Poll

What Aircraft are the best to work on?

Fighters
9 (24.3%)
Transport
6 (16.2%)
Helicopters
19 (51.4%)
Trainers
2 (5.4%)
Maritime
1 (2.7%)

Total Members Voted: 36

Author Topic: Comparing Griffon Squadrons  (Read 18940 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« on: December 03, 2006, 23:14:45 »
I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.





Thank You for your time,

PTE. Plantz, G.A.

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: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2006, 01:16:33 »
Pte Plantz,

Firstly, like many things in the military, your selection on a particular aircraft type after the many months of basic technical training may have only a small portion of your personal wishes taken into account.  There is often more variance in which postings to particular fleets are plentiful at the time you would commence your training and apprenticeship on a particular aircraft type.  Some of the folks in CFSATE might be in a better position to comment on the selection process of a MOC-500 tradesman to a particular aircraft.

Secondly, there are nine Griffon squadrons, one operational training unit (Gagetown), three combat support squadrons (Goose Bay, Bagotville and Cold Lake), two reserve-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (St-Hubert and Borden), two regular force-heavy tactical helicopter squadrons (Valcartier and Edmonton) and a special operations squadron (Petawawa).  There is also a Cormorant SAR squadron in Trenton that is currently operating Griffons as a temporary measure while engineering issues are being addressed with the CH149 Cormorant's tail rotor assembly.  The CSS units support operations at fighter bases and provide a secondary SAR response to augment the primary rotary-wing National SAR capability.  The Tac Hel units generally support the Army and other CF elements as may be required from time to time.  There are quite a range of differences amongst all the squadrons, so you might narrow down your Q's to something a bit more specific.

Cheers

G2G

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2006, 01:59:31 »
Your poll is equaly vague......

What do you mean "best" ?

Are you refering to amount of work ? ease of maintenance? Most changes for deployed operations ?  gucci trips ? 

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2006, 17:21:01 »
With respect to being an AVN Tech.

Offline Astrodog

  • Member
  • ****
  • 400
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 178
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2006, 17:57:19 »
What is the difference between Combat Support and Tac Hel?
Aspiring Zoomie

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2006, 18:10:03 »
With respect to being an AVN Tech.

Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Be specific...... ::)

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: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2006, 18:45:28 »
Well, for a 514 AVN tech, the CSS squadron has yellow Griffons, the Tac Hel Griffons are green...all units are AF9000 (maint standard) compliant.  More time on field exercises and support during land ops for tac hel squadrons, more support to SAR ops for the CSS folks.  Technically, there is probably more impact on lifestyle to the actual physical location of the squadron than to the actual employment, but I'm on the edge of my lane here.

G2G 

Offline Trunk Monkey

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2006, 21:45:58 »
I'll step in, being a former fitter/AVN tech and have worked in all 3 enviroments. First, what's better? Depends on what turns your crank. You like to travel? I've worked on tutors, t-birds, cosmos, dash-8's, hercs, seakings and griffons and the one I spent the longest on was the one I never wanted to work on at first, the herc. My fav was seakings (more reliable than many think), and not a hard bird to learn. Sailing around the ocean blue is not that bad, the fish heads tend to leave you alone for the most part and you can get bored of going to Hawaii...well, maybe not.

The herc is a good plane but quite hands on, travel is good and no tents.

Griffin world, well, tachel anyways....welcome to the army life.  I cannot speak for fighter types (been deployed with the tankers with them though) but from what I've seen, they have it pretty good. Many of the techs I know love the plane but hate the location.

As for the Griffin Sqns, well, it's been said already. It's the same helo, only thing that makes a sqn good is the people running it and those in it. And that applies to any unit. You may love the hornet but if you have cannon fodder for bosses or bitter techs who don't care, you'll be miserable. Wherever you end up, be happy, do your job and then some.....and in the long run, you just might get rewarded, or the shaft :P Kind of short but anything else, ask away.....and do try to be more specific with your question, if possible.

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2006, 00:12:43 »
Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Overall!

