A
aesop081
Guest
whiskey601 said:
Yes.
The combat support squadron CH-146 did not used to be yellow but were painted as a result of the GB crash investigation recommendations.
Challenger/"VIP" Jet/CF Chopper Use (CDS, others) [merged]
- Thread starter Edward Campbell
- Start date
Yes.
The combat support squadron CH-146 did not used to be yellow but were painted as a result of the GB crash investigation recommendations.
Conservatives consider selling more government jets
Expensive Challenger fleet often sits idle
by Kathleen Harris, CBC News Jul 20, 2012
Article Link
The cost-cutting Conservatives are not ruling out selling off some government aircraft — including the controversial fleet of Challenger jets.
Documents obtained by the CBC’s Power & Politics under access to information show the executive aircraft were used only seven times by cabinet ministers in the one-year period between May 2011 and April 2012.
The military used the planes most frequently — including transporting brass such as Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk, carrying out international training exercises and participating in air shows. The jets were also used for three runs for children who took part in the Canadian Forces Family Day.
In all, the military used the aircraft 190 times, compared with 50 trips by Gov. Gen. David Johnston and 41 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Cabinet ministers using the aircraft in the one-year period were Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
The aircraft, which cost about $10,000 an hour to fly when all variable and capital costs are added to the staff and operations, have been dogged by controversy and dubbed "flying limousines" and "aerial offices."
Julie Vaux, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the use by cabinet ministers is down dramatically since the Conservatives took office, and that ministers are instructed to travel on government business at a “reasonable cost to taxpayers.”
“This is part of our culture as a government, and it has allowed us to reduce ministers’ use of Challenger aircraft by over 80 per cent compared to the previous Liberal government,” she said. “The former Liberal government cut $20 billion from Canada’s defence budget, but the Liberal ministers bought brand-new Challenger jets for themselves.”
The ministers are leaving the pricey planes on the tarmac, so will the government unload all or part of the fleet?
“We have sold eight Transport Canada aircraft since 2009 and are looking at whether additional government aircraft should be sold,” Vaux said.
Appearing on Power & Politics, Andrew Saxton, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board president, noted the Challenger aircraft were “inherited” by the Conservatives from the previous Liberal government, and that the auditor general had flagged problems with the purchase in past.
Although the military is using the aircraft for important business, repatriation and medical evacuations, Saxton said, it doesn’t make sense for the costly planes to be sitting idle on the tarmac.
More on link
Expensive Challenger fleet often sits idle
by Kathleen Harris, CBC News Jul 20, 2012
Article Link
The cost-cutting Conservatives are not ruling out selling off some government aircraft — including the controversial fleet of Challenger jets.
Documents obtained by the CBC’s Power & Politics under access to information show the executive aircraft were used only seven times by cabinet ministers in the one-year period between May 2011 and April 2012.
The military used the planes most frequently — including transporting brass such as Chief of Defence Staff Gen. Walt Natynczyk, carrying out international training exercises and participating in air shows. The jets were also used for three runs for children who took part in the Canadian Forces Family Day.
In all, the military used the aircraft 190 times, compared with 50 trips by Gov. Gen. David Johnston and 41 by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
Cabinet ministers using the aircraft in the one-year period were Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver and Health Minister Leona Aglukkaq.
The aircraft, which cost about $10,000 an hour to fly when all variable and capital costs are added to the staff and operations, have been dogged by controversy and dubbed "flying limousines" and "aerial offices."
Julie Vaux, a spokesman for the prime minister, said the use by cabinet ministers is down dramatically since the Conservatives took office, and that ministers are instructed to travel on government business at a “reasonable cost to taxpayers.”
“This is part of our culture as a government, and it has allowed us to reduce ministers’ use of Challenger aircraft by over 80 per cent compared to the previous Liberal government,” she said. “The former Liberal government cut $20 billion from Canada’s defence budget, but the Liberal ministers bought brand-new Challenger jets for themselves.”
The ministers are leaving the pricey planes on the tarmac, so will the government unload all or part of the fleet?
“We have sold eight Transport Canada aircraft since 2009 and are looking at whether additional government aircraft should be sold,” Vaux said.
