Tac Hel

[Scoobs]

Zoomie, actually the original topic was Cadpat and the blue nametags, etc.   I commented on that and never stated that it was necessary for Tac Hel to have the C8.   What Tac Hel needs are the same basic equipment that anybody in the Army gets, including RMS clerks, etc. that deploy with the Army.   I'm not saying that we need the same equipment as the infantry, etc.   But, when I go to supply to get the tac vest instead of webbing (GO!!, never did I say that Tac Hel needs more webbing) and I'm told that I can't have it because I'm a member of an AF unit, then there is something wrong.   That was my point.   Why can Tac Hel pers not have the same BASIC equipment that everybody in the Army can have.   That includes non-combat MOCs.   A tac vest is an item that a person gets when they deploy overseas.   From my time in the ARMY, I learned that you train with the equipment that you will use in ops.   Thus, the need to have tac vest and the proper equipment.
It is true that I have flight gloves, but I would gladly return them if I could get the Army cadpat gloves as these are better suited for my job.   But I can't as they won't be issued to me.   Why?   The simple reality is that any CF member, be it Army, AF, or Navy, should they be at a unit that deploys to the field, they should be able to get the same basic equipment as any non-combat MOC in the Army would get.
The Griffon.   This a/c was not the choice of the operators, nor the maintainers.   The a/c can perform well for what it was designed for and if you choose the missions for it.   However, it is not a be all helo like the Government wanted the public to think it was.   Thus, the new CDS (and I highly respect him since we finally have a CDS who remembers that he wears a uniform first) is pushing for a new medium/heavy lift helo.
Doing what the CF intends to do with the Griffon.   Considering what I said above about the Griffon, I agree that the Army is sometimes disappointed with the results they receive.   However, it is important to realize that the Army has taken a considerable long time to tell 1 Wing what they wanted Tac Hel to do. This has improved dramatically with the Army sitting down with 1 Wing and telling them what they want from Tac Hel.   GO!!, if you're not satisfied with what support you are getting, then this needs to be brought up at the "hotwash" or after action report.   My problem that I had with you was your approach.   Insulting fellow CF members is not the way to get your point across.   People get their backs up against the wall if this approach is taken.
Capabilities of the pilots at night.   I am NOT a pilot, as has been assumed by other pers on this site.   However, I have many friends who are pilots.   As in any trade, some are more experienced than others.   Thus, mistakes are made and not everybody gets 100% satisfaction.   GO!!, you are concentrating on specific examples of when you weren't satisfied.   However, I would venture to say that there are far more satisfied customers than unsatisfied.
Army Air Corps.   I never mentioned this until GO!! brought this up.   However, I am in the AF and am actually a proponent of this idea as I agree that the Army would most likely be better served if Tac Hel was in the Army Air Corps.   Thus, I stated "No problem".   However, the reality is that this would not work.   For example, the entire training system for pilots, FEs, maintainers, etc. is run by the AF.   Right now we have a shortage of maintainers throughout the AF.   Putting Tac Hel in the Army will only result in increasing the shortage of maintainers and pilots.   That is the reality as most AF techs would not want to be a part of the Army.   Plus, the cost of setting up identical training systems would be ridiculous.   Spending money on new a/c, infrastructure, etc. makes a lot more sense.
Flight gloves.   I see that I got the response that I wanted from GO!!.   Now you know what it feels like for an AF pers to go to supply on an Army base and ask for basics like gloves and be told that you can't have them because you're not in the Army (even though you deploy to the field).   Whether or not pers on this site think that Tac Hel doesn't do anything when they go to the field is their choice, but the fact remains that they do deploy and are expected to function in the field.   No one can debate that.
