Author Topic: AESOp ( MOC 081)  (Read 469982 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #25 on: November 24, 2004, 21:22:28 »
Fair enough...

I would like to know what your background/experience is ( I.e. are you a nav/pilot/aesop ??).  Would help put your opinion in perspective.  What i mean by that is that it may help me better understand where you are coming from.  You can PM me if thats better for you......your choice.

At any rate, i will examine some of your points further



Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #26 on: November 24, 2004, 21:48:19 »
I think I owe you a better explanation.

What I disagree wholeheartedly with is the idea that there are front end and back end jobs and that they are separated by a firewall. In a crew as small as an MH crew with a mission as complex and as busy as that of the MH crew, I think it is critical that we breakdown any such barriers.

For example, I fully expect the TACCO to peer forward with a jaundiced eye once in a while and ask a question if he/she  sees something he doesn't like. Just because a gauge is in the cockpit doesn't mean the TACCO isn't entitled to ask my the MGB pressure is zero. And, during heavy ASW action where the back-end crew is saturated (and trust me, they get saturated), I expect the non-flying pilot to monitor the situation, back-up the TACCO on radios, and offer input into the tactical situation where appropriate.

In the case of the new MH (the Superhawk), I believe that there will simply be too many sensors and associated tasks for the backend to effectively manage them all at once. I advocate the philosophy of primary sensors and tactical nav in the back end, secondary sensors to the non-flying pilot. Granted, there will be times that the NFP is required to focus on assisting the flying pilot. But, in a modern aircraft equipped with George (autopilot) and automated system monitors, the need for the NFP to constantly monitor the FP is greatly reduced. Expecially in the case of a passive acoustic mission where 103% of the SENSO's attention will be on buoy processing, where the TACCO is fully involved in tactics and comms, and the aircraft is flying a loose holding pattern on George, it only makes sense that the NFP take on RADAR and possibly ESM. I don't think either the training bill nor the proficiency bill will be onerous because I am not suggesting that the pilots be trained to perform alll of the sensor functions but rather just the basic functions needed to monitor the system. At the first sign of contact, the sensor of interest would then be passed back to the back end for assessment and further action. (This is similar to how we used to monitor "pingers" - active buoys)

In the bad old days of the introduction of the HELTAS bird (CH-124B), the non-flying pilot was expected to maintain a manual back-up plot on a Mk-6b plotting board. Yikes. What a major PITA that was. But if a numpty in the driver's seat could maintain a decent Mk-6 plot, imagine what a trained professional could contribute to the crew with the aid of modern electronics. We just have to break a few rice bowls to get there. For example, a few years ago there was discussion about putting a display repeater in the front end so pilots could select either a slaved display from the ASN-123 (tactical computer) or a slaved image from the FLIR. Immediately the union reps came out vociferously against providing the pilots any additional information. The most vocal opponents were from within the AESOp trade who felt that pilots were incapable of interpreting the FLIR display and were better off with just a verbal commentary from the sensor expert (never mind the ICS congestion). The TACCOs were a mixed bag - some liked the idea of the pilot (particularly the Crew Commander) being able to see the tactical plot while others felt that it might lead to some CCs micromanaging the tactical situation. Pilots are not blameless either. When it was suggested that the armament control panel be moved to the TACCO's station (Because it it the TACCO who manages the weapons), there was an uproar from the front end over the "loss of control" when the fact remained that the pilot would still have the veto through the "Master Arm" switch and only the pilots can release external stores. These are the kind of attitudes the MH community needs to killl.

Something to think about - and discuss further if you wish.

Sam

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #27 on: November 24, 2004, 22:42:11 »
I see where you are comming from.

Yes, the front end should also have control over the IR ( be it on sea kings or cyclones) as they are not only a great tactical sensor but also a veru useful navigation aid for the pilots up front.  But i maintain that the FP and NFP have thier jobs ( they drive the bus) and yes we are one crew but all have different roles to play, otherwise we would all be pilots, or ( god help us) navs.  I did not mean to imply that there should be this impenetrable wall between both ends of the A/C but in the same breath, i would be weary of giving the NFP a slave display of the 123 ( or whatever it will be in the 148).  Yes, as a member of the crew, if i notice that them MGB press needle is  on its way to china, i should say something but would you like it if i spent more time being a pilot or be in the back ?  Beleive me, i have seen micromanaging in action !! As for george, as much as it can be a useful tool..it is not infaliable and when the bird is in the dip, i'm not sure that i entirely trust it enough to forgo the NFP's duites.

I guess that while i do beleive that there needs to be more crew interaction (ie NFP doing comms, using IR/EO and some navigation), The backenders are none the less the tactical "specialist" ( lack of a better word) and the pilots drive the bus. With the apropriate displays and sensor intergration, the TACCO and AESOp can overcome task saturation while the burden of SA can be spread amongst the entire crew.

