• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Non-Commissioned Pilots in the RCAF Discussion

The issue is not production of new wing grads. The issue is the retention of experienced aviators in the operational units. We need to generate at the line unit level (ie: make a new Hornet driver a combat-ready wingman, the a 2-ship lead, then a 4-ship lead and finally an instructor - similar concepts apply to other communities) Without that experience, the system cannot pull itself ouf of the hole. Having 17 brand new wingman on squadron doesn’t do anyone any good. What happens and what has been happenning for several years now is that those few instructors get abused and fly most of the hours available, leaving those that really need the hours, the inexperienced, with flying the bare minimum (and sometimes less).

There are several ways to do this, some that are within the CAF’s control such as keeping people at line units longer (which leads to a reduction of NWG production and some staff-jobs that go unfilled) and others, make being in the CAF more tolerable and others, which the CAF can only influence, by giving people the compensation they deserve.
 
Would we be able to ask our allies for assistance on some platforms? Or contract more outside instructors? Hercs for example?
The ground school at the OTU has been contracted to civilians for a long time already. I think they’re making a run at beefing up the instructors at the OTU again this APS, but it’s a bit of a balancing act since the units need instructors to keep making Aircraft Commanders, and then the ability to teach instructors is a whole other skill set that’s perhaps under-appreciated on paper. There’s no specific qualifications for teaching instructors but the guy who just finished his IP upgrade likely can’t do it.
 
The issue is not production of new wing grads. The issue is the retention of experienced aviators in the operational units. We need to generate at the line unit level (ie: make a new Hornet driver a combat-ready wingman, the a 2-ship lead, then a 4-ship lead and finally an instructor - similar concepts apply to other communities) Without that experience, the system cannot pull itself ouf of the hole. Having 17 brand new wingman on squadron doesn’t do anyone any good. What happens and what has been happenning for several years now is that those few instructors get abused and fly most of the hours available, leaving those that really need the hours, the inexperienced, with flying the bare minimum (and sometimes less).

There are several ways to do this, some that are within the CAF’s control such as keeping people at line units longer (which leads to a reduction of NWG production and some staff-jobs that go unfilled) and others, make being in the CAF more tolerable and others, which the CAF can only influence, by giving people the compensation they deserve.

Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?
 
Not about to argue (a lot) with guys in the field (we get that a lot from the grunts in the arty forums) but, correct me if I'm wrong here: with respect to a given airframe there's basic instruction in just the operation of the airframe and then more complex instructions on it's operational/combat use, correct? And secondly, is there a formal course for teaching a 2-ship lead or 4-ship lead or is this conducted at the operational squadron more or less as OJT?

🍻
 
Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?
For the legacy Herc airframe hours tends to be the limiting factor, they need to be overhauled every so many hours and there’s limited capacity for the contractor to do it. YFR is rarely a problem, there’s usually more money for jet fuel if you need it, the odd year there’s been issues. The techs are in the same boat as us though, so even if we had more airframes they might not have the capacity/experience to keep them running. Then there’s all the other trades, a couple years ago there was a desperate shortage of Flight Engineers, I think that’s sorted out though.
Edit: as Max mentioned the limited number instructors also tends to be an issue.
 
Last edited:
Respectfully, new wing grads is part of the problem set. When your pers production system can't meet current attrition rates you need to retain people longer; CAF retention is relatively strong compared to allies.

Hundreds of BTL pilots awaiting training is a major resource drain, both in cost and lost years of obligatory service post OFP. Successive RCAF commanders have failed to address it.
 
Respectfully, new wing grads is part of the problem set. When your pers production system can't meet current attrition rates you need to retain people longer; CAF retention is relatively strong compared to allies.

Hundreds of BTL pilots awaiting training is a major resource drain, both in cost and lost years of obligatory service post OFP. Successive RCAF commanders have failed to address it.
Right, but that is what I have been saying- it is a drain. A pilot who is waiting for an OTU slot counts against an operational line serial. Operational Training Unit/Op Sqn absorption rates are the issue. 2/3 CFFTS pump out an oversupply of what the Sqns can absorb but everyone keeps screaming to strip trained folks out of Ops Sqns to go to Moose Jaw/Portage. In my view, if we can stop raiding Op Sqns for experienced folks for even 24 months, we could catch up and get healthy.
 
The concept of flying jobs getting in the way of more important staff jobs needs to be excised from certain sectors of the RCAF... how many aircrew are in non-flying positions despite wanting to fly?
 
The concept of flying jobs getting in the way of more important staff jobs needs to be excised from certain sectors of the RCAF... how many aircrew are in non-flying positions despite wanting to fly?
Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?
 
Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?
AKA the Air Operations Officer.

 
This paper from CFC, touching on some of the issues discussed here, may be of interest to some.

RCAF LEADERSHIP AND THE CULT OF THE PILOT: REASSESSING A WWII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
I wonder if that paper was part of the reasoning for the start of the Air Ops Officer trade? I know it's been debated before, but could AOOs eventually command Sqns, Wings, etc?

It would take a big cultural shift (not just Pilots but ACSOs, etc) to make it happen.
 
Okay I'm following now, is the limited flight hours based on the current budget? Would a larger flying budget lead to quicker burn though of airframes?