Ignorant comments.   I used the word ignorant because when one offers their opinion about something that they don't know about, then that is ignorance.   Having flying time has nothing to do with the comments that were made by GO!!, such as the mess tent ones, comments about Tac Hel in general when his experience seems to come from a few bad experiences with 408 Sqn, and the big one, the Air Force exists only to support the Army.   So, I will not "can" the ignorant comments as long as they are continued to be made.   These comments stop and I will stop the ignorant comments.
WWII.   Actually GO!! I brought up these comments in regards to your comment that the AF only exists to support the Army.   Never did I compare a Tac Hel unit to the USAF.   My point was to counter your comment about the AF.   Once again, I state that I am NOT a pilot.   You don't have to be a pilot to be insulted by ignorant comments like the AF exists only to support the AF.   I am positive that GO!! would be just as insulted if I made a comment about the Army.   However, I wouldn't as I have been in the Army and thus highly respect those who are in it.
Taking and holding ground.   I agree 100% that only an Army can hold ground.   I disagree that only an Army can take ground.   I would like to see a modern Army take any ground in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   The modern reality is that all services need to work together today in order to accomplish the mission (I think that I already said this).
Comparing ourselves to the Americans, etc.   When did I ever do this?   Hmm, someone let me know??????
Upgrades to the Griffon.   I will pose a question to GO!!, what upgrades to the Griffon do you think that 1 Wing wants to do to it?   Once you answer this question, I will comment on your comments you made about the "upgrades".
1 Wing is spread throughout the country and it seems that GO!!'s comments only centre on his experiences with 408 Sqn.   I know that 408 Sqn has excellent pilots as I have friends that belong to that unit.   I also have friends that are pilots at the other Tac Hel Sqns and they too are excellent pilots.   This opinion comes from the fact of sitting in the back while they piloted and observing first hand their skills.   Landing in a blinding snow ball, skimming along the river at 15 feet, landing in spots extremely small, dropping off assaulters on tops of buildings without landing, etc. are just a few of the things that I have seen our EXCELLENT TAC HEL pilots do.   I have first hand experience with this and even though I am not a pilot, I will not stand by when they are insulted.   In fact, my primary job while I was at a Tac Hel unit (just posted one month ago) was to deal with pilots.   I had lots of problems with them and had to put a few of them in their place, but the respect was always there, both ways.   I am extremely sure that if given the chance and the right machine, Tac Hel would have superbly performed in Afghanistan.   GO!!, do you even know why Tac Hel wasn't sent to Afghanistan?   It wasn't because we didn't want to go.   In fact, every time my unit heard about a possible deployment (as we were the high readiness unit), the Sqn was abuzz with excitement.   We want to deploy and support the Army.   That is what we train and exist for.   Ask any member of Tac Hel that question.
My field experience.   Did two years Infantry reserve and then five years with Tac Hel (that included numerous field ex's, both winter and summer, and 3 ex's in my last year at the Sqn getting ready for high readiness).   My field experience is enough to know what type of equipment a Tac Hel unit needs to deploy and properly defend itself in the field.   I know enough that a Tac Hel unit will never be expected to do a section attack against an enemy postion or trench (even though I have the trg to do so).   The equipment needed by Tac Hel certainly includes the basics to stay warm in the field (gloves), have the tac vest, and a C7 (never said that we need the C8), and the other equipment necessary (C6, trip flares, etc) to set up a proper defensive of the Sqn lines.
My experience in the Army has taught me to respect those that are in it.   I only offer my opinion on what I know about and do not make comments about someones professionalism or skills, as GO!! has done.   Nor would I insult other CF members.   The time and place to bring your concerns up about how a mission went is at the after action report or through your chain of command, not on this website, hiding behind insulting and ignorant comments.

