Author Topic: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req  (Read 25345 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #25 on: August 24, 2007, 20:54:13 »
In addition, jobs like ICP, HPMA, flight safety investigator, flight instructor, instructor for the Aerospace systems course, test and evaluation..... require personel with broad understanding of AF and flight operations.  Those positions need to be filled

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #26 on: August 24, 2007, 21:22:37 »
but there might be a day where i will have to change airframe

Might?!?  Once the -140's are cut up and sold as beer cans, we'll be looking for new sensor operators on the FWSAR platforms.
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline Good2Golf

  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 167,280
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 9,822
  • Dammit! I lost my sand-wedge on that last jump!
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #27 on: August 24, 2007, 21:49:52 »
Might?!?  Once the -140's are cut up and sold as beer cans, we'll be looking for new sensor operators on the FWSAR platforms re-engined Buffs.

True dat, CA!  ;)


G2G

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2007, 22:41:06 »
AF-wise it is better to have aircrew who are well-rounded and have a broad range of experience in multiple aircraft types as well as ground jobs.  This applies perticularly in HQ/staff jobs and later on in Command roles. I love flying MPA but there might be a day where i will have to change airframe and i am sure this would benefit me and the air force if i should ever make it higher in my MOCs hierarchy and senior apointments withing the AF.

But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions?  Heck, we could even revert to the WW2 era concept of flying Sgts.  Or is that getting too heretical?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #29 on: August 24, 2007, 22:47:27 »
But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions? 


You will always need people in those positions who have recent, relevant experience to bring into the job.  We have an abundance of people in those jobs now who have a single flying tour or were cast-offs from their units and , IMHO, its hurting us.  Also, we have guys/gals who are career captains and have a wealth of experience that cant be bought.  Those people all want to "just fly" but their experience would do a reater good is other capacities. IMHO we cant have a stream for workers and a stream for managers because what we need is managers who have work experience.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #30 on: August 25, 2007, 00:01:54 »
But aren't there folks who become pilots because all they want to do is fly?  Couldn't we have two streams - pilots and flying officers, for example, where the first group will be tied to an aircraft type and spend their careers flying, while the latter group are those who will move around more and move on to fill higher positions?  Heck, we could even revert to the WW2 era concept of flying Sgts.  Or is that getting too heretical?

You're applying pressure to a personal hot button here...

There are, informally, two streams. As all pilots are unnecessarily officers, it is rather hard to get promoted. I've long since given up paying attention to what constitutes critical factors (being a happy reservist/hobbyist now and having carefully cultivated enemies who did pay attention to those critical factors during my Reg F days), but our merit listings went to ridiculous places of decimal when I did and things like second language scores, OPDP, secondary duties, blind luck, gross incompetency (sent on every course imaginable to keep a certain individual away from his Squadron and before anybody realized it, he was the most qualified individual in 10 TAG), and occasionally simple rectal-osculatory skills made all of the difference. I was often surprised that they managed to promote some highly deserving and competent people at all out of that process. Those whp simply wanted to keep flying tend(ed) to avoid the career courses.

Why stop at Sergeants? The British Army was (don't know if they still are) training Corporals to fly. Rank and commission do not make one a better driver, or there'd be an officer in every truck. It's expensive. inefficient, and completely assinine.

I've noted that it's quick and easy to teach somebody to fly a machine, but it takes much time for them to learn to employ it well tactically, and subsequently to employ subunits and units well tactically. We largely leave that up to a process of osmosis, and I've seen that flop in the Tac Hel community - especially with retreads, who usually weren't keen to be there in the first place.

A couple of decades ago, pilots were viewed as completely interchangeable. They flooded out of 10 TAG into other communities  - we lost fourteen one year and gained just one retread in return - just about the time that they gained enough experience to be useful. If one wanted to remain in 10 TAG, at least that made it easy.

Heresy? I thrive on it (add that to enemy cultivation), which is just one of several reasons that I believe that we should have an Army Aviation Corps. I see confirmation of that belief almost daily. A well-rounded (officer's) career would then involve, aside from staff jobs in Army and Joint HQs, perhaps an initial few years as a Combat or Support Arms officer and perhaps an exchange to a Royal Canadian Navy Fleet Air Arm helicopter squadron. NCOs, either aircrew or groundcrew, would follow similar career patterns as their Army brethren currently do.

