Op IMPACT: CAF in the Iraq & Syria crisis

[SupersonicMax]

We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.

DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.

 

[Halifax Tar]

We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.

DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.

Wait a second.  You got HA/RA, Foreign Service ? and Aircrew pay ?  Why does the Navy lose SDA and the Army LDA when they deploy ?

 

[Lightguns]

Wait a second.  You got HA/RA, Foreign Service ? and Aircrew pay ?  Why does the Navy lose SDA and the Army LDA when they deploy ?

Because the army and the navy decide to use their S/LDA envelopes that way.  The air force decides to do it the other way.  Got look after the troops, right?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

We got HA/RA and AIRCRA (they were designated flying positions) during operations.

DH: same could be said of the the infantryman out the wire in Afghanistan: they are only doing their job.  But while doing their job, they are exposed to conditions that warrant HA/RA.  The fact we fly to our AO on a daily basis is irrelevant.  In that AO, we are faced to increased risk and conditions that people back at the camp are not faced with.  It should be compensated.

As has been stated, RA and HA are based on operation, not individual experience, so the infantryman in your scenario gets the exact same RA/HA as the clerk at the camp. That's not even getting into the comparison of how you define the risk to someone flying a plane in a light AD AO vice someone driving without weapons to Hebron in the west bank. 

So, no, you shouldn't be compensated above and beyond the fact that you get paid more to be a pilot.

 

[Halifax Tar]

Because the army and the navy decide to use their S/LDA envelopes that way.  The air force decides to do it the other way.  Got look after the troops, right?

You have to be kidding me.  :facepalm:

 

[PuckChaser]

I've seen a chart on all the headings that need to be explained to justify HA/RA levels. I'll see if I can find it again.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

To qualify for RA and HA.....

So, there is zero threat outside the gate.  Anywhere.  I guess the briefing I got in the bldg close to the small cardio shack close to castle greyskull was just made up.  ???

 

[PuckChaser]

So, there is zero threat outside the gate.  Anywhere.  I guess the briefing I got in the bldg close to the small cardio shack close to castle greyskull was just made up.  ???

No one said no risk, there's a general risk because its the Middle East and we're a predominately white, western-looking CAF, which makes all of us targets. I'll also add this, for those complaining about conditions in their aircraft:

Military Foreign Service Instructions:

10.3.05 - Hardship Allowance

10.3.05(1) (Intent) The intent of the Hardship Allowance (HA) is to compensate for the living conditions existing at a specific post.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Probably why you get aircrew pay, right? And a different pay scale for pilots over and above a general service officer?

No.  Despite what people may think, I get my AIRCRA for the hazards of normal flying, in a non-threat area.  Because there's a risk to flying any day of the week/month/year.  Same as diving; those guys take on risk above and beyond the normal level most CAF mbrs do, they get diving allowance for that.  Or RESCUE allowance for SAR Techs.  My specialist pay is because of the technical and operator skills etc for the MOSID I am in.  Not everyone gets AIRCRA, just the flyers, but everyone in the trade QL5 quald and up gets SPEC (that's another discussion IMO...)

RISK allowance is for the risk that comes with an operation, or post.  So, when I am flying up north on patrol, lets say, my AIRCRA covers the risk involved with flying up north and all that.  That's normal risk associated flying duties.  I also get that risk when I fly over the in the Med, or Atlantic, North sea, etc.

RA info:  http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-10-foreign-service-instructions.page

10.3.07 - Risk Allowance

10.3.07(1) (Intent) The intent of the Risk Allowance (RA) is to compensate for the risks associated with a specific post.

AIRCRA (Aircrew Allowance)

http://www.forces.gc.ca/en/about-policies-standards-benefits/ch-205-officer-ncm-allowance-rates.page

This is an environmental allowance, like LDA is. 