Scoobs out...

 

[GO!!!]

Scoobs,

There are so many problems with your last  post, I won't even start to address them here.

Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air.

None of them has the problems that we do with attempting to get the helos to do something (fly lower, don't fly over the objective, leave, the bad guys are coming) that we do. Instead of a vigorous HUAH at the thought of a field ex, we are instead greeted with maintenance concerns, flight crew rest and my personal favorite "the ceiling is too low"

While I am sure that there is the possibility of a good griffon pilot out there, they must be avoiding the honkers in 408 like the plague - because ours are pretty sad.

I won't argue the difficulties of creating an army air corps - but to me, the solution is simple. Sea Kings become navy, griffons army, and the AF can keep the  fixed wing a/c. Chop all of the helo specific trg to the army, and the budgets to match. All the techs can come too. And if they "don't like" being in the army - alternative service delivery is a wonderful thing. No one is irreplaceable.

You point out alot of semantics in your rambling, grammatically incorrect diatribe above, which usually indicates a lack of purpose, and more importantly, knowledge. The most impressive of these is you stating that an airforce can "take ground". I'd like to see that. Have you done that on your "tactical exes?"

Your reserve trg qualified you to be in the reserves. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow "cross trained" and a better member of your unit as a result.

408 sqn, as a tachel unit is, IMHO, a complete farce. I've listed many examples in the previous thread, if you will take the time to read them. If your unit is better, I look forward to working with you.

As to you "feeling insulted" you should probably avoid the army, with a thin skin like that, you would'nt last long. Respect? how about a little for the others on this site - insinuating that your problems are too important to be discussed here, and should only be brought up in the safe and non - embarrassing confines of a hot wash - which incidentally, the AF neglects to attend because "we know how to do OUR jobs".

Mods, could you please post my last long post in the thread this one originated in above scoobs'? It adds context to his opening post.

 

[Scoobs]

Scoobs,

There are so many problems with your last   post, I won't even start to address them here.

Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air.

None of them has the problems that we do with attempting to get the helos to do something (fly lower, don't fly over the objective, leave, the bad guys are coming) that we do. Instead of a vigorous HUAH at the thought of a field ex, we are instead greeted with maintenance concerns, flight crew rest and my personal favorite "the ceiling is too low"

While I am sure that there is the possibility of a good griffon pilot out there, they must be avoiding the honkers in 408 like the plague - because ours are pretty sad.

I won't argue the difficulties of creating an army air corps - but to me, the solution is simple. Sea Kings become navy, griffons army, and the AF can keep the   fixed wing a/c. Chop all of the helo specific trg to the army, and the budgets to match. All the techs can come too. And if they "don't like" being in the army - alternative service delivery is a wonderful thing. No one is irreplaceable.

You point out alot of semantics in your rambling, grammatically incorrect diatribe above, which usually indicates a lack of purpose, and more importantly, knowledge. The most impressive of these is you stating that an airforce can "take ground". I'd like to see that. Have you done that on your "tactical exes?"

Your reserve trg qualified you to be in the reserves. Don't make the mistake of thinking that you are somehow "cross trained" and a better member of your unit as a result.

408 sqn, as a tachel unit is, IMHO, a complete farce. I've listed many examples in the previous thread, if you will take the time to read them. If your unit is better, I look forward to working with you.

As to you "feeling insulted" you should probably avoid the army, with a thin skin like that, you would'nt last long. Respect? how about a little for the others on this site - insinuating that your problems are too important to be discussed here, and should only be brought up in the safe and non - embarrassing confines of a hot wash - which incidentally, the AF neglects to attend because "we know how to do OUR jobs".

Mods, could you please post my last long post in the thread this one originated in above scoobs'? It adds context to his opening post.

GO!!, just the response I expected.   No one's experience is good enough for you.   You must know it all since only your trg seems relavent and important.   All hail the mighty GO!!, master of all and knower of all!
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions?   Are you too afraid to answer them since you must know the answer?   Or is that you don't know and answering them would show your true IGNORANCE.   You're small and petty buddy.
Never stated that the air force can take ground.   Said that Army can't take ground on its own in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   Perhaps you should take some time to read before offering your IGNORANT comment.
Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.   Can't insult the AF enough, now you have to insult your fellow Army mbrs?   Fact is that I have been in the Army and have some experience (never said I was an expert like you, all mighty GO!!).   That gives me enough insite into what a Tac Hel Sqn needs when it deploys to the field.
Insinuating -   I don't do this.   I say what I mean and I do what I say.   Once again, read before you open you beak!!
For your info all mighty GO!!, I've been to many hotwashes, which were attended by both Army and Air Force pers, where people were torn a new arshole.   I've personally saw the CO of a Tac Hel Sqn rip apart pilots for stuff that they did, in front of everybody (about 50 pers).   Talk from experience instead out of your ars!!!

The first sign of someone who is scared and doesn't know what he is talking about is when that person feels it necessary to insult others to make himself feel better.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.  

Don't drag us into this. We don't need the AF slagging us too. :

 

[Ranman]

I do not remember once being dropped off by the Helo pilots in the right spot. We would spend hours getting to the start point before we could even start the mission. Its like they can't read a map and often would refuse to fly in a slight snow flurry.

When I was in Norway we were happy to have the German Helo pilots.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

I think the solution to the kit problems would be to integrate the three services into one single armed force; I think this novel approach would save us a lot of money in the long run and eliminate morale problems such as air force flight crews not having access to infantry equipment, and infantry WOs not having access to flight gloves. 

