the Army.   However, I wouldn't as I have been in the Army and thus highly respect those who are in it.
Taking and holding ground.   I agree 100% that only an Army can hold ground.   I disagree that only an Army can take ground.   I would like to see a modern Army take any ground in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   The modern reality is that all services need to work together today in order to accomplish the mission (I think that I already said this).
Comparing ourselves to the Americans, etc.   When did I ever do this?   Hmm, someone let me know??????
Upgrades to the Griffon.   I will pose a question to GO!!, what upgrades to the Griffon do you think that 1 Wing wants to do to it?   Once you answer this question, I will comment on your comments you made about the "upgrades".
1 Wing is spread throughout the country and it seems that GO!!'s comments only centre on his experiences with 408 Sqn.   I know that 408 Sqn has excellent pilots as I have friends that belong to that unit.   I also have friends that are pilots at the other Tac Hel Sqns and they too are excellent pilots.   This opinion comes from the fact of sitting in the back while they piloted and observing first hand their skills.   Landing in a blinding snow ball, skimming along the river at 15 feet, landing in spots extremely small, dropping off assaulters on tops of buildings without landing, etc. are just a few of the things that I have seen our EXCELLENT TAC HEL pilots do.   I have first hand experience with this and even though I am not a pilot, I will not stand by when they are insulted.   In fact, my primary job while I was at a Tac Hel unit (just posted one month ago) was to deal with pilots.   I had lots of problems with them and had to put a few of them in their place, but the respect was always there, both ways.   I am extremely sure that if given the chance and the right machine, Tac Hel would have superbly performed in Afghanistan.   GO!!, do you even know why Tac Hel wasn't sent to Afghanistan?   It wasn't because we didn't want to go.   In fact, every time my unit heard about a possible deployment (as we were the high readiness unit), the Sqn was abuzz with excitement.   We want to deploy and support the Army.   That is what we train and exist for.   Ask any member of Tac Hel that question.
My field experience.   Did two years Infantry reserve and then five years with Tac Hel (that included numerous field ex's, both winter and summer, and 3 ex's in my last year at the Sqn getting ready for high readiness).   My field experience is enough to know what type of equipment a Tac Hel unit needs to deploy and properly defend itself in the field.   I know enough that a Tac Hel unit will never be expected to do a section attack against an enemy postion or trench (even though I have the trg to do so).   The equipment needed by Tac Hel certainly includes the basics to stay warm in the field (gloves), have the tac vest, and a C7 (never said that we need the C8), and the other equipment necessary (C6, trip flares, etc) to set up a proper defensive of the Sqn lines.
My experience in the Army has taught me to respect those that are in it.   I only offer my opinion on what I know about and do not make comments about someones professionalism or skills, as GO!! has done.   Nor would I insult other CF members.   The time and place to bring your concerns up about how a mission went is at the after action report or through your chain of command, not on this website, hiding behind insulting and ignorant comments.

Scoobs out...


----------



## GO!!!

Scoobs,

There are so many problems with your last  post, I won't even start to address them here.

Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air. 

None of them has the problems that we do with attempting to get the helos to do something (fly lower, don't fly over the objective, leave, the bad guys are coming) that we do. Instead of a vigorous HUAH at the thought of a field ex, we are instead greeted with maintenance concerns, flight crew rest and my personal favorite "the ceiling is too low" 

While I am sure that there is the possibility of a good griffon pilot out there, they must be avoiding the honkers in 408 like the plague - because ours are pretty sad.

I won't argue the difficulties of creating an army air corps - but to me, the solution is simple. Sea Kings become navy, griffons army, and the AF can keep the  fixed wing a/c. Chop all of the helo specific trg to the army, and the budgets to match. All the techs can come too. And if they "don't like" being in the army - alternative service delivery is a wonderful thing. No one is irreplaceable.

You point out alot of semantics in your rambling, grammatically incorrect diatribe above, which usually indicates a lack of purpose, and more importantly, knowledge. The most impressive of these is you stating that an airforce can "take ground". I'd like to see that. Have you done that on your "tactical exes?" 

Your reserve trg qualified you to be in the reserves. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow "cross trained" and a better member of your unit as a result.

408 sqn, as a tachel unit is, IMHO, a complete farce. I've listed many examples in the previous thread, if you will take the time to read them. If your unit is better, I look forward to working with you.

As to you "feeling insulted" you should probably avoid the army, with a thin skin like that, you would'nt last long. Respect? how about a little for the others on this site - insinuating that your problems are too important to be discussed here, and should only be brought up in the safe and non - embarrassing confines of a hot wash - which incidentally, the AF neglects to attend because "we know how to do OUR jobs".

Mods, could you please post my last long post in the thread this one originated in above scoobs'? It adds context to his opening post.


----------



## Scoobs

GO!!! said:
			
		

> Scoobs,
> 
> There are so many problems with your last   post, I won't even start to address them here.
> 
> Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air.
> 
> None of them has the problems that we do with attempting to get the helos to do something (fly lower, don't fly over the objective, leave, the bad guys are coming) that we do. Instead of a vigorous HUAH at the thought of a field ex, we are instead greeted with maintenance concerns, flight crew rest and my personal favorite "the ceiling is too low"
> 
> While I am sure that there is the possibility of a good griffon pilot out there, they must be avoiding the honkers in 408 like the plague - because ours are pretty sad.
> 
> I won't argue the difficulties of creating an army air corps - but to me, the solution is simple. Sea Kings become navy, griffons army, and the AF can keep the   fixed wing a/c. Chop all of the helo specific trg to the army, and the budgets to match. All the techs can come too. And if they "don't like" being in the army - alternative service delivery is a wonderful thing. No one is irreplaceable.
> 
> You point out alot of semantics in your rambling, grammatically incorrect diatribe above, which usually indicates a lack of purpose, and more importantly, knowledge. The most impressive of these is you stating that an airforce can "take ground". I'd like to see that. Have you done that on your "tactical exes?"
> 
> Your reserve trg qualified you to be in the reserves. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow "cross trained" and a better member of your unit as a result.
> 
> 408 sqn, as a tachel unit is, IMHO, a complete farce. I've listed many examples in the previous thread, if you will take the time to read them. If your unit is better, I look forward to working with you.
> 
> As to you "feeling insulted" you should probably avoid the army, with a thin skin like that, you would'nt last long. Respect? how about a little for the others on this site - insinuating that your problems are too important to be discussed here, and should only be brought up in the safe and non - embarrassing confines of a hot wash - which incidentally, the AF neglects to attend because "we know how to do OUR jobs".
> 
> Mods, could you please post my last long post in the thread this one originated in above scoobs'? It adds context to his opening post.



GO!!, just the response I expected.   No one's experience is good enough for you.   You must know it all since only your trg seems relavent and important.   All hail the mighty GO!!, master of all and knower of all!
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions?   Are you too afraid to answer them since you must know the answer?   Or is that you don't know and answering them would show your true IGNORANCE.   You're small and petty buddy.
Never stated that the air force can take ground.   Said that Army can't take ground on its own in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   Perhaps you should take some time to read before offering your IGNORANT comment.
Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.   Can't insult the AF enough, now you have to insult your fellow Army mbrs?   Fact is that I have been in the Army and have some experience (never said I was an expert like you, all mighty GO!!).   That gives me enough insite into what a Tac Hel Sqn needs when it deploys to the field.
Insinuating -   I don't do this.   I say what I mean and I do what I say.   Once again, read before you open you beak!!
For your info all mighty GO!!, I've been to many hotwashes, which were attended by both Army and Air Force pers, where people were torn a new arshole.   I've personally saw the CO of a Tac Hel Sqn rip apart pilots for stuff that they did, in front of everybody (about 50 pers).   Talk from experience instead out of your ars!!!

The first sign of someone who is scared and doesn't know what he is talking about is when that person feels it necessary to insult others to make himself feel better.


----------



## Fishbone Jones

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.



Don't drag us into this. We don't need the AF slagging us too. :


----------



## Ranman

I do not remember once being dropped off by the Helo pilots in the right spot. We would spend hours getting to the start point before we could even start the mission. Its like they can't read a map and often would refuse to fly in a slight snow flurry.

When I was in Norway we were happy to have the German Helo pilots.


----------



## Michael Dorosh

I think the solution to the kit problems would be to integrate the three services into one single armed force; I think this novel approach would save us a lot of money in the long run and eliminate morale problems such as air force flight crews not having access to infantry equipment, and infantry WOs not having access to flight gloves.  

It may sound crazy, but it would have the advantage of never having been tried before.


----------



## mdh

> Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air.



GO!!!

In what capacity have you been working so closely with US and British pilots "for the last few years" - if you don't mind me asking?

mdh


----------



## Scoobs

recceguy said:
			
		

> Don't drag us into this. We don't need the AF slagging us too. :



Recce guy,

AF is not slaggin the reserves.  In fact, I was pointing out that GO!! likes to insult everybody he can to make himself feel better, including his fellow Army pers.


----------



## George Wallace

Ranman said:
			
		

> I do not remember once being dropped off by the Helo pilots in the right spot. We would spend hours getting to the start point before we could even start the mission. Its like they can't read a map and often would refuse to fly in a slight snow flurry.
> 
> When I was in Norway we were happy to have the German Helo pilots.



Had no problems with the guys in Pet at 427.  Right on the dot for LRRP drop offs and pick ups.  No Probs!