I've explained in previous posts why quality overall would iincrease while personnel costs (lower pay, no irrelevant ROTP, shorter training time, greater stability) would decrease.

One man's heresy is another man's thinking-outside-of-the-box. I find the term heretic far more satisfying, though.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #31 on: August 25, 2007, 10:59:18 »
Loachman:  I look forward to sharing your pyre as we're burned at the stake.  I almost see a nefarious undercurrent to the current pilot training model:  it takes so long that there are always pressures, which in turn necessitate extra funding or other amenities to retain those we've already got.  Streamlining the system by having people streamed into rotary or fixed after initial flight training would save time and money, and produce more pilots using the same resources.

Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #32 on: August 25, 2007, 11:44:37 »
Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?

Moose Jaw, and yes, people do go from TacHel to Jets.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #33 on: August 25, 2007, 17:35:55 »
I'm pretty sure a number of other countries already stream their pilots from Day 1 (thus, it can be done).  Anyway ...

Right now the first PFT-Extended courses are going on in Portage ... the program covers more-or-less the same curriculum as BFT (Moose Jaw), but is done on the Grobs and is less fast jet oriented.  PFT-E graduates will have the options of Multi or Rotary: Fast Jet not possible (ever, I was told, but who knows) ... it should work because there are plenty of PATs that have no interest in the Hornet.

Another sub-issue here: In coversations with people (who get paid a lot more money than me to think about think about these things, though it was a while ago now, so things may have changed) there's apparently some concern about students who do well at Moose Jaw, but then tank their Rotary course ... as the system exists right now those people get booted, but there seems to be some idea that these people could still be successful fixed-wing pilots (some people just can't get over the idea of the wings moving faster than the fuselage I guess, hah-hah) and they are looking for a way to "restream" these people into Multi.  The only thing constant is change.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #34 on: August 25, 2007, 17:52:22 »
Hey - here's another piece of heresy: split the MOC into two or more different MOSes; what commonality is there between Tac Hel and fighter jock?
None whatsoever. Split it further - into Army Aviation and everything else.

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #35 on: August 25, 2007, 17:58:48 »
I'm pretty sure a number of other countries already stream their pilots from Day 1 (thus, it can be done).

A number of other countries recruit their pilots as Navy, Army, and Marine as well, and it works just fine.

Right now the first PFT-Extended courses are going on in Portage ... the program covers more-or-less the same curriculum as BFT (Moose Jaw), but is done on the Grobs and is less fast jet oriented.  PFT-E graduates will have the options of Multi or Rotary: Fast Jet not possible (ever, I was told, but who knows).

This is a Good Thing, and about time. We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 71,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,575
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #36 on: August 25, 2007, 18:07:21 »
This is a Good Thing, and about time. We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.

I don't quite agree with it.  The Harvard is MUCH faster and much more performant than the Grob.  It can be overwelming sometimes, especially in IF.  I find it develops your multitasking and prioritization skills, something the Grob only students might not get.

Max

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #37 on: August 25, 2007, 19:14:55 »
Moose Jaw, and yes, people do go from TacHel to Jets.

But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?  Let's get a return on those training dollars, vice spending hundreds of thousands more.  If Mr "I don't want to fly helicopters" decides to quit, he can go fly helicopters for a living on civvy street...

Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)  Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.

Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #38 on: August 25, 2007, 19:42:39 »
I don't quite agree with it.  The Harvard is MUCH faster and much more performant than the Grob.  It can be overwelming sometimes, especially in IF.  I find it develops your multitasking and prioritization skills, something the Grob only students might not get.

Max

I don't agree with you.

What does speed have to do with anything?

I got 170 hours on the Tutor (the odd ED and a bunch of gear-puller trips and a Snowbird practice), and, while I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly a tremendous little aircraft, none of it translated to what I did from the start of BHT on. It was a waste, from a military and economic point of view, of a year and a pile of money.

And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?

I could do that long before I went to Portage on the Musketeer, thanks either to natural ability, or my Infantry training, or both.
« Last Edit: August 25, 2007, 20:02:19 by Loachman »

Offline Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 186,527
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,749
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #39 on: August 25, 2007, 19:58:22 »
But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?

Why, indeed. Fortunately, it doesn not happen as much as it used to.

Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)

Precisely. The Army equivalent would be having a generic Combat Arms classification vice separate Infantry, Armour, Artillery and Combat Engineer classifications and moving somebody from Infantry battalion to Armoured regiment to Artillery regiment etcetera every three or four years. You can teach them all about their tank, APC, gun, and digging/scraping thing on a fairly short course, but would they really understand what they were doing at the unit level?

Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.

Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...

Which I have said on numerous occasions here.

Too much of an Army mentality? Perhaps the a** f**ce would benefit from having an Army officer as CAS for a few years.

Personally, though, I would care not one whit what the a** f**ce did if Tac Hel were left out of it and allowed to develop to its full operational effectiveness and efficiency via sensible policies.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 71,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,575
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #40 on: August 25, 2007, 20:32:51 »
I don't agree with you.

What does speed have to do with anything?

And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?

I'm not saying it's the ONLY way to do it, but I think it is the way that will push you the most in that regard.  Not to mention that I personnaly find that 2 CFFTS is a good introduction to military flying.  I liked my time on the Slingsby, but there was nothing military in that course.

Question:  Would the PFT Extended course be taught by civilian instructors or military instructor?

Max

Offline Aden_Gatling

  • Sr. Member
  • *****
  • -195
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 915
  • Action is eloquence.
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #41 on: August 25, 2007, 21:20:56 »
We've done this for Jamaicans for decades.
I understand that PFT-E is a *new* course (i.e., not just new to the CF), but yes, that's the idea.

Question:  Would the PFT Extended course be taught by civilian instructors or military instructor?

I'd have to check, but I'm 99% certain that it is an extension of the Allied Wings contract (and uses AW facilities, aircraft, etc.), ergo civillian instructors (many of whom are ex-mil.).  IIRC, the main impetus behind the program was the lack of available slots at NFTC.

Getting back to the bigger point, while I certainly see some merit in the idea of being a well-rounded pilot (in the spirit of the whole Universality of Service - thing), it doesn't make a whole lot of practical or financial sense to be sending guys on multiple Phase III courses, regardless of how good (or bad) they might be ... wrt PFT-E specifically, I understand that Moose Jaw is very Jet-oriented (maybe you can correct me in a few weeks  ;D ), and while that's a great thing for future Hornet guys, I can see how it wouldn't necessarily be the best thing for everyone else.

Max, at this stage PFT-E is purely an option (& I was led to believe that should the course continue it would remain so) ... I'm sure we both know guys that are picking the Moose Jaw option who have no interest in going Fest Jet: they are just going so they'll get to fly the Harvard, which is cool and all, but maybe not in the best long term interests of the Air Force.
There's a fine line between fishing and just standing on the shore like an idiot.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #42 on: August 26, 2007, 09:11:56 »
But why would we do that?  If the CF invests hundreds of thousands to train someone to fly a helicopter, why would we then send them back to school to learn to fly jets?  Let's get a return on those training dollars, vice spending hundreds of thousands more.  If Mr "I don't want to fly helicopters" decides to quit, he can go fly helicopters for a living on civvy street...

Tactical employment and management of aircraft (Officer work) differs so greatly between the communities that moving a pilot from one group to another creates problems and does not permit the individual to develop the necessary competencies to lead.  (Remember "Experience" as one of the pillars of professional development?)  Operating a vehicle does not equate to a requirement for a commissioned officer.

Perhaps I have too much of an Army mentality, where the bus driver is a Corporal - because he doesn't need to be an officer.  Imagine the Armoured corps as run by pilots: a Captain to command each tank, a Major to command the platoon, a Lieutenant-colonel as the second-in-command on the squadron, and a Colonel to command the squadron.  The Black hats seem to do all right with Majors commanding the squadrons, and Master Corporal/Sergeants commanding the tanks...


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? 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.

Moose Jaw is no different, it's a common starting place for all pilots. I had a commercial airplane licence and an Aviation Diploma when I joined. 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.

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?

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.42

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.

I don't agree with you.

What does speed have to do with anything?

I got 170 hours on the Tutor (the odd ED and a bunch of gear-puller trips and a Snowbird practice), and, while I'm glad that I had the opportunity to fly a tremendous little aircraft, none of it translated to what I did from the start of BHT on. It was a waste, from a military and economic point of view, of a year and a pile of money.

