Author Topic: Tac Hel  (Read 46775 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #50 on: September 07, 2005, 19:59:16 »
The only reason I am commenting at all on the performance of the pilots I have flown with, is because I have some limited piloting experience as an amateur pilot, and have witnessed, firsthand the flying of canadians, americans and british pilots. If your infantry experience is as comprehensive, please feel free to correct me.

I would counter the above paragraph with some of your own ammunition - your limited flying experience only provides you with a very basic understanding of what professional pilots do...  Scoobs experience in the Mo would be about the equivalent to what you know about aviation.

I am sure that the Infantryman MOSID is a physically demanding job - there can be comparison between our MOSID's.  Ours is a constant training environment where one mistake in judgement could cost numerous lives - everyday - not while at the range or playing in the field.  Everyday I go flying I am operational and using every skill that the Queen has granted me.  I do not fly sick, hungover, tired, grumpy, etc - I cannot afford to, my crew sure as heck can't afford me not to be at the top of my game - EVERYDAY.

Oh - it took the CF 4 years to gain a fully winged pilot out of me.  Not because I was dumb, slow or had bad teachers - that's just how long our training regime is - we have approximately 20 months of dedicated flying, add in course delays and time between serials and you have the four years.  In four years I imagine that fellas such as Go!! and the like were up in seniority and already bemoaning the likes of the AF pilots. :)
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #51 on: September 07, 2005, 21:26:00 »
I knew I would get a rise out of some!

Yup, stirring the water to see what comes up.

But, I will clarify a couple of my comments.   Actually, Duey, you prove a point.   I said, and meant movement.   As in patrol movement.   As in leapfrog, caterpiller or snake movement.   The stuff the chopper guys used to do with us very regularly.   One chopper, two scout cars, working as a team.   That's the recce I am talking about.   When's the last time any of that was done?

Second point, some fly low, good.   Not nearly enough, but good.   The point is, can you fly low, and conduct recce witha patrol on the ground in front of our lines without getting shot?   I forget what the fly boys used to call it, something demeaning, but some of them were very, very good at it.   They even tried to manouever the aircraft in such a manner that the pexiglass wouldn't glare in the direction of the suspected enemy.

Now, I know, having a multi-purpose chopper means having multi-purpose pilots, and with the limitations on hours, no one pilot is going to excell at all things.   And, I also know that we don't do recce the same way anymore, although the militia guys sure do try.  

I still say training an Armour or Infanteer to be a chopper pilot makes sense.  

Just one other small little point from the posts up above.   Four years to train a tech?   BS, is all I can say.   It may take four years to get his papers, because that's what civilians demand, but there is no one job in the military that takes four years to train a guy to do.   Unless he is very dumb, or has dumb teachers.   I will agree that it may take four years before he can wave a paper that says he is qualified to work totally unsupervised in the nuclear power plant operating all of the controls, but to say it takes four years to train a guy to do a job is wrong.

Check your comments Lance.

Would you not agree with me then that the movement you described clearly supports "Maneouvre"? 

Last time combined arms recce done?  At round 1 of the MGS trial last year and programmed this fall for BTE '05.

Not sure if militia trying to do recce the same as in the past is a good thing or not...  ???  All the recce guys (all Armd, BTW) I've been dealing with over the last couple of years have noted how recce is changing, especially as the classic linear battlefield is rapidly turning into the non-contiguous battlespace.

If a tanker or infanteer can meet all the occupational requirements of a pilot, then I say all the more power to them to OT from their current occupation/trade.  You're right, Lance, the infusion of tactical knowledge would be a great benefit to the existing aviation organization. :salute:

BTW, Scoobs is EXACTLY right about MOC 500 techs taking 4 years to train, if not greater.  The Air Force AF9000 maintenance construct designed to align maintenance practices with ISO 9001 quality assurance practices resulted in the adoption and modification of the civilian aircraft technician career stream...Apprentice -> Journeyman -> Technician -> Master Technician.  An apprentice can only assist with or work under direct supervision of a Journeyman or higher-qualified technician, and can not sign off on any work completed.   A journeyman can work by himself unsupervised but required a qualified technician to sign off the B-level check.  Only a qualified technician can sign off on all work completed, and only the trained supervisory technician can sign off and release an aircraft as servicable.  This process takes time and the apprentice-journeyman stream does take 4 years or greater.