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2006, 01:11:40 »
Thats what i meant........as to what ?

working hours ?

Amount of work ?

oportunities for trips....

Overall!

i give up........

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2006, 17:11:36 »
I am just trying to find out the opportunities in the trade as a whole.

Offline Trunk Monkey

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2006, 01:04:08 »
Working hours........a day worker will do the 37.5 to 40 hr work week but the techs hours will depend where they work and the type of shift. Then toss in sports, admin, leave, etc........but shifts vary. I've done shifts where it was a 35 hr week........a 30 hr week one week then 40 the next.........50+ in a week and then you can toss in staying late during nights to get a bird ready for the next day (esp in a SAR Sqn), but then also, when nights are slow, the crews will split down "occasionally". And if you deploy, expect long days/nights.

Workload....geez. Some days are insane, going from one plane to another....then other days, you are doing nothing. But that depends on where you work. Day workers usually have a steady job where as shift workers (the techs on the plane vice the techs in the day) don't have a set job to work on. When you get to work is when you find out what you maybe doing. Maybe an engine change, fuel tank entry, landing geart change, etc....And joe jobs are a staple of military life. Nothing flying and guess what? Hangar clean-up, moving crud around, etc..........

Trips........guess I wasn't CLEAR enough........depends on the type of aircraft your on. Always some oppurtunity for a trip or 2 or 3 or 4 and so on. Herc world is good for trips, Dash-8 world is not. Griffin world, not really........SeaKings, well you get to go with the ship when an AirDet is on board......Auroras, some trips........CF-18s, some........Tutors, only the Snowbirds use them now, so lots of travel. Then there are MRP's (mobile repair parties) to exotic locations if a plane breaks down away from base and cannot fly back. Working on a herc up north, outdoors at -45 is a hoot ;)  But usually only the experienced techs go. Courses...there's more travel for you.

Overall........Not that much travelling or too much, hours are not set in stone (no union here) ,the workload is hit or miss (usually busy)and the conditions can be great or lousy. But one thing, being an AVN tech is not like an AME in the sense that as a AVN, you may end up working a job that takes you off the plane for years, go to some bleep hole place for a deployment or somewhere nice, get a hotel w/o a pool or with one that's closed...grrr :P, and then toss in all the military stuff.  AME's go to work, fix planes and go home.


Offline mr peabody

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2006, 15:29:56 »
 They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people. 
  I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.


I am currently going to Canadore College for Aviation Maintenance Technician program. I am thinking about joining the Airforce as an AVN Tech. I have two questions, First how hard is it to get to work on your aircraft of choice, and second I would like a comparison of the Griffon Squadrons.





Thank You for your time,

PTE. Plantz, G.A.
" Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't. "

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2006, 17:33:08 »
Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.

Offline Trunk Monkey

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #14 on: December 07, 2006, 21:29:53 »
Thank You for the info. I was wondering what kind of advantages i could get for going to college.

Only time towards a promotion to Corporal.........You'd get 12 months credit (I'm 90% sure but I'll e-mail a buddy of mine who had his AME then joined, Bit I know he got at least a year). Otherwise, your AME means jack squat. There are many guys who have their AME. Just means they make more money if working part time with some company across the tarmac or to fall back on when they pull the pin.

Offline Scoobs

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 241
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #15 on: December 09, 2006, 00:35:26 »
As a former D/SAMEO of a Tac Hel Sqn, I will tell the new Pte that there is a chance that you can go to a Tac Hel unit, but it is more likely that you will go to another fleet.  Also, are you in the Air Force or not?  You say that you are "thinking" about joining and then you sign off as a Private???????????????

The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel.  Most newbies found the Griffon a good a/c to learn.