Not really. Besides, yearly flying rates is a delicate balance between procurement of parts (linked to our National Procurement budgets managed by DGAEPM), maintenance capacity (linked to maintainers and their own qualifications), POL prices and fleet Estimated Life Expectancy (linked to Capital procurement - You fly more, your aircraft will last you less time and require a replacement sooner). Each fleet is allocated a number each year based on that balance. IIRC, most fleets, in the recent past under-flew their allocations (or at least the RCAF did as a whole). Merely increasing flying hours will not fix the issue - you still need people flying those hours. And in order to fly productive hours, we need Instructor Pilots, which we are short on. IPs are already close to burnout and increasing their workload will just push them out, IMO.

Not about to argue (a lot) with guys in the field (we get that a lot from the grunts in the arty forums) but, correct me if I'm wrong here: with respect to a given airframe there's basic instruction in just the operation of the airframe and then more complex instructions on it's operational/combat use, correct? And secondly, is there a formal course for teaching a 2-ship lead or 4-ship lead or is this conducted at the operational squadron more or less as OJT?

🍻
That is correct. There are formal courses to teach wingmen, 2-ship leads, 4-ship leads (we call those "tactical levels")and there is a different qualification to assess their combat readiness in those positions. A year's worth of flying is a balance between giving guys some "free" time in the aircraft to learn without supervision (we call that Continuous Training - CT. People fly in the position they are qualified to do) and banging away at upgrades (we call those upgrades an X board, in reference to the board with the syllabus on it, and once a mission is completed, we X it out). There are different philosophy on who and when to upgrade. My take on it is to put people on the upgrade syllabus as soon as they are mature enough and tactically ready.

Given our mission set is expansive (Defensive Counter Air, NORAD (which is subdivided in incepteption of Dangerous Military Aircraft, Operation Noble Eagle (airliners) and counter-narcotics), Close Air Support, Scene Commander/Armed Recce and self-escort strike), it is a really difficult balance to be had. You want people to practice in their tactical level in scenarios that go beyond what was taught on the syllabus but we also need to push people through the upgrade programs to replace people leaving. 3 years on Squadron is not nearly enough to get a good return on investment.

Would we not benefit from having a separate trade for those staff positions to keep pilots and crew on the front lines?

Yes but not all positions. Certain positions, such as positions within the Fighter Capability Office (Directorate of Air Requirements for Fighters) or at 1 Canadian Air Division (such as positions within the Senior Staff Officer Fighter shop), NORAD and NATO need an intimate understanding of the aircraft, the tactics and the environment we operate into. Having said this, there is a lot of fat indeed but in the last 4 years, we have eaten that fat. We have issues filling what we consider our "core" positions.
 
3 years on Squadron is not nearly enough to get a good return on investment.
What do you feel would be reasonable first / second tour lengths to adequately generate effective combat power (understanding that you're discussing fighter pilots and not necessarily other airframes or aircrew types)?
 
This paper from CFC, touching on some of the issues discussed here, may be of interest to some.

RCAF LEADERSHIP AND THE CULT OF THE PILOT: REASSESSING A WWII ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
Like the Army has the 'Cult of the Combat Arms Officer' and the Navy has the 'Cult of the Naval Warfare Officer'?

Just sayin' :)

Jimmy Fallon Reaction GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
 
Like the Army has the 'Cult of the Combat Arms Officer' and the Navy has the 'Cult of the Naval Warfare Officer'?

Just sayin' :)

Jimmy Fallon Reaction GIF by The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon
Which was fine with me when the artillery was part of the combat arms. This combat support thing ........... 😠

🍻
 
Aircrew don’t reach OFP until they have completed their first OTU. 2Lts , Lts and Captains who are in the training system still or posted to their first squadron aren’t taking up a line number at their units, they are all consider BTL. Oblig service doesn’t exist for flying, it’s just a Restricted Release Period, which has recently been extended to 12 years for pilots. First tour pilots are guaranteed 4 years for their first flying tour, most second (and third) tour pilots get 4 years too (some get 7 years). Majors only get 3 years and then off to something else (cycle for career O-4s is Fly-Staff-Fly-Staff)
 
Aircrew don’t reach OFP until they have completed their first OTU. 2Lts , Lts and Captains who are in the training system still or posted to their first squadron aren’t taking up a line number at their units, they are all consider BTL. Oblig service doesn’t exist for flying, it’s just a Restricted Release Period, which has recently been extended to 12 years for pilots. First tour pilots are guaranteed 4 years for their first flying tour, most second (and third) tour pilots get 4 years too (some get 7 years). Majors only get 3 years and then off to something else (cycle for career O-4s is Fly-Staff-Fly-Staff)
That is not completely correct. I bet that if you look into it, you will discover that aircrew posted to your Sqn awaiting an OTU are, in fact, taking up a line serial. I know for a fact that is the case in the MH Sqns.
 
That is not completely correct. I bet that if you look into it, you will discover that aircrew posted to your Sqn awaiting an OTU are, in fact, taking up a line serial. I know for a fact that is the case in the MH Sqns.
I was definitely on a line serial after wings but before OTU.
 
Back
Top