It may sound crazy, but it would have the advantage of never having been tried before.

 

[mdh]

Perhaps I have been spoiled flying around with US and British pilots for the last few years, and having the privilige to work closely with Rangers, Marines and various other units - and their supporting air.

GO!!!

In what capacity have you been working so closely with US and British pilots "for the last few years" - if you don't mind me asking?

mdh

 

[Scoobs]

Don't drag us into this. We don't need the AF slagging us too. :

Recce guy,

AF is not slaggin the reserves.  In fact, I was pointing out that GO!! likes to insult everybody he can to make himself feel better, including his fellow Army pers.

 

[George Wallace]

I do not remember once being dropped off by the Helo pilots in the right spot. We would spend hours getting to the start point before we could even start the mission. Its like they can't read a map and often would refuse to fly in a slight snow flurry.

When I was in Norway we were happy to have the German Helo pilots.

Had no problems with the guys in Pet at 427.  Right on the dot for LRRP drop offs and pick ups.  No Probs!

 

[Good2Golf]

I think there is enough variation of experiences related to aviation support provided to folks throughout the ages, that it is unfair to blanket a "branch" so widely.  In 5 years of flying with my supported unit, I never had an operator complain about my and (most of) my confrere's +/- 5 sec TOT, although like anybody we had our days and would have the occasional mite off the timings....location was pretty clear and the boys always got to exactly where they wanted to be.  In defence of some of the younger crowd out there...and I'm thinking of Griffon-only folks...there have been drastic cuts to flying rates (YFR) than can't help but have an effect in our F-echelons.  I was used to flying at least 400+ hours/year...now folks are only getting half that or less on average and it just isn't helping perishable skills.  That said, I honestly have a hard time believing that soldiers have NEVER been dropped in the right place, EVER...unless of course someone's only flown in a Canadian helicopter a few times.  And FWIW, I've had some pretty high-speed recce and pathfinder qual'd guys flying with us to have them give us nav and terminal guidance for certain missions, and it was not at all successful...the guys just were not used to eating up 3 grid squares a minute and interpreting the flight picture onto the map and desired route...some folks need to walk in some others' shoes before they go off to hard on some folks...

Cheers,
Duey

 

[Strike]

GO!!

When 408 is sitting in Edmonton and says that they can't fly because the ceiling is too low, have you ever thought that this is because of CF and NavCanada policy?  Sometimes the base/Sqn areas are less restrictive, but is the vis is less than a mile with fog, you won't see us out.

As for flying in snow, we can do it.  No reason not to.  Flying in sleet and ice pellets?  Helos are not known for their anti/de-icing capabilities (Cormorant aside) and anyone who willingly flies into that needs their head examined.

Regearding being dropped off in the wrong spot, maybe that had something to do with the request itself being unrealistic -- swamp with deadheads or a clearing that is too small have been some of the ones I've been directed to.  But I've always done my best to accomodate and find something close.

 

[GO!!!]

GO!!, just the response I expected.   No one's experience is good enough for you.   You must know it all since only your trg seems relavent and important.   All hail the mighty GO!!, master of all and knower of all!
I noticed that you didn't answer my questions?   Are you too afraid to answer them since you must know the answer?   Or is that you don't know and answering them would show your true IGNORANCE.   You're small and petty buddy.
Never stated that the air force can take ground.   Said that Army can't take ground on its own in the face of a strong enemy Air Force.   Perhaps you should take some time to read before offering your IGNORANT comment.
Perhaps your fellow army reserve pers would like your idiotic comment.   Can't insult the AF enough, now you have to insult your fellow Army mbrs?   Fact is that I have been in the Army and have some experience (never said I was an expert like you, all mighty GO!!).   That gives me enough insite into what a Tac Hel Sqn needs when it deploys to the field.
Insinuating -   I don't do this.   I say what I mean and I do what I say.   Once again, read before you open you beak!!
For your info all mighty GO!!, I've been to many hotwashes, which were attended by both Army and Air Force pers, where people were torn a new arshole.   I've personally saw the CO of a Tac Hel Sqn rip apart pilots for stuff that they did, in front of everybody (about 50 pers).   Talk from experience instead out of your ars!!!

