Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Contracted Heli Training

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    all I did was point something out!!

    IMHO, there needs to be more specialist streams within the AC, so your going to have the following streams:
    Pilot
    Aeronautical Engineering
    General Engineering (including CRS)
    Aeronautical Medicine
    General Duties (Admin, Logs, Non-Tech, Duties etc)
    Sigs (including IT & ATC)

    Some of those streams may only have a handful of officers in them (some only one), that then creates a training, recruitment/retention and promotion issues. Not insurmountable ones but things that would need to be addressed.

    I'd be well of the view that AC (and NS) junior officers shouldn't be going overseas (outside their air/naval role), especially when personnel are at critical levels. But are we then going to increase their pay?

    I'd also question GoH being provided by AC personnel but it is more likely to be required due to a decreased army, so reduce the occasions that they are required and/or establish a Gen Duties Sqn (that's going to a fun posting).

    TRJ, operational missions are those missions assigned by Government, those include fishery protection, MATS, EAS, etc. Hopefully (with the personnel) in the future those will include AC aircraft overseas.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by DeV View Post
      ...or establish a Gen Duties Sqn (that's going to a fun posting). ..
      you might be surprised - lots of people during their service go through a period where, because of their spouses career, kids, looking after older parents etc.. a much more predictable, 9-5, monday to friday job with no random exercises or rushed op tours comes in very useful.

      do that for 2 years, get things back on track and get your mojo sorted and off you go back into the exciting stuff.

      Comment


      • #33
        Dev I'm well aware of what the ACs operational outputs are and training pilots is not one of them, however it uses up a huge amount of their manpower and flying hours and it's not going to be reduced any time soon
        Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

        Comment


        • #34
          contract out the training and we end up with some numpty asking why we have trainer aircraft if we dont train any pilots
          "He is an enemy officer taken in battle and entitled to fair treatment."
          "No, sir. He's a sergeant, and they don't deserve no respect at all, sir. I should know. They're cunning and artful, if they're any good. I wouldn't mind if he was an officer, sir. But sergeants are clever."

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by morpheus View Post
            contract out the training and we end up with some numpty asking why we have trainer aircraft if we dont train any pilots
            its a situation thats quite easily understandable if you explain it - even to slope-faced mouthbreathers like politicians and journalists - whats not so easily explainable is why you have more training aircraft than operational aircraft and still suffer from a shortage of trained aircrew.

            Comment


            • #36
              This whole conversation has happened here before I remember ropebag providing a zinger about the AC being the Air arm of the DF not the national Pilot training corps. It'll never happen but I'd flog the PC9 fleet, contract out the pilot training and buy a couple of cessnas and a King air to maintain currency and hour building gigs.
              Everyone who's ever loved you was wrong.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ropebag View Post
                you might be surprised - lots of people during their service go through a period where, because of their spouses career, kids, looking after older parents etc.. a much more predictable, 9-5, monday to friday job with no random exercises or rushed op tours comes in very useful.

                do that for 2 years, get things back on track and get your mojo sorted and off you go back into the exciting stuff.
                I'd agree but in order to rotate in and out they are going to have to be skilled people, not necessarily techs but that would mean only the likes of clerks, storemen, drivers, maybe refuellers, maybe CRS, etc could rotate.


                For the likes of General engineering, medics, general duties and CIS (non-ATC), the rotations/promotion stream could include the army (and NS). For example, OIC CRS could be a Lt vacancies could be advertised for suitable army engineer officers. When officer wants promotion they apply to the army.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by The real Jack View Post
                  This whole conversation has happened here before I remember ropebag providing a zinger about the AC being the Air arm of the DF not the national Pilot training corps. It'll never happen but I'd flog the PC9 fleet, contract out the pilot training and buy a couple of cessnas and a King air to maintain currency and hour building gigs.
                  For what though it's a catch 22.

                  The DF will not be buying fighters (if they did they would never be deployed overseas), more utility helos for army training/ops at home (possibly with a flight deployed overseas).

                  Then all the funds previously for AC use will go to private contractors to do jobs previously done more cost effectively by AC.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Was looking at the Rescue 111 AAIU report today, issues with AC pilot retention were highlighted by the Glesson Commission in 1990!

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

                      The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

                      Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by sofa View Post
                        According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

                        The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

                        Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?
                        That is probably the only provision of the treaty that has not been broken to be honest.....
                        "We will hold out until our last bullet is spent. Could do with some whiskey"
                        Radio transmission, siege of Jadotville DR Congo. September 1961.
                        Illegitimi non carborundum

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by sofa View Post
                          According to Hazel Lambert in a letter to the Sunday Times this week.

                          The 1921 treaty with the UK forbids us having a DF with a ratio to population greater then the UKs ratio.

                          Are there other details in this treaty that affects the make up of the Aer Corp and NS. that the government don't make public.?
                          That was a new one of me


                          Except of course, that the Irish Free State doesn't exist anymore

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            I remember that provision, and the explicit forbidding of conscription or acquisition of submarines.
                            However that was a treaty between a dominion and the imperial power...in law, if not fact. Ireland was explicitly not considered independent, merely having a convoluted form of Home Rule. Irish citizenship was not deemed to exist for any legal purpose beyond the borders of the Free State. In reality, it was independence of course but the discrepancy between law and fact caused much friction.
                            The treaty provisions have been completely surpassed, gradually by the Statute of Westminster, e 1937 Constitution, the 1948 Republic and the consequent Ireland Act in the U.K. Ireland is sovereign and no treaty restrictions apply. Edit: I stated originally that we have exceeded the U.K. Population ratio at points in the past, based on a discussion I had elsewhere at one time. Checking the facts, Dev is right. i don't think we have.
                            Last edited by expat01; 4 April 2017, 12:08.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I'm pretty sure that as far as the British Government is concerned, the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty is about as live as the 1420 Treaty of Troyes.

                              If the UK thinks Ireland isn't bound by its provisions, why should Ireland?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                All those laws dealing with the treaty GOI etc have been repealed . The '21 truce was unwritten. Any prospect of the thread topic getting a look in?
                                Last edited by danno; 4 April 2017, 22:59.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X