I do not wish to sound like i am protecting my turf ( as i dont yet have a turff !!), please dont get me wrong

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #28 on: November 25, 2004, 13:57:47 »
aesop, it's not about you being a backseat pilot, crew cooperation is what it's all about. Sometimes things can get super busy and we may not notice one of the needles flickering or worse, reading zero, since we're looking at an angle at the instruments.  The TACCO and AESOp can look straight on at the engine instruments and see them much better just by virtue of where they're sitting. The same can be said for circuit breakers, we look up at some and straight down at others, in the shadows it may be difficult for us to see that a breaker is popped, whereas the GIBs can see the white band around the breaker far easier.

What it comes down to, is all of our asses are on the line, not just the drivers. So if someone sees something out of the ordinary then by all means speak up, I don't know of many guys that would call it backseat piloting and it could prevent a disaster.

As for us easing your workload in the back, I'm with Sam on this one.

Just some food for thought.

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

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #29 on: November 25, 2004, 15:55:58 »
I understand what you are saying but i am more concerned about mission eqpt than the A/C itself.  CRM and airmanship dictate that we are all to be watching for problems on the A/C and/or things that dont feel right.  That i understand.

I guess i just like my pilots......well....piloting !  Thats what you get paid the big bucks for !

But then again i am an unqualified puke..........

Sam69

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #30 on: November 29, 2004, 10:33:53 »
I guess i just like my pilots......well....piloting !  Thats what you get paid the big bucks for !

Not to beat a dead horse (too long)... but my duties include a lot more than piloting when I fly already. It's just a matter of prioritizing what is important at the moment and never losing sight of the fact that the earth has a Pk of 1.0

Sam

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #31 on: November 29, 2004, 10:40:24 »
Yes, the ground does have a higher Pk than the missile you are trying to avoid.  Although i think you may have sold me sam, i had quite the education yesterday, LLRN is no fun in winter, i rapidly developed a helmet fire.  The radar picture was not at all like the map due to the lakes being frozen.  I only wish the pilots would have stuck to the SOP calls we were taught and not replace " wings level XXX" with just "steady".................so i ended up getting my ****  slapped for being late with my 3T check !!

Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

Cheers

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,112
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,371
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #32 on: November 29, 2004, 11:03:00 »
Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

Welcome to the wonderful world of CF flying - where you are constantly water skiing behind the plane in your valiant efforts to keep up!

Buck up there lad, we have all been there and it will get much easier.

Ask the pilots next time to make standard calls - they won't really mind.  If any of your FO's are Milani or Guenther - give them a shot in the arm from me.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #33 on: November 29, 2004, 11:16:28 »
WILCO.

Second attempt at LLRN today, weather doesnt look all that good though.  Hopefully i'm not behind the 8-ball this time.


Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #34 on: November 29, 2004, 14:26:08 »
Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

We've all been there, we used to call it watch-map-mirror in the Harvards. At 4 miles a min, you tend to get behind the aircraft real quick if you're not on the ball and instead of looking ahead of you for what you found on the map, you're looking in the mirror to see if you flew over it already.

As my fixed wing cohort said, it does get easier.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline GOF

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #35 on: March 16, 2006, 23:41:34 »
When I re-mustered to MOC 081, we were called Observers.  And yes, the only places that knew what we were were on the Maritime Bases.  In my day we only had three aircraft, Argus, Tracker and the Sea Thing.  I was lucky, I was on the Argus in Summerside 1973-75.

I think the trade should remain a re-muster, and definitely not a direct entry.

Just my humble opinion.
Every morning I wake up is a good day.  Something my late wife who was dieing of cancer said to sister-in-law.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #36 on: March 17, 2006, 15:27:48 »
Quote
I think the trade should remain a re-muster, and definitely not a direct entry.

GOF-
what are your reasons for saying that?  the reason that I ask is, that out of an established requirement for a little over 200 AES Ops, we only have about 140 (and dropping).  Well over 75% of our AES Ops are pensionable.  The pool of remusters has gotten so small (demographically speaking) that we don't even get enough files per year to cover the available training slots (24/year).  I'm not sure AES Op can survive another five years as a "remuster only trade".  Thoughts?

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #37 on: March 17, 2006, 16:49:48 »
GOF-
 (and dropping). 

.......FAST !!!

  I'm not sure AES Op can survive another five years as a "remuster only trade".  Thoughts?

It won't.  Recruiting right from the street is seriously being looked at now.  I've been told we are paying close attention to the SAR trade now that they are trying it out.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #38 on: March 17, 2006, 19:18:44 »
Quote
It won't.  Recruiting right from the street is seriously being looked at now.  I've been told we are paying close attention to the SAR trade now that they are trying it out.