The first sign of someone who is scared and doesn't know what he is talking about is when that person feels it necessary to insult others to make himself feel better.

I'm not even going to stoop the level of your sarcastic ranting, but I'll dispell a few more of your (mis) conceptions.

"an army can't take and hold ground in the face of a strong enemy air force" Really? I seem to remember reading about this group of dudes called the Luftwaffe, who had a really rough time in WWII, primarily because the allies advanced even with German air superiority at certain points in the war.

"fellow army reserve" Wrong again, I'm a full timer from Edmonton, that's how I have worked with 408 sqn so much in the past, and not with other tachel units in Canada.

"talk from experience and not out of your ars!" I prefer to speak with proper grammar and punctuation, unlike yourself, but all of my anecdotal evidence and experiences are - surprisingly - my own. I specifically exclude the scuttlebutt that exists around an Infantry Bn because it is so often exagerrated or completely false.

While your zealous defence of 408 Sqn is commendable, I would think that your argments would have a bit more merit if you dropped the personal attacks and actually addressed the issues at hand, perhaps even admitting that tachel units in this country have not yet reached their zenith of power.

Keep up the Good work!

 

[Sf2]

As with every single trade in the military - there are good pilots and bad pilots.  I'm sorry GO if your experiences have been bad - its very surprising to hear that in your 7 yrs of experience, not once have you been inserted in the proper place.  However in response to that, there are many times where the USER has selected a spot based on a map - and as well all know - map doesn't necessarily always equal what its actually there.  That's when recce comes in.  However, the opportunity for recce is not always there, so we do our best to put you guys as close to the planned LZ as possible, while always considering safety - it is training after all.

Flying over the objective?  90% of the time is because the crews haven't been briefed where the objective is.  Ideally, the aviation mission commander will attend the lifted units orders, so that he has the ground tactical plan in mind when he plans the flying route.  However, its quite often the case that the crews will recieve a HELTASK with no back brief from the lifted unit - all we know is where and when you guys want to be dropped off - we don't often know what your objective is.  Not to mention, you guys have to negotiate the ground to the objective - so your LZ's are often in close proximity to the objective - 300 or 400 meters may seem far to you, but we cover that distance in seconds, so unless we are briefed a specific approach path, or have been given the location of the objective, its difficult NOT to unintentionally overfly the objective.

As far as your WX comments - there are rules and regulations we have to follow - bottom line.  But there are also personal comfort levels - while we may be able to fly in limited weather, different crews will have different levels of comfort.  There is a lot going on in the front of that cockpit, especially at night, and flight safety is our paramount goal.  Yes, in wartime, mission comes first, but in training, it does not....sorry to tell you that, but it doesn't.  No pilot, good or not, will put the training mission ahead of safety.  I'm a aircraft captain on a griffon - and I will not put a mission ahead of safety in a training environment - if my spidey senses are tingling, I'm turning around PERIOD.

I could go on about this for hours - but I'm sure more points will come up, so I'll wait for rebuttal.

 

[Strike]

Isn't it funny that whenever someone slags another for grammar and the like, there always seems to be a mistake in their own posting...

I prefer to speak with proper grammar and punctuation

Shortly followed by...

While your zealous defence of 408 Sqn is commendable, I would think that your argments would have a bit more merit if you dropped the personal attacks and actually addressed the issues at hand,

And the moral of the story is -- always prrof read when lambasting someone on an error you could just as easily commit.

 

[GO!!!]

Isn't it funny that whenever someone slags another for grammar and the like, there always seems to be a mistake in their own posting...

Shortly followed by...

And the moral of the story is -- always prrof read when lambasting someone on an error you could just as easily commit.

I hate it when I do that.  >

The not being dropped off in the right place comment was'nt mine.

The point I'm trying to  make here, is that to call certain helicopter sqns in this country "tactical" is somewhat false. To assume (back to the origional point of the thread that spawned this one) that the crews of helicopters require kit like C8's, TV's and more, due the nature of their name is, IMHO, a waste of already scarce resources. We don't have enough C8's for the infantry Bns that use them every day, cbt arms units are still without Cadpat and TacVests, and scoobs wants them diverted to a unit that will use them a small fraction of the time that my unit will.