Here's a little on the locations, starting from West to East:

1. Edmonton, never physically been there.  The base is close to a major city and thus is a good place (I assume) for a young guy.  Lots of flying in support of LFWA;
2. Cold Lake, 417 CS Sqn.  Last time I knew they only had 3 Griffons.  I've heard that Cold Lake is a good place to live if you like hunting, fishing, outdoors.  I'm not so sure of the night life for a young guy. 
3. Borden.  Very busy at the moment.  Total force Sqn.  Borden is where you will do some training since CFSATE is here.  Location is okay.  Borden is close to Toronto (1 hour drive), but bring a car if you want to go anywhere.
4. Petawawa.  427 SOA Sqn.  Now only support Special Ops.  Busy and will only get busier.  Pet is a great place for hunting, fishing, outdoors, etc.  Not a good place for a single and young guy.  Most young guys in Pet head out onto Highway 17 on Fridays and race down to Ottawa.  Pet is a great place to raise a young family as the support from the mil community is tremendous.
5. St. Hubert.  Total force Sqn, plus Tac Hel School for AVN and AVS techs.  If you are lucky to get Tac Hel and are AVN, you will spend some time here.  St. Hubert is just south of Montreal and easily within driving distance.  Accomodations at the school are less than good, unless you love the smell of marijuana!  The school is within an aviation technology college and the accomodations are shared with the civys.  If you don't get in the civy dorm, you may end up in St. Jean.  What fun I had there, not!
6. Valcartier.  Just north of Quebec City.  I highly recommend that you are able to speak French if you want to go here.  Busy Sqn as well.  Base is nice looking.  My wife wanted me to be posted here after she saw it.  Quebec City is easily within driving distance.
7. Gagetown.  403 HOTS or otherwise known as the training Sqn for pilots and FEs (some trg is done at the other units such as 400 Sqn in Borden).  Nice base and very close to Fredericton.  Freddy has a good night life.  Sqn is very busy and the serviceability must be high due to the need to get the pilots and FEs trained.  My neighbour was posted there and he loved it.  403 also houses LATEF, but you won't go there as a new AVN.
8. Bagotville, 439 CS Sqn.  Similar to 417 Sqn in Cold Lake.  Also, I highly recommend that you can speak French if you wish to be posted here.  I've heard that Bagotville is a good place to be posted, but I'm not sure how good it is for a young guy.
9. Goose Bay, 444 Sqn.  This is an isolated posting and I'm pretty sure that newbies don't get posted there.

I hope this helps.  Tac Hel is fun and isn't so Army as most Air Force pers think.  Yes, we are more "Army" than the rest of the Air Force, but some people like this.  I love it!
Variety is the spice of life...

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #16 on: December 09, 2006, 00:47:02 »


The reality is that we tended to prefer to have non-apprentices since they are more employable, i.e. deployments and time to get authorized to at least "A" level.  We did have apprentices and most of them were very hard workers.  However, each had to be supervised and that equaled taking a journeyman or above off the a/c in order to supervise the apprentice.  Thus, another reason why Tac Hel prefers already trained personnel. 

Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #17 on: December 09, 2006, 13:40:39 »
I am a PTE in the Army Reserves (Infantry). That is why i am interested in the Griffon. Because I like Helicopters and the Army aspect.

Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #18 on: December 09, 2006, 13:56:47 »
Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops).
I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.

I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.

Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere. 

Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D
« Last Edit: December 09, 2006, 13:59:47 by eurowing »
Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline Trunk Monkey

  • Member
  • ****
  • 1,785
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 121
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #19 on: December 09, 2006, 20:41:46 »
Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.

Your wrong cdnaviator, TacHel is "special"  :rofl:.........cannot wait to the day I get posted back to the real Air Force

Offline rhfc_pte

  • Guest
  • *
  • 0
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 7
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #20 on: December 09, 2006, 22:47:05 »
They seem to be fairly accomodating with regards to initial postings out of Borden.  If there is a particular type you'd like to work on, be certain to ask for more than one base that houses it.  Traditionally, it seems like Tac Hel is a difficult place to be posted as an apprentice.  We were told that Griffons were not an option for initial posting, but it does happen for some people. 
  I can't offer you any insight into the different Griffon squadrons, or their work environment... I've only been employed on the CP 140/A.  Bison33's posts have been right on the money, he paints a very accurate picture.




