RCAF aircrew shortage

[Sub_Guy]

It probably doesn't help that they have (or at least had) ACSO and AES Op at places like CFEWC doing ground tours...

I think we need those folks there.  EW is part of what we do. 

It’s a shitty situation. 

 

[dimsum]

The Australians have an interesting program where higher ranking officers can agree to revert in rank, but be pay protected, in exchange for "just" being a line pilot at a working rank (Flt Lt/Sqn Ldr).

not sure if that would work for us...

It's called Spec Aircrew, but they can only have so many people do it and it's only for a few years before you have to re-apply.

 

[blacktriangle]

I think we need those folks there.  EW is part of what we do. 

It’s a shitty situation.

Fund some PS positions. At least half to become PS. There are already PS positions at that unit. Bonus = AES Op retirement gig.

Already done in CFINTCOM and the Cyber world.

 

[SupersonicMax]

EITS, SSM and other RCAF dudes & Dudettes,

Interested to hear some of your ideas on the issues and potential solution(s). 

Here's the top 3 dissatisfier that I am willing to discuss publicly for Fighter Pilots:

1- No future.  For anyone that is in from a couple years behind me and older (the 13-20 years in guys), there is no hope of doing anything than what we are doing now.  There is no money being invested in capabilities that would put us back to where most modern countries are right now.  Aussie F/A-18 buy certainly doesn't help.  In a sense, we're back to where we were in the early 2000s in terms of relative capabilities.

2- Bullshit-to-fun ratio is too high.  We're swamping guys with bullshit such as AFOD, APOC, OPMEs, meaningless financial courses (section 32/34.  The perception is that these are courses designed to shift the accountability to the lower levels should something happen).  You first tour and a half should be focused on tactical development and we are expecting guys to do this while sending them on Officer Development courses (that frankly, they don't GAF about). There is a perception that those BS courses are more important than being a good tactician and develop as a good tactical leader.

3- Pay. Most senior guys feel underpaid, given the amount of responsibilities, the hours they put in and the sacrifices they and their family put in, 110K a year for a senior Capt doesn't feel like enough and most would rather take a pay cut for a couple of years and work 80 hrs a month and that works strickly involve flying an aircraft.

Obviously, the fact that people leave just exarcerbate 3 as we have less people and the demand doesn't seem to decrease.

The solution cannot be unidimentional.  I believe money is part of the solution but is not THE solution.  There needs to be a drastic shift in how we employ the fighter force and how serious it is taken (ie: add/improve capabilities).  This would solve issues 1 and 2.  Without a shift in minset, money will just keep people a little while longer: they will eventually still get sick of it.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Fund some PS positions. At least half to become PS. There are already PS positions at that unit. Bonus = AES Op retirement gig.

Already done in CFINTCOM and the Cyber world.

That doesn't really help us. We need those folks to come back to flying fleets, with the EW expertise. Not just disappear into CFEWC forever. Those ground jobs are actually useful ground jobs, if managed correctly.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS, SSM and other RCAF dudes & Dudettes,

Interested to hear some of your ideas on the issues and potential solution(s). 

I'll give my  :2c: as a LRP "dry sensor" type. 

1.  The RAAF piece was mentioned, I'll speak to the PA (Professional Aircrew) *spine* the RAF guys I talked to explained.  Basically, you can apply to go PA;  you'll spend your career, if selected, never progressing in rank the same as others would but will remain a career flyer.  However, you go onto a different pay table/scale - pay/pension would still benefit despite never becoming something like a Master Aircrew - their equivalent of our CWO.  The CAF option now is to 'opt out', so you could remain in your current rank, but not stay a career flyer and still end up at a billet that doesn't involve flying.  Personally, I have little desire for more rank other than how it will affect my "best 5" for pension and of course, my take home pay.  If the RCAF came out with PA, I'd be chasing it - I joined my trade to fly.