Appearing on Power & Politics, Andrew Saxton, the parliamentary secretary to the Treasury Board president, noted the Challenger aircraft were “inherited” by the Conservatives from the previous Liberal government, and that the auditor general had flagged problems with the purchase in past.
Although the military is using the aircraft for important business, repatriation and medical evacuations, Saxton said, it doesn’t make sense for the costly planes to be sitting idle on the tarmac.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
If the Challengers are political aircraft, as they appear to now be....
milnews.ca said:
....let the PMO staff/pay for them.GAP said:
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
fraserdw said:
You are truly missing the point. How the hours are managed is up to the individual units COs. They get assigned YFR (Yearly Flying Rate), or a number of hours that can be used throughout the Fiscal Year. We have to use our hours. Normally, that responsibility is delegated down to the Squadron Ops O. Believe it or not, we need all kind of training to not only maintain our currency, but more importantly maintain our proficiency.
We can have concurent activities to our training, that are, in fact, fun and motivational for us. For example, I sometimes take a jet on the road and visit friends/family. Yes, I do training while I fly to a destination. In a RCAF squadron, we don't impose a suck fest on our members, just because we are in the military and fun is prohibited. I found over the years that when you properly explain to Joe Everybody what and why you are doing something, they generally understand and agree.
There are PLENTY of other events that are not even talked negatively in the media that, in my opinion, are more a waste of ressources than that fishing trip: Fly-Bys 500+NM away fom home, dedicated "VIP" famil flights, airshow static displays, etc, etc. Hours and hours that could be spent on tactical training that are spent on pleasing the crowds... Yes, some are important, even essential to our link with the general population however, not to the extent we are supporting now...
This last event in the media is just very, very bad PA. Tell it how it is: this is the squadron personnel having fun WHILE the aircrews are taking the opportunity to do some training. No, the SAR posture was NEVER changed for said unit... Either the media always spins it the wrong way, or our PA system is failing. Take no offence Strike...
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
fraserdw said:
Every sortie is duly authorized electronically or on paper with a mission code assigned to it that is linked to a mission type (for training mission, a training mission type) along with the supported command, supported unit and the training value associated with the sortie. The authorization is by the CO, and it is delegated down to any Duty Pilot (any qualified pilot) through and Acknoledgement of Authority form (electronic or paper).
So yes, for every single sortie flown, the mission has been authorized and signed.... I understand you probably only know army, but before making such bold statements on RCAF operations and training, maybe you should research a bit....
- Reaction score
- 3,834
- Points
- 1,160
If the CO is signing off on it, s/he should have the SA to know "maybe this would look bad if we're not proactive" and direct the PAFFO to release a media advisory about a helo conducting adventure training on such and such a date. The PA shop can't help us out if we don't help them out with prior knowledge. Once it does hit the media, we can point to the media advisory that the papers ignore and say "We told you what we were doing" and it drops off the front page because then the media looks bad, not us.
We're under a microscope, especially the RCAF, and we have to help the PA folks help us.
We're under a microscope, especially the RCAF, and we have to help the PA folks help us.
It matters not whether it was authorized/signed/sealed/delivered/whatever......you do not create the impression/perception of misuse of equipment.
It's the optics that is biting the CF for this. Whether it is authorized or not is irrelevant.
It's the optics that is biting the CF for this. Whether it is authorized or not is irrelevant.
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
PuckChaser said:
It would simply be a waste of ressources. It would happen at least once a week at almost every unit. For example, if I fly an airplane to Cold Lake for an aircraft swap, and decide to stop in, I don't know, Kenora, ON to visit some friends there, would it warrant a release to the media? It doesn't increase the number of hours to get to Cold Lake, we have Contract Fuel there, it serves a training purpose (the Instrument Approach into Kenora is challenging after all) while working towards and operational need (swapping a Jet with Cold Lake) and the member gets to see his friends for a few hours/overnight. Even if I had to take a longer route to go, I don't know, through Calgary to visit friends overnight, it serves training purposes. Calgary is a high density airspace.