What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #21 on: December 09, 2006, 22:50:24 »


What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.

all of them !!!

except the ones maintained by civvies

Offline mr peabody

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #22 on: December 10, 2006, 03:42:29 »


What are the aircraft that you can work on as an apprentice.

   Pretty much anything, except for the Twin Otter....  I'm guessing here, but I expect that is an impossibility for an apprentice.  There aren't many positions for techs on them, and there is no shortage of people who would like to get onto that type.
" Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't. "

Offline eurowing

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 24,240
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 310
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #23 on: December 10, 2006, 13:51:53 »
cdnaviator and cp140tech are correct.  The only exclusions are Scarebus, Challenger, Hawk, Harvard, Jet Ranger, Grob 90, C9 King Air,Comorant and the Twotter.  Hmmm, the list of civvie maintained ac is almost tied. 8 to 9  I count the two 140 versions as one (unless we divvie up Herc models) and the Cyclone is still a dream.

http://www.airforce.forces.gc.ca/equip/equip1_e.asp will give you a list of ac and a write up of capabilities and locations.
Played with RC Airplanes in sandboxes

Offline Scoobs

  • Member
  • ****
  • 3,075
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 241
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #24 on: December 11, 2006, 20:41:43 »
Scoobs, We could use ready-made technicians just as much as tac hel.  Any aircraft fleet would be happy to have only journeyman tech and not have to train new ones up to "A" level. Tac Hel is not that special.

cdnaviator, I'm not talking about "ready-made" techs.  I was talking about apprentices.  Even though the young Pte may be taking a course at an aviation college, he will still need to be an apprentice once he comes into the Air Force.  Therefore, he will need some trg, just like other apprentices.  As was said in other responses, Tac Hel is a unique environment that has additional burdens placed on its personnel, in addition to fixing a/c.  I was only stating that at Tac Hel units, it is prefered to have already trained techs, such as journeymen and above.  Tac Hel does not send apprentices on deployment overseas.  Of course, every fleet will have to take on some apprentices or that fleet will eventually have no one to work on the a/c.  Also, all fleets do not just want journeymen.  You want a mix of some apprentices, journeymen, "A" level, and "C" level techs.  "A" level techs can sign off on a maintenance action, while "C" level techs can release an a/c for flight.  Therefore, you need to have some "A" and some "C".  Without them, no a/c would be able to get fixed.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2006, 20:45:20 by Scoobs »
Variety is the spice of life...

Offline CTD

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 2,805
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 482
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #25 on: December 12, 2006, 00:04:21 »
I think that Tac Hel is shooting itself in the foot by not taking on many apprentices. Most guys who are new want to go Tac Hel in their younger years. This way they can have the snot run out of them early on in their carrer. Then look forward to a more relaxed job after 10 years or so on the 18's or others.

I would think that the new apprentices after their quick OJT period and type course should be able to be receiving POM's with in 8 months, Depending on the length of the type course. This is what is happening on the F18 fleet right now.

I would have gone Tac Hel and done 10 years or more.

To receive a fresh new Apprentice means that they are not tainted yet, they have the drive to complete the job and do not have that union mentality that we see all to often with some of the older breed of Air Force technicians. You can also shape and mold the new guys into what you need.