Compounding this is the often complete lack of tacticality that some sqns (like 408) display. While I agree and acknowledge certain circumstances and limitations, some of the actions (which I have outlined) are completely ridiculous, and most often seem to stem from the pilots and aircrew completely disregarding instruction from the infantry commanders that they are delivering. An example of this is the overflight of an objective, which was outlined in orders (which the pilots attended), and did anyway. 

I believe that many of these problems could be solved with the subordinating of the helo units to the army, all of the time, in order to keep the AF up to speed on army doctrine and tactics, and not to simply cut us a few birds whenever they wanted to. An added benefit would be that the helo crews could do all of the grunt stuff they wanted to (like BFTs with their C8's and TVs) and the army could benefit from frequent trg with the air crews/craft. Ideally, a helicopter would not leave the ground without being in support of an army exercise/operation.

Thoughts?

 

[Zoomie]

I believe that many of these problems could be solved with the subordinating of the helo units to the army, all of the time, in order to keep the AF up to speed on army doctrine and tactics, and not to simply cut us a few birds whenever they wanted to. An added benefit would be that the helo crews could do all of the grunt stuff they wanted to (like BFTs with their C8's and TVs) and the army could benefit from frequent trg with the air crews/craft. Ideally, a helicopter would not leave the ground without being in support of an army exercise/operation.

Good points throughout GO!!

I agree with your point of view - albeit initially the tone of delivery instinctively brought all AF pers' shields up...

Most of our TacHel boys and gals enjoy a few weeks in Gagetown on LOFT (intro to army life) and that is pretty much their only exposure to the field.  All further field training is done "in-house" - taught by AF Pers the AF way.

I would suggest that a training cell comprising strictly of LF Pers be seconded to all TacHel units and be in charge of "all things tactical" while deployed and in training.  This way the light blue who wanna be green can do a much better job and not pi$$ off the true green.

I only hope that when I am done flying the seized wing assets in the CF and finally go over to a TacHel squadron that such problems are eliminated.

 

[Sf2]

If the pilots are aware of the location and nature of the objective then I will agree that flying over it is a gross error.  But I'd like to know what you meant by pilots disregarding the orders of the infantry guys they are supporting (besides the example of overflown objectives).  Once they are in a chopper, rank does not matter, the aircraft captain is the boss PERIOD.  If some general needs to get somewhere in a hurry and the weather is beyond the limits dictated to the aircraft commander, then the general is out of luck, no matter what he says.

There has always been the arguement about selling out the TAC HEL squadrons to the army - but the problem is when you give the griffons to the army, you also have to give them flight safety, maintanence standards in accordance with DND, Transport Canada, FAA etc, along with aircrew training and standard....

The problem lies "where do you draw the line".  Ownership of aircraft doesn't stop at the machine and its crews, as there are sooooo many inherent organizations involved with that aircraft, like those I mentioned above.  THe airforce doesn't want to give that up, and the army wants no part of it.....so how do you do it with our time and budget?

 

[Lance Wiebe]

It seems that people are forgetting that the Army once did have our own aircraft.  Armour officers, after completing at least one year of troop leading, went on to become helicopter pilots, with Armour Snr NCO's as observers.  The artillery also had their own pilots and observers, flying the L-19.  Civilian pilots deal with the FAA, Transport Canada, and so on, so its not rocket science.  It seems to me that the attitude is that a person cannot be cross-trained to be a combat arms officer, and then become a pilot.  Many, in fact, most, of the first Kiowa and Huey pilots were ex-army, forced in to the air force along with unification.  The army lost a great assett, that has never reached the same standards.  What does a Griffon pilot know of recce?  How does he know how to support movement?  The answer is, he doesn't, for there is no-one to teach him.

The Air Force has succeeded in cacooning themselves away from the primary mission, now whenever we see choppers, even in the training area, they are flying along at 1000 ft or more, even the so-called "nap of the earth" is at least 100 ft AGL.

My point is, helicopter pilots and L-19 pilots were an additional eye and arm that the army has lost, and we have never been served to the same standard since.  Pilots are no longer another crew commander of a call sign, they are now something sacrosanct, that are not allowed to sleep in the mud because of some silly idea that people can't get enough rest unless they are in a bed, or at the very least, a cot.

