Aerospace Control Officers-AEC [merged]

[Gazoo]

Nav instructors at CFANS fly regularly and are in receipt of aircrew allowance. Thus yes, they count as they are posted to a flying billet.

OK, CFANS positions add 20 Capt, 4 Maj and 1 LCol

After all, the querry was :
Furthermore, navigators posted as instructors to 404 Sqn are not only flying but operational as well. Thats why it is an OTU ( Operational training unit ). I dont know if it is the same for 406 Sqn ( CH-124 training unit).

The 404 positions were counted, as well as 405, 407, 413, 423, 424, 426, 435, 436, 437, 442, 443, CC 552(AEW), CC NAEWF, and MPEU.
I don't know why, but for some reason I omitted 406 Sqn(where I started my career on OJT as PLT), my apologies.  With 406 there are an additional 2 Maj's and 10 Capts
So if my math is correct the total for Capt/Lt is 152.

Thanks for the help CDN Aviator.

 

[aesop081]

I suspect there are more AECs flying right now than ANAVs;

So then,


202 Navigators are in flying billets

and

46 AEC are in flying billets

?

 

[Occam]

Who said i was making smoke ?

Nobody said you were making smoke.  All I said was that cordite was smokeless, and that it certainly wasn't used for the purpose of making smoke.

Whatever it is, it does propel stuff, makes smoke and burns when you get a wiff of it.

Then it probably isn't cordite as you originally suggested, since that has been out of production for years.

Maybe you have heard of JAU-22s ?

Can't say I have, but it's safe to say that they don't employ cordite.

And we did a PAR yesterday btw.......just for training.

To be entirely correct, the pilots carried out a Precision Radar Approach.  You were along for the ride. 

 

[aesop081]

To be entirely correct, the pilots carried out a Precision Radar Approach.  You were along for the ride.   

Even on a PAR, I am busy with the radar / AAI monitoring air traffic on the aproach because on rare occasions, controllers have neglected to pass on vital information or they just didnt know about them. So, while i'm not controlling the aircraft, i'm busy on aproach regardless. When i see a conflict between us and another aircraft ( wether on a PAR or otherwise) i'm trained for and required to advise the pilots as to avoiding action.

Just a bit more than along for the ride......... :

 

[Occam]

Even on a PAR, I am busy with the radar / AAI monitoring air traffic on the aproach because on rare occasions, controllers have neglected to pass on vital information or they just didnt know about them. So, while i'm not controlling the aircraft, i'm busy on aproach regardless. When i see a conflict between us and another aircraft ( wether on a PAR or otherwise) i'm trained for and required to advise the pilots as to avoiding action.

Just a bit more than along for the ride......... :

Rare occasions, indeed. 

Sooooo...during a PAR, you're (more or less) carrying out the same functions you do while on patrol (maintaining a radar picture/situational awareness/etc.).  Now, I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I'll admit I'm curious why you'd mention the fact that your crew did a PAR yesterday, when your duties during a PAR don't differ that much from when the aircraft is doing a typical patrol?

 

[aesop081]

Rare occasions, indeed.    

We are blessed , IMHO, with some good controllers here so it is indeed very rare.

but I'll admit I'm curious why you'd mention the fact that your crew did a PAR yesterday,

Only because this was mentioned by another poster.

let’s see if you would prefer to have a PAR approach in IFR conditions

No other reasons........

 

[Judy]

Aviator, what are you going for here?

Trying to prove that your job is so much cooler than ours? 

That it's a good thing you're QC'ing the PAR Controller, because sometimes he's too busy picking his noses to point out traffic, and then you jump in and save the day?

Ok great, you win.  Thanks for gracing us lowly AECs with your presence.

 

[Aerospaced_out]

So then,
202 Navigators are in flying billets
and
46 AEC are in flying billets
?

That point was already conceded. Regardless, the genesis of my quip was that of those 200+ ANAVs flying only a small percentage are actually "navigating". Time for a name change. The point Gazoo has made is that a majority of AECs are in operational positions unlike their ANAV brethren. That might be an point of interest to anyone considering these occupations as a career choice.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That point was already conceded. Regardless, the genesis of my quip was that of those 200+ ANAVs flying only a small percentage are actually "navigating". Time for a name change. The point Gazoo has made is that a majority of AECs are in operational positions unlike their ANAV brethren. That might be an point of interest to anyone considering these occupations as a career choice.

Its coming, I've seen a few emails that are floating around.  CFANS is changing its name too.  But until its official... :-X

 

[h3tacco]

Thanks to Gazoo for doing the work and actually bringing some numbers to the discussion. Having not seen any numbers before it does put things in perspective. I think you have probably missed another handful of ANAV flying positions. The guys at CATS (EW Support Section or 414 Sqn whatever they are called) and I know at least in 12 Wing there are number of flying billets in Wing HQ ie Wing Standards and MH Set. Not sure about other wings though. Central Flying School and AETE also each have a couple ANAV flying billets. And then there a couple of exchange flying billets, MH has one, I think the AM has one or two (USAF and RAF) and I think LRPA also has two or three (2 USN and one RAF?).  But these are relatively small numbers.

I have worked with AECs in the past and have almost always had positive experiences. I know there has been some tension between the trades in past but I think that has mostly to do with personality issues on both sides. As to which trade is more operational. One, does it really matter and two, is the Tower controller in Shearwater more operational than the 406 Nav Instructor conducting flight ops at the same air field? I don't think so. ANAVs almost always go to an operational squadron following CFANS. Regardless if that is Sea Kings, Herc or Auroras, they will deploy operationally quite extensively for that first tour.