----------



## Good2Golf

I think there is enough variation of experiences related to aviation support provided to folks throughout the ages, that it is unfair to blanket a "branch" so widely.  In 5 years of flying with my supported unit, I never had an operator complain about my and (most of) my confrere's +/- 5 sec TOT, although like anybody we had our days and would have the occasional mite off the timings....location was pretty clear and the boys always got to exactly where they wanted to be.  In defence of some of the younger crowd out there...and I'm thinking of Griffon-only folks...there have been drastic cuts to flying rates (YFR) than can't help but have an effect in our F-echelons.  I was used to flying at least 400+ hours/year...now folks are only getting half that or less on average and it just isn't helping perishable skills.  That said, I honestly have a hard time believing that soldiers have NEVER been dropped in the right place, EVER...unless of course someone's only flown in a Canadian helicopter a few times.  And FWIW, I've had some pretty high-speed recce and pathfinder qual'd guys flying with us to have them give us nav and terminal guidance for certain missions, and it was not at all successful...the guys just were not used to eating up 3 grid squares a minute and interpreting the flight picture onto the map and desired route...some folks need to walk in some others' shoes before they go off to hard on some folks...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Strike

GO!!

When 408 is sitting in Edmonton and says that they can't fly because the ceiling is too low, have you ever thought that this is because of CF and NavCanada policy?  Sometimes the base/Sqn areas are less restrictive, but is the vis is less than a mile with fog, you won't see us out.

As for flying in snow, we can do it.  No reason not to.  Flying in sleet and ice pellets?  Helos are not known for their anti/de-icing capabilities (Cormorant aside) and anyone who willingly flies into that needs their head examined.

Regearding being dropped off in the wrong spot, maybe that had something to do with the request itself being unrealistic -- swamp with deadheads or a clearing that is too small have been some of the ones I've been directed to.  But I've always done my best to accomodate and find something close.


----------



## GO!!!

Scoobs said:
			
		

> GO!!, just the response I expected.   No one's experience is good enough for you.   You must know it all since only your trg seems relavent and important.   All hail the mighty GO!!, master of all and knower of all!
> I noticed that you didn't answer my questions?   Are you too afraid to answer them since you must know the answer?   Or is that you don't know and answering them would show your true IGNORANCE.   You're small and petty buddy.
> Never stated that the air force can take ground.   Said that Army can't take ground on its own in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   Perhaps you should take some time to read before offering your IGNORANT comment.
> Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.   Can't insult the AF enough, now you have to insult your fellow Army mbrs?   Fact is that I have been in the Army and have some experience (never said I was an expert like you, all mighty GO!!).   That gives me enough insite into what a Tac Hel Sqn needs when it deploys to the field.
> Insinuating -   I don't do this.   I say what I mean and I do what I say.   Once again, read before you open you beak!!
> For your info all mighty GO!!, I've been to many hotwashes, which were attended by both Army and Air Force pers, where people were torn a new arshole.   I've personally saw the CO of a Tac Hel Sqn rip apart pilots for stuff that they did, in front of everybody (about 50 pers).   Talk from experience instead out of your ars!!!
> 
> The first sign of someone who is scared and doesn't know what he is talking about is when that person feels it necessary to insult others to make himself feel better.



I'm not even going to stoop the level of your sarcastic ranting, but I'll dispell a few more of your (mis) conceptions.

"an army can't take and hold ground in the face of a strong enemy air force" Really? I seem to remember reading about this group of dudes called the Luftwaffe, who had a really rough time in WWII, primarily because the allies advanced even with German air superiority at certain points in the war.

"fellow army reserve" Wrong again, I'm a full timer from Edmonton, that's how I have worked with 408 sqn so much in the past, and not with other tachel units in Canada.

"talk from experience and not out of your ars!" I prefer to speak with proper grammar and punctuation, unlike yourself, but all of my anecdotal evidence and experiences are - surprisingly - my own. I specifically exclude the scuttlebutt that exists around an Infantry Bn because it is so often exagerrated or completely false.

While your zealous defence of 408 Sqn is commendable, I would think that your argments would have a bit more merit if you dropped the personal attacks and actually addressed the issues at hand, perhaps even admitting that tachel units in this country have not yet reached their zenith of power.

Keep up the Good work!


----------



## Sf2

As with every single trade in the military - there are good pilots and bad pilots.  I'm sorry GO if your experiences have been bad - its very surprising to hear that in your 7 yrs of experience, not once have you been inserted in the proper place.  However in response to that, there are many times where the USER has selected a spot based on a map - and as well all know - map doesn't necessarily always equal what its actually there.  That's when recce comes in.  However, the opportunity for recce is not always there, so we do our best to put you guys as close to the planned LZ as possible, while always considering safety - it is training after all.

Flying over the objective?  90% of the time is because the crews haven't been briefed where the objective is.  Ideally, the aviation mission commander will attend the lifted units orders, so that he has the ground tactical plan in mind when he plans the flying route.  However, its quite often the case that the crews will recieve a HELTASK with no back brief from the lifted unit - all we know is where and when you guys want to be dropped off - we don't often know what your objective is.  Not to mention, you guys have to negotiate the ground to the objective - so your LZ's are often in close proximity to the objective - 300 or 400 meters may seem far to you, but we cover that distance in seconds, so unless we are briefed a specific approach path, or have been given the location of the objective, its difficult NOT to unintentionally overfly the objective.

As far as your WX comments - there are rules and regulations we have to follow - bottom line.  But there are also personal comfort levels - while we may be able to fly in limited weather, different crews will have different levels of comfort.  There is a lot going on in the front of that cockpit, especially at night, and flight safety is our paramount goal.  Yes, in wartime, mission comes first, but in training, it does not....sorry to tell you that, but it doesn't.  No pilot, good or not, will put the training mission ahead of safety.  I'm a aircraft captain on a griffon - and I will not put a mission ahead of safety in a training environment - if my spidey senses are tingling, I'm turning around PERIOD.

I could go on about this for hours - but I'm sure more points will come up, so I'll wait for rebuttal.


----------



## Strike

Isn't it funny that whenever someone slags another for grammar and the like, there always seems to be a mistake in their own posting...



> I prefer to speak with proper grammar and punctuation



Shortly followed by...



> While your zealous defence of 408 Sqn is commendable, I would think that your *argments* would have a bit more merit if you dropped the personal attacks and actually addressed the issues at hand,



And the moral of the story is -- always prrof read when lambasting someone on an error you could just as easily commit.


----------



## GO!!!

Strike said:
			
		

> Isn't it funny that whenever someone slags another for grammar and the like, there always seems to be a mistake in their own posting...
> 
> Shortly followed by...
> 
> And the moral of the story is -- always prrof read when lambasting someone on an error you could just as easily commit.



I hate it when I do that.  >

The not being dropped off in the right place comment was'nt mine.

The point I'm trying to  make here, is that to call certain helicopter sqns in this country "tactical" is somewhat false. To assume (back to the origional point of the thread that spawned this one) that the crews of helicopters require kit like C8's, TV's and more, due the nature of their name is, IMHO, a waste of already scarce resources. We don't have enough C8's for the infantry Bns that use them every day, cbt arms units are still without Cadpat and TacVests, and scoobs wants them diverted to a unit that will use them a small fraction of the time that my unit will. 

Compounding this is the often complete lack of tacticality that some sqns (like 408) display. While I agree and acknowledge certain circumstances and limitations, some of the actions (which I have outlined) are completely ridiculous, and most often seem to stem from the pilots and aircrew completely disregarding instruction from the infantry commanders that they are delivering. An example of this is the overflight of an objective, which was outlined in orders (which the pilots attended), and did anyway.  

I believe that many of these problems could be solved with the subordinating of the helo units to the army, all of the time, in order to keep the AF up to speed on army doctrine and tactics, and not to simply cut us a few birds whenever they wanted to. An added benefit would be that the helo crews could do all of the grunt stuff they wanted to (like BFTs with their C8's and TVs) and the army could benefit from frequent trg with the air crews/craft. Ideally, a helicopter would not leave the ground without being in support of an army exercise/operation.

Thoughts?


----------



## Zoomie

GO!!! said:
			
		

> I believe that many of these problems could be solved with the subordinating of the helo units to the army, all of the time, in order to keep the AF up to speed on army doctrine and tactics, and not to simply cut us a few birds whenever they wanted to. An added benefit would be that the helo crews could do all of the grunt stuff they wanted to (like BFTs with their C8's and TVs) and the army could benefit from frequent trg with the air crews/craft. Ideally, a helicopter would not leave the ground without being in support of an army exercise/operation.



Good points throughout GO!!

I agree with your point of view - albeit initially the tone of delivery instinctively brought all AF pers' shields up...

Most of our TacHel boys and gals enjoy a few weeks in Gagetown on LOFT (intro to army life) and that is pretty much their only exposure to the field.  All further field training is done "in-house" - taught by AF Pers the AF way. 

I would suggest that a training cell comprising strictly of LF Pers be seconded to all TacHel units and be in charge of "all things tactical" while deployed and in training.  This way the light blue who wanna be green can do a much better job and not pi$$ off the true green.

I only hope that when I am done flying the seized wing assets in the CF and finally go over to a TacHel squadron that such problems are eliminated.


----------



## Sf2

If the pilots are aware of the location and nature of the objective then I will agree that flying over it is a gross error.  But I'd like to know what you meant by pilots disregarding the orders of the infantry guys they are supporting (besides the example of overflown objectives).  Once they are in a chopper, rank does not matter, the aircraft captain is the boss PERIOD.  If some general needs to get somewhere in a hurry and the weather is beyond the limits dictated to the aircraft commander, then the general is out of luck, no matter what he says.

There has always been the arguement about selling out the TAC HEL squadrons to the army - but the problem is when you give the griffons to the army, you also have to give them flight safety, maintanence standards in accordance with DND, Transport Canada, FAA etc, along with aircrew training and standard....

The problem lies "where do you draw the line".  Ownership of aircraft doesn't stop at the machine and its crews, as there are sooooo many inherent organizations involved with that aircraft, like those I mentioned above.  THe airforce doesn't want to give that up, and the army wants no part of it.....so how do you do it with our time and budget?


