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

AESOp ( MOC 081)

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
Gotcha, I don't recall much from the EH101 contract, I was 15yrs old in 1993 and I was more interested in girls than anything to do with MH. Was there any talk of going with a 3 man crew similar to the USN Seahawks? Since I've been on scene, I've only heard of the current setup wrt to crews.

Cheers
 
S

Sam69

Guest
aesop081 said:
As for complexity of the new sensor systems on the cyclone, i'm positive than as an NCM i can manage to operate them properly regardless of the fact that i did not go trough ASC.  If the training program is first rate then a BAC graduate will not have any problems.  The current BAC is spot on in preparing us for OTU and the next course will be even better as they will incorporate BEW, ESM and ISAR in the coriculum.

I'm not questioning anyone's individual competence nor trying to make a case that officers are better at handling complex equipment. Frankly, I know people in all three MH aircrew MOCs who will simply not be able to make the jump to the new aircraft (you know the type: the ones who are challenged by e-mail).

The case was simply made, and I think it was valid, that the complexity of the tasks associated with the new SENSO seat and the math skills required to successfully accomplish the passive tasks suggested that a screening system like ASC would be a cost effective way of assessing a candidate's aptitude before investing a great deal of costly training in them. This is the logic that supports sending both pilot and nav candidates to ASC.

I am personally of the belief that our expectations for the SENSO seat in the new MH are too high and that it will be extremely difficult and costly to maintain a reasonable proficiency in all the tasks associated with the seat (active and passive acoustics, ISAR, EW, comms, back door work, gunnery, etc). Initial assessments of the SENSO course for the new MH already point to an extremely long course and we haven't really started to look at the real proficiency and currency costs. The unknown is just how much training we will reasonably be able to accomplish in the synthetic environment (sims, PTT, etc).

Anyway, exciting and challenging times ahead!

Sam
 
S

Sam69

Guest
Inch said:
Gotcha, I don't recall much from the EH101 contract, I was 15yrs old in 1993 and I was more interested in girls than anything to do with MH. Was there any talk of going with a 3 man crew similar to the USN Seahawks? Since I've been on scene, I've only heard of the current setup wrt to crews.

Cheers

I don't think that the 3 person option was ever seriously contemplated. I know that it was briefly considered but rejected based on the complexity of the mission set. You have to appreciate that the new MH (S-92 Superhawk) will be capable of a vastly wider mission set than any one Seahawk.  I think it will be a challenge to accomplish the mission set with the 4 person crew and we will need to be inventive and open-minded in how we allocate tasks in the aircraft (e.g. have the non-flying pilot monitor EW and RADAR while the back end is involved in an ASW prosecution).

Sam
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Sam69 said:
The case was simply made, and I think it was valid, that the complexity of the tasks associated with the new SENSO seat and the math skills required to successfully accomplish the passive tasks suggested that a screening system like ASC would be a cost effective way of assessing a candidate's aptitude before investing a great deal of costly training in them. This is the logic that supports sending both pilot and nav candidates to ASC.

I disagree..........AESOps have to complete a math test upon arrival at CFANS and receive 47 hours of math instruction ( covering everithing from trig, log, vectors and phasors, algebric equations......) as part of the course.  Nav students do not have the benefit of this on the BANC course, yet both are supposed to perform the same tasks here at the school.  Math training is not that resource intensive vice sending 16 extra pers a year to ASC when the already have enough on their hands.

I have flown in the CH-146 alot and i would rather that, in the new MH, the non-flying pilot not handle any of the mission gear and concentrates on his job.  With a nav and an aesop in the back, they are more than capable of multi-tasking , even in a high threat environment.  As far as i have been explained, the mission sensor are to be fully intergrated ( I.E. an ESM overlay onto the radar display allowing for increased SA) therfore making the life of the back-enders easier to manage. Becasue we in the back have our eyes glue to the screens, the NFP's job becomes crucial as the FP may have too much to concentrate on to look around the A/C and monitor for technical problems ( as the MH will not have a flight engineer).  Also, by adding EW, radar and other things to the pilot's training, you are increasing the workload on an already lenghty training process.  Let the pilots do their thing, let us do ours in the back.  As long as the man-machine interface is well designed, this will be possible.
 
S

Sam69

Guest
Well, we are all entitled to our opinions 081 but I find that I disagree with pretty much everything you say in the post above.

Agree to disagree I guess.

Sam
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Fair enough...

I would like to know what your background/experience is ( I.e. are you a nav/pilot/aesop ??).  Would help put your opinion in perspective.  What i mean by that is that it may help me better understand where you are coming from.  You can PM me if thats better for you......your choice.

At any rate, i will examine some of your points further


 
S

Sam69

Guest
I think I owe you a better explanation.

