Reserve Pilot Tac Hel Req

[Good2Golf]

That is why he works in recruiting now. ;D

Ouch!  You put a guy back in the field and how soon he forgets his fellow recruiters...  ;D

G2G

 

[Rick Ruter]

I guess I got caught up in the reading and he hit a sensitive cord. I also went to -3 so that'll teach me. :-[

 

[dapaterson]

Conceivably, every airframe in the CF can have a Reservist at the controls.  The caveat being that in most cases you must be ex-RegF.

In the case of the helo-world, the heli-cop program allows for trained and experienced civi pilots to join the CF as CH-146 pilots.  This individual simply made the leap over from one helo-asset to another.  He is still restricted in his career options in that he can only fly rotary wing aircraft.

Isn't that a better way to train pilots though?  Most will not jump between platforms; why not streamline training at the front end and make it shorter and able to push through more pilots?

 

[Inch]

Isn't that a better way to train pilots though?  Most will not jump between platforms; why not streamline training at the front end and make it shorter and able to push through more pilots?

I actually think it's better for us to jump platforms. It gives us a much broader view into the workings of the machine as a whole. Even though I may not want to be posted out of MH, it's nice to have the option. If I didn't like the job when I got here, it sure would suck to know that the only way out of a job I didn't like was a desk somewhere or releasing. It's better for personnel management to be able to send them where you need them, vice be limited because of their entry plan, IMHO.

 

[aesop081]

I actually think it's better for us to jump platforms. It gives us a much broader view into the workings of the machine as a whole. Even though I may not want to be posted out of MH, it's nice to have the option. If I didn't like the job when I got here, it sure would suck to know that the only way out of a job I didn't like was a desk somewhere or releasing. It's better for personnel management to be able to send them where you need them, vice be limited because of their entry plan, IMHO.

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.

 

[aesop081]

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

 

[Zoomie]

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.

 

[Good2Golf]

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

 

[dapaterson]

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?

 

[aesop081]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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.

 

[dapaterson]

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?

 

[Inch]

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.

 

[I_am_John_Galt]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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.

 

[SupersonicMax]

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

 

[dapaterson]

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...

 

[Loachman]

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.

 

[Loachman]

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.