Author Topic: AESOp ( MOC 081)  (Read 444026 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aesop081

  • Guest
AESOp ( MOC 081)
« on: November 21, 2004, 15:52:06 »
Here's the deal,

I have remustered to AESOp last April and i am currently on course at CFANS.  Everytime i get asked what MOC i am and i answer, i get this dumb look, as if i had 3 heads or something !!  Is AESOp that obscure a trade ? Nobody seems to know anything about it !

Also, as of now, it is a "remuster-only" trade but there is talk of opening it to general recruiting.  Any opinions on the good/bad  of this idea ??

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #1 on: November 21, 2004, 16:42:11 »
It's not that obscure, I see AESOps everyday.  ;D Though to the rest of the world I would say it's pretty obscure, especially the army since AESOps don't tend to work with the army at all. Ask any martime operator and you'll get a "of course I know what an AESOp is!"

My point of view, I'd rather have an experienced Cpl or above sitting behind me than a no hook Pte. It's a different trade than Flight Engineer for example, since all FEs must be AVN techs if I'm not mistaken. AESOps come from all kinds of different backgrounds, but the thing they have in common is that they're experienced CF members, something that may be difficult to quantify, but I feel is a definite asset. Given the way we operate and the technical expertise required, I'd say that a Pte new to the military would find it hard to adjust. Not only are they learning the military life, but they're also learning a highly technical trade. The rest of the aircrew (pilots and navs) have sufficient time to adjust to the military, 14 weeks of Basic training, 8 months of french, and 1+ years for Navs and nearly 2 years for Pilots in MOC training.  I couldn't imagine a Pte fresh off BMQ heading to Winnipeg for the AESOp course, by the way, how long is the course?

Just my 2 pesos.

Cheers
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #2 on: November 21, 2004, 17:55:46 »
I can see your point.  BAC is 6 long months here at CFANS then another 4 at OTU, then BEW, SERE, sea survival..........

First flight is in 2 days......low-level radar nav.......

Bumpy rides and boarding passes here we come !

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #3 on: November 21, 2004, 18:20:02 »
See what I mean? So after 10 weeks of BMQ, then 6 months on course, you could have a guy at the OTU with less than a year in.   Hardly enough time to even get his pay figured out.   AESOps aside, we're all officers in MH, MP has FEs as well but you get my point.   We're highly technical trades and I don't want to have to worry about solving my AESOp's pay problems since there'd be no intermediate step between a Pte and a Capt in an MH, not to sound like a jerk but, I don't solve pay problems unless it makes it to my level in the chain because it can't be solved lower.

I didn't count OTU or SERE or any of the other aircrew related courses since we all have to do that, though our OTU is closer to 6 months for Sea King pilots.

Cheers
« Last Edit: November 21, 2004, 18:41:42 by Inch »
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #4 on: November 22, 2004, 16:48:04 »
I suppose that I would take a contrarian view. While experience is always an asset, there is no reason that the AESOp position could not be filled by a raw recruit. The fact is, the environment in which any new member of a maritime crew operates is highly supervised and regimented. The junior co-pilot is teamed with a senior aircraft captain and the junior TACCO is teamed with a senior AESOp and/or a senior crew commander. A properly motivated new recruit could be a great asset to any crew.

Having said all that, drawing from other trades is also a great way to offer people alternative career streams within the CF and a way to select and reward strong performers.

Do AESOp candidates have to complete the aircrew selection process yet?

Sam

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #5 on: November 22, 2004, 16:54:37 »
Good points Sam, I didn't think of it that way. I'm still in favour of it being a remuster only trade, but that's just my opinion.

Cheers
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #6 on: November 22, 2004, 17:16:18 »
Negative, AESOp's do NOT have to go trough ASC.  That has been looked at a few years ago and rejected.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #7 on: November 23, 2004, 11:38:59 »
Quick update...first flight is today...........

4 hours of low-level radar nav........

boarding passes all around !!

hiv

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #8 on: November 23, 2004, 14:53:34 »
I'm not sure how I stumbled across AESop but I've been fascinated ever since then. January will be my first eligible time to apply so hopefully all goes well. I can't say I'm not envious of you!

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #9 on: November 23, 2004, 18:44:06 »
Negative, AESOp's do NOT have to go trough ASC.  That has been looked at a few years ago and rejected.

Pity. There were a number of good reasons why this step had been recommended and it seemed to make good sense to me.

