Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Cadet Payscale

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

  • na grohmiti
    replied
    When you think how it was, trainee AC pilots went from piston prop to twin turbine during the wings course, then back to piston prop, from which stage they either went multi engine turboprop multi engine turbine, or rotary wing, before finding their way back to instruct cadets on either piston prop or twin turbine. It made no sense.
    When you consider that a recently retired GOCAC was one of the last to train (and was still current) on taildraggers it complicates the picture further.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    That's why I said this option is now fading; even when I left in 95, it was being mooted that young pilots would be farmed out onto complex aircraft (turbines) much earlier in their career, so that a newbie could realistically get a King Air seat, with an eye to a Casa seat before he lost the will to live doing three years in a Cessna and took a big chunk of his 12 year obligation doing so. The system was prone to being logjammed by older guys at the top end. When I say older, this didn't even mean Lt Cols or Comdts. Too many Captains could plug the place up like a 24 hr ration pack. Even things like a fleet change such as a type retirement could have a serious effect on postings and where a guy could end up.
    Apart from that, Im not suggesting that simple jobs be created out of thin air. Gormo had a useful function and one of those was absorbing newbies and giving them a bit of space to do some growing up, fresh out of the heady days of training. Airline cadets do that on the hoof, by interacting with fellow pilots, flight ops, ground ops, engineers and cabin crew from day 1 and they will be the first to admit that its all a bit daunting, but they generally make a good fist of it and get on with it. I have no doubt that an AC cadet is perfectly capable of being slotted into a turboprop or jet or helicopter in short order after cadetship, compared to what it was in my time.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck
    replied
    Originally posted by GoneToTheCanner View Post
    that was one of the reasons for the existence of the Cessnas; pilots went there to do a first tour and do a bit of growing up on a simple aircraft doing comparatively simple jobs. That option is now fading and what will the AC do with newbies? Rush them straight onto PC -12 or the Casas, fresh out of the egg?
    As you are well aware cadets coming off a wings course will be intimately familiar with a glass cockpit environment. The addition of a couple of extra screens, FMS and autopilot are not going to prove problematic. The fact that it is a single engine keeps it even more simple although I am sure it will be a multi crew operation to begin with.

    Things have progressed since your time in the AC. Not all officers coming off a wings course fly cessna's or are given the opportunity. Numerous newly qualified pilots have gone on to fly the CASA or undergo a 135 course straight away, post wings course, without issue. This has been the case for 10+ years now.

    Given that civilians can crew an airliner carrying several hundred people, with a comparable amount of hours to an AC cadet would accrue, I think it is a bit disingenuous to suggest that "simple jobs" be created to facilitate new crews. The standard/ability of pilot coming off a PC-9 wings course is undoubtedly higher than the Marchetti over several disciplines. And in general terms much higher than what most civilian schools produce, as is the case with most military flight training.

    The retirement of the Cessna's aside, the AC simply does not have the luxury of having a cessna squadron full of new Lt's, as was often the case in the past, there is simply too much demand elsewhere. The fall out from this is that you will have a generation of pilots getting command of aircraft, much younger, with far fewer hours and less experience than their predecessors due to the mass exodus of experience.

    Leave a comment:


  • GoneToTheCanner
    replied
    that was one of the reasons for the existence of the Cessnas; pilots went there to do a first tour and do a bit of growing up on a simple aircraft doing comparatively simple jobs. That option is now fading and what will the AC do with newbies? Rush them straight onto PC -12 or the Casas, fresh out of the egg?

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie252
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    Ah, okay, I stand corrected in that case. I wasn't aware some had a ten year obligation.

    Certainly with the newer contracts (post 2004 onwards) I think 15 years would be a very excessive return to demand in comparison to other Air Forces/Arms. Perhaps certain type ratings for those outside of contract should attract some form of undertaking to allow for planning. No point in giving someone a ME-IR or Instructor rating and having them walk out the door months later (which has happened quite a lot). Same goes for Tech courses and ATC also.

    There is a very fine balance to be struck however.

    You won't find many RAF voyager pilots walking out the door after attaining their ratings as I believe the RAF operate a bonding system which is type dependent.
    Yeah in many cases bonding is counter productive as it doesn't help to engender loyalty, as you have commoditized the skill.

    However the RAF have done this and in fact Bond Pilots for their command training, even though as in the AC their is no monetary compensation for command.

    Better to incentivize highly skilled professionals with a rewarding career rather then just bonding them.

    Doesn't get away from the fact that maybe the AC shouldn't be recruiting cadets when they don't have the capacity to train them.

    In addition there is a serious shortage of operational airframes and hence flying hours so there will always be a serious bottle neck in the time it takes pilots to gain enough experience to Command the very few Larger Aircraft.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Some had 10yrs, many had 12, there was a proposal to increase it to 15(in line with the change to pension entitlements) I don't know did that happen.
    Ah, okay, I stand corrected in that case. I wasn't aware some had a ten year obligation.