What I disagree wholeheartedly with is the idea that there are front end and back end jobs and that they are separated by a firewall. In a crew as small as an MH crew with a mission as complex and as busy as that of the MH crew, I think it is critical that we breakdown any such barriers.

For example, I fully expect the TACCO to peer forward with a jaundiced eye once in a while and ask a question if he/she  sees something he doesn't like. Just because a gauge is in the cockpit doesn't mean the TACCO isn't entitled to ask my the MGB pressure is zero. And, during heavy ASW action where the back-end crew is saturated (and trust me, they get saturated), I expect the non-flying pilot to monitor the situation, back-up the TACCO on radios, and offer input into the tactical situation where appropriate.

In the case of the new MH (the Superhawk), I believe that there will simply be too many sensors and associated tasks for the backend to effectively manage them all at once. I advocate the philosophy of primary sensors and tactical nav in the back end, secondary sensors to the non-flying pilot. Granted, there will be times that the NFP is required to focus on assisting the flying pilot. But, in a modern aircraft equipped with George (autopilot) and automated system monitors, the need for the NFP to constantly monitor the FP is greatly reduced. Expecially in the case of a passive acoustic mission where 103% of the SENSO's attention will be on buoy processing, where the TACCO is fully involved in tactics and comms, and the aircraft is flying a loose holding pattern on George, it only makes sense that the NFP take on RADAR and possibly ESM. I don't think either the training bill nor the proficiency bill will be onerous because I am not suggesting that the pilots be trained to perform alll of the sensor functions but rather just the basic functions needed to monitor the system. At the first sign of contact, the sensor of interest would then be passed back to the back end for assessment and further action. (This is similar to how we used to monitor "pingers" - active buoys)

In the bad old days of the introduction of the HELTAS bird (CH-124B), the non-flying pilot was expected to maintain a manual back-up plot on a Mk-6b plotting board. Yikes. What a major PITA that was. But if a numpty in the driver's seat could maintain a decent Mk-6 plot, imagine what a trained professional could contribute to the crew with the aid of modern electronics. We just have to break a few rice bowls to get there. For example, a few years ago there was discussion about putting a display repeater in the front end so pilots could select either a slaved display from the ASN-123 (tactical computer) or a slaved image from the FLIR. Immediately the union reps came out vociferously against providing the pilots any additional information. The most vocal opponents were from within the AESOp trade who felt that pilots were incapable of interpreting the FLIR display and were better off with just a verbal commentary from the sensor expert (never mind the ICS congestion). The TACCOs were a mixed bag - some liked the idea of the pilot (particularly the Crew Commander) being able to see the tactical plot while others felt that it might lead to some CCs micromanaging the tactical situation. Pilots are not blameless either. When it was suggested that the armament control panel be moved to the TACCO's station (Because it it the TACCO who manages the weapons), there was an uproar from the front end over the "loss of control" when the fact remained that the pilot would still have the veto through the "Master Arm" switch and only the pilots can release external stores. These are the kind of attitudes the MH community needs to killl.

Something to think about - and discuss further if you wish.

Sam
 
A

aesop081

Guest
I see where you are comming from.

Yes, the front end should also have control over the IR ( be it on sea kings or cyclones) as they are not only a great tactical sensor but also a veru useful navigation aid for the pilots up front.  But i maintain that the FP and NFP have thier jobs ( they drive the bus) and yes we are one crew but all have different roles to play, otherwise we would all be pilots, or ( god help us) navs.  I did not mean to imply that there should be this impenetrable wall between both ends of the A/C but in the same breath, i would be weary of giving the NFP a slave display of the 123 ( or whatever it will be in the 148).  Yes, as a member of the crew, if i notice that them MGB press needle is  on its way to china, i should say something but would you like it if i spent more time being a pilot or be in the back ?  Beleive me, i have seen micromanaging in action !! As for george, as much as it can be a useful tool..it is not infaliable and when the bird is in the dip, i'm not sure that i entirely trust it enough to forgo the NFP's duites.

I guess that while i do beleive that there needs to be more crew interaction (ie NFP doing comms, using IR/EO and some navigation), The backenders are none the less the tactical "specialist" ( lack of a better word) and the pilots drive the bus. With the apropriate displays and sensor intergration, the TACCO and AESOp can overcome task saturation while the burden of SA can be spread amongst the entire crew.

I do not wish to sound like i am protecting my turf ( as i dont yet have a turff !!), please dont get me wrong
 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
aesop, it's not about you being a backseat pilot, crew cooperation is what it's all about. Sometimes things can get super busy and we may not notice one of the needles flickering or worse, reading zero, since we're looking at an angle at the instruments.  The TACCO and AESOp can look straight on at the engine instruments and see them much better just by virtue of where they're sitting. The same can be said for circuit breakers, we look up at some and straight down at others, in the shadows it may be difficult for us to see that a breaker is popped, whereas the GIBs can see the white band around the breaker far easier.