This kind of thing is what we can and will do almost daily if we want to. It fulfills training and/or operational needs while accomodating the member. Win-Win. Heck, I will schedule myself for a 1v1 dogfight Wednesday because that's fun and I feel I worked hard in the last month and since I am the scheduler, I can do that. It also fullfils training needs, but it could be argued that 2 versus 4 Strike Mission would be more beneficial. See where I am coming from? Our DAILY operations enable us to do those kind of thing, while training. No harm no foul, as long as the PA front is consistent. It's also the PA's job to be familiar with the units under their responsibilities and their operations.
Bottom line, every flight we do, regarless of the type, involves training to a certain extent. Just flying the aircraft from A to B is training.
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
ModlrMike said:
They we should deprive ourselve of morale boosting activities?
Maintaining a good fighting military includes maintaining a good morale within the ranks. At all level. It it means going fishing while conducting training, then why the hell not.
- Reaction score
- 3,834
- Points
- 1,160
SupersonicMax said:
Depends if you want to end up on CBC or not. Welcome to the new reality. Everything we say or do is used against us, right down to the Corporal level. Why would a Captain in a Griffon be any different? If its not to or from CF installations, what's the harm in throwing a CC to the PAFFO with your flight plan? Some Sgt takes a LAV3 to a fishing hole in Deep River as part of a check-ride after maintenance and its on the national news. Why are you so special? Both have perfectly legit reasons for the trip, and just made a small stop.
The MSM is out to deprive our morale boosting activities because it hurts the government. The minute we complete due diligence and swamp them with media advisories they'll give it up. I'm sorry the playing field has changed and you now have to answer for every flight you make, but that's what you get when people are out to get us. ESPECIALLY the RCAF after the supposed CF-35 "scandal".
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
PuckChaser +1!
Everyone likes to blame the PAO for bad messaging, but they can only work with what is given. If you CC the PAO whenever you're planning on leaving the area, or give them access to the flying schedule online and help keep them in the loop they have a better chance of making sure things don't become a problem.
Heck. I live in an area that adores the CF, but I still like to know when the units are going to do some training or PT away from the base so I don't get surprised when the papers call and start asking questions.
Remember, nobody likes to look stupid.
Everyone likes to blame the PAO for bad messaging, but they can only work with what is given. If you CC the PAO whenever you're planning on leaving the area, or give them access to the flying schedule online and help keep them in the loop they have a better chance of making sure things don't become a problem.
Heck. I live in an area that adores the CF, but I still like to know when the units are going to do some training or PT away from the base so I don't get surprised when the papers call and start asking questions.
Remember, nobody likes to look stupid.
SupersonicMax said:
Because you are not paid to fish. Do the morale stuff on your own time. That's the public's attitude, and that's why the hell not.
Your entitlement statement and potential actioning is exactly what everyone is pointing out is wrong.
A
aesop081
Guest
GAP said:
Fantastic. I have a long list then, of things the CF needs to stop doing working hours.
A
aesop081
Guest
GAP said:
Legitimate activities do not cease to be legitimate because the public is retarded.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 13,457
- Points
- 1,140
CDN Aviator said:
I don't think the public is retarded, just poorly informed by the CF and DND, the government and poorly served by the MSM.
There will always be a segment of the public who will never accept any explanation government has to offer no matter how reasonable the position is.
:2c:
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
Strike said:
The daily schedule is readily available and a quick phone call to Wing Operations or the Squadron itself takes about 10 minutes and can clarify a lot of things. It is the PAO's job to gather the information it needs for requests from the media, not the pilot's job to pro-actively send that information to the PAO. If we were to pre-justify every single sortie, we would not see the end of it. However, when/if the information is required, we can staff it appropriately.
I have not seen once the PAO within our unit lines, other than for PA functions (parades, media interviews, etc). It would be nice to at least see them interested to learn about the organizations they are representing on camera.
- Reaction score
- 3,019
- Points
- 1,260
That said, anyone in an organization who forsees potential public misunderstanding of an activity should be responsible to at least bring it up with their bosses. At the most basic level, ALL members of any organization (military or civilian) are in the communications/public relations business re: that organization, no?SupersonicMax said:
- Reaction score
- 1,583
- Points
- 1,140
milnews.ca said:
The boss would have access to the daily schedule and understand the implications of the flights well before the flight takes off.