That is just my opinion.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #26 on: December 13, 2006, 20:09:16 »
The problem with apprentice-level techs, as mentioned previously, is that they are not deployable. Because of that, 1 Wing built up to over twice the number of apprentice techs during the Bosnia years - they couldn't go, so those who should have been training and supervising them did instead.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #27 on: January 01, 2007, 18:30:58 »
Actually, Tac Hell is somewhat special.  Aside from maintaining fling wings with a utterly goofy supply setup which encourages rob actions at a dizzying rate, Tac Hell techs must hit the ranges twice a year, must maintain all the LSVW's ML's etc and maintain skills in driving them.  For example an HL driver must drive the dang thing on a regular basis to stay qualified.  No Techs do this normally. Wing transport takes care of the civilian pattern trucks on a normal AF Base.  In addition, field ex's require that a Tac hell Tech hold all kinds of kit that is not seen by most other techs.  For example, snowshoes and rucks!  Not to mention, training in the most basic of fieldcraft.  You would be amazed at the amount of people that have never lit a Coleman stove.  Practice setting up arctic tents, Modular tentage. Training in sentry duties, Stand To, defensive fire perimeters, arcs of fire,  unknown to most air force unless they are remustered from the Combat Arms.  All this is time away from doing the primary task of getting those rotors spinning has a tremendous toll in manhours available to fix airplanes.
Tac Hell units are remote from support, they stand alone unsupported by a large wing infrastructure and unsupported by on-site engineering assistance (large AMS's with Labs and workshops).
I have had employment in my 32 years in a wide spectrum of elements, aircraft, bases, units and even a staff job :crybaby:.  Tac Hell is most certainly the most demanding environment I have seen.  Fighters/Maritime Patrol/Transport have the life of Riley compared to Tac Hell and I will say it with the voice of experience.  I can't speak for Maritime Helicopters though, but they do get hot meals and dry beds at least.

I know there is a move afoot to train all service members with a basic soldiers knowledge, but I wonder how much will be retained after 10 years, and I have not heard how effective this training is.  It may make a difference, but not for a few long years.

Anyhow, for all the extra work involved in Tac hell, an apprentice requiring direct supervision all ALL tasks has a bigger impact in a Tac hell unit than it does in elsewhere. 

Edited to say  Hi "Alice"! ;D

You think all that is unique to TACHEL?

MH techs need to learn all about firefighting, both the ship and the helo, ship's damage control, all the deck director/hand stuff like hooking up the hauldown wire and straightening the helo in sea state up to 5 degrees of pitch and 20 degrees of roll, HIFR, hoists, and slinging in sea states of 3 degrees pitch and 10 degrees roll. And when the helo is put to bed, there's cleaning stations and other related ship's tasks.

This is why we only send qualified techs to sea, no apprentices. I don't see why TACHEL couldn't do the same for exercises, I have a hard time believing that there's no room for apprentices in the TACHEL world, especially when you're on the ground and not limited by bunk space.

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

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #28 on: January 02, 2007, 12:07:08 »
We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,873
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #29 on: January 02, 2007, 12:09:42 »
We send everybody on exercises, unless there's a good and valid reason not to. We can't send apprentices on operations, though, and that's where the Bosnia mission was killing us. We were established for eighty-odd apprentices in 1 Wing then, and this bloated up to over 180 actual ones stagnating and clogging up the system. They could not go, and more of the ones who should have been training and supervising them had to, so they were not learning at the rate that they should have, and the cycle continued. I'm not sure exactly what the situation is like right now, but I'll become reconnected with that as I start my latest attempt ot get recurrent (if G2G would only stop bogging down our tiny operational training flight).

Was there a good reason why a higher level apprentice could not go on operation and continue to learn in the field?
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #30 on: January 02, 2007, 12:20:02 »
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.

Offline GAP

  • Semper Fi
  • Army.ca Subscriber
  • Army.ca Legend
  • *
  • 204,810
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 12,873
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #31 on: January 02, 2007, 12:26:55 »
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.

There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.

Room for error....can't afford that here either

I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.
Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I´m not so sure about the universe

aesop081

  • Guest
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #32 on: January 02, 2007, 12:43:04 »
Other than that a minimum standard has to be set somewhere, and that on operations there is less opportunity to train somebody when the job is being done for real and there is even less room for error (not that there's much at all in garrison when it comes to flying ops), none that I know of.

Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.

Offline Inch

  • Signal Charlie Goodtimes
  • Army.ca Veteran
  • *****
  • -395
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 2,229
  • CH124 Driver
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #33 on: January 02, 2007, 13:09:32 »
Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).  Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.