What it comes down to, is all of our asses are on the line, not just the drivers. So if someone sees something out of the ordinary then by all means speak up, I don't know of many guys that would call it backseat piloting and it could prevent a disaster.

As for us easing your workload in the back, I'm with Sam on this one.

Just some food for thought.

Cheers
 
A

aesop081

Guest
I understand what you are saying but i am more concerned about mission eqpt than the A/C itself.  CRM and airmanship dictate that we are all to be watching for problems on the A/C and/or things that dont feel right.  That i understand.

I guess i just like my pilots......well....piloting !  Thats what you get paid the big bucks for !

But then again i am an unqualified puke..........
 
S

Sam69

Guest
aesop081 said:
I guess i just like my pilots......well....piloting !  Thats what you get paid the big bucks for !

Not to beat a dead horse (too long)... but my duties include a lot more than piloting when I fly already. It's just a matter of prioritizing what is important at the moment and never losing sight of the fact that the earth has a Pk of 1.0

Sam
 
A

aesop081

Guest
Yes, the ground does have a higher Pk than the missile you are trying to avoid.  Although i think you may have sold me sam, i had quite the education yesterday, LLRN is no fun in winter, i rapidly developed a helmet fire.  The radar picture was not at all like the map due to the lakes being frozen.  I only wish the pilots would have stuck to the SOP calls we were taught and not replace " wings level XXX" with just "steady".................so i ended up getting my ****  slapped for being late with my 3T check !!

Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

Cheers
 

Zoomie

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
161
Points
680
aesop081 said:
Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

Welcome to the wonderful world of CF flying - where you are constantly water skiing behind the plane in your valiant efforts to keep up!

Buck up there lad, we have all been there and it will get much easier.

Ask the pilots next time to make standard calls - they won't really mind.  If any of your FO's are Milani or Guenther - give them a shot in the arm from me.
 
A

aesop081

Guest
WILCO.

Second attempt at LLRN today, weather doesnt look all that good though.  Hopefully i'm not behind the 8-ball this time.

 

Inch

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
0
Points
410
aesop081 said:
Bottom line is i got swamped and let the airplane take the lead and that wasn't good.

We've all been there, we used to call it watch-map-mirror in the Harvards. At 4 miles a min, you tend to get behind the aircraft real quick if you're not on the ball and instead of looking ahead of you for what you found on the map, you're looking in the mirror to see if you flew over it already.

As my fixed wing cohort said, it does get easier.
 

GOF

Guest
Reaction score
0
Points
0
When I re-mustered to MOC 081, we were called Observers.  And yes, the only places that knew what we were were on the Maritime Bases.  In my day we only had three aircraft, Argus, Tracker and the Sea Thing.  I was lucky, I was on the Argus in Summerside 1973-75.

I think the trade should remain a re-muster, and definitely not a direct entry.

Just my humble opinion.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,828
Points
1,010
I think the trade should remain a re-muster, and definitely not a direct entry.

GOF-
what are your reasons for saying that?  the reason that I ask is, that out of an established requirement for a little over 200 AES Ops, we only have about 140 (and dropping).  Well over 75% of our AES Ops are pensionable.  The pool of remusters has gotten so small (demographically speaking) that we don't even get enough files per year to cover the available training slots (24/year).  I'm not sure AES Op can survive another five years as a "remuster only trade".  Thoughts?
 
A

aesop081

Guest
SeaKingTacco said:
GOF-
(and dropping). 

.......FAST !!!

SeaKingTacco said:
  I'm not sure AES Op can survive another five years as a "remuster only trade".  Thoughts?

It won't.  Recruiting right from the street is seriously being looked at now.  I've been told we are paying close attention to the SAR trade now that they are trying it out.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
3,828
Points
1,010
It won't.  Recruiting right from the street is seriously being looked at now.  I've been told we are paying close attention to the SAR trade now that they are trying it out.

Aesop- As an outside observer, standing near the impending site of the trainwreck (12 Wing), I would have to agree with you.  I was just curious what GoF's reasons were- maybe he is seeing something I'm missing...

Cheers!
 

Rigger

New Member
Reaction score
0
Points
0
The FE trade is in the same boat, we are also looking at taking applicants straight off the street, running them through Borden for both AVN and AVS training. From there we run them through the FE phase of training. This is still in suggestion/planning stages, but as like any of the other re-muster trades there just isn't the pool to draw from. The FE trade is further handicapped because we can only draw from the AVN trade, where as AESOP & SAR Tech can draw from any trade in the CF.
 
Top