And are you saying that flying a Harvard II is the only way to learn how to do two or more things at once or set priorities?

I could do that long before I went to Portage on the Musketeer, thanks either to natural ability, or my Infantry training, or both.

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. What you learned in Moose Jaw obviously has some link to flying helos, 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.

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.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #43 on: August 26, 2007, 11:22:10 »
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? 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.

CAP is, as I recall, about 2 months, with no backlog.  Can the same be said for flight training?  Pilots moving from one platform to another is a waste of scare resources; building that "flexibility" into the system from day one just costs millions in additional funding.  Eliminating it would permit faster throughput - and in the words of a fairly senior guy in the CF "Sometime quantity has a quality all its own".

Remusters between the combat arms are not common (training failures aside); and, when they do occur, the individual does all the occupation-specific DP1 training.  There is no "combat arms common" DP1 for a year or so, followed by occupation-specific training - it's very different from the pilot model.

Quote
(some things snipped)

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?

http://www.admfincs.forces.gc.ca/qr_o/vol2/ch103_e.asp#103.42

And I ask again:  Why does the captain of an a/c require a commission?  We have Sgts deciding when to employ 25mm chain guns and other armaments, in accordance with the rules of engagement. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle, within the platoon context, within the company.  There is no need to have a commission to fulfil those functions.

Or even why is someone commanding four aircraft (once the next three arrive in Trenton) a lieutenant colonel?  Why is he even a commanding officer, vice an officer commanding?  If, as you say, a/c type isn't important, couldn't we have an air tn sqn with two flights of hercs and another of C-17s, all under a single LCol?

Quote
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.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #44 on: August 26, 2007, 11:53:04 »
And I ask again:  Why does the captain of an a/c require a commission?  We have Sgts deciding when to employ 25mm chain guns and other armaments, in accordance with the rules of engagement. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle, within the platoon context, within the company.  There is no need to have a commission to fulfil those functions.

Or even why is someone commanding four aircraft (once the next three arrive in Trenton) a lieutenant colonel?  Why is he even a commanding officer, vice an officer commanding?  If, as you say, a/c type isn't important, couldn't we have an air tn sqn with two flights of hercs and another of C-17s, all under a single LCol?


A Sgt deciding when to employ his 25mm chain gun is based on what the Capt in the next vehicle over has decided. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle based on what the Platoon commander has decided the vehicle will be used for.  They're not autonomous like aircraft can and tend to be, thus we're able to make the call ourselves since we've been given that authority, the same can't be said for all AFVs.

On top of the authority issue, we do live in the real world and the money issue is part of it too. You're not going to retain qualified helo pilots for long if you're only paying them 50-60 grand a year when on the civilian market it's much more lucrative. Despite what illusions people may have about patriotism and serving their country, Canada is still a capitalist society and the almighty dollar reigns supreme, especially when you're talking about a profession as hard to get into as pilot.

I agree on your last point, there's no reason two aircraft types can't be in the same sqn, SAR sqns have been doing it for years. Still though, other than the LCol and HQ types, you still would need to have duplicate Standards officers and technicians for the two aircraft types as well as a few other specialized jobs that are done within a particular aircraft type. That said however, it's not like the Air Force is unique in having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline Ditch

  • Established 1998
  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 26,362
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,341
  • I routinely step in it, but like conflict...
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #45 on: August 26, 2007, 12:56:28 »
... having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.

Amen Brother!  Now that is a waste of money and training.  Why train an Officer corps to do a job that they will never carry out? 
Per Ardua Ad Astra

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #46 on: August 26, 2007, 17:46:49 »
A Sgt deciding when to employ his 25mm chain gun is based on what the Capt in the next vehicle over has decided. They determine the tactical employment of their vehicle based on what the Platoon commander has decided the vehicle will be used for.  They're not autonomous like aircraft can and tend to be, thus we're able to make the call ourselves since we've been given that authority, the same can't be said for all AFVs.

On top of the authority issue, we do live in the real world and the money issue is part of it too. You're not going to retain qualified helo pilots for long if you're only paying them 50-60 grand a year when on the civilian market it's much more lucrative. Despite what illusions people may have about patriotism and serving their country, Canada is still a capitalist society and the almighty dollar reigns supreme, especially when you're talking about a profession as hard to get into as pilot.