...as noted by Infanteer, hopefully none of us ever stops training and learning...

Cheers,
Duey

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,188
  • Make The Voices Stop!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #52 on: September 07, 2005, 21:36:08 »
yeah, but Duey, having gone through the whole apprenticeship thing myself, I know what a crock it is. Saying it takes 4 years there, is no different than saying it takes 3 to become a trained Infantryman. I knew everything I needed to know about welding in the first few months, then I practiced it for 4 years under supervision.

Just like when I enlisted. I learned everything I needed to know in the first couple months, then spent the next 3 years practicing it under supervision. Now, I supervise apprentices, and continue to study.
...time to cull the herd.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #53 on: September 07, 2005, 21:40:06 »
that may be so....however, I consider a "trained" tech as someone who can give me a servicable aircraft.  Sure, buddy can learn how to change an engine in six months, but his work is useless to me without the signature.  And those who possess this god-given signing authority are in very, very short supply these days.....

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #54 on: September 07, 2005, 22:16:10 »
yeah, but Duey, having gone through the whole apprenticeship thing myself, I know what a crock it is. Saying it takes 4 years there, is no different than saying it takes 3 to become a trained Infantryman. I knew everything I needed to know about welding in the first few months, then I practiced it for 4 years under supervision.

Just like when I enlisted. I learned everything I needed to know in the first couple months, then spent the next 3 years practicing it under supervision. Now, I supervise apprentices, and continue to study.

I know PC...I actually agree with you personally becasue I haven't bought into the AF900 thing totally.  I liked the tech world before the MOC 500 rationalization, from my perspective as an operator, I found it more responsive.  I also had the opportunity to go into the various shops and find out what the various trades were doing...helped me gain a better perspective as a maintenance test pilot years later.  Now guys are running around trying to find who can sign for what and some feel that the process has become to much of exactly that...a process, vice a product..."produce servicable aircraft"... :-\

Cheers,
Duey

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,188
  • Make The Voices Stop!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #55 on: September 07, 2005, 22:40:49 »
that may be so....however, I consider a "trained" tech as someone who can give me a servicable aircraft.   Sure, buddy can learn how to change an engine in six months, but his work is useless to me without the signature.   And those who possess this god-given signing authority are in very, very short supply these days.....
so, the issue isn't the lack of techs, or the need for a 4 year training cycle, it's "how do we fix this stupid civilianized system?" That's simple administrative crap that could be solved overnight by someone with common sense and stones in authority. Is there anyone like that in your CoC?

I know PC...I actually agree with you personally becasue I haven't bought into the AF900 thing totally.   I liked the tech world before the MOC 500 rationalization, from my perspective as an operator, I found it more responsive.   I also had the opportunity to go into the various shops and find out what the various trades were doing...helped me gain a better perspective as a maintenance test pilot years later.   Now guys are running around trying to find who can sign for what and some feel that the process has become to much of exactly that...a process, vice a product..."produce servicable aircraft"...
sounds crappy, dude. The Air Force has become too civilianized? Is that what's happening? Because that is a slippery slope to oblivion. If you become to civvie, you get replaced by civvies.
...time to cull the herd.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #56 on: September 07, 2005, 22:58:18 »
If you become to civvie, you get replaced by civvies.

