Canada moves to 2% GDP end of FY25/26 - PMMC

[SeaKingTacco]

When I was training at CFSATE in 2004 they were suppose to be getting Civilian accreditation as a Aerospace training facility. Not sure where that went off the rails. I do know where but in reality the Military provided some pretty good training, just not at the same standard for Civilian qualification.
Had they of brought in Civilian School Staff to help build the program back then they would have had a awesome program now.
Civilians generally do not learn about bombs, guns and things that go boom on purpose.
I would look forward to what this does for our members. But I caution making an Full AME is different than making a AVN/AVIS Tech. Similar but not the same.
I think what they should focus on is making a conversion course that is Transport Compliant by the time a person reaches their QL5. Then they can challenge the Tests. Make all the resources available to the members to reach that goal then it is up to them.
Otherwise you are going to have Techs trained to make Aircraft U/S based on Civilian standards that otherwise meet Military ones.

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the RCAF is providing the AME training to all future air techs, but the AME accreditation is on the individual. Since we (DND) own our own Airworthiness, we can “accredit” any way we want to.

This would not be much different than pilots challenging the ATPL on the own.

 

[childs56]

My understanding (possibly incorrect) is that the RCAF is providing the AME training to all future air techs, but the AME accreditation is on the individual. Since we (DND) own our own Airworthiness, we can “accredit” any way we want to.

This would not be much different than pilots challenging the ATPL on the own.

That kind of makes sense. But I wonder how the conversion/ experience will be handled.
Essentially the Military cut out a lot of the fluff mundane things like learning in depth bolt/ An Fitting sizes and markings so to speak along with regulatory aspect to get techs out the door who can work on aircraft under strict rules and guidance. Following procedures by the book numbers every time.
Military Airworthiness is a Voluntary compliance system set to play nice with the rest of the Air world and to Deal with lawsuits if a fighter crashes into a residential area. It is of convenience more than requirements which is one of the reasons our Techs and Aircraft generally need to be recertified before they can work elsewhere.
As for the Pilots the Airforce looked after them very well over the years in my opinion. West Jet was happy for that.

No matter what it is great news going forward for Techs.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

That kind of makes sense. But I wonder how the conversion/ experience will be handled.
Essentially the Military cut out a lot of the fluff mundane things like learning in depth bolt/ An Fitting sizes and markings so to speak along with regulatory aspect to get techs out the door who can work on aircraft under strict rules and guidance. Following procedures by the book numbers every time.
Military Airworthiness is a Voluntary compliance system set to play nice with the rest of the Air world and to Deal with lawsuits if a fighter crashes into a residential area. It is of convenience more than requirements which is one of the reasons our Techs and Aircraft generally need to be recertified before they can work elsewhere.
As for the Pilots the Airforce looked after them very well over the years in my opinion. West Jet was happy for that.

No matter what it is great news going forward for Techs.

A couple things:

The conversion training thing (type courses) is already causing some issues as the fleets wrestle with how to type qualify someone who is not an AVN or AVS Tech. The simple solution is couple week course to show them how the tech manuals and record keeping works (all fleets have differences, depending on OEM) and then turn them loose under supervision to earn their authorizations, across the entire airframe. The old school folks don’t like this, because that is not what they grew up with.

Military Airworthiness is not a “voluntary compliance system”. It is a legally delegated authority from the Minister of Transport to the MND. The CAF needs its own system of airworthiness because we have operational imperatives that the civilian world does not. We deal with battle damage repair- civilians do not. Unserviceable aircraft can be rendered serviceable if a situation is dire enough- civilians cannot. We deliver weapons- civilians do not. It has nothing to do with “being sued”.

 

[childs56]

A couple things:

The conversion training thing (type courses) is already causing some issues as the fleets wrestle with how to type qualify someone who is not an AVN or AVS Tech. The simple solution is couple week course to show them how the tech manuals and record keeping works (all fleets have differences, depending on OEM) and then turn them loose under supervision to earn their authorizations, across the entire airframe. The old school folks don’t like this, because that is not what they grew up with.

There in lays the problem, it is not an easy situation.
You should not be type certified until you are an AVN/AVS Tech QL5. That is when you are Journeyman Qualified then you get your authorizations.
To be signing for a process and procedures prior to that is asking for trouble.
We use to train as a general Mechanic who could go onto a fleet elsewhere and then get type qualified.
Once you came out of Borden you did your type training and then got your authorizations.

It will be interesting as this goes forward to see if they are expecting a person to walk out of this new to the Military program as a QL5 AVN/AVS Tech. Then send them to the lines to work. Then figure out the their Type/ authorization afterwards.

I also wonder if they will set it up as you get the diploma, give you the amount of hours needed for your Journeyman while you work under a Master Tech ie B or C level until they will sign you off to perform the work. With out doing the type course.

Military Airworthiness is not a “voluntary compliance system”. It is a legally delegated authority from the Minister of Transport to the MND. The CAF needs its own system of airworthiness because we have operational imperatives that the civilian world does not. We deal with battle damage repair- civilians do not. Unserviceable aircraft can be rendered serviceable if a situation is dire enough- civilians cannot. We deliver weapons- civilians do not. It has nothing to do with “being sued”.