----------



## Lance Wiebe

It seems that people are forgetting that the Army once did have our own aircraft.  Armour officers, after completing at least one year of troop leading, went on to become helicopter pilots, with Armour Snr NCO's as observers.  The artillery also had their own pilots and observers, flying the L-19.  Civilian pilots deal with the FAA, Transport Canada, and so on, so its not rocket science.  It seems to me that the attitude is that a person cannot be cross-trained to be a combat arms officer, and then become a pilot.  Many, in fact, most, of the first Kiowa and Huey pilots were ex-army, forced in to the air force along with unification.  The army lost a great assett, that has never reached the same standards.  What does a Griffon pilot know of recce?  How does he know how to support movement?  The answer is, he doesn't, for there is no-one to teach him.

The Air Force has succeeded in cacooning themselves away from the primary mission, now whenever we see choppers, even in the training area, they are flying along at 1000 ft or more, even the so-called "nap of the earth" is at least 100 ft AGL.

My point is, helicopter pilots and L-19 pilots were an additional eye and arm that the army has lost, and we have never been served to the same standard since.  Pilots are no longer another crew commander of a call sign, they are now something sacrosanct, that are not allowed to sleep in the mud because of some silly idea that people can't get enough rest unless they are in a bed, or at the very least, a cot.

I know that the older soldiers will know exactly what I am talking about, and the younger ones will have absolutely no idea.  Oh well.

I just had to throw in my $.02..............


----------



## George Wallace

Thanks Lance

The memories....


----------



## Scoobs

Zoomie,

the Tac Hel Sqn that I was at does have combat arms Snr NCOs in the Trg cell.  They are responsible for field trg.  In fact, during workups for high readiness, 3 RCR trained us in the field.  I slept on an air mattress in a 5 man tent in minus 30 celsius weather.  3 RCR slept in the same way.  Some pers had heaters, some didn't.  My point is that there is trg that is being given to Tac Hel units that is done directly by the Army and we do SIMILAR things that the Army does while in the field.  I do have to ask you (and I'm not trying to be rude), where are you getting your info about Tac Hel?  You yourself state that you have never been posted to a Tac Hel unit.  I think that someone is feeding you some mis-information.

GO!!,

I don't think that Tac Hel units need C8s.  However, I do believe that they need tac vests.  Training the way you fight is the proper way to go.  How ridiculuous is it when a unit that is going to High Readiness and has done numerous staff checks to go to places like Sudan, Haiti, etc., cannot get Tac Vests?  Other equipment, such as gloves, cadpat hat, etc. were also in short supply.  I actually went to supply to get the cadpat hat and was told that I couldn't have it, but they asked me if I would like the American style hat?  I now have it, only after 2 years of having the American style one.  A unit that is high readiness has priority over other units, even if they are Army.  The same goes for the Army units that are at high readiness and they should get the kit before any other unit, including tac hel, that is not at high readiness.  The real problem here is that the military is not properly funded or the money is being spent in silly places, instead of providing basics to it members, like Tac vests, gloves, boots, hats, etc.

Lance,

yes, I agree that flying an a/c is not rocket science, since I know rocket science.   However, should the Army wish to take on the responsibility of trg pilots, techs, air navs, mission specs, SAR, doing Flight Safety, maintaining the a/c, keeping up the a dual system like DAEPM, something similar to 1 Cdn Air Div, and the list goes on, the money wasted by duplication would be insane.  I agree that a lot of the problems that the Army has with apparent lack of availability of resources could be solved by having their own assets, but does the Army really want to take on what the AF now does for them (as stated above) and spend insane amounts of money to do so?  I think the better solution is to view the way every person in the military is trained.  Perhaps all pers should receive some sort of combat arms trg, such as I received while in the Infantry reserves.  Then, if a person is posted to a tac hel unit and they need specific trg, specific courses be set up to give those persons the necessary skills, such as recce, FAC, etc.  This would be considerably cheaper (it will cost money and manhours) than setting up duplicate systems that the AF already has.
Some mistakes you made, I have been in many Griffons where they are flying 15 feet above the water, below the tree lines, and are hugging the contours of the river.  I have seen fishermen's faces up close.  That is not possible at 1000 feet.  All Griffon pilot trg is not done at NAP, some is done at higher altitudes as the Griffon is expected to perform other roles.  Why would someone want to sleep on the ground when a cot is available?  Common sense has to prevail here.  If the situation dictated that it was necessary to sleep on the ground, then that is what would be done.  However, due to a helicopter squadron's role and typical location (this is for all helo squadrons, not just tac hel in Canada) (I have seen a French Army Aviation unit up close and was an observer on one of their ex's), there is not always a need to sleep on the ground.  My short time in the Army taught me that the Army sometimes does things that don't make sense or is done just because "this is what was done in the past".  What was done in the past doesn't always make sense today.  However, that being said, one should always look back on history and take its lessons to heart.  Also, past experience does play a crucial role in shaping today's policies and trg, but it is not the end all, be all.

The AF leadership typically forgets about Tac Hel.  We tend to be the "black sheep" of the AF, even though I believe that we are the majority in it.  The AF is run by pilots  :'( and I don't think that this will change.  However, 1 Wing does do a decent job of grabbing both the AF and Army leadership by the throat and telling them to wake up.  The AF leadership tends to waggle on issues surrounding tac hel, while the Army only recently let the AF know exactly what it wanted from the AF.  Not all problems can be blamed on the weapon system, i.e. the Griffon, or the pilots, and some burden must fall on the AF and Army leaders for not listening to each other.


----------



## Sf2

Mr. Wallace,

I respect your opinion, but given your vast experience, I am surprise to see how little you know about tactical helicopters

1)   Recce - Griffon pilots began training in RECCE in anticipation of the ERSTA system - Route, Zone, Area recce, along with vehicle recognition training was taught quite extensively at the OTU.   These skills are still being maintained at the squadron level, although not as much due to the cancellation of the system.   To say that pilots do not know how to support movement is wrong, we are just never tasked by our lifted units to do so.   Not to mention that there are quite a few ex Kiowa flyers still in the game.   

2)   Crew rest in the mud and cots - don't blame the operators here.   We must follow rules put forth to us from NDHQ, 1 CAD, 1 Wing etc.   We break this rules, its the same as a negligent discharge for you guys....bad news.   We do our best to allocate and schedule crews so that there are available crews based on lifted unit requirements.   You can't blame the paperboy for bad headlines.....

3)   Your definition of Nap of the Earth - this was your most INACCURATE statement.      During the daytime, we are allowed to 15 ft above obstacles in approved tactical areas, and below 40 knots, we're good down to 4 ft.   We CONSTANTLY train at these altitudes, because not only does it lower visual signature, but its damn fun.   With troops on board, we'll fly at these altitudes all the time, cuz the troops love it....At night on NVG's, we're approved to 50 ft, and 15 ft below 40 knots.   I"m not sure what your 100 ft sight picture looks like, or were you staring at the radar altimiter during your flight?

4)    Civilian pilots deal with TC, FAA all the time....correct, and so do we.   However that was not my point.   My point was directed at maintanence actions and standards.   THere are EXTENSIVE, and I can't stress that word enough, extensive standards that must be met with respect to routine maintenance, inspections, delievery and handling of spare parts ect....This is amplified with the Griffon because unlike the majority of other CF aircraft, we require an FAA certification to fly it.   You wanna talk red tape, this is the perfect example, and I know for a fact that the army is not willing to open that can of worms for themselves.

5)   You have to realize that EVERY TRADE is not like the old days anymore.   Pilots aren't getting the 5-600 hrs a year....we're lucky to get 350.   And you made a good point - when army folks turn into pilots, they know how to employ the assets.   Nowadays, when a platoon commander cannot even get the seatbelt done up, how is he supposed to employ a helicopter and its crew for a route overwatch or a FOO platform?


----------



## Good2Golf

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> It seems that people are forgetting that the Army once did have our own aircraft.   Armour officers, after completing at least one year of troop leading, went on to become helicopter pilots, with Armour Snr NCO's as observers.   The artillery also had their own pilots and observers, flying the L-19.   Civilian pilots deal with the FAA, Transport Canada, and so on, so its not rocket science.   It seems to me that the attitude is that a person cannot be cross-trained to be a combat arms officer, and then become a pilot.   Many, in fact, most, of the first Kiowa and Huey pilots were ex-army, forced in to the air force along with unification.   The army lost a great assett, that has never reached the same standards.   What does a Griffon pilot know of recce?   How does he know how to support movement?   The answer is, he doesn't, for there is no-one to teach him.
> 
> The Air Force has succeeded in cacooning themselves away from the primary mission, now whenever we see choppers, even in the training area, they are flying along at 1000 ft or more, even the so-called "nap of the earth" is at least 100 ft AGL.
> 
> My point is, helicopter pilots and L-19 pilots were an additional eye and arm that the army has lost, and we have never been served to the same standard since.   Pilots are no longer another crew commander of a call sign, they are now something sacrosanct, that are not allowed to sleep in the mud because of some silly idea that people can't get enough rest unless they are in a bed, or at the very least, a cot.
> 
> I know that the older soldiers will know exactly what I am talking about, and the younger ones will have absolutely no idea.   Oh well.
> 
> I just had to throw in my $.02..............



hmmmm...Mr Wiebe, mind if I address some of the points you made?

Fully concur that flying "in" the Army would not be rocket science...many tactical aviators would prefer that, myself included...seeing as the light blue Air Force really doesn't give a shite about Army Aviation.   

That said...IMHO, the Army gave up on aviation while the Navy continues to this day to fight ferociously for control of air assets it still contends are "its own"...if not officially, then at least in direct support of Naval Operations.   In fact, as was noted in another thread, it was the Army itself that signed the death warrant for CH147 heavy lift and the CH136 recce capability...LGen Foster, Comd FMC himself in 1991....but wait, it gets better...endorsed by then 10 TAG Comd, Gen Lou Cuppens, an old Gunner and L-19 pilot turned Army aviator... :   Yup, seems it's always someone else's fault, right?   Not the Army's...no siree!

