Stirling Dyer said:
FAC used to be done mostly by Arty but is quickly becoming an Air Force trade again. The team itself is called a Tactical Air Control Party (TACP), and the two trades that are the meat of the team are Aerospace Control Officers (AEC) (Weapons) on the Officer Side, and Aerospace Control Operators (AC OPS) on the NCM side.
TACP is in its infancy in Canada, but for a good idea of what the teams are like take a look at the American model. Our way of doing things is very similar. A good book on the topic is Danger Close by Steve Call.
Know your lane young Padawan! First off thanks to George for pointing out the most obvious historical inaccuracies, however, where to begin? While Canada has it's own doctrine with regard to CAS it is officially based largely on NATO doctrine. Much of this however is set aside by the community in favour of US doctrine/TTPs because let's face it, when push comes to shove they are who we work with and they set the rules. For example, that is the reason we use the US 9-line vice the NATO version when on ops. All things FAC were the purview of the AF for a long time but that didn't mean it was the AF who did it. Sure there were AF FACs as there still are, however it was largely Arty and Recce types ( both Armd/Inf) who made up the bulk of FACs. In the late 90's / early 00's the AF under funding and flying hour pressures all but stopped conducting CAS training and for 2-3 years we never ran any FAC crses. The Army, specifically the Artillery School, saw this as completely unacceptable and picked up the ball so to speak and started running the course themselves (with the blessing of the AF) using contracted fast air and allied aircraft to enable the training. Immediately the course doubled in length and had a much more more land ops focus. That has been improved upon until the course is now 3 x as long as the original one and incorporates contracted air, aviation, Canadian and US fighters as well as Strat bombers. The course is so well run and turns out such a good product that there is no desire by the AF to take it back because it is working and it is one less thing that they have to deal with. That being said, now that it is running I am more than willing to debate where in the Army the FAC CoE should be and we will see what happens with the stand-up of the Air-Land Integration Cell in Kingston this summer.
In any case, as for terminology that is one of the biggest debates in the community because take JTAC for example, while most FACs call themselves JTACs, LFDTS will have none of it and the term FAC still remains. The why isn't really important, however for this you have to understand what a TACP is to us vs. the US. In Canada it is the coordination center in the BG or Bde CP that deals with air/avn. Sure they can with the help of the ASCC manage airspace and they do have FAC qualified individuals who can and do conduct Type II controls however in Canada the FOO/FAC or (FAC/FOO) party is still the party that is on the battlefield doing the same task at the Coy and below level. It is only them who are outside the wire directly in the fight. Yes I know a few AF TACP types who did the combat tourism thing and controlled outside the wire but it was not their job and most tours see the entire TACP staying inside KAF the entire time. The US doesn't make the distinction and a TACP exists at every level of the tactical organization, so yes they call their FAC parties TACPs, but they also call the BG TACP a TACP as well so don't get them confused. Oh, and don't forget that in the US being a JTAC is a trade not a specialization or skill like it is in Canada so that allows them to invest in and employ their pers differently than we do.
Currently there are on average two FACs in the TACP and about 6 x that in the rest of the TF. So, I don't see where this perception of a shift from Army to AF is coming from. And as for AEC and AES Ops sure they are employed in the TACP but very few of those who have deployed have been FACs, which if I were one of them I would have been seriously pi**ed about. In the AF, FACs have historically been experienced fighter pilots but with the move away from doing CAS also came a lack of desire to use the limited resource of fighter pilots in that role and they shifted to then Air Wpns and Nav guys. Now that the TACP is the AF's contribution to Afgh (until the stand-up of the Wing) it became important enough to put fighter guys back in charge and while yes there are AEC etc. I can only think of CF-18 and Griffon drivers who were the OC TACP or FACs.
In the end, to answer the OP's question, if you want to be in an actual FAC party and get out in the field it will have to be with an Arty unit as a part of a FOO FAC party which are usually made up of gunners, however there is a move to bring in other combat arms guys (right now 1 RCHA has two Armd O's and one Inf O who are there as FAC/FOOs) but there are no NCMs similarly employed at this time. That is not to say that you can't get the FAC Crse yourself but you have to be Cbt Arms Master Cpl or up and in a position that requires it. It's just too expensive, resource intensive and backlogged to waste spots on people who don't truly need it. So, then let's say you were in the Recce Sqn you may get the course but you would not actually be in a FAC party, rather just have that skill. In the Artillery the FOO/FAC parties use generally Arty sigs because of the Arty component to their job. One area you might want to look at is the OMLT where the FOO/FAC party is structured differently than in any other org, and the OMLT temds to be something a bit easier to volunteer for.