I know that the older soldiers will know exactly what I am talking about, and the younger ones will have absolutely no idea.  Oh well.

I just had to throw in my $.02..............

 

[George Wallace]

Thanks Lance

The memories....

 

[Scoobs]

Zoomie,

the Tac Hel Sqn that I was at does have combat arms Snr NCOs in the Trg cell.  They are responsible for field trg.  In fact, during workups for high readiness, 3 RCR trained us in the field.  I slept on an air mattress in a 5 man tent in minus 30 celsius weather.  3 RCR slept in the same way.  Some pers had heaters, some didn't.  My point is that there is trg that is being given to Tac Hel units that is done directly by the Army and we do SIMILAR things that the Army does while in the field.  I do have to ask you (and I'm not trying to be rude), where are you getting your info about Tac Hel?  You yourself state that you have never been posted to a Tac Hel unit.  I think that someone is feeding you some mis-information.

GO!!,

I don't think that Tac Hel units need C8s.  However, I do believe that they need tac vests.  Training the way you fight is the proper way to go.  How ridiculuous is it when a unit that is going to High Readiness and has done numerous staff checks to go to places like Sudan, Haiti, etc., cannot get Tac Vests?  Other equipment, such as gloves, cadpat hat, etc. were also in short supply.  I actually went to supply to get the cadpat hat and was told that I couldn't have it, but they asked me if I would like the American style hat?  I now have it, only after 2 years of having the American style one.  A unit that is high readiness has priority over other units, even if they are Army.  The same goes for the Army units that are at high readiness and they should get the kit before any other unit, including tac hel, that is not at high readiness.  The real problem here is that the military is not properly funded or the money is being spent in silly places, instead of providing basics to it members, like Tac vests, gloves, boots, hats, etc.

Lance,

yes, I agree that flying an a/c is not rocket science, since I know rocket science.  However, should the Army wish to take on the responsibility of trg pilots, techs, air navs, mission specs, SAR, doing Flight Safety, maintaining the a/c, keeping up the a dual system like DAEPM, something similar to 1 Cdn Air Div, and the list goes on, the money wasted by duplication would be insane.  I agree that a lot of the problems that the Army has with apparent lack of availability of resources could be solved by having their own assets, but does the Army really want to take on what the AF now does for them (as stated above) and spend insane amounts of money to do so?  I think the better solution is to view the way every person in the military is trained.  Perhaps all pers should receive some sort of combat arms trg, such as I received while in the Infantry reserves.  Then, if a person is posted to a tac hel unit and they need specific trg, specific courses be set up to give those persons the necessary skills, such as recce, FAC, etc.  This would be considerably cheaper (it will cost money and manhours) than setting up duplicate systems that the AF already has.
Some mistakes you made, I have been in many Griffons where they are flying 15 feet above the water, below the tree lines, and are hugging the contours of the river.  I have seen fishermen's faces up close.  That is not possible at 1000 feet.  All Griffon pilot trg is not done at NAP, some is done at higher altitudes as the Griffon is expected to perform other roles.  Why would someone want to sleep on the ground when a cot is available?  Common sense has to prevail here.  If the situation dictated that it was necessary to sleep on the ground, then that is what would be done.  However, due to a helicopter squadron's role and typical location (this is for all helo squadrons, not just tac hel in Canada) (I have seen a French Army Aviation unit up close and was an observer on one of their ex's), there is not always a need to sleep on the ground.  My short time in the Army taught me that the Army sometimes does things that don't make sense or is done just because "this is what was done in the past".  What was done in the past doesn't always make sense today.  However, that being said, one should always look back on history and take its lessons to heart.  Also, past experience does play a crucial role in shaping today's policies and trg, but it is not the end all, be all.

The AF leadership typically forgets about Tac Hel.  We tend to be the "black sheep" of the AF, even though I believe that we are the majority in it.  The AF is run by pilots  :'( and I don't think that this will change.  However, 1 Wing does do a decent job of grabbing both the AF and Army leadership by the throat and telling them to wake up.  The AF leadership tends to waggle on issues surrounding tac hel, while the Army only recently let the AF know exactly what it wanted from the AF.  Not all problems can be blamed on the weapon system, i.e. the Griffon, or the pilots, and some burden must fall on the AF and Army leaders for not listening to each other.