Griffon pilot knowing recce?...well lets see, aside from the ten+ guys I know having flown either OH-58, AH-64 or Lynx...many other Griffon guys practice the recce procedures contained in the B-GA-442 Tac Avn TT&Ps...amazingly, TTPs almost identical to those used by army recce pilots around the world and by CH136 pilots and observers of days past.   In fact, there is even coordination between aviators and those involved in recce...how do I know...well, I sat in Army Doctrine as the aviator, working very closely with the Armd offr to ensure that armed recce procedures and the conduct of the combined recce team were up to date and supportive of comtemporary operations.   They atempt to do this without a dedicated recce sensor...oh, by the way...it would have been nice if the Army had backed up the tactical aviation crowd trying to get an enhanced recce/sensor suite for the Griffon when it cae before the VCDS at JCRB in 2003...Gen McDonald, when asked by VAdm Garnnett, just shrugged his shoulders and said he wasn't able to comment on the Air Force's desire to procure the ERSTA system for the Griffon.   Bye the way...when you asked "How does he know how to support *movement*?", did you actually mean to say "...support *manoeuvre*"?   You know, the movement of forces, in combination with direct and indirect fire or fire potential, to achieve a position of advantage with respect to enemy forces....clearly something that air force guys, even the aviators you refer to, wouldn't know a thing about? :

Choppers always at 1000'?   Nap-of-the-earth...100'?    Come on...are you just saying that to troll, aren't you?   NOE is the same as when you were in..."clear of vegetation".   Griffons fly down to 15' during the day, 50' at night on NVG if advanced NVG-qual'd.

Did you mean to say "helicopter and L-19 pilots were an additional eye and arm that the Army chose not to support as it did its other branchs once command responsibility after unification became a CF responsibility..."?   Trivia point...up until 1992, FMC had full control (and responsibility) for the funding and resourcing of aviation assets...Air Command only took over such responsibility in 1992, after LGen Foster had directed the removal from service of the CH147 and CH136 and the replacement of the CH135 and CH118 with a single helicopter type (the wonderful CH146 Griffon that many an Army officer and NCM appear to enjoy slagging).

Is Hotel-19 not a fixed call sign?   

By "sleep in the mud"...do you mean physically sleeping in the mud like you imply all Amry personnel do?   Is using the bag, sleeping, inner and/or bag, sleeping, outer allowed, or is that cheating?   Can I use a bivvy bag to place my sleeping bag in (I like being dry...must be a sign of weakness) so that I can still sleep in the mud along side the few Army friends that I might either have, or who tolerate me in the field?

Seriously...it's always nice to reminisce, but please have enough courtesy to be fair minded towards the folks that are still trying to fight the good fight for you guys.   You kind of sound like one of those guys who had to walk to school uphill, both ways...

Regards,
Duey


----------



## George Wallace

short final

Kangaroo?    I didn't think I'd be using that aboriginal term soo soon.   You just failed Recce 101!

Your little tirade there, although interesting, was not in response to me, but to Lance.   I am sure that his experience and yours should keep this a very heated discussion.   By the way, Tac Hel came from the Army.   The Helicopter Troop of the RCD, became 444 Sqn only thirty years ago.   Yes times have changed.   Equipment has changed.   But I highly doubt the tactics of NAP and staying alive have changed much.   Oh well....you are the pilot....I'm not doing much riding anymore.... :'(


----------



## Sf2

you're right...my apologies....failed my BRASSCRAFT check before pushing the post button.


----------



## Scoobs

Where Tac Hel came from or not is moot.  The point is that it is here and it needs to work with the Army, not fight it.  The Army needs to understand its limitations and back us Tac Hel guys up when we go looking for money to upgrade the Griffon, buy new heavy/medium lift helos, buy something like ERSTA, etc.  Tac Hel is not the Army, but we exist to support it.  

I have to say that this thread is getting pretty heated.


----------



## George Wallace

Scoobs said:
			
		

> I have to say that this thread is getting pretty heated.



Nah!   I'd say stimulating.

Agreed on the point about 'Lift' requirements.   That is something that we all need.   Even those other guys in 'Blue'.


----------



## Good2Golf

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Nah!   I'd say stimulating.
> 
> Agreed on the point about 'Lift' requirements.   That is something that we all need.   Even those other guys in 'Blue'.



Hey George, any talk of *blue* belongs in the AF CADPAT Slip-ons and name tape thread...  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## GO!!!

So correct me if I'm wrong, but the "tone" of this thread seems to be leaning in the direction that the AF never wanted tachel to start with, but the army is too dumb/lazy to co-ordinate the maintenance of said helos.

When I said to bring back the army air corps, I meant EVERYONE even remotely associated with the birds, the equipment, facilities, and corresponding budget. All would be assimilated <insert borg voice> into the army. Scoobs mentioned awhile back that many AF pers "would not like" to be in the army. No problem. There are a great deal of people in the army who would like to be in the AF!! LOTP here we come!

Platoon commander not able to do up his seatbelt - he's one of your peers sir, perhaps you could sort him out so a Cpl does'nt have to. Seriously though, this statement only serves to highlight the lack of familiarity that the pointy end has with the helos. If you can't support the army, what purpose are you fulfilling?

A "green" AF would be the answer to many interoperability issues, and we could start to do more tactical things - such as mounting the C6s in the Griffons, and training infanteers to use them, creating flying fire support. (I've heard that this was done on the twin hueys)

As for the low alt flying... I've never seen the altitudes that short final is talking about from a canadian pilot in a griffon. Not saying it can't be done, but 408 is'nt doing it. NVG flying, seen that, but the pilot turned on his spotlight to land, which kind of wrecked the whole scenario.

And finally, we all get lost, and I never would have believed it myself, but the source is beyond reproach. 

Another ex in Wx. Flying out, directly to the biv site, courtesy of the geese. Pilot appears to be using Hwy 14 as navigational aid. Whatever. Nice warm bird....sleep. Wait - we are slowing! Rotor pitch changes, we lose some altitude and slow down. Pilot checks road sign, and carries on back up to alt for a smooth ride in. 

Now if only the guys in the back had kept sleeping...

And before you say I'm too critical - if I was a lost pilot, I would probably do the same thing!

Cheers!


----------



## Strike

GO!!!,

My issue wrt how the Army uses its Tac Hel resources is that they see us only as a mode of troop transport.  At least that has been my experience here at Pet.  But, as those who were in Bosnia and Haiti can attest to, there are many more things this helo is capable of, and it was used to its full extent.



> As for the low alt flying... I've never seen the altitudes that short final is talking about from a canadian pilot in a griffon.



You need to come out to Pet and fly the bowling alley or the pipeline.  When we are out training we are very rarely above tactical levels -- 15 to 50 feet (above highest obstacle -- not necessarily the ground).  As for the issue of the spotlight, it is SOP for us to turn on the landing light in any situation in which it is called for.  This will happen if the FE is losing references in a tight spot or needs to clear the tail in an equally tight spot.

Trust me, if we are telling you we are flying at 15 feet, we are.  We've got a few more hours of experience under our belts when it comes to stuff like this.


----------



## Scoobs

Strike,

it just dawned on me.   I just noticed your expression.   Hope everything's all well in Pet.   Things are a little slower where I am now.

GO!!,

sometimes you make statements that show you know a fair amount, but then you make ones that show your lack of knowledge.   Maintaining an a/c is not just the people you see at the helo Sqn.   There are thousands of people throughout Canada doing so.   Anywhere from Bell Helicopters, DAEPM(TH) in Ottawa, LATEF in Gagetown, etc.   I HAVE experience with the Griffon and maintaining it (former D/OC Maint Flt).   I know what it takes to do so.   It is very easy to say, hey, lets just get everyone to join the Army that is remotely attached to the Griffon.   Do you have any idea of how many people that is?   Do you think that someone will just waive a magic wand and each and everyone of them will join the Army?   Your solution is to have Army pers do the jobs of those who don't want to do it?   How long do you think it takes to train a tech from the streets to where they can actually be useful on an a/c?   The answer is 4 years.   That's years, not months.   How long does it take to train an infantryman?   A lot less than 4 years.   That is not even taking into account the problem of losing the experienced techs on the a/c.   The AF is having a problem at this moment maintaining the experience level for techs from 15 to 20 years.   Flying and maintaining a helo is a lot more complicated than fixing an Iltis, MLVW, etc.   There are numerous things to consider, airworthiness, Flight Safety, airspace coord and control, when maintaining and flying a helo (just look at the Army's experience with the UAV in Afghanistan and the reason why it now rests with Tac Hel).   It was mentioned by a previous pers on this site about the Griffon's part supply problem.   That is an understatement to say the least.   I was on the phone everyday for 1 month asking where my collective jackshafts were for our inspection bird.   You would most likely say, "I'll just go and kick some ass in Calgary where the warehouse is".   Reality is that we in the Tac Hel community have to deal with an a/c maker, Bell, that licks their chops when we come to sign a support contract that gives them a lot of money and doesn't hold them accountable.   These are realities that would have to be dealt with.
As for flying high, as you know from what I said above, I was just at a Tac hel unit and PERSONALLY have been on many flights below the tree lines, just above the water.      Some of your statements (and this is not a personal attack) show a lack of knowledge in certain areas.   I speak about Tac Hel from experience.

By the way, I will correct you because you are wrong, THE TONE OF THIS THREAD IS NOT THAT THE AF DIDN'T WANT TAC HEL AND THAT THE ARMY IS NOT SMART ENOUGH TO COORDINATE THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID HELOS.   I'm sure that the Army would be able to do that after about 10 to 15 years of training techs, getting them up to speed on the a/c, gaining experience on fixing and maintaining a/c, setting up identical support systems such as Flight Safety, DAEPM(TH), etc.   Oh by the way, do all of this while still flying and supporting the a/c.  Did I mention that it must also be airworthy, as per the Aeronautics Act?  Can't skip corners on this one.