We're already half way there my friend - just look at our 3rd line maintenance (ie SPAR, Field Aviation, IMP, etc) and the 1st line maintenance in Moose Jaw, Cold Lake and all Cormorant Squadrons.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,188
  • Make The Voices Stop!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #57 on: September 07, 2005, 23:02:05 »
We're already half way there my friend - just look at our 3rd line maintenance (ie SPAR, Field Aviation, IMP, etc) and the 1st line maintenance in Moose Jaw, Cold Lake and all Cormorant Squadrons.
I didn't want to bring that up. This isn't my house.

LO-ve what you've done with it, though. The drapes are FAAAB-ulous!
...time to cull the herd.

Offline Scoobs

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 241
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #58 on: September 07, 2005, 23:59:05 »
GO!!,

I'm not a Logistics Officer.   I'm sure that the pilots have probably figured out what trade I am by now (eh NaCl?).   I am in fact an Aerospace Engineer (AERE).   I spelled it out for you when I said in a previous post that I was a D/OC of Maint Flt.   Perhaps I should have stated Aircraft Maintenance Flight.   Those that know about the aviation community would have figured that out.   In case you aren't sure, the typical size of an A/C Maint Flt is around 100 pers, depending on which Sqn you come from, which was 427 Tac Hel Sqn in Pet.   Geesh, I've given enough hints out to easily figure this one out.   So, I guess that I do in fact know what I am talking about in terms of tech trg, maintaining the a/c, etc.   NEVER did I say I was an expert about the infantry.   What I stated was that it has given me experience to know what a Tac Hel unit needs in terms of trg, more specifically A/C Maint Flt.   Since this is the largest flt in a tac hel sqn, most of the time the personnel for "manpower" jobs such as guard duties, kitchen duties, etc. comes from the Maint Flt.   Don't jump on me the rest of you guys and girls (NaCl,   8), the other flts do pull their weight, but the reality is that more of the extra duties while in the field go to the techs in Maint Flt.

Lance,

yes, it does take 4 years to train a tech.   Going from basic trg to completing their apprentice logbook and getting their journeyman status takes on average, 4 years.   I would not want a tech that does not have this time and experience on the a/c working on it unsupervised.   An apprentice MUST be supervised 100% of the time so that he/she does not make mistakes that don't go unnoticed.

Paracowboy,

what trade are you now?   I'm thinking that it isn't any of the MOC 500 ones.   If I'm wrong, let me know.   Good luck learning a trade in 3 months in the MOC 500 community.   By the way, that doesn't even get you through 1/4 of the current AVN course, which is 18 months in Borden.   After that, the tech must then go on a type course for that specific a/c that the unit flys. Perhaps combining the different former trades was wrong (lots of arguments for and against), but the fact is that everyone has to get on with today and stop dwelling on yesterday.   Changes are being made to improve the amount of time it takes to produce a tech that can work on the a/c unsupervised, i.e. a journeyman tech, such as increasing the courses in Borden so that the junior techs come to the units with most of their apprentice logbook already signed off.   The units do not have the time or manpower (since the experienced ones are fixing the a/c) to train the techs as has been done in the last 5 to 7 years.   The schools have agreed to this and have taken on more of a trg portion of the bill.

I will educate some of you on the realities of flying a/c in the Canadian military.   The Aeronautics Act tells the MND that he must look after Airworthiness of CF a/c.   The MND delegates the Operational Airworthiness to the Commander of 1 Canadian Air Division (1 Cdn Air Div or 1 CAD for most of us), located in Winnipeg, and Technical Airworthiness to the Director of Technical Airworthiness (DTA), located in Ottawa.   DTA then subsequently devolves some of the technical authority to a entity called the Director Aerospace Engineering Program Management (DAEPM).   Each weapon system, i.e. a/c and its associated programs, etc, has a sub-unit of DAEPM.   The Tac Hel one is called TH, thus DAEPM(TH).   DTA developed the Technical Airworthiness Manual (TAM) to guide Maint pers in achieving technical airworthiness.   Part of receiving airworthiness is to have a quality system.   Thus, AF9000+ was developed in order to meet this requirement.   Quite frankly, it doesn't matter whether or not someone has bought into it because it is here to stay.   Once a unit achieves AF9000+ registration, they then are scheduled to be audited by DTA for technical airworthiness compliance and if successful (and some are not), the unit becomes an accredited a/c maintenance organization.   Thus the development of the AMP, Level II tests (Air Maintenance Policy) to get the Maint pers ready for these audits.   Most Maint pers have taken these tests and those that have not will have to get the qual.   By the way, civy's use the Transport Canada rules.   Biggest difference, the military handles all aspects of airworthiness, whereas the regulator for the civy's is Transport Canada.