Aesop- As an outside observer, standing near the impending site of the trainwreck (12 Wing), I would have to agree with you.  I was just curious what GoF's reasons were- maybe he is seeing something I'm missing...

Cheers!

Offline RiggerFE

  • New Member
  • **
  • -30
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 30
  • If it isn't broken, don't fix it!
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #39 on: March 17, 2006, 22:15:43 »
The FE trade is in the same boat, we are also looking at taking applicants straight off the street, running them through Borden for both AVN and AVS training. From there we run them through the FE phase of training. This is still in suggestion/planning stages, but as like any of the other re-muster trades there just isn't the pool to draw from. The FE trade is further handicapped because we can only draw from the AVN trade, where as AESOP & SAR Tech can draw from any trade in the CF.

Offline GOF

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 16
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #40 on: March 17, 2006, 23:51:16 »
Because of the cost of training, and to help with pay one needs rank, so unless they promote right after wings, there will be some hard feelings among those who have to put some time in before being promoted to Corporal.  But then again, they could do what they did in WW2 with Sgt pilots, promote to Sgt upon Wings.  Because of what is involved in the training, a person should be promoted to Sgt upon Wings, and make the base rank a Sgt.

Also, by making it a re-muster trade, a person re-mustering has to be recommended for re-muster, the board looks at the members past, and in my humble opinion, they will get a better candidate than someone with no military experience entering a very demanding trade.
Every morning I wake up is a good day.  Something my late wife who was dieing of cancer said to sister-in-law.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 27,112
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,371
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #41 on: March 18, 2006, 02:07:08 »
MP's are insta-promoted to Corporal after basic training.  Why not for FE, AESOP, SARTech, etc.  The working rank for all of these trades is Cpl, insta-promotions to anything higher will never "fly".
Per Ardua Ad Astra

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #42 on: March 18, 2006, 02:25:41 »
MP's are insta-promoted to Corporal after basic training.  Why not for FE, AESOP, SARTech, etc.  The working rank for all of these trades is Cpl, insta-promotions to anything higher will never "fly".

My trade is "insta-promoted " to MCpl 12 months after wings.  In the RAF, their sensor operators are promoted to SGT imidiately after wings and they come straight from Civie street.

Offline SeaKingTacco

  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 135,310
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 5,053
  • Door Gunnery- The Sport of Kings!
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #43 on: March 18, 2006, 10:20:53 »
The problem with an "insta-promotion" to Sgt is that you are trying to solve a pay problem with rank.  Why not just use spec pay to keep the guy in?

The major problem with the AES Op trade (IMHO) is demographics.  The trade is becoming ancient (age and years of service wise).  Continued reliance on a remusters (who are at already at 8-12 years of service and around 30 before they even set foot in the AES Op classroom) won't solve that problem.  Chasing a smaller and smaller pool of remusters (that is also being chased by JTF 2, FE and SAR Tech)  won't help us.

If the US Navy can recruit 18 year olds and a year later have them functioning as Aircraftsman on Sea Hawks, can we not explore this also?  I can't speak for the LRP guys, but MH is an extremely physically demanding job.  There is alot of physical labour involved in hoisting and potentially rescuing people.  I would like to see some more guys (and gals) in their 20's doing the job.  I'm 38, and I'm starting to feel too old to do some of the work...

Cheers!

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #44 on: March 18, 2006, 18:21:54 »
The problem with an "insta-promotion" to Sgt is that you are trying to solve a pay problem with rank.  Why not just use spec pay to keep the guy in?

The major problem with the AES Op trade (IMHO) is demographics.  The trade is becoming ancient (age and years of service wise).  Continued reliance on a remusters (who are at already at 8-12 years of service and around 30 before they even set foot in the AES Op classroom) won't solve that problem.  Chasing a smaller and smaller pool of remusters (that is also being chased by JTF 2, FE and SAR Tech)  won't help us.

If the US Navy can recruit 18 year olds and a year later have them functioning as Aircraftsman on Sea Hawks, can we not explore this also?  I can't speak for the LRP guys, but MH is an extremely physically demanding job.  There is alot of physical labour involved in hoisting and potentially rescuing people.  I would like to see some more guys (and gals) in their 20's doing the job.  I'm 38, and I'm starting to feel too old to do some of the work...

Cheers!

SKT, i'm sold on the idea of taking raw recruits into the trade.  I dont know about MH but here for us in LRPA its not that physicaly demanding.  More mentaly demanding than anything else.  The direct bonus of taking only remusters is that you usualy get a more mature individual that has been around the military for a while and is less of a discipline/admin problem ( of course there are exceptions) but i'm sure that as a trade we can overcome any issues.