Scoobs out...


----------



## paracowboy

Scoobs said:
			
		

> How long does it take to train an infantryman?   A lot less than 4 years.


 this statement is not accurate. An infantryman is not "trained" until at least 3 years. I still do not consider myself trained adequately. You really don't know much about our trade, either, do you?


----------



## Scoobs

Paracowboy,

actually, I do.  2 years reserve INFANTRY.  Reality is that infantrymen are sent on operational tours a lot sooner than a private in the AF or more specifically, Tac Hel is.  An apprentice tech is rarely, if ever, sent on an operational tour to places like Bosnia, Haiti, etc (places where Tac Hel has been more recently).  Whether you felt trained enough or not is an issue that you must take up with your chain of command.  When are you considered to be trade qualified?  Is it after 4 years?  I know that it isn't.  For an apprentice tech, 4 years is the minimum.

Check the entire thread before offering your opinion about someone's quals and experience.

Scoobs out...


----------



## Infanteer

Well, ideally you are never done training - when you learn something, you build off of it.

Now, let's everyone step back and quit trying to poke eachother in the eye.


----------



## Scoobs

Infanteer,

I agree that we never stop learning or training.

Scoobs out...


----------



## Sf2

GO!!, you've gotta stop using your 408 examples to analyze the entire TAC HEL community.     This one infantry officer puked during an airmobile insertion, they all must be a bunch of puss****.   Pretty condecending isn't it??



> A "green" AF would be the answer to many interoperability issues, and we could start to do more tactical things - such as mounting the C6s in the Griffons, and training infanteers to use them, creating flying fire support. (I've heard that this was done on the twin hueys)



Again, total lack of knowledge.  C6's have been mounted on the Griffon since we got them.  And they aren't, and never were, used for direct fire support, only self protection.  We run door gunnery training every year.


----------



## paracowboy

Never mind. Your panties are too bunched-up to have any sort of reasonable discourse. My response would just crank them up another notch. You go back to ranting at GO!!! 

Anyway, I'll vouch for the guys in Pet as flying lower, faster, and more 'tactically'. Them boys can fly. They smell funny, and but they can fly.
As long as it isn't too cloudy.
Or too sunny.


----------



## Strike

> Anyway, I'll vouch for the guys in Pet as flying lower, faster, and more 'tactically'. Them boys can fly.



How about the girls out there? ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Strike said:
			
		

> How about the girls out there? ;D



Uh-oh Paracowboy, now you'll face the wrath!     Strike puts many (most?  ) of the guys to shame!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## paracowboy

Strike said:
			
		

> How about the girls out there?


they don't smell nearly as bad. And they look much better in a flight suit. 

I odn't remember the number of the squadron from (I believe) Valcatraz, but they were our taxis on the BTE in '03. Those fellas were just nuts. My buddy challenged them by saying the German Officer with us called them all pansies.

Best. Helo. Ride. Ever.


----------



## KevinB

Best flights ever - easily 427 circa 1990'ish -- anytime you got US choppers around CF pilots - just goad the CF pilot - hey the yanks did this lower and faster  ;D  - want trees in the cabin...

 Worst  - was 450 Sqn (IIRC) CH-47 flights - like dancing with a fat drunk woman.


----------



## Good2Golf

KevinB said:
			
		

> Best flights ever - easily 427 circa 1990'ish -- anytime you got US choppers around CF pilots - just goad the CF pilot - hey the yanks did this lower and faster   ;D   - want trees in the cabin...
> 
> Worst   - was 450 Sqn (IIRC) CH-47 flights - like dancing with a fat drunk woman.



Kevin, you're trolling, aren't you?     

I have to say, flying the 47 with my OC (a Brit Sqn Ldr with about 9,000 hours including plenty of time on Chinook with the lads from Hereford) was eye-opening...he did sutff with the 'hook that I never did/saw done with even smaller helos thereafter.   We would purposely water stuff down so the Army wouldn't want to pester us with HELQUESTs...   >

Kevin, I'll sit you up in the jump seat for a spin around the block when we get the MH-47G's  heavy lift helicopters in the near future...   ;D

p.s.  I think you meant to say 447 Sqn...  

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB

Not sure I thought 450 was the Chinook Sqn out of Ottawa...

 Admittedly it was when I was a Arty guy - and we had a howitzer and slign load of ammo so...

I've seen some of the US MH47 series do some neat stuff.  -- I cant wait for our Heavy Lifts to come back.
  I'll hitchhike across the country for rides - hopefully jumps too.


----------



## mdh

> I have to say, flying the 47 with my OC (a Brit Sqn Ldr with about 9,000 hours including plenty of time on Chinook with the lads from Hereford) was eye-opening...he did sutff with the 'hook that I never did/saw done with even smaller helos thereafter.  We would purposely water stuff down so the Army wouldn't want to pester us with HELQUESTs...



Duey,

Isn't that one of the anamolies of the UK? The Chinooks are operated by the RAF - are they not?


mdh


----------



## Strike

> Strike puts many (most?  ) of the guys to shame!



Jeez, I can barely get through the door now, my head is so swollen.  Of course, I'm sure you're just referring to the "attractiveness" factor when compared to the guys.   ;D


----------



## Good2Golf

Strike said:
			
		

> Jeez, I can barely get through the door now, my head is so swollen.   Of course, I'm sure you're just referring to the "attractiveness" factor when compared to the guys.     ;D



Strike, take whatever you can get!  ;D

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Good2Golf

mdh said:
			
		

> Duey,
> 
> Isn't that one of the anamolies of the UK? The Chinooks are operated by the RAF - are they not?
> 
> 
> mdh



mdh, you're right...Brits and Dutchies are flwon by their respective AFs, all others to the best of my knowledge are Army/Army Air Corps (US, AUS, IT, HE, etc...)  Well, Japanese CH-47J are flown by the "integratd and unified"  JDF.

Yup Kev, you're right...that was us out of Uplands (450).  Mind you, we could sling an entire half battery C1/C3's with ammo and crew with each helo 8) ...not the break the L5 down into how many pieces for lift by Huey or Griffon?  I remember jumping the CAR for their family day in '91...the Honorary Colonel looked like he'd fall over if you blew on him (must have been pushing 75-80 eqsily)...but the crusty 'ole guy poked his head through the cockpit passthrough with a twinkle in his eye before he hooked up and said, "Thanks for the ride boys...I love jumping the Chinook...Airborne!"  What a great guy!

Anywhooo...just waiting for things to be sorted out so I can go down to Philly to watch our -G's being built up on the line...  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Cheers,
Duey

p.s.  Kevin, I like your mod to the Gallet, the standard suspension rig is a PITA!


----------



## paracowboy

Strike said:
			
		

> Of course, I'm sure you're just referring to the "attractiveness" factor when compared to the guys.


 so, you're hot then?
I call. Prove it!


----------



## Lance Wiebe

I knew I would get a rise out of some!

Yup, stirring the water to see what comes up.

But, I will clarify a couple of my comments.  Actually, Duey, you prove a point.  I said, and meant movement.  As in patrol movement.  As in leapfrog, caterpiller or snake movement.  The stuff the chopper guys used to do with us very regularly.  One chopper, two scout cars, working as a team.  That's the recce I am talking about.  When's the last time any of that was done?

Second point, some fly low, good.  Not nearly enough, but good.  The point is, can you fly low, and conduct recce witha patrol on the ground in front of our lines without getting shot?  I forget what the fly boys used to call it, something demeaning, but some of them were very, very good at it.  They even tried to manouever the aircraft in such a manner that the pexiglass wouldn't glare in the direction of the suspected enemy.

Now, I know, having a multi-purpose chopper means having multi-purpose pilots, and with the limitations on hours, no one pilot is going to excell at all things.  And, I also know that we don't do recce the same way anymore, although the militia guys sure do try.  

I still say training an Armour or Infanteer to be a chopper pilot makes sense.  

Just one other small little point from the posts up above.  Four years to train a tech?  BS, is all I can say.  It may take four years to get his papers, because that's what civilians demand, but there is no one job in the military that takes four years to train a guy to do.  Unless he is very dumb, or has dumb teachers.  I will agree that it may take four years before he can wave a paper that says he is qualified to work totally unsupervised in the nuclear power plant operating all of the controls, but to say it takes four years to train a guy to do a job is wrong.


----------



## GO!!!

Scoobs said:
			
		

> Strike,
> 
> it just dawned on me.   I just noticed your expression.   Hope everything's all well in Pet.   Things are a little slower where I am now.
> 
> GO!!,
> 
> sometimes you make statements that show you know a fair amount, but then you make ones that show your lack of knowledge.   Maintaining an a/c is not just the people you see at the helo Sqn.   There are thousands of people throughout Canada doing so.   Anywhere from Bell Helicopters, DAEPM(TH) in Ottawa, LATEF in Gagetown, etc.   I HAVE experience with the Griffon and maintaining it (former D/OC Maint Flt).   I know what it takes to do so.   It is very easy to say, hey, lets just get everyone to join the Army that is remotely attached to the Griffon.   Do you have any idea of how many people that is?   Do you think that someone will just waive a magic wand and each and everyone of them will join the Army?   Your solution is to have Army pers do the jobs of those who don't want to do it?   How long do you think it takes to train a tech from the streets to where they can actually be useful on an a/c?   The answer is 4 years.   That's years, not months.   How long does it take to train an infantryman?   A lot less than 4 years.   That is not even taking into account the problem of losing the experienced techs on the a/c.   The AF is having a problem at this moment maintaining the experience level for techs from 15 to 20 years.   Flying and maintaining a helo is a lot more complicated than fixing an Iltis, MLVW, etc.   There are numerous things to consider, airworthiness, Flight Safety, airspace coord and control, when maintaining and flying a helo (just look at the Army's experience with the UAV in Afghanistan and the reason why it now rests with Tac Hel).   It was mentioned by a previous pers on this site about the Griffon's part supply problem.   That is an understatement to say the least.   I was on the phone everyday for 1 month asking where my collective jackshafts were for our inspection bird.   You would most likely say, "I'll just go and kick some *** in Calgary where the warehouse is".   Reality is that we in the Tac Hel community have to deal with an a/c maker, Bell, that licks their chops when we come to sign a support contract that gives them a lot of money and doesn't hold them accountable.   These are realities that would have to be dealt with.
> As for flying high, as you know from what I said above, I was just at a Tac hel unit and PERSONALLY have been on many flights below the tree lines, just above the water.      Some of your statements (and this is not a personal attack) show a lack of knowledge in certain areas.   I speak about Tac Hel from experience.
> 
> By the way, I will correct you because you are wrong, THE TONE OF THIS THREAD IS NOT THAT THE AF DIDN'T WANT TAC HEL AND THAT THE ARMY IS NOT SMART ENOUGH TO COORDINATE THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID HELOS.   I'm sure that the Army would be able to do that after about 10 to 15 years of training techs, getting them up to speed on the a/c, gaining experience on fixing and maintaining a/c, setting up identical support systems such as Flight Safety, DAEPM(TH), etc.   Oh by the way, do all of this while still flying and supporting the a/c.   Did I mention that it must also be airworthy, as per the Aeronautics Act?   Can't skip corners on this one.
> 
> Scoobs out...