Sam

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #10 on: November 24, 2004, 00:57:42 »
In my "limited" experience as an AESOp........ASC is not required. I have been doing fine up to now and i see no benefit in using ASC to select candidates for the trade.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #11 on: November 24, 2004, 05:14:07 »
Did you have to do the medical part of ACS? The part they do at DCIEM or whatever they call it now in Downsview. That is one part I think would be necessary. Though I guess it's not as big of a deal if you guys have a heart murmur or something similar.

Sam, what were some of the reasons they came up with?

Cheers
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #12 on: November 24, 2004, 08:10:52 »
All medicals were done at application and were done by the flight surgeon at my home base.  The file was then sent on to DCIEM for aproval by the flight curus there.

Offline Bograt

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • 1,060
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 601
  • Dream Big, Work Harder
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #13 on: November 24, 2004, 08:27:49 »
AESOp,

How was your flight?
Hannah and Robbie's Dad

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #14 on: November 24, 2004, 08:43:14 »
Cancelled..........stupid VFR minimums !!!!! Try again thursday !

Ex-Zipperhead

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #15 on: November 24, 2004, 12:27:17 »
That really sucks when your pumped up for it.

Hope tomorrow goes better for you.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #16 on: November 24, 2004, 15:42:40 »
Cancelled..........stupid VFR minimums !!!!! Try again thursday !

Man, it was a sunny day here in Shearwater. Too bad 75% of our helos are busted. I did Sim 2 today and should have clearhood 1 next week, serviceability permitting of course!
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #17 on: November 24, 2004, 16:02:11 »
We had a bery nice day here in winnipeg ( well above the 1500 ft, 3 miles minimum) but in our ops area around the inner lakes, things were rapidly deteoriating ( somewhere in the neighbourhood of 800 ft ceilings and 1/4 mile vis !!!   Not condusive to training that is supposed to be done in VMC.   The outlook for tomorow looks better, the other crew on the course managed to get airborne today.   The we do LLRN again on friday and then move on to Homings.

Update: Today's flight never got off the ground.......plane was broken....went to alternate plane.....broken too !!
« Last Edit: November 24, 2004, 16:41:15 by aesop081 »

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #18 on: November 24, 2004, 16:58:41 »
Sam, what were some of the reasons they came up with?

Inch,

IIRC, the most recent debate over whether or not the AESOps should go through ASC began with the discussion of whether or not AESOps should fill the SENSO seat in the new MH. If you remember, the decision had been made in 1993 to go with an all officer crew for the maritime version of the EH-101 (2 pilots, 2 navs) when we were buying them under the NSA program. However, with the cancellation of the program the decision was put aside and the debate was re-ignited. Part of the reasoning for switching to an all officer crew was the added complexity of the passive acoustic mission (the AESO seat is filled by a Nav on the Aurora and the SENSO seat was filled by a Nav on the CH-124B HELTAS). When a detailed analysis was conducted (after much debate and mud slinging), it was decided that the SENSO seat on the MH could be fillled by an AESOp and that this was probably the more cost effective option. However, because of the complexity of the passive acoustic mission, it was recommended that AESOp candidates be filtered through ASC. AFAIK, the recommendations of the WG were never formally accepted nor rejected by CAS. The reason given at the time was that CAS saw no reason to change the status quo until he knew what the new MH would be; the implication being that the decision on who would man the SENSO seat would be re-visited after the announcement of the new MH. AFAIK, there is no intention to ever re-open the debate and the status quo SK manning will apply to the MH.

I've grossly oversimplified what was a difficult and painful debate, but the essence of the history is there. That's why I asked if AESOps were now being sent through the ASC.

FWIW, I was on 423 Squadron the day they pulled all the AESOps in to the main briefing room and told them that they would not have a seat on the EH-101. That day caused a rift and a mistrust that extends to this day (particularly between the AESOp senior leadership and the Nav senior leadership).

Sam

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #19 on: November 24, 2004, 17:15:00 »
That mistrust is evident here at CFANS as we are kinda treated as second rate citizens by the nav comunity.  We always seem to be an afterthought and it is very apparent to us.  I find it verry hard as we have to share everything with nav students but we get " i'm an officer so i'm hollier than thou" from them.