Offline x-zipperhead

  • Member
  • ****
  • 880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 147
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #45 on: March 18, 2006, 20:24:48 »
Thought I'd wade in here with my 2 cents.  Being an AESOp in the MP/LRP community, like aesop081, I have heard lots of the debates for both sides of the issue ( re-muster vs. direct entry ) and there are pros and cons for both.  I personally lean towards keeping it a remuster trade if at all possible.  The fact is this is a senior NCO generating trade and the working rank is Sgt.  I just don't think you can create a quality NCO in 1 to 2 or even 3 to 4 yrs.  Also, people always bring valuable experience from whatever their previous trade was as well.  That being said I think SeaKing Tacco makes some very good points about the demographics of our re-musters as well as the overall "age " of the trade. I agree that we should be targetting more candidates in their 20's and I think we probably could.  I think that it is a trade off between having enough experience and not being  "over the hill".  We should be targetting people coming off their first or second BE ( i.e. 3-6yrs service ) as opposed to people who are pensionable almost as soon as they join the trade ( 15 -20 yrs ).  I came from the army as did aesop081 and I think he'll agree that if the trade could make themselves more known to the army you'd see a lot more applications.  A travelling recruiting drive similar to what JTF 2 does I have heard has been considered and I think would be a great idea.  I know when I remustered most of the guys didn't know what an AESOp was and then didn't believe me that you could become aircrew right out of any trade.  A little more visibility might be a huge help.

I think at the end of the day something has to be done and sure I don't see any reason why you couldn't take a guy off the street and make him a decent AESOp.  I just think you might get a little more quality control ( i.e. previous performance ) and more well rounded AESOp by keeping it remuster.  Besides that's they way I had to do it! so.... ;D
.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #46 on: March 18, 2006, 20:35:34 »
  I came from the army as did aesop081 and I think he'll agree that if the trade could make themselves more known to the army you'd see a lot more applications.  A travelling recruiting drive similar to what JTF 2 does I have heard has been considered and I think would be a great idea.  I know when I remustered most of the guys didn't know what an AESOp was and then didn't believe me that you could become aircrew right out of any trade.  A little more visibility might be a huge help.

My freind, nice to see you.  I thought i was going to have to fight the navigator union all on my own  ;D

From what i hear this travelling roadshow is underway.  I've been told its happening in Shilo sometime in the next few weeks.  I like your idea of targeting guys earlier in their careers for remuster to AESOp.  Like you said, if they advertised a little bit more, you would get alot of people in the BPSO's office.  I remember when i was at CFANS, the course after ours had a guy on it who already had 20 years in.  Now no offence to this guy, but he should have never been transfered.  I think that FRP didnt do us any favours either.   SKT does make a valid point when  he says it works for the USN, why would it not work for us ?

Offline x-zipperhead

  • Member
  • ****
  • 880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 147
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #47 on: March 18, 2006, 21:20:11 »
Hey, buddy.  Yeah, I was the second youngest in terms of age and years of service on my course at 29 and 9 years in.  The average was around 13 or 14 years service and about age 33 or 34 . But then again as an AESOp aren't we supposed to be old and crusty?

That's good to hear that they are underway with a recruiting drive.  I think once e few grunts hear about the trade and that we don't have to sleep in holes  ;D  we may see the applications go up.  What's not to love?  We'll just tell everybody they ALL can go to Comox.  Gotta lie a little or else it wouldn't be real recruiting would it?

As far as the USN, I don't know that much about them and how close they are to us but hey, yeah, if it works for them and for the RAF then why not for us.  I personally still lean toward remuster.  I think with a little more advertising we could come up with 15-20 high quality candidates a year.  But then again I don't know much beyond what I see at the annual CM briefing so I could be talking out of my a**.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #48 on: March 18, 2006, 21:24:07 »
But then again as an AESOp aren't we supposed to be old and crusty?

I got that part of my upgrade covered !!

Quote

That's good to hear that they are underway with a recruiting drive.  I think once e few grunts hear about the trade and that we don't have to sleep in holes  ;D  we may see the applications go up.  What's not to love?  We'll just tell everybody they ALL can go to Comox.  Gotta lie a little or else it wouldn't be real recruiting would it?

You're just jealous......admit it !!
Quote
As far as the USN, I don't know that much about them and how close they are to us but hey, yeah, if it works for them and for the RAF then why not for us.  I personally still lean toward remuster.  I think with a little more advertising we could come up with 15-20 high quality candidates a year.  But then again I don't know much beyond what I see at the annual CM briefing so I could be talking out of my a**.

At least you got a CM breif this year.........i got sent away on a JTFEX in san diego where the gang of four were here !!

Offline x-zipperhead

  • Member
  • ****
  • 880
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 147
Re: AESOp ( MOC 081)
« Reply #49 on: March 18, 2006, 21:24:25 »
.  I think with a little more advertising we could come up with 15-20 high quality candidates a year. 

Not to suggest that the candidates we are getting now are low quality after all I was one a couple yrs ago so I'd be slamming myself..... and you too. ;D