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

Initiatives launched to retain and increase RCAF personnel experience levels

AM Sup

Guest
Reaction score
17
Points
130
Were you a WO when you talked to the 1 Cad CWO? That is much different then a CPL talking to the CWO.
The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.
The attitude is we will farm out the work if we can't get Techs. Eventually you run out of those people also.
If you look up a few posts or so you'll see I'd addressed your question regarding my rank at the time. I've already stated my disdain for farmed out maintenance in this thread.

I've found that the senior folks who are interested in an air tech perspective are few and far between. I don't see that changing any time soon.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
897
Points
910
If you look up a few posts or so you'll see I'd addressed your question regarding my rank at the time. I've already stated my disdain for farmed out maintenance in this thread.

I've found that the senior folks who are interested in an air tech perspective are few and far between. I don't see that changing any time soon.
You and I have, undoubtably, met.

I have taken numerous Sea King Dets to sea and the one thing that always impressed me was the ability of the techs use their ingenuity, along with the tools and parts on hand (all fully approved by the WSM, I hasten to add) to give us aircrew a fully serviceable and airworthy helicopter, nearly everyday.

That is much more difficult now, with Sikorsky/L3 in the mix and most of the 1st line maintenance either Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) or grease jobs (yes, I am simplifying).
 

AM Sup

Guest
Reaction score
17
Points
130
You and I have, undoubtably, met.

I have taken numerous Sea King Dets to sea and the one thing that always impressed me was the ability of the techs use their ingenuity, along with the tools and parts on hand (all fully approved by the WSM, I hasten to add) to give us aircrew a fully serviceable and airworthy helicopter, nearly everyday.

That is much more difficult now, with Sikorsky/L3 in the mix and most of the 1st line maintenance either Line Replaceable Units (LRUs) or grease jobs (yes, I am simplifying).
No doubt, not sure if you're east or west but I left 443 in 18.... was at 423 from 08-13.

We made a lot of stuff work with what we had. Tons of credit has to go back to the MSE folks: stokers, electricians, hull techs and of course the deck department for all their support out there. Having that fabrication and machining experience in those folks along with the rigging support from the desk folks for blade changes etc was invaluable.

Without getting into too much, I'd say there are certain engineering support/approval aspects that produce results much more quickly under the current ISS, but in most areas I'm not a big fan of it and I'd absolutely agree with you.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
144
Points
430
Read my reply right above your post.
Don't take that as a criticism. It sounds like you were doing yeomans work for your techs. It was simply stating the fact that a WO has access no cpl will ever have.
 

AM Sup

Guest
Reaction score
17
Points
130
Don't take that as a criticism. It sounds like you were doing yeomans work for your techs. It was simply stating the fact that a WO has access no cpl will ever have.
Not at all, no harm done.

This was an odd situation where the the SCWO had sent him down to my office just so I could point him towards some techs on the floor. He specifically wanted to chat with folks in coveralls. I just grabbed the chance to ask him a couple of frank questions, which ended up stretching into a half-hour or so. I really had no hope of any satisfaction from the conversation, there were simply a few things I saw wrong in the outfit and I wasn't going to miss my chance to pass it up. He spent most of the afternoon out chatting with techs, unchaperoned I might add. I've never seen anything like it.

I certainly get more access to 'some' upper folks now than I did before, but it's not really a free for all. It's very rare that I'm asked for an opinion, more the provision of metrics or assistance developing COAs.
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
897
Points
910
No doubt, not sure if you're east or west but I left 443 in 18.... was at 423 from 08-13.

We made a lot of stuff work with what we had. Tons of credit has to go back to the MSE folks: stokers, electricians, hull techs and of course the deck department for all their support out there. Having that fabrication and machining experience in those folks along with the rigging support from the desk folks for blade changes etc was invaluable.

Without getting into too much, I'd say there are certain engineering support/approval aspects that produce results much more quickly under the current ISS, but in most areas I'm not a big fan of it and I'd absolutely agree with you.
We’ve met.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
145
Points
710
Wait, it isn't? I would have thought that any "large aircrew wing" trade was its own trade.

Isn't the difference between TT and LM similar to the difference between AVN/AVS Tech and FE?

You'd think...but, LM is officially a "specialized flight crew" badge. CFP 265 updates and the social media site posts in past years are sort of misleading. LM is an Occupational Specialty with Traf Tech as the sole feeder trade, much like Flight Nurse is an Occupational Specialty of the Nursing Officer MOSID.

I don't know why the "LM should be it's own MOSID" idea was shot down, I just heard it was from a friend at 1 CAD. I know there is some talk about Door Gunners attempting the same change as well, and unfortunately the LM subj might have set an unfortunate precedent. Seeing the Flight Attendant recruiting drive on now, I wonder why they aren't all OTd in a"Flight Crew" MOSID with sub-occ for each of the Flt crew specialities (AES Op is 00019-01, AES Op - Jnr is 00019-02, so it's done already).

Source: CFP 154 Annex E

Apparently they’re both Air Force and Army

(y)
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
145
Points
710
The reality is the Airforce is full of self serving upper staff, who cater to Pilots. (they even screw them) will be damned if they let then Techs tell them how to run the show.

That hasn't been my reality; I am a OT from the Cbt Arms, who OT'd to ATIS and then OTd to AES Op, with my last OT being over a decade ago.