I agree on your last point, there's no reason two aircraft types can't be in the same sqn, SAR sqns have been doing it for years. Still though, other than the LCol and HQ types, you still would need to have duplicate Standards officers and technicians for the two aircraft types as well as a few other specialized jobs that are done within a particular aircraft type. That said however, it's not like the Air Force is unique in having a LCol command 100 people, just look at any reserve regiment CO.

I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree about the training regime for pilots, and agree on the futility of Lcols commanding 100 personnel, regardless of their environment.  (The issue of Reserve unit COs is a personal hobbyhorse)

I still disagree about the AFV/aircraft differences, as there is a fair degree of individual autonomy even within a platoon structure.

On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; there has to be a reasonable return on investment.
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #47 on: August 26, 2007, 18:20:56 »
I suspect we'll have to agree to disagree about the training regime for pilots, and agree on the futility of Lcols commanding 100 personnel, regardless of their environment.  (The issue of Reserve unit COs is a personal hobbyhorse)

I still disagree about the AFV/aircraft differences, as there is a fair degree of individual autonomy even within a platoon structure.

On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; there has to be a reasonable return on investment.


There already is restricted release for pilots. Upon receiving your wings you enter a 7 year period of restricted release. I guess the CF figures that 7 years is a fair return on their investment. While the system may not be perfect, it's not as bad as you make it out to be. Pilots already have separate pay tables, I guess I just fail to see why two guys, both aircraft captains and doing the same job should be paid different. I'm sure we both agree that there has to be some pilot officers, considering the only Air Force officers that reach the level of General are either pilots or Navigators, and since there has to be pilot officers and paying two guys differently for doing the exact same job doesn't make a whole lot of sense, every pilot is an officer. As far as I see it anyhow. That's how it works else where in the world, in fact, all pilots are officers in every arm of every military that I can think of, minus the US Army and the Army Air Corps in the UK.

Recruiting is always going to be a problem, the CF needs to be the employer of choice. In order to attract talented people and then keep those that do take the plunge, it has to be fiscally worth it. That's the danger with giving people marketable skills, those same skills will draw a higher wage else where. It's unavoidable. If you look at the pilot pay tables there has been a shift in when you start making the "big bucks". Prior to 1998 you started quite high on the pay tables, now you start out making less than $100 over what a GSO makes, and Lt's no longer get pilot pay.

And for the record, you're not promoted past 2Lt until you get your wings and you're employable. So in effect, it is exactly like you mentioned above, you're earning a living wage while learning the trade, but as soon as you're employable and desirable to outside employers, your pay goes up.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline SupersonicMax

    is back home.

  • Mentor
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *
  • 71,020
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,575
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #48 on: August 26, 2007, 18:23:46 »
On the financial front, I think a case can be made that as we're providing valuable real-world skills in training a pilot, and paying them a living wage while l;earning to boot, there should not be an immediate expectation of comparable pay to the private sector.  Over time, yes, but in say a 6 year engagement for a flying Sgt, with 1 1/2 years of flight training, I wouldn't expect comparability to catch up until year 5 at the earliest.  Flight training is expensive to deliver; there has to be a reasonable return on investment.


That's why our contract is 7 years after wings.  Yes, we are well paid during training, but our salary, for the kind of responsability we have (ie:  type of aircraft we fly) is much less than in the civy world.  How much a 777 Capt makes at Air Canada?  I think in the neighborhood of 200 000$ a year (base salary).  How much a C-17 Capt makes?  100 000$ a year if he has 10 years in the service...  Over the long run, we do not make THAT much money.

Max

Offline dapaterson

  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 369,510
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 14,751
Re: Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req
« Reply #49 on: August 26, 2007, 19:32:43 »
Using Air Canada widebodies as an example is not the best comparison.  Many pilots are flying smaller airlines and making less money.  And look at the number of hours in their logs - they aren't walking in off the street, Cessna license in hand, and starting at that level.  They have also seen significant pay reductions in recent years as commercial air has undergone structural shifts.

I'd argue that excluding the US and UK from a discussion of Officers as pilots is like discussing macaroni and cheese but omitting Kraft Dinner.  If those two allies can make it work, why can't we?
This posting made in accordance with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 2(b):
Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/1.html