205.32 (2) (Eligibility) A member of the Regular Force or of the Reserve Force on Class B or C Reserve Service is, unless the member is receiving an allowance under CBI 205.30 (Paratroop Allowance), CBI 205.31 (Rescue Specialist Allowance), CBI 205.325 (Casual Aircrew Allowance) or 205.385 (Special Operations Allowance), entitled, if the member is a pilot or qualified in the operation of aircraft or airborne equipment to the standard established in orders or instructions issued by the Chief of the Defence Staff and is employed in a flying position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff – or by an officer designated by the Chief of the Defense Staff - for the purpose of this instruction, to Aircrew Allowance at the appropriate monthly rate set out in the Table to this instruction for the member's accumulated eligible service.

205.32 (3) (Limitation) A member who is paid an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance) is not entitled to be paid Aircrew Allowance under this instruction unless the member occupies a position designated by the Chief of the Defence Staff in accordance with CBI 10.3.08 (Environmental Allowances).

10.3.08 - Environmental Allowances

10.3.08(1) (Allowances for designated positions) A member who is entitled to an allowance under CBI 10.3.05 (Hardship Allowance) or CBI 10.3.07 (Risk Allowance), unless the member occupies a specific position on the operation designated by the CDS, is not entitled to the allowances under the following instructions:
a.CBI 205.30 - Paratroop Allowance;
b.CBI 205.31 - Rescue Specialist Allowance;
c.CBI 205.32 - Aircrew Allowance; and
d.CBI 205.33 - Land Duty Allowance; and
e.CBI 205.335 - Casual Land Duty Allowance; and
f.CBI 205.34 - Diving Allowance.

10.3.08(2) (Repealed)

(TB, effective 1 April 2007)

So, simple version...when I deployed in a designated flying position, indicated on the CFTPO as a flying position, I kept my AIRCRA.  if I went into a ground billet, I'd drop AIRCRA for the deployment.


Ref the HA stuff...HA should be the same for everyone in Kuwait, no arguments there from me or any other flyer I know.  We all bed down at the same grid square, eat at the same place and all that jazz.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No one said no risk, there's a general risk because its the Middle East and we're a predominately white, western-looking CAF, which makes all of us targets. I'll also add this, for those complaining about conditions in their aircraft:

Military Foreign Service Instructions:

Must have been tired.  Point was already said above. 

 

[PuckChaser]

Ref the HA stuff...HA should be the same for everyone in Kuwait, no arguments there from me or any other flyer I know.  We all bed down at the same grid square, eat at the same place and all that jazz.

Then we're on the same page. I stated earlier that aircrew flying a sortie into a more dangerous area should be getting the RA assigned to that area on a "that day" basis. I believe the GCS-SWA was awarded this way, aircrew only needed 30 accumulated days in country, and a CC-177 milk run to KAF on ground for 3 hours and gone counted as 1 day. SSM implied his flying office rated more hardship pay than the ground crew that keeps that office flying, even though they bed down in the same accommodations.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Having a rough idea how the fighter guys operat over there and comparing it to how I do, I say give it to them.  I am comfy and can go for a piss and walk around when I am not scope locked.  I have a galley.  They have none of that and have a much harder mission to accomplish.

I know army folks get the big hate on for fighter types sometimes.  Top gun and all that.  But they have a difficult job and our guys were taking out the bad guys before they got yanked out. 

Light guns, you like to throw out light AD environment.  2 MANPADs confirmed in the hands of bad guys are all it takes to make that a nice theory for legs on the ground.  You see it differently when you are the guy fighting gravity over people who want to torch you.  How many hours have you spent in the air over ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

 

[bradley247]

Then we're on the same page. I stated earlier that aircrew flying a sortie into a more dangerous area should be getting the RA assigned to that area on a "that day" basis.

That's how it works for transient aircrew (C-17s, Js etc...), Kuwait days for days in Kuwait, Iraq days for days in Iraq. Do The Aurora and Tanker guys on CFTPOs not operate that way?