Not in MH it can't, not enough bunk space on the boats since the navy fills them up with their trainees.
You sir are a moron!
A Mormon? But I'm from Earth.

Offline mr peabody

  • Member
  • ****
  • 4,430
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 160
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #34 on: January 02, 2007, 21:41:26 »

  Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us.  The people that get deployed are usually chosen to fill spots requiring certain skill sets.  An apprentice wlll not be able to sign for his or her own work, let alone an 'A' level signature to certify maintenance action.  Pound for pound we need people who can carry the most weight and who are very comfortable on their respective systems. 

  Not to mention, small errors can take days to fix... it's surprisingly easy to u/s a plane with some pretty rudimentary jobs. 

  If nothing goes wrong and simple servicing is all that's required, anybody can do it.... when things go to crap, you really need good people. 

 
" Those who live by the sword, get shot by those who don't. "

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #35 on: January 02, 2007, 23:38:08 »
There is no better training than actually doing it under real time conditions and getting it right.

That does not translate to learning a technical skill, and it requires more people in-theatre to both do the job and teach/supervise/correct errors made.

Room for error....can't afford that here either.

Not for an aircraft about to fly, but an error by an apprentice that delays a training flight in Canada does not have the same effect as one that delays an operational flight overseas.

I think there is a good argument to made for reassessing the minimum standard.

Which exists to ensure that the tech is capable of doing the required jobs effectively, safely, completely, and in time.



Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #36 on: January 02, 2007, 23:46:00 »
Have to disagree with you there ( even though my experience is lesser than yours).

Well, that's all relative - I have far less experience in my little niche than you do in yours.

Flying for us on operations is no different than flying at home. In fact, most of our flights from home bases are domestic operations.  There is no room for error wether we fly from home base or from some far flung airfield half way around the globe. The torpedoes are just as live, the altitude just as low and the weather just as shitty.  I am not fully qualified in my job as i am a B category operator, yet i can finish my upgrade during operations overseas, and can do so even in wartime.  The same can be done for a technician IMHO.

But this was about "Comparing GRIFFON Squadrons", not Aurora Squadrons.

Each flying community has its own unique circumstances.

The apprentice problem is a recent one. There was no such thing in the good old days when we (10 TAG) had three aircraft types and more aircraft, more Squadrons, more people, and green uniforms. "Peace dividends", FRP, and such disastrous policies set the stage for the shortages that we have now, and Bosnia fertilized them.

Online Loachman

  • Former Army Pilot in Drag
  • Directing Staff
  • Army.ca Fixture
  • *
  • 182,982
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 6,648
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #37 on: January 02, 2007, 23:48:35 »
Sending apprentices away isn't a great idea for us ..... when things go to crap, you really need good people.

And all of the stuff in between - most definitely.

Offline magnumcharger

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #38 on: March 18, 2007, 20:56:29 »
Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)

Offline SF2

  • Full Member
  • *****
  • 3,045
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 486
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #39 on: March 18, 2007, 21:37:35 »
Quote
Lets see...As an AVN I've been posted to two TacHel Squadrons, 403 in Gagetown, and 408 in Edmonton.
I much preferred 403, as it was a good Squadron to work in, home every night, and regular hours regardless of working servicing or maintenance.
408 was a much more difficult Squadron to be at, what with the deployments, releases, divorces and generally negative attitude. So much so, that I remustered out of AVN just to get out of the Squadron.
Suffice to say, I'd return to 403 in a heartbeat (but can't, none of my trade there!)

Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....

Offline magnumcharger

  • Guest
  • *
  • 190
  • Rate Post
  • Posts: 10
Re: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #40 on: March 19, 2007, 12:43:36 »
Its pretty difficult to compare a training squadron to an operational squadron.  Of course there's going to be different working hours, varying deployment levels etc....

Quite true.
It all depends on what you want from your job.

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: Comparing Griffon Squadrons
« Reply #41 on: March 19, 2007, 19:36:19 »
Nobody should be under the mistaken impression that life at an operational tac hel sqn is a 8-4 job...

G2G