The reality is that we lost a lot of experienced techs during the mid-90s FRP.   We now have a serious experience gap for techs from 15 to 20 plus years of service.   Therefore, there are less qualified and authorized techs out there that can supervise the apprentices, sign and vouch for the techs experience in front of the SAMS (who grants the A, B, or C level AUTHORIZATIONS), and then fix the a/c.   Thus, the schools realized the need to take on more of the trg burden and have the young techs come out of Borden with more of their apprentice logbook signed off.   Also, the way that the techs receive authorizations must be taught:

"A" level authorization is not a qual.   It is an authorization.   It certifies that the tech can sign for that particular system or sub-system as being repaired properly and that particular system or sub-system is airworthy for flight.   A new system (and here is where my Alzheimer's kicks in as I cannot remember the name of it) has been recently implemented that will hopefully allow for more sub-system A levels being granted.   That means that the techs may not be able to sign for every single part of the a/c, but can for more things where they couldn't in the past.

"B" level is a weapon's system release that everything is good to go for the a/c.   It is only for basic tasks such as fueling, re-configs of the cabin, etc.   Each specific a/c has specific things that can be done to it which are considered "B" level.   Anybody can get this qual, even an Infanteer, if the SAMS of the unit thinks he/she has the necessary experience and has demonstrated it.

"C" level is also a weapon's system release, but a lot more in depth than "B" level.   Usually, I say again, usually, a tech will have his/her "A" level on that a/c prior to getting the "C" level.   The C level must release the a/c to flight after any CF349 is opened (used to track any work done on the a/c).

Oh, by the way, some of a person's "levels" disappear when he /she switches to a new a/c.   Before those non-AF personnel say this is crap, think about it.   Would you want to fly an a/c or fly in an a/c that was fixed and then released to fly by someone who has no or very limited experience on that a/c.   Techs always keep their journeyman status and those that were experienced on another a/c will quickly learn the other a/c and should (and I know that this doesn't always happen) get their A and C's in that new a/c quicker than a young and inexperienced apprentice or junior journeyman.   The new system of assigning levels allows for transferring of levels from a/c to a/c if that same component exists on the other a/c, such as radios, etc.

Thus, after my "rant" above, one can see that it is a lot more to train a tech than just giving him a course and kicking him out the doors in Borden and saying, go fix that helo on which a section will be flying today.   By the way, get it done while doing all of the other trg that a tac hel unit throws at you.

For others, tac hel does train ALL pers in C7s, select in C6, Sgts and above in 9 mm pistol, gas hut, first aid, and the list goes on and on.   This is all done while fixing and flying the helo.   Breaks in op tempo, ya right.   Doesn't happen.   A tac hel unit is go, go, and go.   Tac Hel is operational all the time, even in Canada.   We conduct trg while conducting actual operational missions in Canada.   How many units do that on a continual basis such as Tac hel (SAR does)?

My time in the Army by no means made me an expert.   However, it gave me more of an insight into the Army than the typical AF officer to which most of you Army guys love to slag.   Answer this question, how many privates have you guys taken with you on an overseas Army mission?   How many privates in the AF, more specifically tac hel, have gone on operational missions overseas?   I can't think of one while I was at a tac hel unit.   Thus my comment about the fact that it takes longer for a tech in the AF to be trained than it takes for an infantry soldier to be considered employable.