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Having a rough idea how the fighter guys operat over there and comparing it to how I do, I say give it to them.  I am comfy and can go for a piss and walk around when I am not scope locked.  I have a galley.  They have none of that and have a much harder mission to accomplish.

I know army folks get the big hate on for fighter types sometimes.  Top gun and all that.  But they have a difficult job and our guys were taking out the bad guys before they got yanked out. 

Light guns, you like to throw out light AD environment.  2 MANPADs confirmed in the hands of bad guys are all it takes to make that a nice theory for legs on the ground.  You see it differently when you are the one guy gravity over people who want to torch you.  How many hours have you spent in the air over ISIS in Iraq and Syria?

To play devil's advocate, in the case of MANPADs your aircraft would be safe at an altitude of 20,000 feet in the scenario that the threat was from a SA-24, a newer Russian MANPAD (which is higher end of the MANPAD threat). So, this threat is entirely mitigated with proper intelligence on said threat.

Also, no one said that fighter pilots don't have a hard job, etc etc. The point was that HA/RA is assessed by mission, not task.

Finally... zero time flying over ISIS, but I did get to drive around Jordan, Lebanon, and the west bank in an unarmoured SUV without a weapon in areas with active ISIS elements working (and in the case of Jordan in a country with 2 x recent terrorist attacks on westerners).... without the tax free the fin clerk in Camp Canada gets

 

[Eye In The Sky]

To play devil's advocate, in the case of MANPADs your aircraft would be safe at an altitude of 20,000 feet in the scenario that the threat was from a SA-24, a newer Russian MANPAD (which is higher end of the MANPAD threat). So, this threat is entirely mitigated with proper intelligence on said threat.

Also, no one said that fighter pilots don't have a hard job, etc etc. The point was that HA/RA is assessed by mission, not task.

Sorry, I was on my phone with small screen earlier...I thought Light Guns said the part you did.

I can't talk about operating altitudes, etc of course.  Or if there are/aren't any Grinch systems in the JOA.  However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that FL200 is completely safe.  I go by what I can source from the stuff we source it from and I know different people have different numbers from different sources/methods. 

Flying in that JOA, I'll compare it to going to someone's house you don't really know for a party or get together.  Just before you go in, the doorman stops you and says "there are 50 other guests here.  There may be 4 or 6 of them who are armed, with perhaps a knife or mini-crossbow that we think can fire up to 20 to 30 feet.  We don't really know what rooms they are in or floors they are on, but we think there are here".

You can decide how you would think once entering that house.  Me, I like to plan for the worst, hope for the best.

All this stuff about HA, RA.  I know, us whiney aircrew and our  :'( crybaby tears over money.  Its pretty simple, really.  There is HA/RA levels for IMPACT - Iraq and ones for IMPACT - Kuwait.  Crews flying into Iraq/Syria should get the Iraq one for each day they are in the JOA, and the Kuwait one for the days they don't.  Pretty simple math, I could do it.  lets say you did a 100 day ROTO, and flew 35 missions.  35 days at the IRAQ HA/RA and 65 days at the Kuwait one.  Why is that such a big deal?

The folks who are static in Erbil (to me, anyone not TacHel or CANSOF, in general) , how close are they to the meat grinder and at what risk (from what I've been told and can see, they are living more comfy than the CC LSA folks).  No one seems to mind they are getting the higher HA/RA.  But, when a flyer mentions it everyone is "oh stop bitching" and  :.  Is there potentially more risk to being in Erbil to CC?  Sure.  I can buy that.

Is there more risk to operating in the airspace over ISIS held territory?  Sure there is.  People need to remember that planes break, just like cars.  Sometimes that means you will have to put down NOW.  Sometimes it means you can't maintain your altitude and will have to fly lower over some of the Badlands to get to a spot you can land.  Has that happened...perhaps not.  Does that mean it won't happen?  Definitely not.  There is a risk that something will go wrong and when it does, it can be fast and put you down in places you don't want to go, or you go BOOM or you fall out of the sky.  If those things weren't likely or possible to happen, we wouldn't practice, prepare and be kitted out for those situations.  Anyone who has had any kind of airborne emergency (Mayday, Pan-Pan kinda of stuff) will likely agree things tend to go bad fast and you start worrying about things like gravity and altitude and *distance to a safe spot* really really fast.  Nothing will wake you up like hearing "Smoke in the cockpit.  CLIMB" (300' over the deck XXX miles from a runway, feet wet in late November and your brain is trying to remember those "survival time in the water numbers PDQ). 