As for the Air Navigator name change I have heard about that since 1998. Navigation for Sea King TACCOs has always been a small portion of the job, and in reality overland and in IMC situations most of the navigating is handled by the Pilots. Over the water is a different story. As for what the trade is called, the grown ups can change it to whatever they want, people don't understand what ANAVs do now and I don't think a name change will fix it. Nor do I think it will change what we do. 

Food for thought. In the RAAF they have recently grouped Air Defence Controllers and Navigators into a single trade called Air Combat Officer. Air Combat Officers will preform TACCO duties on the P-3 and its replacement, they will serve as WSOs in F-18Fs, they will continue to fill a seat on the C-130Hs, they will man the controller seats in the Wedgetail AWACs, they will man ground based Weapons Controller billets, and they will man UAV billets. Quite a a diverse trade. I doubt you'll much cross flow between different jobs. The RAAF still maintains a distinct ATC trade. For the CF, since ATC and Air Weapon Controllers merged I do not think we will see AEC and ANAV merge but there is some similarity between the skills required for AECs and ANAVs. AECs feel free to disagree.

 

[Gazoo]

No problem, I actually like working spreadsheets(did lots in recruiting).  You may be right, I may have missed a few flying positions, but I do remember including some EW positions although I'm not sure which sqn they showed up under.

You are correct, there has been tension between the occupations for a long time and I don't think it will change any time soon.  I don't think that is necessarily a bad thing.  It shows me that we both have people in our respctive occupations that are passionate in their beliefs and ideas about the future.  I know there are those on both sides that will disagree with me, but I believe we will soon be one occupation, but not in the time I have left(retiring soon).

 

[Judy]

Food for thought. In the RAAF they have recently grouped Air Defence Controllers and Navigators into a single trade called Air Combat Officer. Air Combat Officers will preform TACCO duties on the P-3 and its replacement, they will serve as WSOs in F-18Fs, they will continue to fill a seat on the C-130Hs, they will man the controller seats in the Wedgetail AWACs, they will man ground based Weapons Controller billets, and they will man UAV billets. Quite a a diverse trade. I doubt you'll much cross flow between different jobs. The RAAF still maintains a distinct ATC trade. For the CF, since ATC and Air Weapon Controllers merged I do not think we will see AEC and ANAV merge but there is some similarity between the skills required for AECs and ANAVs. AECs feel free to disagree.

I think this is genius.  There are far more similarities between air weapons controllers and air navs, than with ATC.  I'm a weapons controller, and I find it a bit silly that we did our training with the ATCs.  I  spent two months learning ATC stuff that I'll never use again.  Besides talking to jets, how are our jobs similar?

Like you mentioned, Navs are in CF-18 EWO positions - that's something that's quite similar to some of the requirements of a weapons controller.  No, we don't work jammers on a daily basis, but EW is a huge part of our job.

Aboard the AWACS, air weapons controllers can fill controller, surveillance, and electronic combat positions.  Seems like a lot of crossover with navs. 

 

[Formulasteel]

This is my first post on here.....so here goes. I'm applying for Aerospace Control Officer, and I was wonder how long it takes from starting basic training to the point you are posted somewhere, and your family joins you there? Basically I'm wondering when I should put my house for sale and have my wife give notice at her job.

 

[George Wallace]

Perhaps you ought to read the topics on this subject.  They cover the whole breadth of the Trade.  Try a further SEARCH of "AEC"

 

[2fly]

So what do you think i do in the airplane, just sit there ?

My vote is on STAIRMASTER.

:rofl:

 

[Gazoo]

I'm applying for Aerospace Control Officer, and I was wonder how long it takes from starting basic training to the point you are posted somewhere, and your family joins you there? Basically I'm wondering when I should put my house for sale and have my wife give notice at her job.

It will usually take more than a year before you will be posted somewhere your family can join you.  You will do basic training(approx 3 months), you will go somwhere on OJT(3-6 months or more, depends on how many students waiting trg).  While you are on OJT, you will take a 60 day Distance Learning(DL) course. You will do your course in Cornwall(3-6 months), then either get your first posting or possibly do you initial qualification at some base then get posted.
There will be plenty of notice given when you are close to being allowed to put house for sale, etc.

Hope this helps.

 

[Celticgirl]

This is my first post on here.....so here goes. I'm applying for Aerospace Control Officer, and I was wonder how long it takes from starting basic training to the point you are posted somewhere, and your family joins you there? Basically I'm wondering when I should put my house for sale and have my wife give notice at her job.

Formulasteel, there's a lot of info on this thread: http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/68321.0.html 

 

[Aerospaced_out]

I'm a weapons controller, and I find it a bit silly that we did our training with the ATCs.  I  spent two months learning ATC stuff that I'll never use again.   

It was silly considering the bottleneck it created in production. That has been fixed. Other than what is offered in D/L all AEC training at CFSACO is now discipline specific.

 

[Judy]

I don't believe the bottleneck has been fixed, Aerospaced.

Students are pegged as either weapons or ATC before they go to Cornwall, and do their DL accordingly.  How do they know if they're going to be a successful weapons controller based on a bunch of written tests?

We've decreased the length of the courses, but failure rate is still high.  How does that help?

 

[Neilio]

written tests?  bah.  haha.  No unfortunately they don't even give us written tests to try to find out what we'd be better at.  This is how they do it:

Career Manager:  Which avenue would you like to go?
Me:  Well Sir, I don't really know a whole lot about either.
Career Manager:  Ok I think you'd be a good IFR controller.
Me:  Ok.

haha.  Obvious not exactly the conversation, but its unfortunate we're not given somewhat of an introduction into them before we're asked to make a preference.  But on the other hand, us AEC folk will have a chance to do all three before our careers are over.