Inch said:
Don't sit there and try to tell me that it's so different between the infantry and the armoured, training wise. Everyone does Phase 2, or CAP or whatever it's called these days and remusters happen all the time. Where's the value in teaching an artillery or armoured officer how to do section attacks? Waste of time and money, why not just stream armoured officers right into an armoured vehicle, that's where they're going be employed, right?
It's been a couple of decades since I did Phase II Infantry, Portage, or Moose Jaw so things may have changed however Phase II involved those things that were pretty common across the board, ie drill, first aid, weapons, fieldcraft, leadership skills in stressful situations, and simple small-unit tactics. As this course was run by Armour, Artillery, and Infantry schools independently, there may have been some arm-specific training given in each but I do not know for sure. Phase II would equate more to PFS, whereas Phases III and IV - definitely arm-specific, would relate more to BFT and OTU.
And anybody in the field should possess the skills and knowledge imparted in Phase II - Combat Arms, Support Arms, and Tac Hel as well. Operationally, that would be far more valuable than zipping about in a fast aeroplane for a year.
Inch said:
The only difference is that it's not a remuster if a pilot goes from helo to multi or anywhere else. There's far less paperwork.
And far less training time. Besides, how many remusters/reclassifications do you see between Combat Arms components. None at all? They're usually to Int of P Aff or technical trades.
Inch said:
Moose Jaw is no different, it's a common starting place for all pilots.
Other than simply "because it is", why? I'd suggest that, as it precedes Moose Jaw and is also common, that Portage is a more valid "common starting place". And, other than for cost effectiveness, I see no need for a "common starting place" at all. The US Armed Forces have many "starting places".
Inch said:
If I had been told I would only fly helos without the chance of flying something else, I would have said "thanks, but no thanks", and I think plenty of other people would have too. I didn't join to fly helos, helos chose me and while I enjoy it now, I sure as crap didn't join to fly helos.
I did, and if anybody had told me that I'd have had to fly seized-wing...
If we recruited people into specific flying streams, ie helicopter, multi-engine, and jet, I'm sure that there would have been slots available to you and those like you in all categories as well.
Inch said:
You're right, operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commission. However, the tactical employment of aircraft is not a corporal's job. Just because we're driving doesn't mean we're not making the decisions on weapons release, tactics to be employed or other things like that. Despite popular belief, we're more than drivers. If you read the orders, an aircraft captain has the same authority over his aircraft as a ship's captain has over his ship. The driver of an AFV is not in command of that vehicle, there's quite a large difference between an aircraft captain and a LAV crew commander. So, no matter what the rank of the person on board the aircraft, the aircraft captain is in command wrt the flying and handling of the aircraft and it's safety. Even if Gen Hillier is on board my aircraft, I'm in command. A slight difference from an AFV commander, no?
The tactical employment of an AFV is not a corporal's job, either, under normal circumstances. It's the crew commander's, and he is a highly experienced Sergeant or possibly Master Corporal. He's not driving, either, although he may have done earlier in his career. You could compare a fighter pilot to a unified driver/crew commander, but the new lone fighter pilot is still operating as a wingman and making no decisions beyond those that involve the safe operation of his vehicle only. He doesn't decide whom to shoot or bomb unless his lead is gone.
The crew commander has pretty much the same authority over the occupants of his vehicle as an aircraft captain has. There's really not a lot of difference, and, where one exists, it's generally because a generic aircraft could be operating at many thousands of feet thousands of miles from anywhere and there is no other authority. My powers as aircraft captain aside, I do not decide everything pertaining to my mission any more than a crew commander does and my responsibility includes carrying out that mission to the best of my ability. If I am flying General Hillier around, and he sees something on the ground that he wishes to inspect closer and I refuse to land and let him off, then it would be interesting to see whose authority trumps whose. Orders or lack thereof aside, if General Hillier goes out on a patrol in the back of a LAV, he's not likely to usurp the crew commander's authority and responsibility for a whole list of reasons. LGen Leslie likes to go out on patrols on exercises, and did when he was in Kabul, and I have heard no tales of him pushing his weight around.
In most battlefield helicopters, there is an aircraft captain (crew commander) and first officer (driver). The sole difference in that regard between the rotary-winged vehicle and the tracked or wheeled vehicle is that the rotary-winged vehicle has a second set of controls so the crew commander can wiggle the sticks when necessary. When engaged in a tactical mission, however, the copilot should be doing that while the crew commander/aircraft captain should be handling the maps and radios and thinking and deciding and directing. It's hard to keep track of what's going on in a fluid battlefield while trying to dodge wires and cows.
In its application to the battlefield, the helicopter is simply a vehicle with a different method of mobility.
There is no requirement for a commission for either the senior driver or the junior one, for any reason.
Inch said:
And as far as I'm concerned, experience is experience. Sure it takes time to build Crew Commanders, Aircraft Captains and Flight leads, but guys from different backgrounds provide a different perspective and possibly a better way of doing business.
And sometimes don't have a clue, or try to impose things that worked well in their previous communities but don't in their new one.
I've seen too many ex-fighter pilots tossed into leadership positions in 10 TAG do just that in the past to see that as any benefit. Only one exception comes to mind.
Now, a cross-trainee from the Combat Arms into Tac Hel is gold unless he's a numpty to begin with. There's far more applicable knowledge and experience there than there is in a fighter pilot with an amended driver's licence. That same experience wouldn't be so helpful in other flying communities, though.
Inch said:
That's the problem with your point of view. I had a commercial licence with an instrument rating, and I learned more than a thing or two wrt decision making when moving at 4 miles a minute. Things I don't think I would have learned if I had gone onto helos having never flown faster than 130 kts.
But how valuable, really, were they? I cannot think of a single thing that I learned in Moose Jaw related to speed and altitude and flying upside-down on occasion that had any bearing on anything that I ever did afterwards. Nothing. Thousands upon thousands of military helicopter pilots around the globe, over many decades, seem to have done quite well without their nations buring up bazillions on zipping around in little neato jets and turboprops.
Inch said:
What you learned in Moose Jaw obviously has some link to flying helos,
Not obviously. Quite the contrary.
Inch said:
I strongly disagree that it was a total waste of time and money. I found all kinds of links between the two, and I think I use far more techniques that I learned in Moose Jaw than techniques I learned in my 200+ hrs of bug smasher time.
Those could have been taught in more economical ways on more suitable course, I'm sure.
Inch said:
Could you teach the Moose Jaw course on a slower platform? Who knows, my personal opinion is that I don't think you would get the same value out of a PFT-E as you would when teaching guys to think at 4 miles a minute.
We are needlessly over-training, especially as pilot training relates to the Tac Hel community. That is my lane and my concern. Other communities vary, and I will not argue so strongly in their affairs.