Sorry about the length of the post, but I HAD to set some things right.

Scoobs out....
« Last Edit: September 08, 2005, 00:06:09 by Scoobs »
Variety is the spice of life...

Offline paracowboy

  • I keep sayin' it...
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 225
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,188
  • Make The Voices Stop!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #59 on: September 08, 2005, 08:37:51 »
scoobs, grow a thicker skin and learn to read, man. You're so frazzled, and your feelings are so hurt you haven't read any of my crap.

Now, your posts have explained a lot of the problems, but haven't once offered a solution. You're far too busy pooh-poohing any that are offered and responding to imagined insults.
...time to cull the herd.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #60 on: September 08, 2005, 13:17:14 »
...you haven't read any of my crap.

Case in point - :P
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Infanteer

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 118,845
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,378
  • Honey Badger FTW!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #61 on: September 08, 2005, 14:12:42 »
You know, except for the back-and-forth sniping at eachother, this is actually a pretty informative thread.  Can we keep it that way?
"Overall it appears that much of the apparent complexity of modern war stems in practice from the self-imposed complexity of modern HQs" LCol J.P. Storr

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #62 on: September 08, 2005, 15:19:08 »
You know, except for the back-and-forth sniping at eachother, this is actually a pretty informative thread.   Can we keep it that way?

Ah-soooo...without Yin, there can be no Yang...without darkness there can be no light...  ;D

Offline GO!!!

  • Fallen Comrade
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 0
  • Posts: 1,851
  • Often have I regretted my speech, never my silence
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #63 on: September 08, 2005, 16:28:00 »
OK, to move in a slightly new direction,

1)Is there any reason that we MUST have officers piloting helos? Why could'nt we use the WO system like some of our allies?

2) What is the % of availabilty for the units that serve the army? I'm told that in private business, you cannot make money without 90% plus avail. of a/c. Does the CF meet this level, and if not, why not?

Cheers
No leader was ever hated for being too hard, but a great many were for attempting to appear that way.

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #64 on: September 08, 2005, 16:42:00 »
Go!!

1)  Not sure....maybe more experienced guys like Duey could fill us in on that one.  My take on it is that every CF pilot has universal deployability ie:  one day he's flying choppers, and then posted to a F18 sqn to fly hornets (after the appropriate training of course).  This doesn't happen very often, but it does happen.  Every pilot starts from the same place (moose jaw), and to know throw WO's in the mix would be quite the under taking.  I'm sure there is much, much more to the story though (and I don't want to get into leadership ability of WO vs officers - we all know what that could turn into)

2)  Civvie companies need serviceable airplanes to make money.  We don't.  We can have zero on the flight line and still have our jobs the next day.  We definately don't meet the 90% mark - not on a daily, constant basis anyways (although I have seen it a few times).  The big difference is this - In the military, if something breaks, the aircraft doesn't fly and it gets fixed(unless its very minor).  In civvie land, if something is broken, they HAVE to fly it anyways or they loose money (of course unless flight safety is an issue).  Now this is just hearsy from what folks from the "other side" have told me.  At our sqn, we have 18 helos - and on a day to day basis, we'll see anywhere from 8-13 birds on the line, although sometimes we see as little as 1-2.  There are always a few in for major inspections etc, then there's parts availability, temperature changes causes gremlins etc....

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,366
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #65 on: September 08, 2005, 17:07:51 »
Quote
You're far too busy pooh-poohing any that are offered and responding to imagined insults.