To clarify my statements about "everyone associated with the helos" further for you. If you were a widget tech in the AF, you would now become a widget tech in the army. If you were an AF logistics officer, you would now become an army logistics officer. The trg programs that currently exist for AF pers would become Army Air Corps trg prgrms - see where I'm going with this? The technical side of the job would not change - only the uniform, and the additional requirements (BFTs. rifle qualifications, etc.) While the techs would probably see very little change in their job descriptions, the pilots and aircrew would be given the opportunity to truly embrace the "tactical" side of the helicopter capability - you could even get your precious tac vest!

In short - the army would not need to take 10-15 years to train new techs - not that it takes that long anyway - because we would simply re-badge yours.

As to the training of techs and infanteers.... it does not take 4 years to train a tech. As I stated earlier, my entire family is in the aviation business. An apprentice tech is like an apprentice anything else (welder, plumber, pipefitter) they are given all of the relevant skills in trg. The experience factor takes a few years, but with proper oversight from ONE experienced technician, 4-5 apprentices can work safely and effectively. 

Infanteers not having a long or comprehensive trg process? Pull your head out of the bottom zipper in your flight suit - My entire career has seen me do at least 3 courses a year, much like paracowboy said, and certain courses have a far higher stakes than meeting transport canada guidelines. I would hazard that you indeed attended some very basic training in your brief militia career, but to postulate that this indicates any sort of knowledge of the operational and tactical requirements of a regular light infantry formation is truly false. Your militia training allowed you the foundations of what good infanteers are made of, which was the intent, but realistically, what exists in reserve battle school and what exists in my unit are quite different.

As I see it, you are no more qualified to comment on the duties and requirements of a parachute infanteer, than I am to comment on the duties of an AF logistics officer (which you appear to be). The only reason I am commenting at all on the performance of the pilots I have flown with, is because I have some limited piloting experience as an amateur pilot, and have witnessed, firsthand the flying of canadians, americans and british pilots. If your infantry experience is as comprehensive, please feel free to correct me.


----------



## Strike

It's hard enough for ANYONE to get out of tac hel once their in.  Can you imagine if we had an Army air corps?  You'd have alot of people leaving after their initial contract because their only choices for postings are all on the same aircraft.  This was one of the issues addressed when the mucky mucks in Ottawa and Winnipeg were trying to figure out how to keep techs (including FEs in this) and pilots to stay in.  The solution was to open up the chance to get posted onto other aircraft.  Of course, if we all went Army, the chances of this cross-border hopping would be lessened even more.  Or at least it would be a huge hassle because, not only are you changing aircraft, your also changing elements.  This would affect what is required for staff courses as well as what type of training is required for pilots -- ie. is there a need to go to Moose Jaw if you know you're going helos?

Ref staff courses -- Tac Hel pilots go to both Air and Army staff schools.  MH pilots/navs go to both Air and Navy.

Now, I just finished working on paving my walk and need to take something for my back -- Tylenol of course, self medicating is bad -- so I'll leave you all for the night to rumble on.


----------



## Zoomie

GO!!! said:
			
		

> The only reason I am commenting at all on the performance of the pilots I have flown with, is because I have some limited piloting experience as an amateur pilot, and have witnessed, firsthand the flying of canadians, americans and british pilots. If your infantry experience is as comprehensive, please feel free to correct me.



I would counter the above paragraph with some of your own ammunition - your limited flying experience only provides you with a very basic understanding of what professional pilots do...  Scoobs experience in the Mo would be about the equivalent to what you know about aviation.

I am sure that the Infantryman MOSID is a physically demanding job - there can be comparison between our MOSID's.  Ours is a constant training environment where one mistake in judgement could cost numerous lives - everyday - not while at the range or playing in the field.  Everyday I go flying I am operational and using every skill that the Queen has granted me.  I do not fly sick, hungover, tired, grumpy, etc - I cannot afford to, my crew sure as heck can't afford me not to be at the top of my game - EVERYDAY.

Oh - it took the CF 4 years to gain a fully winged pilot out of me.  Not because I was dumb, slow or had bad teachers - that's just how long our training regime is - we have approximately 20 months of dedicated flying, add in course delays and time between serials and you have the four years.  In four years I imagine that fellas such as Go!! and the like were up in seniority and already bemoaning the likes of the AF pilots.


----------



## Good2Golf

Lance Wiebe said:
			
		

> I knew I would get a rise out of some!
> 
> Yup, stirring the water to see what comes up.
> 
> But, I will clarify a couple of my comments.   Actually, Duey, you prove a point.   I said, and meant movement.   As in patrol movement.   As in leapfrog, caterpiller or snake movement.   The stuff the chopper guys used to do with us very regularly.   One chopper, two scout cars, working as a team.   That's the recce I am talking about.   When's the last time any of that was done?
> 
> Second point, some fly low, good.   Not nearly enough, but good.   The point is, can you fly low, and conduct recce witha patrol on the ground in front of our lines without getting shot?   I forget what the fly boys used to call it, something demeaning, but some of them were very, very good at it.   They even tried to manouever the aircraft in such a manner that the pexiglass wouldn't glare in the direction of the suspected enemy.
> 
> Now, I know, having a multi-purpose chopper means having multi-purpose pilots, and with the limitations on hours, no one pilot is going to excell at all things.   And, I also know that we don't do recce the same way anymore, although the militia guys sure do try.
> 
> I still say training an Armour or Infanteer to be a chopper pilot makes sense.
> 
> Just one other small little point from the posts up above.   Four years to train a tech?   BS, is all I can say.   It may take four years to get his papers, because that's what civilians demand, but there is no one job in the military that takes four years to train a guy to do.   Unless he is very dumb, or has dumb teachers.   I will agree that it may take four years before he can wave a paper that says he is qualified to work totally unsupervised in the nuclear power plant operating all of the controls, but to say it takes four years to train a guy to do a job is wrong.



Check your comments Lance.

Would you not agree with me then that the movement you described clearly supports "Maneouvre"?  

Last time combined arms recce done?  At round 1 of the MGS trial last year and programmed this fall for BTE '05.

Not sure if militia trying to do recce the same as in the past is a good thing or not...  ???  All the recce guys (all Armd, BTW) I've been dealing with over the last couple of years have noted how recce is changing, especially as the classic linear battlefield is rapidly turning into the non-contiguous battlespace.

If a tanker or infanteer can meet all the occupational requirements of a pilot, then I say all the more power to them to OT from their current occupation/trade.  You're right, Lance, the infusion of tactical knowledge would be a great benefit to the existing aviation organization. 

BTW, Scoobs is EXACTLY right about MOC 500 techs taking 4 years to train, if not greater.  The Air Force AF9000 maintenance construct designed to align maintenance practices with ISO 9001 quality assurance practices resulted in the adoption and modification of the civilian aircraft technician career stream...Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Technician -> Master Technician.  An apprentice can only assist with or work under direct supervision of a Journeyman or higher-qualified technician, and can not sign off on any work completed.   A journeyman can work by himself unsupervised but required a qualified technician to sign off the B-level check.  Only a qualified technician can sign off on all work completed, and only the trained supervisory technician can sign off and release an aircraft as servicable.  This process takes time and the apprentice-journeyman stream does take 4 years or greater.

...as noted by Infanteer, hopefully none of us ever stops training and learning...

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## paracowboy

yeah, but Duey, having gone through the whole apprenticeship thing myself, I know what a crock it is. Saying it takes 4 years there, is no different than saying it takes 3 to become a trained Infantryman. I knew everything I needed to know about welding in the first few months, then I practiced it for 4 years under supervision. 

Just like when I enlisted. I learned everything I needed to know in the first couple months, then spent the next 3 years practicing it under supervision. Now, I supervise apprentices, and continue to study.


----------



## Sf2

that may be so....however, I consider a "trained" tech as someone who can give me a servicable aircraft.  Sure, buddy can learn how to change an engine in six months, but his work is useless to me without the signature.  And those who possess this god-given signing authority are in very, very short supply these days.....


----------



## Good2Golf

paracowboy said:
			
		

> yeah, but Duey, having gone through the whole apprenticeship thing myself, I know what a crock it is. Saying it takes 4 years there, is no different than saying it takes 3 to become a trained Infantryman. I knew everything I needed to know about welding in the first few months, then I practiced it for 4 years under supervision.
> 
> Just like when I enlisted. I learned everything I needed to know in the first couple months, then spent the next 3 years practicing it under supervision. Now, I supervise apprentices, and continue to study.