2.  Introduce a Selection process similar to the way SAR Techs do it, but for AES OP.  Aptitudes, spatial ability, multi-tasking, have a Selection Week that all applicants go to, pick the best of the applicants.  There was a trial at a mini-ACS but it was only 1/2 day.  Selection will let you assess people on quantified criteria that is the same for all, and might expose some people to aspects of what we really do.  Some of those people might think "oh this isn't what I thought it was".  Either way, you have the best shot at getting the best people into the training system.  This Selection will also help determine, if done right, which people have aptitudes/abilities in the things MH does, Acoustics, EW aspects, etc.  Right now, the way we select and employ Junior AES Ops for LRP or MH isn't necessarily done based on aptitudes, etc.

3.  Training - streamline it from the Basic Course to the LRP and/or MH operational training.  This is actually in progress now, and is on the RADAR of HHQ.  I've been involved in this some, and I can say 99.9% "things will be changing" before the planned 2021 kick-off of FAcT.

4.  Right now, our trade is competing thru the various TEs and line Sqn's for Sgt/MCpl pers.  It's a damned if you do, damned if you don't situation;  to put out more Junior AES Ops, we need to increase people going thru 402.  The only way to get more Instructors at 402 is to bleed them from the OTU units (406, 404) or the operational MH and LRP Sqns.  SKT has already given some insight into the reality of the MH Sqns right now.  The LRP ones are also hurting for those exact same folks;  top-category Sgt/MCpls to train students on the basic LRP courses, and to be Crew Leads, Standards & Training, etc.  The reality is, the Senior trade leadership will have to make hard choices that will affect either (1) initial occupation training (2) operational training units or (2) operational units.  It takes about 4-5 years now, roughly, to grow a top category operator.  # 3 above is very important right now and is being focused on with deliverables expected from HHQ in the very near future.

5.  Growth and retention.  We need to grow numbers, but we also need to keep the people we've already invested training into.  Some of that will come with reduced op tempo for key people (top category, serviceable flyers), some will come if we select/employ people based on a balance of their abilities and desires.  I also know of a few people who've released because they wanted to fly and got promoted out of those positions. 

Things are going to change, but it won't be overnight and there are some hard choices to be made.  If we need to cut back on FG to concentrate on Trg/FE activities for a few years, then the leadership needs to ensure that FG is actually be reduced to achieve the desired outcome.  If not, the vicious cycle will continue.

My last point - if the power was given to me, I'd shut down the trade training in Wpg, implement the Selection phase, move the 402 instructor positions to 404 and 406 Sqns and would revamp training to a Basic MH AES OP and Basic LRP AES Op stream.  I think that would be the most efficient way to conduct training and produce the #s we need.  Because of how short we are, ANY training not required is too much right now.

I wish I had more time/mental energy to be more concise.  Flew today, and back at it tomorrow...

 

[blacktriangle]

That doesn't really help us. We need those folks to come back to flying fleets, with the EW expertise. Not just disappear into CFEWC forever. Those ground jobs are actually useful ground jobs, if managed correctly.

I guess I look at it a different way. Skills retained when a member retires or decides to settle down. Positions filled on the ground leaving those still able/wanting to serve in flying positions. What happens when someone in an aircrew position can't fly anymore due to a medical issue? I've heard of instances of people released or COT to something completely unrelated. Anyways, it was just a thought. I appreciate the feedback.

EITS - so they ditched the ASC selection? I remember reading about the trial a few years back I think. What was the consensus on that?

AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:

Anyways, I was very impressed by the majority of RCAF aircrew I met. As a whole, I think only SOF ever made a similar impression. All the best to you guys and gals...

 

[Eye In The Sky]

EITS - so they ditched the ASC selection? I remember reading about the trial a few years back I think. What was the consensus on that?

I'm not sure, actually.  I know it was a 1/2 day which to me isn't close to ideal.  It was 'what could be done' at the time, from what I've heard.

AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:

Odd, my CFAT met the required levels...but I have a GED (and 2 college diploma's but no HS math).

 

[Good2Golf]

That the RCAF can only train 115 pilots per year is an RCAF failure, not a CAF (writ large) problem.  That it in turn results in large backlogs on the BTL is the RCAF inflicting institutional damage on the CAF.  (And, at times, it seems to be an almost deliberate tactic by the RCAF - a constant pilot shortage means constant requirements to pay pilots more... hardly an incentive for the pilots running the RCAF to solve the problem).