It actually does not fall under the Minister of Transport at all.
The same as Military Vehicles and equipment do not fall under the DOT specs either. It is a voluntary system to which the Military has become party too. In which as caused the Military a lot of headaches trying to Make AF9000 work in a compliance situation to civilian standards. I am not sure what they call the program now.
But I know when I was in kept asking why are we trying to meet TC standards when we do not fly or maintain within those standards. (not to say the aircraft were not Flight Worthy and or safe) We had different standards and tolerances for what was serviceable and not serviceable. Some of those standards were more strict and and some were not.
A Military aircraft could fly with a fuel leak,(seal itself in flight lol) and leaking hydraulic fluid in certain areas. Where a civilian aircraft was allowed no fuel leaks at all and minimal if at all hydraulic leaks depending on the platform.

We took really good care of the aircraft, I never launched one that I thought was unsafe or that I would not fly in myself. (I never wanted to fly in a fighter jet anyways) Had I of been asked I would have hopped in the back set with no concerns.

DND is Voluntary Compliance where they can be within reason. They have spent millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours trying to get into compliance with TC rules. When I do not think we can be in compliance outside of operating Specific Civilian model aircraft within civilian specs.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

There in lays the problem, it is not an easy situation.
You should not be type certified until you are an AVN/AVS Tech QL5. That is when you are Journeyman Qualified then you get your authorizations.
To be signing for a process and procedures prior to that is asking for trouble.
We use to train as a general Mechanic who could go onto a fleet elsewhere and then get type qualified.
Once you came out of Borden you did your type training and then got your authorizations.

It will be interesting as this goes forward to see if they are expecting a person to walk out of this new to the Military program as a QL5 AVN/AVS Tech. Then send them to the lines to work. Then figure out the their Type/ authorization afterwards.

I also wonder if they will set it up as you get the diploma, give you the amount of hours needed for your Journeyman while you work under a Master Tech ie B or C level until they will sign you off to perform the work. With out doing the type course.


It actually does not fall under the Minister of Transport at all.
The same as Military Vehicles and equipment do not fall under the DOT specs either. It is a voluntary system to which the Military has become party too. In which as caused the Military a lot of headaches trying to Make AF9000 work in a compliance situation to civilian standards. I am not sure what they call the program now.
But I know when I was in kept asking why are we trying to meet TC standards when we do not fly or maintain within those standards. (not to say the aircraft were not Flight Worthy and or safe) We had different standards and tolerances for what was serviceable and not serviceable. Some of those standards were more strict and and some were not.
A Military aircraft could fly with a fuel leak,(seal itself in flight lol) and leaking hydraulic fluid in certain areas. Where a civilian aircraft was allowed no fuel leaks at all and minimal if at all hydraulic leaks depending on the platform.

We took really good care of the aircraft, I never launched one that I thought was unsafe or that I would not fly in myself. (I never wanted to fly in a fighter jet anyways) Had I of been asked I would have hopped in the back set with no concerns.

DND is Voluntary Compliance where they can be within reason. They have spent millions of dollars and thousands upon thousands of man hours trying to get into compliance with TC rules. When I do not think we can be in compliance outside of operating Specific Civilian model aircraft within civilian specs.

Please read the Aeronautics Act. Especially article 4.31. And the meaning of Minister under “interpretation”. I never argued DND was under TC for airworthiness. The Act delegates that to the MND.

Aeronautics Act

Federal laws of Canada

laws-lois.justice.gc.ca

As for how the new AME trained techs are going get their POM and Level A signatures- opinions vary.

 

[ytz]

I'm not sure you want that. Over time, any CAF involvement will be replaced by 'professional academics' who will decide what the CAF needs. Eventually, it will have no input to the output and not like the product it produces.

I really don't see the problem. We have NCMSTEP and routinely send techs to college programs or often subsidize while there and just shorten their training in Borden. The current proposals a bit of an extension and formalization of that.

The CAF is contracting out delivery of training to the faculty of these schools and getting them civvy quals as a bonus / attraction factor. They don't just get to teach what they want. They deliver the exact curriculum the CAF wants to the standards the CAF wants. And given how lucrative these contracts are, and the current state of colleges, there's a lot of competition for this.

The CAF would be better to partner with the unions and trade councils.

Not that I'm opposed to the idea. But I genuinely fail to see a difference. Why would the CAF care whether a college or union delivers the training as long somebody teaches the contracted curriculum?

This seems a bit Hegsethian culture war BS to me. And I would caution, there's plenty of their own grads in the US pointing out how ruinous his policies are to those institutions.

We don't really have those politics in Canada. We routinely send officer cadets to civilian university (ROTP Civvy U). Or recruit from civilian universities (DEO). You can do a Gender Studies degree and end up a pilot or infantry officer. Nobody cares, other than maybe the merciless teasing you'll get at your unit when people find out what you studied. As long as you pass your phase training, it's fine. Pretty dangerous and ridiculous path to start aping and bringing up those politics from the US.