Actually, referring to him as a Log Officer is a pretty big insult.     ;)
« Last Edit: September 08, 2005, 21:28:20 by Strike »
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #66 on: September 08, 2005, 17:10:36 »
1)   Go, no....I would fly as a CW3 (roughly Maj-equiv in the US Army)...and these guys are Commissioned, so they're not NCMs...not Officer's either...it is a very interesting ranks structure.   I know a Ret'd CW5 very well...he's a contemporary of GEN Cody, US Army VCSA, and he has many interesting stories but always has a hard time passing on to me in words the relationship of Warrant Officer aviators in the US Army...it's hard to describe, but I have a good "feeling" for their relationship with the CO, OCs, etc...

2)   75% is a number generally accepted with various fleets.   Civvies actually have a dispatch rate often higher than even 90%...but there are some things they fly without that I wouldn't fly without in the military.   I have my civilian commercial helicopter license and have flown a few times in that environment...I'd take 60-70% servicability before going into battle because I know the aircraft I'm in is servicable with all the mission essential kit required...   

Cheers,
Duey

Offline KevinB

  • Has Been
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *****
  • 35,620
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 8,334
  • As a Matter of Fact the Sky is Blue in my world...
    • FN America
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #67 on: September 08, 2005, 18:38:13 »
The one issue I will add (w/o back handed sniping  ;) )

Is the point of while we do allow a 031 (or 00010 now  ::) ) loose on a battlefield or PSO, whatever - we do so under the supervision of a experienced NCO.  It is very unusual to have a Pte or young Cpl out by themselves (or a group of them).

The theory is the same.


Is it really required to have a pilot/crew/maint. individual be able to flip back and forth to keep the stuff new?  I dont see any of the Cbt Arms guys getting swapped around - and no one seems worried if we get stale by 'watching paint dry...' ?

 From an 031 point of view - I'd much rather have aircrew system that is dedicated to me - that trains with me day in and day out - inc weapons and ex's.  Having seen 408 and 427 do weapons qual's and knowing buddies who are floating in the system as the "Mission Specialists" it would appear to me to be a better way of doing things to sharpen the point of the spear.

Just my $0.02
 
Kevin S. Boland
Manager, Federal Sales
FN America, LLC
Office: 703.288.3500 x181 | Mobile: 703-244-1758  | Fax: 703.288.4505
www.fnhusa.com

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #68 on: September 08, 2005, 20:56:19 »
Kevin, while some guys are addressing the "hard" duration of growning an apprentice tech into an independant tech, I fully agree with your point.   One could say that the point that an Infanteer truly becomes independant (in the sense that he is more part of the C2 chain than a contributing private) is MCpl and that doesn't happen overnight.   Fitness, understanding of the art of war, TTPs, battle drills...all go into a good soldier and that takes time.

As for the pilots flip/flop argument...personally I think that's a load of crap...except for a few onsies and twosies a year, you really see no reversion of a helo pilot back into the fixed wing world...some think it's some kind of carrot, reward, etc...   I don't buy into that.   If I were not an Aviator, I wouldn't be in the Air Force...wow, listen to me...some old school Tac Aviator must have got to me as a young, maleable type... :-\     Interestingly, the 972 Cbt Arms Specialist (the Msn spec you mentioned) started as 10 TAG's way to keep the some of the expertise of the observers (re: transfer of tactical knowledge) alive...it's been hit and miss at times, but the guys have done a pretty good job all things considered.   Like you mentioni, having the aviators co-located (both physically AND mentally   ;) ) is something we should be striving for.   Things did not make it as easy in the past.   Tac Hel only having 3 maneouvre units made/makes it really hard to align operations with the associated Brigade units...especially when deployments doin't line up, etc...   Maybe that will change to some degree, but we will have to send something a fair bit less than an 8-pack to either: a) have any hope of aligning with training and deployment of TFs, or b) be as sustainable as you guys are in the Army, vis a vis rotation of your 12 9 maneouvre units.   Personally, I'd like to see even stronger ties built between aviation and the combat arms than exist today...coordinated with the rotation scehdules of the respective units.   Dreaming?   Perhaps, but not something that we should shy away from aiming towards.