The Devil’s advocate would point out that the RCAF never asked to outsource pilot training for alternate service delivery (ASD) in the mid-90s, with the very clearly voiced concern at the time of lack of organizational resilience to adjust to required/imposed/unforecast factors...Institutional (read CAF and especially the GoC) all the way.  The situation today is simply the result of the symptomatic response of a subordinate part of the organization.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[blacktriangle]

Odd, my CFAT met the required levels...but I have a GED (and 2 college diploma's but no HS math).

I sh*t you not. Grade 10 "academic" math vice the "applied". CFAT wasn't an issue. It's on the recruiting page, and in the Occ Specs. IIRC, for ACSO they were only concerned about CFAT score and if you had the requisite number of basket-weaving courses.

It would have been nice to have a chance to pass/fail on merit and demonstrated performance. It's too late for me, but maybe in the future they can use your "selection" idea to separate those who can from those who cannot.

Have a safe flight.

 

[dapaterson]

G2G: Ack; but if after more than two decades, the RCAF hasn't figured it out...

 

[Good2Golf]

G2G: Ack; but if after more than two decades, the RCAF hasn't figured it out...

Or they have, and determined the @$$-pain and anti-continuous improvement push-back from higher to try and creatively (partially) address the issue, wasn’t worth the vain effort. :dunno:

Regards,
G2G

 

[Sub_Guy]

AES Op wise, I know of two people that couldn't proceed with OT in the year they tried (I'm one of them) because we didn't have the right math course in high school. But apparently, we could still apply for UTPNCM ACSO...  :facepalm:

So why not apply for UTPNCM then? 

The issues with the sensor operators can be traced back to leadership.  A serious of stellar decisions now have the trade on the brink of collapse.  Which is sad, as it’s a fucking fantastic job.

 

[infantryO12]

No.

The news article quoted above mentioned DND hopes to have systems in place for 2021.

I was glad someone asked that question. It's too bad that they wouldn't make the CT process quicker for those looking to get into aircrew trades. One of the trades on my CT that I've applied for is AESOP. One can only hope if that were true....

 

[Flathame]

Shortage of qualified aircrew is definitely one of the biggest problems. Is the training system bad or is it the people that are being recruited? I can't tell at this point.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Yes recruitment needs fixing. For example they’re only recruiting 9 direct entry AESOP this fiscal year, despite the fact our trade is in significant demand. I like VOTs, but robbing Peter to pay Paul doesn’t help. Our training system was designed on the 90s numbers. For example here at 402, our school should have 2 floors allocated for training, 2 PCTs, 6 modernized Dash8 vs 4 old ones.
There’s a lot of talk about FAcT however the more the RCAF is realizing that it won’t fix everything. It’ll probably fix the problems with the pilots because they’re the one managing the project. When it comes to the other aircrew trades, we are simply an afterthought. If I had a crystal ball, the way things are going, when FAcT rolls out in 2023, 402 Sqn will still be here in Winnipeg flying the Dash8.

 

[PuckChaser]

What's the capacity of your training system though? There's no use taking in 45 direct entry AESOPs if the training system can only produce 25 a year to their OFP. Not to mention that St. Jean is a broken institution causing its own bottleneck at the BMQ level before they even get to PAT.

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

Right now we are mandated to graduate approx 24 AES Ops per year. We could do more for sure. They are COAs to use parallel training via private contractors.

 

[infantryO12]

That's unfortunate that there are so little AESOP's being recruited and graduating.

Is the issue that people aren't applying for this particular trade or there is not enough serial's being run? Or both?

There's no use taking in 45 direct entry AESOPs if the training system can only produce 25 a year to their OFP.

Why not? In theory couldn't you stick whoever's left of the 45 on PAT and they wait for the next serial (assuming the budget's in place to pay for it)?

 

[Eagle_Eye_View]

We crunched the numbers and we need at least 45 new AES Ops per year out of 402 in order to keep up with the attrition and the new upcoming positions.