AIRCRA covers that normal risk associated with flying, in Canada, or anywhere outside the JOA wrt IMPACT in this instance.  If I go down 900nm south of Iceland, there is the risk of biting it on the ditching, or before you can get picked up, or whatever.  In the IMPACT JOA, you risk being burned alive, or put in a cage and dunked in a lake, or whatever other inventive way they will come up with for your wife to get her SISIP cheque.

I remember when I was a green DEU guy in Halifax years ago, seeing an Aurora flying overhead and thinking "man those guys have it easy".  Now I do that job, and while some parts are easier, some are lots harder.  I had 2.5 *no-fly* months in 2016, I still logged 750 hours flying.  We max out at 1000 per year.  I dunno, maybe I've just gotten soft since I switched the green DEU for the blue one. 

For some perspective, my busiest month in theatre, my AIRCRA equalled $2.76/hour (monthly rate divided by hours flown).  Obviously I wasn't doing the job for the money, right?  So when I am making a cool $2.76/hour more for flying over the mobile BBQ party in Iraq & Syria.  Can that be a piss off factor at times, when you do the math and realize how much extra you are making, knowing the risk you are taking (worst case scenario) every second the wheels are in the well?  Yup.

Change it to RA for Iraq the days you are in Iraq, and Kuwait the days you are in Kuwait.  Seems to make sense to me.  It ain't all about money, but that is the ONLY perk I can show, give to my wife for being away.  Money doesn't make the world turn, but it helps pay for nice things and trips when you are on your post-D leave...anyone who goes away (hopefully) understands the equally important *marriage maintenance* stuff.  Coins and certificates for the I LOVE ME wall don't mean much to a spouse.  A trip to Cuba sure does.

Finally... zero time flying over ISIS, but I did get to drive around Jordan, Lebanon, and the west bank in an unarmoured SUV without a weapon in areas with active ISIS elements working (and in the case of Jordan in a country with 2 x recent terrorist attacks on westerners).... without the tax free the fin clerk in Camp Canada gets

And I don't agree with that one single bit.  It isn't up to me, but if it was, you'd be getting the proper RA for that, and the tax free gig too.

As I said last page, I think...the whole methodology is messed up.  Whatever the RA is I was getting, I'd be telling anyone who'd listen guys like you should be getting more.  I advocate a lot of the *flying is dangerous and aircrew don't have it as easy as it may seem* stuff, but I also don't think we have it the hardest or most dangerous.  Being over them isn't the same shit as being that up close and personal.  Hats off to ya and your crew. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

That's how it works for transient aircrew (C-17s, Js etc...), Kuwait days for days in Kuwait, Iraq days for days in Iraq. Do The Aurora and Tanker guys on CFTPOs not operate that way?

Nope.  Kuwait days for all days.  Not sure about the AAR folks.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Article Link

Supporting Coalition Forces in Iraq with Tactical Aviation

Article / April 20, 2017

By: Captain Matt Zalot, Public Affairs Officer, Joint Task Force – Iraq, Detachment Erbil (JTF-I Erbil)

Up to four CH-146 Griffon helicopters are supporting Canadian and Coalition forces in northern Iraq. These helicopters belong to the Tactical Aviation Detachment based in Erbil. Their work is one aspect of Operation IMPACT, Canada’s contribution to the Coalition fight against Daesh.