 

[ytz]

Times have changed where they offer a 2 year diploma towards the AME license.
I wonder how much the Military Curriculum is going to change to fit the Civilian side of certification. There is a lot of differences in Airworthiness side of things to consider.
Hopefully the military does not have to do the intensive bolt and nut AN/MS side of the training. LOL.

When I was training at CFSATE in 2004 they were suppose to be getting Civilian accreditation as a Aerospace training facility. Not sure where that went off the rails. I do know where but in reality the Military provided some pretty good training, just not at the same standard for Civilian qualification.
Had they of brought in Civilian School Staff to help build the program back then they would have had a awesome program now.
Civilians generally do not learn about bombs, guns and things that go boom on purpose.
I would look forward to what this does for our members. But I caution making an Full AME is different than making a AVN/AVIS Tech. Similar but not the same.
I think what they should focus on is making a conversion course that is Transport Compliant by the time a person reaches their QL5. Then they can challenge the Tests. Make all the resources available to the members to reach that goal then it is up to them.
Otherwise you are going to have Techs trained to make Aircraft U/S based on Civilian standards that otherwise meet Military ones.

A pre-OFP school should really have very limited specific CAF content. Most of it is specific to the trade and broadly specific to the entire branch or service. I fail to see what an AVN would learn at CFSATE that wouldn't be taught at a civilian college. Heck, how much gap training do we do today for AMEs who walk in off the street? So really, people need to stop acting like a no-hook private is getting extensive military training at CFSATE. They are mostly getting an education that is comparable to the civilian world. Borden produces a product that the fleet can then mold using fleet specific training.

 

[ytz]

Military Airworthiness is a Voluntary compliance

What? You taught at CFSATE and think airworthiness is "voluntary compliance"?????

As seakingtacco pointed out, it is a delegated authority. And the CAF can use different and even lower standards as necessary. But it's not by any means "voluntary".

Really the difference is that commercial aviation largely operates to a safety standard/margin of 1 in 10 million to 1 in a billion depending on the issue being dealt with. The RCAF gets to operate at 1 in a million. That between 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower margin. And given enough operational exigencies (like ejection seats), the RCAF can go even lower. But these are most definitely not "voluntary" and everything you do as a tech, from your manuals to your quals, to your authorization standards are based on programs designed to achieve that that in 1 in 10^6 standard. You just don't see the analysis behind that because somebody at DTAES is doing that work.

 

[daftandbarmy]

What? You taught at CFSATE and think airworthiness is "voluntary compliance"?????

As seakingtacco pointed out, it is a delegated authority. And the CAF can use different and even lower standards as necessary. But it's not by any means "voluntary".

Really the difference is that commercial aviation largely operates to a safety standard/margin of 1 in 10 million to 1 in a billion depending on the issue being dealt with. The RCAF gets to operate at 1 in a million. That between 1 to 3 orders of magnitude lower margin. And given enough operational exigencies (like ejection seats), the RCAF can go even lower. But these are most definitely not "voluntary" and everything you do as a tech, from your manuals to your quals, to your authorization standards are based on programs designed to achieve that that in 1 in 10^6 standard. You just don't see the analysis behind that because somebody at DTAES is doing that work.

Lean Six Sigma enters the chat

The Six Sigma method provides organizations with the tools they need to improve their business process capabilities. The goal of Six Sigma is to improve customer satisfaction by reducing and eliminating process variation that may lead to defects and/or errors/mistakes.

https://asq.org/quality-resources/six-sigma?srsltid=AU7gw4U1onb56nfFEYxCdnhvpB1oC7CRkjZ6IeCAjakz2siv606qm8qO

 

[lenaitch]

That’s not how colleges work. You are conflating college and university. In Canada, those have different meanings. They are governed & accredited differently by provinces.

I'm not sure I am, but my exposure is limited to Ontario and in the law enforcement field. As far as accreditation goes, I have no insight into that. There are lot of colleges (originally called 'community colleges') that are now degree granting institutions, which further clouds the issue.

Back when the earth was still cooling, I took law enforcement (or whatever they call it) at an Ontario college. All of the core faculty were ex-coppers. Years later, my wife - by then an ex-copper - became faculty. Now, there are very few ex-coppers on faculty at any college in Ontario and, if there are, they are probably not full time. A guy I used to work with is very intelligent and has written two books on criminal investigation, at least one was part of the curriculum at one college. The best he could get was part-time because he didn't have a degree. Many want at least a Masters-level degree.

Many police services used to look upon these programs favourably, but no longer, because they don't like the product. I don't know about trades or professions that have actual certification, but the 'client' - the law enforcement and private security industries, have no input. There is no advisory council or whatever to ensure that the output matches the market.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Same problem with a lot of the trade training in High Schools, used to be done by people from industry, the Teacher Unions didn't like grease monkeys working as teachers. Now most of those programs are mere shadows of what they were, if they exist at all.