As for complexity of the new sensor systems on the cyclone, i'm positive than as an NCM i can manage to operate them properly regardless of the fact that i did not go trough ASC.  If the training program is first rate then a BAC graduate will not have any problems.  The current BAC is spot on in preparing us for OTU and the next course will be even better as they will incorporate BEW, ESM and ISAR in the coriculum.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #20 on: November 24, 2004, 17:17:33 »
Gotcha, I don't recall much from the EH101 contract, I was 15yrs old in 1993 and I was more interested in girls than anything to do with MH. Was there any talk of going with a 3 man crew similar to the USN Seahawks? Since I've been on scene, I've only heard of the current setup wrt to crews.

Cheers
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #21 on: November 24, 2004, 18:46:18 »
As for complexity of the new sensor systems on the cyclone, i'm positive than as an NCM i can manage to operate them properly regardless of the fact that i did not go trough ASC.  If the training program is first rate then a BAC graduate will not have any problems.  The current BAC is spot on in preparing us for OTU and the next course will be even better as they will incorporate BEW, ESM and ISAR in the coriculum.

I'm not questioning anyone's individual competence nor trying to make a case that officers are better at handling complex equipment. Frankly, I know people in all three MH aircrew MOCs who will simply not be able to make the jump to the new aircraft (you know the type: the ones who are challenged by e-mail).

The case was simply made, and I think it was valid, that the complexity of the tasks associated with the new SENSO seat and the math skills required to successfully accomplish the passive tasks suggested that a screening system like ASC would be a cost effective way of assessing a candidate's aptitude before investing a great deal of costly training in them. This is the logic that supports sending both pilot and nav candidates to ASC.

I am personally of the belief that our expectations for the SENSO seat in the new MH are too high and that it will be extremely difficult and costly to maintain a reasonable proficiency in all the tasks associated with the seat (active and passive acoustics, ISAR, EW, comms, back door work, gunnery, etc). Initial assessments of the SENSO course for the new MH already point to an extremely long course and we haven't really started to look at the real proficiency and currency costs. The unknown is just how much training we will reasonably be able to accomplish in the synthetic environment (sims, PTT, etc).

Anyway, exciting and challenging times ahead!

Sam

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #22 on: November 24, 2004, 18:49:39 »
Gotcha, I don't recall much from the EH101 contract, I was 15yrs old in 1993 and I was more interested in girls than anything to do with MH. Was there any talk of going with a 3 man crew similar to the USN Seahawks? Since I've been on scene, I've only heard of the current setup wrt to crews.

Cheers

I don't think that the 3 person option was ever seriously contemplated. I know that it was briefly considered but rejected based on the complexity of the mission set. You have to appreciate that the new MH (S-92 Superhawk) will be capable of a vastly wider mission set than any one Seahawk.  I think it will be a challenge to accomplish the mission set with the 4 person crew and we will need to be inventive and open-minded in how we allocate tasks in the aircraft (e.g. have the non-flying pilot monitor EW and RADAR while the back end is involved in an ASW prosecution).

Sam

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #23 on: November 24, 2004, 19:09:53 »

The case was simply made, and I think it was valid, that the complexity of the tasks associated with the new SENSO seat and the math skills required to successfully accomplish the passive tasks suggested that a screening system like ASC would be a cost effective way of assessing a candidate's aptitude before investing a great deal of costly training in them. This is the logic that supports sending both pilot and nav candidates to ASC.

I disagree..........AESOps have to complete a math test upon arrival at CFANS and receive 47 hours of math instruction ( covering everithing from trig, log, vectors and phasors, algebric equations......) as part of the course.  Nav students do not have the benefit of this on the BANC course, yet both are supposed to perform the same tasks here at the school.  Math training is not that resource intensive vice sending 16 extra pers a year to ASC when the already have enough on their hands.

I have flown in the CH-146 alot and i would rather that, in the new MH, the non-flying pilot not handle any of the mission gear and concentrates on his job.  With a nav and an aesop in the back, they are more than capable of multi-tasking , even in a high threat environment.  As far as i have been explained, the mission sensor are to be fully intergrated ( I.E. an ESM overlay onto the radar display allowing for increased SA) therfore making the life of the back-enders easier to manage. Becasue we in the back have our eyes glue to the screens, the NFP's job becomes crucial as the FP may have too much to concentrate on to look around the A/C and monitor for technical problems ( as the MH will not have a flight engineer).  Also, by adding EW, radar and other things to the pilot's training, you are increasing the workload on an already lenghty training process.  Let the pilots do their thing, let us do ours in the back.  As long as the man-machine interface is well designed, this will be possible.

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #24 on: November 24, 2004, 21:12:22 »
Well, we are all entitled to our opinions 081 but I find that I disagree with pretty much everything you say in the post above.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Sam