I know PC...I actually agree with you personally becasue I haven't bought into the AF900 thing totally.  I liked the tech world before the MOC 500 rationalization, from my perspective as an operator, I found it more responsive.  I also had the opportunity to go into the various shops and find out what the various trades were doing...helped me gain a better perspective as a maintenance test pilot years later.  Now guys are running around trying to find who can sign for what and some feel that the process has become to much of exactly that...a process, vice a product..."produce servicable aircraft"... :-\

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## paracowboy

short final said:
			
		

> that may be so....however, I consider a "trained" tech as someone who can give me a servicable aircraft.   Sure, buddy can learn how to change an engine in six months, but his work is useless to me without the signature.   And those who possess this god-given signing authority are in very, very short supply these days.....


so, the issue isn't the lack of techs, or the need for a 4 year training cycle, it's "how do we fix this stupid civilianized system?" That's simple administrative crap that could be solved overnight by someone with common sense and stones in authority. Is there anyone like that in your CoC?



			
				Duey said:
			
		

> I know PC...I actually agree with you personally becasue I haven't bought into the AF900 thing totally.   I liked the tech world before the MOC 500 rationalization, from my perspective as an operator, I found it more responsive.   I also had the opportunity to go into the various shops and find out what the various trades were doing...helped me gain a better perspective as a maintenance test pilot years later.   Now guys are running around trying to find who can sign for what and some feel that the process has become to much of exactly that...a process, vice a product..."produce servicable aircraft"...


sounds crappy, dude. The Air Force has become too civilianized? Is that what's happening? Because that is a slippery slope to oblivion. If you become to civvie, you get replaced by civvies.


----------



## Zoomie

paracowboy said:
			
		

> If you become to civvie, you get replaced by civvies.



We're already half way there my friend - just look at our 3rd line maintenance (ie SPAR, Field Aviation, IMP, etc) and the 1st line maintenance in Moose Jaw, Cold Lake and all Cormorant Squadrons.


----------



## paracowboy

Zoomie said:
			
		

> We're already half way there my friend - just look at our 3rd line maintenance (ie SPAR, Field Aviation, IMP, etc) and the 1st line maintenance in Moose Jaw, Cold Lake and all Cormorant Squadrons.


 I didn't want to bring that up. This isn't my house.

LO-ve what you've done with it, though. The drapes are FAAAB-ulous!


----------



## Scoobs

GO!!,

I'm not a Logistics Officer.   I'm sure that the pilots have probably figured out what trade I am by now (eh NaCl?).   I am in fact an Aerospace Engineer (AERE).   I spelled it out for you when I said in a previous post that I was a D/OC of Maint Flt.   Perhaps I should have stated Aircraft Maintenance Flight.   Those that know about the aviation community would have figured that out.   In case you aren't sure, the typical size of an A/C Maint Flt is around 100 pers, depending on which Sqn you come from, which was 427 Tac Hel Sqn in Pet.   Geesh, I've given enough hints out to easily figure this one out.   So, I guess that I do in fact know what I am talking about in terms of tech trg, maintaining the a/c, etc.   NEVER did I say I was an expert about the infantry.   What I stated was that it has given me experience to know what a Tac Hel unit needs in terms of trg, more specifically A/C Maint Flt.   Since this is the largest flt in a tac hel sqn, most of the time the personnel for "manpower" jobs such as guard duties, kitchen duties, etc. comes from the Maint Flt.   Don't jump on me the rest of you guys and girls (NaCl,   8), the other flts do pull their weight, but the reality is that more of the extra duties while in the field go to the techs in Maint Flt.

Lance,

yes, it does take 4 years to train a tech.   Going from basic trg to completing their apprentice logbook and getting their journeyman status takes on average, 4 years.   I would not want a tech that does not have this time and experience on the a/c working on it unsupervised.   An apprentice MUST be supervised 100% of the time so that he/she does not make mistakes that don't go unnoticed.

Paracowboy,

what trade are you now?   I'm thinking that it isn't any of the MOC 500 ones.   If I'm wrong, let me know.   Good luck learning a trade in 3 months in the MOC 500 community.   By the way, that doesn't even get you through 1/4 of the current AVN course, which is 18 months in Borden.   After that, the tech must then go on a type course for that specific a/c that the unit flys. Perhaps combining the different former trades was wrong (lots of arguments for and against), but the fact is that everyone has to get on with today and stop dwelling on yesterday.   Changes are being made to improve the amount of time it takes to produce a tech that can work on the a/c unsupervised, i.e. a journeyman tech, such as increasing the courses in Borden so that the junior techs come to the units with most of their apprentice logbook already signed off.   The units do not have the time or manpower (since the experienced ones are fixing the a/c) to train the techs as has been done in the last 5 to 7 years.   The schools have agreed to this and have taken on more of a trg portion of the bill.

I will educate some of you on the realities of flying a/c in the Canadian military.   The Aeronautics Act tells the MND that he must look after Airworthiness of CF a/c.   The MND delegates the Operational Airworthiness to the Commander of 1 Canadian Air Division (1 Cdn Air Div or 1 CAD for most of us), located in Winnipeg, and Technical Airworthiness to the Director of Technical Airworthiness (DTA), located in Ottawa.   DTA then subsequently devolves some of the technical authority to a entity called the Director Aerospace Engineering Program Management (DAEPM).   Each weapon system, i.e. a/c and its associated programs, etc, has a sub-unit of DAEPM.   The Tac Hel one is called TH, thus DAEPM(TH).   DTA developed the Technical Airworthiness Manual (TAM) to guide Maint pers in achieving technical airworthiness.   Part of receiving airworthiness is to have a quality system.   Thus, AF9000+ was developed in order to meet this requirement.   Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not someone has bought into it because it is here to stay.   Once a unit achieves AF9000+ registration, they then are scheduled to be audited by DTA for technical airworthiness compliance and if successful (and some are not), the unit becomes an accredited a/c maintenance organization.   Thus the development of the AMP, Level II tests (Air Maintenance Policy) to get the Maint pers ready for these audits.   Most Maint pers have taken these tests and those that have not will have to get the qual.   By the way, civy's use the Transport Canada rules.   Biggest difference, the military handles all aspects of airworthiness, whereas the regulator for the civy's is Transport Canada.

The reality is that we lost a lot of experienced techs during the mid-90s FRP.   We now have a serious experience gap for techs from 15 to 20 plus years of service.   Therefore, there are less qualified and authorized techs out there that can supervise the apprentices, sign and vouch for the techs experience in front of the SAMS (who grants the A, B, or C level AUTHORIZATIONS), and then fix the a/c.   Thus, the schools realized the need to take on more of the trg burden and have the young techs come out of Borden with more of their apprentice logbook signed off.   Also, the way that the techs receive authorizations must be taught:

"A" level authorization is not a qual.   It is an authorization.   It certifies that the tech can sign for that particular system or sub-system as being repaired properly and that particular system or sub-system is airworthy for flight.   A new system (and here is where my Alzheimer's kicks in as I cannot remember the name of it) has been recently implemented that will hopefully allow for more sub-system A levels being granted.   That means that the techs may not be able to sign for every single part of the a/c, but can for more things where they couldn't in the past.

"B" level is a weapon's system release that everything is good to go for the a/c.   It is only for basic tasks such as fueling, re-configs of the cabin, etc.   Each specific a/c has specific things that can be done to it which are considered "B" level.   Anybody can get this qual, even an Infanteer, if the SAMS of the unit thinks he/she has the necessary experience and has demonstrated it.

"C" level is also a weapon's system release, but a lot more in depth than "B" level.   Usually, I say again, usually, a tech will have his/her "A" level on that a/c prior to getting the "C" level.   The C level must release the a/c to flight after any CF349 is opened (used to track any work done on the a/c).

Oh, by the way, some of a person's "levels" disappear when he /she switches to a new a/c.   Before those non-AF personnel say this is crap, think about it.   Would you want to fly an a/c or fly in an a/c that was fixed and then released to fly by someone who has no or very limited experience on that a/c.   Techs always keep their journeyman status and those that were experienced on another a/c will quickly learn the other a/c and should (and I know that this doesn't always happen) get their A and C's in that new a/c quicker than a young and inexperienced apprentice or junior journeyman.   The new system of assigning levels allows for transferring of levels from a/c to a/c if that same component exists on the other a/c, such as radios, etc.

Thus, after my "rant" above, one can see that it is a lot more to train a tech than just giving him a course and kicking him out the doors in Borden and saying, go fix that helo on which a section will be flying today.   By the way, get it done while doing all of the other trg that a tac hel unit throws at you.

For others, tac hel does train ALL pers in C7s, select in C6, Sgts and above in 9 mm pistol, gas hut, first aid, and the list goes on and on.   This is all done while fixing and flying the helo.   Breaks in op tempo, ya right.   Doesn't happen.   A tac hel unit is go, go, and go.   Tac Hel is operational all the time, even in Canada.   We conduct trg while conducting actual operational missions in Canada.   How many units do that on a continual basis such as Tac hel (SAR does)?

My time in the Army by no means made me an expert.   However, it gave me more of an insight into the Army than the typical AF officer to which most of you Army guys love to slag.   Answer this question, how many privates have you guys taken with you on an overseas Army mission?   How many privates in the AF, more specifically tac hel, have gone on operational missions overseas?   I can't think of one while I was at a tac hel unit.   Thus my comment about the fact that it takes longer for a tech in the AF to be trained than it takes for an infantry soldier to be considered employable.

Sorry about the length of the post, but I HAD to set some things right.

Scoobs out....


----------



## paracowboy

scoobs, grow a thicker skin and learn to read, man. You're so frazzled, and your feelings are so hurt you haven't read any of my shit.

Now, your posts have explained a lot of the problems, but haven't once offered a solution. You're far too busy pooh-poohing any that are offered and responding to imagined insults.


