"Nothing secret about Chinook training"

[MarkOttawa]

A post at The Torch:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/nothing-secret-about-chinook-training.html

Also some stuff about the U.S. Army battalion that should eventually come to RC South being under Canadian command.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[R933ex]

Wondering if any one has the answer to this.

Reading the arctical there is a reference to a flight crew of 2 pilots, 2 FE's and a door gunner. In the past the CF has flown the Chinook with  Loadies. I'm wondering if this is correct in that there will be no loadies on the Chinook.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Here's the Ottawa Citizen story:

Copter pilots secretly train in U.S.
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=bc8d01a8-13ce-47ae-aaed-2e26f85fdc1f

Mark
Ottawa

 

[gwp]

A post at The Torch:
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2008/08/nothing-secret-about-chinook-training.html
Also some stuff about the U.S. Army battalion that should eventually come to RC South being under Canadian command. Mark Ottawa

Poor choice of words. Countries never give up "national command"  In coalition or multi-national operations other countries resources are under "operation control" of the lead nation not "command". Should a commander of Canadian Forces under "operational control" of another nation's lead be asked to do something that is outside the national mission or rules of engagement he/she is obliged to ask higher headquarters for direction ... and the reverse is true when other nation's resources are under "operational control" of a Canadian ... best present example is CTF 150 with a Canadian Commodore in control of ships from six or seven other nations including the UK, US, Pakistan, Netherlands and more. 

 

[fire_guy686]

Reading the arctical there is a reference to a flight crew of 2 pilots, 2 FE's and a door gunner. In the past the CF has flown the Chinook with  Loadies. I'm wondering if this is correct in that there will be no loadies on the Chinook.

I thought they were supposed to have loadies, but I think it was not known who was going to do it. I know we have some here who want to know because they wouldn't mind flying on it. Seems like it would be a good go.

 

[Trinity]

The writer Matt Fisher is different than our Matt Fisher (CPGEAR) I assume?!

 

[Good2Golf]

Two flight engineers is correct.  The current loadmaster structure is different than the tac hel loadies who flew on our earlier Chinooks.

I am rather surprised at Mr. Fisher's take on the story.  All the reporters who were at the announcement in St-Hubert got the full scoop on all the training details.  One more day and Mr. Fisher would have all the details.  There is no secret.

G2G

 

[Strike]

Was just watching the news.  CTV had a "military analyst" who said something to the effect of "helicopters aren't the answer because they can be shot down."

That statement is just so many ways of stupid.  No one ever said helos were invulnerable, just that they were safer.

 

[Good2Golf]

I saw Steven Staples say that, I think.  True, they can be shot down, they can crash, parts can fall off, asteroids can hit them, they're just as susceptible to global warming as other modes of transportation, the list goes on.

The point has some validity to it, but the benefit I believe is far greater than the detrimental factors.

My 2 ¢

G2G

 

[Franko]

I saw Steven Staples say that, I think.  True, they can be shot down, they can crash, parts can fall off, asteroids can hit them, they're just as susceptible to global warming as other modes of transportation, the list goes on.

The point has some validity to it, but the benefit I believe is far greater than the detrimental factors.

My 2 ¢

G2G

You are quite correct....it was Staples. Stunning revelation on his part.        :

Regards

 

[geo]

They can be shot down ... but they are usually not suceptible to IEDs

 

[2 Cdo]

They can be shot down ... but they are usually not suceptible to IEDs

I find Mr Staples rarely tells the 'whole" story, and has almost no real knowledge of military tactics or operations. He is a whiny, smarmy character who would rather see the CF engaged in candy distribution as opposed to actually honouring any committments to our allies. The great majority of his work revolves around UN good, US bad. :

 

[Greymatters]

Based on information from a similiar thread, implying field reporters have little or no control over their final products, one has to ask: was it the reporter who wrote it was 'secret', or did the editor make the change to the story and add the word 'secret'?

 

[Babbling Brooks]

Fisher is a Ross Munro award winner - so I doubt it's simple ignorance.  Especially since the news was reported in his own CanWest chain of newspapers in April of this year.

I'd suggest he either threw that in there in order to get some attention from the editors for this piece (every newspaper writer wants to see his or her story on the front page, above the fold), or his editors did in order to spice the article up a bit.

Either way, it's not particularly responsible journalism.