What I enjoyed the most was seeing the faces of the guys I was supporting on a daily basis.   Notwithstanding the taking the pi$$ out of each other on a near continuous basis (all in good fun) there was a level of connection that was understood by all..."we'll get you where you need to be, when you need to be, no questions asked..."   Huah!

Cheers,
Duey
« Last Edit: September 08, 2005, 21:02:49 by Duey »

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #69 on: September 08, 2005, 21:13:59 »
Duey, I very much respect your response - but I'll pose this to you

I did moose jaw in 2001 - I would say 50% of the instructors there were ex-rotary.  I may be totally wrong, but that was my perception.  And I didn't mean going from TAC HEL to fighters specifically, but to other rotary communities as well - like base rescue, SAR, 3FTS....

Offline Strike

  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • 23,356
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 4,366
  • Welcome to the Dead Parrot's Society.
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #70 on: September 08, 2005, 21:34:29 »
Short Final,

There were also numerous ex-helo types in MJ when I was there.  Check out the history of the Snowbirds.  I recall one year when more then half the team was rotary at one point in their career.

I know Sea King types that are going or have been Tac Hel.  Guys go SAR.  Fighter guys going rotary (both MH and Tac Hel), tac hel going to MJ, ets, etc.

Although it may not seem like alot, there is usually 1 or 2 people in our unit that will get posted to another aircraft each year.  If we are the norm, then there is quite a bit of switching going on.
Stop assuming I'm a man!

Don't know how long I want to keep playing this game...

Online Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 166,265
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,761
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #71 on: September 08, 2005, 22:05:30 »
Duey, I very much respect your response - but I'll pose this to you

I did moose jaw in 2001 - I would say 50% of the instructors there were ex-rotary.   I may be totally wrong, but that was my perception.   And I didn't mean going from TAC HEL to fighters specifically, but to other rotary communities as well - like base rescue, SAR, 3FTS....

SF, I suppose I should have qualified it a bit...only about 2-3 guys are allowed to transfer out of Tac Hel per year.  I know some of the guys there...on of the OC's (not sure if you were in his flight) is an A-1 guy whom I flew with in a previous life...good man!  So yes, we do escape from time to time.

Personally, you couldn't pay me enought to go back to Moose Lips, Land of Big Hair that Time Forgot...unless there were MH-47G's stationed there....

Cheers,
Duey

Offline baboon6

  • Member
  • ****
  • 230
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 139
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #72 on: September 09, 2005, 08:13:02 »
OK, to move in a slightly new direction,

1)Is there any reason that we MUST have officers piloting helos? Why could'nt we use the WO system like some of our allies?

2) What is the % of availabilty for the units that serve the army? I'm told that in private business, you cannot make money without 90% plus avail. of a/c. Does the CF meet this level, and if not, why not?

Cheers


The British Army has corporals flying helicopters, though these are mainly pilots still in training. The majority of their pilots are senior NCOs (sergeants, staff sergeants and WO2s), about 30% are officers. All Royal Navy and RAF pilots are officers.

Offline Chris Pook

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 185,110
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 11,831
  • Wha daur say Mass in ma lug!
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #73 on: September 23, 2005, 12:23:47 »
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2005/oct/helicopter_fleet.htm

Updates on US Army plans for AH64/UH60/CH47/ARH and also an LUH(Bell proposing 210 variant)

Passing reference to Joint Heavy Lift Cargo Helicopter as adjunct to, not replacement for the CH47.
"Wyrd bið ful aræd"

Offline TR23

  • New Member
  • **
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 44
Re: Tac Hel
« Reply #74 on: September 24, 2005, 13:49:41 »
interesting to note that the new ARH will be built in Canada and integrated in Texas.  I would have expected the whole thing to be built in Texas.  Wouldn't it be something if somehow the CDS found a way to 'add on' to this order, and get a few birds for recce, and some limited aerial fire support?

TR23