The detachment, part of Air Task Force-Iraq (ATF-I), provides in-theatre tactical transportation for Canadian and Coalition troops, equipment, and supplies in northern Iraq. The battle captain—the officer primarily responsible for the day-to-day operations of the detachment –explains how the Griffons assist with troop mobility throughout the area of operations.

“In Iraq, we receive helicopter requests straight from the units we support. We prioritize them based on our mandate and our helicopter and aircrew capacity for that day,” said the battle captain, who cannot be named for operational security reasons. “We succeed in our mission through meticulous planning and execution in line with the Detachment Commander’s intent, and with support and oversight from the ATF-I Commander in Kuwait.”

Broadly speaking, the squadron’s operations officer provides mission instructions and the battle captain makes sure these instructions are properly carried out. The battle captain confirms details such as the preferred route and the fuel requirements. While a mission is being planned, he or she works with the mission commander, who is a pilot.

The Griffons are capable of providing casualty evacuations if required. However, their main role is tactical mobility. They quickly move soldiers and equipment to key areas by air, instead of moving by road through dangerous areas.

“We will often be tasked to bring elements from our base in the vicinity of Erbil out to tactical locations to support ground forces in the fight against Daesh. To accomplish this task in theatre, we apply the same tactics and procedures that we routinely practice at home in Canada.”

While perhaps less well-known than their fixed-wing brethren, the Tactical Aviation Detachment and its CH-146 Griffon helicopters are busy flying every day in support of the Global Coalition. They offer flexibility and mobility to Canadian and Coalition troops, and contribute to the fight to dismantle and ultimately defeat Daesh.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

These guys are flat out rock stars, and have a great reputation in the Coalition.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

Sorry, I was on my phone with small screen earlier...I thought Light Guns said the part you did.

I can't talk about operating altitudes, etc of course.  Or if there are/aren't any Grinch systems in the JOA.  However, I wouldn't necessarily agree that FL200 is completely safe.  I go by what I can source from the stuff we source it from and I know different people have different numbers from different sources/methods. 

Flying in that JOA, I'll compare it to going to someone's house you don't really know for a party or get together.  Just before you go in, the doorman stops you and says "there are 50 other guests here.  There may be 4 or 6 of them who are armed, with perhaps a knife or mini-crossbow that we think can fire up to 20 to 30 feet.  We don't really know what rooms they are in or floors they are on, but we think there are here".

You can decide how you would think once entering that house.  Me, I like to plan for the worst, hope for the best.

All this stuff about HA, RA.  I know, us whiney aircrew and our  :'( crybaby tears over money.  Its pretty simple, really.  There is HA/RA levels for IMPACT - Iraq and ones for IMPACT - Kuwait.  Crews flying into Iraq/Syria should get the Iraq one for each day they are in the JOA, and the Kuwait one for the days they don't.  Pretty simple math, I could do it.  lets say you did a 100 day ROTO, and flew 35 missions.  35 days at the IRAQ HA/RA and 65 days at the Kuwait one.  Why is that such a big deal?

The folks who are static in Erbil (to me, anyone not TacHel or CANSOF, in general) , how close are they to the meat grinder and at what risk (from what I've been told and can see, they are living more comfy than the CC LSA folks).  No one seems to mind they are getting the higher HA/RA.  But, when a flyer mentions it everyone is "oh stop bitching" and  :.  Is there potentially more risk to being in Erbil to CC?  Sure.  I can buy that.

Is there more risk to operating in the airspace over ISIS held territory?  Sure there is.  People need to remember that planes break, just like cars.  Sometimes that means you will have to put down NOW.  Sometimes it means you can't maintain your altitude and will have to fly lower over some of the Badlands to get to a spot you can land.  Has that happened...perhaps not.  Does that mean it won't happen?  Definitely not.  There is a risk that something will go wrong and when it does, it can be fast and put you down in places you don't want to go, or you go BOOM or you fall out of the sky.  If those things weren't likely or possible to happen, we wouldn't practice, prepare and be kitted out for those situations.  Anyone who has had any kind of airborne emergency (Mayday, Pan-Pan kinda of stuff) will likely agree things tend to go bad fast and you start worrying about things like gravity and altitude and *distance to a safe spot* really really fast.  Nothing will wake you up like hearing "Smoke in the cockpit.  CLIMB" (300' over the deck XXX miles from a runway, feet wet in late November and your brain is trying to remember those "survival time in the water numbers PDQ). 