----------



## Zoomie

paracowboy said:
			
		

> ...you haven't read any of my* crap.*



Case in point -


----------



## Infanteer

You know, except for the back-and-forth sniping at eachother, this is actually a pretty informative thread.  Can we keep it that way?


----------



## Good2Golf

Infanteer said:
			
		

> You know, except for the back-and-forth sniping at eachother, this is actually a pretty informative thread.   Can we keep it that way?



Ah-soooo...without Yin, there can be no Yang...without darkness there can be no light...  ;D


----------



## GO!!!

OK, to move in a slightly new direction,

1)Is there any reason that we MUST have officers piloting helos? Why could'nt we use the WO system like some of our allies?

2) What is the % of availabilty for the units that serve the army? I'm told that in private business, you cannot make money without 90% plus avail. of a/c. Does the CF meet this level, and if not, why not?

Cheers


----------



## Sf2

Go!!

1)  Not sure....maybe more experienced guys like Duey could fill us in on that one.  My take on it is that every CF pilot has universal deployability ie:  one day he's flying choppers, and then posted to a F18 sqn to fly hornets (after the appropriate training of course).  This doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.  Every pilot starts from the same place (moose jaw), and to know throw WO's in the mix would be quite the under taking.  I'm sure there is much, much more to the story though (and I don't want to get into leadership ability of WO vs officers - we all know what that could turn into)

2)  Civvie companies need serviceable airplanes to make money.  We don't.  We can have zero on the flight line and still have our jobs the next day.  We definately don't meet the 90% mark - not on a daily, constant basis anyways (although I have seen it a few times).  The big difference is this - In the military, if something breaks, the aircraft doesn't fly and it gets fixed(unless its very minor).  In civvie land, if something is broken, they HAVE to fly it anyways or they loose money (of course unless flight safety is an issue).  Now this is just hearsy from what folks from the "other side" have told me.  At our sqn, we have 18 helos - and on a day to day basis, we'll see anywhere from 8-13 birds on the line, although sometimes we see as little as 1-2.  There are always a few in for major inspections etc, then there's parts availability, temperature changes causes gremlins etc....


----------



## Strike

> You're far too busy pooh-poohing any that are offered and responding to imagined insults.



Actually, referring to him as a Log Officer is a pretty big insult.


----------



## Good2Golf

1)   Go, no....I would fly as a CW3 (roughly Maj-equiv in the US Army)...and these guys are Commissioned, so they're not NCMs...not Officer's either...it is a very interesting ranks structure.   I know a Ret'd CW5 very well...he's a contemporary of GEN Cody, US Army VCSA, and he has many interesting stories but always has a hard time passing on to me in words the relationship of Warrant Officer aviators in the US Army...it's hard to describe, but I have a good "feeling" for their relationship with the CO, OCs, etc...

2)   75% is a number generally accepted with various fleets.   Civvies actually have a dispatch rate often higher than even 90%...but there are some things they fly without that I wouldn't fly without in the military.   I have my civilian commercial helicopter license and have flown a few times in that environment...I'd take 60-70% servicability before going into battle because I know the aircraft I'm in is servicable with all the mission essential kit required...   

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## KevinB

The one issue I will add (w/o back handed sniping   )

Is the point of while we do allow a 031 (or 00010 now  : ) loose on a battlefield or PSO, whatever - we do so under the supervision of a experienced NCO.  It is very unusual to have a Pte or young Cpl out by themselves (or a group of them).

The theory is the same.


Is it really required to have a pilot/crew/maint. individual be able to flip back and forth to keep the stuff new?  I dont see any of the Cbt Arms guys getting swapped around - and no one seems worried if we get stale by 'watching paint dry...' ?

 From an 031 point of view - I'd much rather have aircrew system that is dedicated to me - that trains with me day in and day out - inc weapons and ex's.  Having seen 408 and 427 do weapons qual's and knowing buddies who are floating in the system as the "Mission Specialists" it would appear to me to be a better way of doing things to sharpen the point of the spear.

Just my $0.02


----------



## Good2Golf

Kevin, while some guys are addressing the "hard" duration of growning an apprentice tech into an independant tech, I fully agree with your point.   One could say that the point that an Infanteer truly becomes independant (in the sense that he is more part of the C2 chain than a contributing private) is MCpl and that doesn't happen overnight.   Fitness, understanding of the art of war, TTPs, battle drills...all go into a good soldier and that takes time.

As for the pilots flip/flop argument...personally I think that's a load of crap...except for a few onsies and twosies a year, you really see no reversion of a helo pilot back into the fixed wing world...some think it's some kind of carrot, reward, etc...   I don't buy into that.   If I were not an Aviator, I wouldn't be in the Air Force...wow, listen to me...some old school Tac Aviator must have got to me as a young, maleable type... :-\     Interestingly, the 972 Cbt Arms Specialist (the Msn spec you mentioned) started as 10 TAG's way to keep the some of the expertise of the observers (re: transfer of tactical knowledge) alive...it's been hit and miss at times, but the guys have done a pretty good job all things considered.   Like you mentioni, having the aviators co-located (both physically AND mentally    ) is something we should be striving for.   Things did not make it as easy in the past.   Tac Hel only having 3 maneouvre units made/makes it really hard to align operations with the associated Brigade units...especially when deployments doin't line up, etc...   Maybe that will change to some degree, but we will have to send something a fair bit less than an 8-pack to either: a) have any hope of aligning with training and deployment of TFs, or b) be as sustainable as you guys are in the Army, vis a vis rotation of your 12 9 maneouvre units.   Personally, I'd like to see even stronger ties built between aviation and the combat arms than exist today...coordinated with the rotation scehdules of the respective units.   Dreaming?   Perhaps, but not something that we should shy away from aiming towards.

What I enjoyed the most was seeing the faces of the guys I was supporting on a daily basis.   Notwithstanding the taking the pi$$ out of each other on a near continuous basis (all in good fun) there was a level of connection that was understood by all..."we'll get you where you need to be, when you need to be, no questions asked..."   Huah!

Cheers,
Duey


----------



## Sf2

Duey, I very much respect your response - but I'll pose this to you

I did moose jaw in 2001 - I would say 50% of the instructors there were ex-rotary.  I may be totally wrong, but that was my perception.  And I didn't mean going from TAC HEL to fighters specifically, but to other rotary communities as well - like base rescue, SAR, 3FTS....


----------



## Strike

Short Final,

There were also numerous ex-helo types in MJ when I was there.  Check out the history of the Snowbirds.  I recall one year when more then half the team was rotary at one point in their career.

I know Sea King types that are going or have been Tac Hel.  Guys go SAR.  Fighter guys going rotary (both MH and Tac Hel), tac hel going to MJ, ets, etc.

Although it may not seem like alot, there is usually 1 or 2 people in our unit that will get posted to another aircraft each year.  If we are the norm, then there is quite a bit of switching going on.


----------



## Good2Golf

short final said:
			
		

> Duey, I very much respect your response - but I'll pose this to you
> 
> I did moose jaw in 2001 - I would say 50% of the instructors there were ex-rotary.   I may be totally wrong, but that was my perception.   And I didn't mean going from TAC HEL to fighters specifically, but to other rotary communities as well - like base rescue, SAR, 3FTS....



SF, I suppose I should have qualified it a bit...only about 2-3 guys are allowed to transfer out of Tac Hel per year.  I know some of the guys there...on of the OC's (not sure if you were in his flight) is an A-1 guy whom I flew with in a previous life...good man!  So yes, we do escape from time to time.

Personally, you couldn't pay me enought to go back to Moose Lips, Land of Big Hair that Time Forgot...unless there were MH-47G's stationed there.... 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





Cheers,
Duey


----------



## baboon6

GO!!! said:
			
		

> OK, to move in a slightly new direction,
> 
> 1)Is there any reason that we MUST have officers piloting helos? Why could'nt we use the WO system like some of our allies?
> 
> 2) What is the % of availabilty for the units that serve the army? I'm told that in private business, you cannot make money without 90% plus avail. of a/c. Does the CF meet this level, and if not, why not?
> 
> Cheers



The British Army has_ corporals_ flying helicopters, though these are mainly pilots still in training. The majority of their pilots are senior NCOs (sergeants, staff sergeants and WO2s), about 30% are officers. All Royal Navy and RAF pilots are officers.


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/helicopter_fleet.htm

Updates on US Army plans for AH64/UH60/CH47/ARH and also an LUH(Bell proposing 210 variant)

Passing reference to Joint Heavy Lift Cargo Helicopter as adjunct to, not replacement for the CH47.


----------



## TR23

interesting to note that the new ARH will be built in Canada and integrated in Texas.  I would have expected the whole thing to be built in Texas.  Wouldn't it be something if somehow the CDS found a way to 'add on' to this order, and get a few birds for recce, and some limited aerial fire support?

TR23


----------



## Kirkhill

http://www.defense-aerospace.com/cgi-bin/client/modele.pl?session=dae.4308111.1089903978.QPadasOa9dUAAESlMZk&modele=jdc_34

Bell proposing the Bell 412EP (Griffon) for the US Army's LUH programme.


----------



## Popurhedoff

*Scoobs*   I think I know you... I   am in 427 THS Sqn, and currently an AVN Technician (Formally Aero-Engine Technician) having served 26+years.   I have read thorugh this full thread with great pleasure and look forward to some more serious debate,   I am also having a good chuckle at the banter between a few members here... remember Scoobs... "you can lead a grunt to water...but you cannot make him bathe"   No offense KevinB or MG34   ;D   Different peronalities, different mindsets, and different perspectives on things.

Scoobs... I think I fixed your Ruck Sack before you were posted out... please correct me if I am wrong.   I am the old Sarge who... Rucks 3 days a week, and also a RSO and small arms instructor.   I also taking shooting seriously and send 20-30000 rounds downrange a year...out of my own pocket.   I use to be the Captian of the MARLANT Combat Shooting Team (Pistol).   

Yes I like TacHel, I like the field,   and I liked being FARP Commander.


----------