I had a definitely "challenging" op tempo from around 2014-2018, but treatment (Cpl to WO) has been great, and the Sqn, Wing and Air Div leadership I've interacted with has been top notch for the most part.

Can you narrow down a little what you mean by "running the show"?
 

Sf2

Sr. Member
Reaction score
13
Points
180
The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday. Surprised no comments.
 

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
83
Points
360
The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday. Surprised no comments.
At first glance it appears that with my quals I would be paid better as a Capt than my current rank as Maj. The briefer for 15 Wing was adamant that they could come up with something fair so I’m trying not to get overly bent out of shape yet.
 

dapaterson

Army.ca Relic
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
1,225
Points
890
CBI 204.04 still applies. A promotion to Maj would take someone to the next higher Major pay incentive.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
411
Points
880
I don't think the new pay scales will do much with retention to be honest. The Capt pay takes too long to increase significantly (ie: people will be past restricted release before pay becomes competitive). Coupled with years of pay well below what Capts are making now (below GSO for 8-9 years!), I predict it will lead to many leaving after their commitment is up.

The new scales do somewhat incentivize promotions but not everyone wants that and the pay scales make me thing that this was overlooked or not understood.

My prediction: Many Majors and LCols will stick around for 5 more years, to increase their pension. The CAF will see this as "success." Until, in 5 years, all these folks retire. There is also 0 incentive to be promoted to Col or BGen other than ambition.
 

kev994

Full Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
83
Points
360
CBI 204.04 still applies. A promotion to Maj would take someone to the next higher Major pay incentive.
In my specific case, on implementation day I’m 31 days short of Capt PI 17, which is a huge jump. It will be interesting to see how that works out.
 

TCM621

Sr. Member
Subscriber
Reaction score
144
Points
430
The new pay scales were disseminated yesterday. Surprised no comments.
Lots of comments but mostly just anger at the way it was handled, locally anyway.

I personally think it is a stupid move, at least with Pilots but I think SAR techs might have issues as well.

It's overly complicated. They couldn't explain how it would work properly. It removes any incentive to be on the pointy end over a desk because you can earn 6 figures in Ops as well as behind the stick. And it kicks the rest of the RCAF in the face. Even the command team recognized that it would create division especially in multi trade fleets like the Aurora. Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot.

The SAR techs are a little different but the biggest issue I for see is that it doesn't appear to be link to a qualification anymore and you could have students earing 6 figures.

All these allowances were designed to compensate the person who spends more time in the field or flying than the person riding a desk. Sure the vast majority of Pilots or SAR techs would prefer to be doing their job rather than being chain to a desk but that also involves being away more, working less regular hours, etc and now there is nothing to compensate them for that.
 

dimsum

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
669
Points
940
Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot.
"Well then maybe they should OT to Pilot" :sneaky:

I say this as a joke, but I wouldn't be surprised if some people actually think that way.
 

SupersonicMax

Army.ca Veteran
Mentor
Reaction score
411
Points
880
And it kicks the rest of the RCAF in the face. Even the command team recognized that it would create division especially in multi trade fleets like the Aurora. Now the Major crew commander in the back is making less than the co-pilot.
It's all about market value. Short of fixing systemic issues, money, comparable to the private sector, is what will keep people in. Same thing as doctors, dentists and lawyers.

FWIW, the co-pilot will likely make less than the any ACSOs on the plane. PIs are tied to qualification. First Officer won't make it past PI 12 (which is where the pay increases towards market value). Up to Capt PI 9, pilots will make less than GSOs.
 

Eye In The Sky

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
145
Points
710
Maybe I'm getting older and simple; anything that increases my pension is a good thing for me. AIRCRA is extra money, for certain but to put it into context, I was flying 120hrs/month on IMPACT for Lvl 2 AIRCRA ($397/month). That works out to about $3.31/hr; needless to say...I wasn't flying "for the money". My Ops FPS, HA - HA bonus, RA etc were all the same as those folks at ASAB who were not flying. I'd like to think people who wear wings are doing so because they enjoy military aviation, not purely for that AIRCRA (that isn't worth that much, after taxes...).

I'll take, say $400-$500...add it to my current pay (happily!)...and then I can see value in it "in the future". I'm talking the 65 years old, retired, indexing and suddenly that (70% of $400/500/month) addition to my pension. If I depart the fix before my wife, she should have some extra funds every month because "AIRCRA was absorbed into salary". Maybe not enough to buy that yacht...but some.

The big question from the v-briefing I attended yesterday was the "so, should we stop getting AIRCRA now so we don't end up in an arrears situation in year?" from one of the Plts.

I was more interested in the SAR Tech piece, as that is likely a model that has potential to hit my trade. I thought "those are some decent numbers". Am I being too positive? I saw the Gates for Pilots and they seem to make more sense...I'm not sure there is a selling piece for NCMs who are say, WOs, who are working in a Standard flight and therefore should make more than the Sqn Ops WO, who is standards qual'd/experienced but moved to Ops for a different tic in the box...
 

SeaKingTacco

Army.ca Fixture
Donor
Reaction score
897
Points
910
I’ve spoken to a few pilots around Sqn. While not a scientific survey, the senior pilots seemed to be in favour of it, while the junior pilots were concerned about losing money.

The ACSOs are already used to being in charge of people that make more money than them. I was speaking to the WComd about that and told him that I figured being boss of people that make more money than you does not take money out of your own pocket, so don’t worry about it.
 
Last edited:
Top