AIRCRA covers that normal risk associated with flying, in Canada, or anywhere outside the JOA wrt IMPACT in this instance.  If I go down 900nm south of Iceland, there is the risk of biting it on the ditching, or before you can get picked up, or whatever.  In the IMPACT JOA, you risk being burned alive, or put in a cage and dunked in a lake, or whatever other inventive way they will come up with for your wife to get her SISIP cheque.

I remember when I was a green DEU guy in Halifax years ago, seeing an Aurora flying overhead and thinking "man those guys have it easy".  Now I do that job, and while some parts are easier, some are lots harder.  I had 2.5 *no-fly* months in 2016, I still logged 750 hours flying.  We max out at 1000 per year.  I dunno, maybe I've just gotten soft since I switched the green DEU for the blue one. 

For some perspective, my busiest month in theatre, my AIRCRA equalled $2.76/hour (monthly rate divided by hours flown).  Obviously I wasn't doing the job for the money, right?  So when I am making a cool $2.76/hour more for flying over the mobile BBQ party in Iraq & Syria.  Can that be a piss off factor at times, when you do the math and realize how much extra you are making, knowing the risk you are taking (worst case scenario) every second the wheels are in the well?  Yup.

Change it to RA for Iraq the days you are in Iraq, and Kuwait the days you are in Kuwait.  Seems to make sense to me.  It ain't all about money, but that is the ONLY perk I can show, give to my wife for being away.  Money doesn't make the world turn, but it helps pay for nice things and trips when you are on your post-D leave...anyone who goes away (hopefully) understands the equally important *marriage maintenance* stuff.  Coins and certificates for the I LOVE ME wall don't mean much to a spouse.  A trip to Cuba sure does.

And I don't agree with that one single bit.  It isn't up to me, but if it was, you'd be getting the proper RA for that, and the tax free gig too.

As I said last page, I think...the whole methodology is messed up.  Whatever the RA is I was getting, I'd be telling anyone who'd listen guys like you should be getting more.  I advocate a lot of the *flying is dangerous and aircrew don't have it as easy as it may seem* stuff, but I also don't think we have it the hardest or most dangerous.  Being over them isn't the same crap as being that up close and personal.  Hats off to ya and your crew. 

Good post. For the record, I dont begrudge the air force anything or think that you guys are whiners. What I DO begrudge in JTF-I is that, unlike in Afghanistan, the support staff in Camp Canada have zero risk and have basically made it their life's mission to keep their HA/RA (including rolling the OS hub into Impact for that sole purpose). If I were king for a day, the Air crew would be seperated by mission name from the support staff/self licking lollipop that is the majority of JTF-I so that you guys got tax free and they didn't.

 

[PuckChaser]

Good post. For the record, I dont begrudge the air force anything or think that you guys are whiners. What I DO begrudge in JTF-I is that, unlike in Afghanistan, the support staff in Camp Canada have zero risk and have basically made it their life's mission to keep their HA/RA (including rolling the OS hub into Impact for that sole purpose). If I were king for a day, the Air crew would be seperated by mission name from the support staff/self licking lollipop that is the majority of JTF-I so that you guys got tax free and they didn't.

The biggest problem is that we've been forced by TB to link a specific HA/RA level to tax-free status. If we really wanted to fairly compensate troops for being deployed, and stop the over-inflating of RA/HA numbers, any operation entitled to at least RA1 and HA1 should be automatically tax-free. Aircrew should also be getting the RA level for the day they're in the airspace in a higher RA AOR, like EITS said. Its just common sense, which is probably why NDHQ hasn't sorted it out yet.