    Certainly with the newer contracts (post 2004 onwards) I think 15 years would be a very excessive return to demand in comparison to other Air Forces/Arms. Perhaps certain type ratings for those outside of contract should attract some form of undertaking to allow for planning. No point in giving someone a ME-IR or Instructor rating and having them walk out the door months later (which has happened quite a lot). Same goes for Tech courses and ATC also.

    There is a very fine balance to be struck however.

    You won't find many RAF voyager pilots walking out the door after attaining their ratings as I believe the RAF operate a bonding system which is type dependent.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie252
    replied
    Some had 10yrs, many had 12, there was a proposal to increase it to 15(in line with the change to pension entitlements) I don't know did that happen.
    Last edited by Charlie252; 23 August 2018, 06:33.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck
    replied
    Originally posted by Charlie252 View Post
    Not quite True..
    Please feel free to elaborate.

    Leave a comment:


  • Charlie252
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    Dev, the service commitment for AC cadets is, and always has been, 12 years.
    Not quite True..

    Leave a comment:


  • Chuck
    replied
    Dev, the service commitment for AC cadets is, and always has been, 12 years.

    The service retention scheme is long gone and while it served a purpose had nothing to do with the exodus of pilots in the last 5 years because most of them wouldn't have even been eligible when it was introduced. The tanking economy, salary cuts and the offer of well paid civilian jobs was the primary reason for most.

    As for degrees, you are correct, some enable officers to be more competent at their jobs. The vast majority however thoroughly enjoy 3-4 years of being paid 2.5k per month while having no overheads. And as I said, fair play to them. But don't be so naive as to think they are doing it for the flag and country. Its a glorified piss up, no different than most other civvies attending 3rd level, except unlike most civvies, they are in receipt of a full time salary and in the case of USAC provided with accommodation.

    Leave a comment:


  • DeV
    replied
    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    I have no idea, USAC is something the DF can do without in my opinion. Aside from sending non grads to college on handsome-ish wages, the only return the army gets is a guaranteed service commitment which I think is two/three years for every one spend in 3rd level. I believe officers undertaking USAC courses do not get paid MSA either which means the difference in wages is probably 10-15k at the very most, even towards the end of the course. I guess if you are a bean counter, that 10-15k per year could represent a good ROI because you now have that individual tied down for a defined period which should, 'in theory' allow for better planning. In comparison, AC officers are obliged to give 12 years in return upon commissioning which is significantly longer than many other western air forces/arms so the bean counters get their chunk of flesh there which is understandable.
    Not in all cases do those degrees not adding value to the DF

    I’m not 100% sure what the return for service is now for AC cadets, now that the pilot retention scheme is gone. Look what happened there!

    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    So now you have, across the spectrum, courses being shortened, corners being cut just to massage numbers.

    This whole saga doesnt just apply to officers either. I'm sure some of those serving members here saw the AAR report concerning a recent recruit class which was a real eye opener and a reflection of the current attitude of getting bodies in the door at any cost..
    recently there seems to be a push to increase the number of courses but sometimes reduce the duration. Reading between the lines it could be to reduce people’s time away from home


    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    Zero utility one could argue. Having 105 guns that get dusted off and wheeled out twice a year isn't a very efficient use of resources, one could argue. I could ream off a long list of useless Army specific courses and weapons etc that offer zero utility and are a prime waste of resources and shining example of lack of utility but it would be shut down quite quickly under the guide of"opsec" which one person is particularly fond of, so I won't bother.

    Now - the more pertinent question is that is all the extra training required given the current aircraft and roles the AC has, and the honest answer is probably not which is why the wings course has been adjusted quite drastically. Theres no need to spend significant time learning close formation, aerobatics or tactical navigation if you will spend most of your time over the ocean or landing helicopters on GAA pitches.
    You could say the same about rifles

    The extra training leads to more capable pilots




    Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
    Officers having 3rd level qualifications is pretty much standard throughout developed countries. It is essential for professionalisation of the organisation. To say no one benefits other than the student is just wrong. Anyway I am not getting into that discussion and turning it into an us & them conversation
    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    There is no direct correlation between attaining a piece of paper and the professionalism of the DF. I have encountered people (of all ranks) who have level 8 & 9 qualifications who I genuinely wonder how they manage to dress themselves in the morning. Continued professional development is all well and good, but that's the reason we have leadership which describe the chronic HR issues the DF are experiencing as "pinch points". Buzzwords and hot air.

    Certainly the organisation may benefit, mainly due to the fact that they now have tied down an officer for a specific period which aids planning but let's not try and kid anyone as to the reality.

    Sending an officer to NUIG to undergo a mickey mouse level 8 arts degree for 3-4 years serves absolutely no purpose and certainly contributes very little to the professionalism of the Army. .
    Originally posted by Auldsod View Post
    I 100% agree with you here. I don't believe there should be a barrier to entry for those below without a third level degree but it should be a pre-requisite when in.

    In the US for example you can't get commissioned without one in the vast vast majority of cases.

    In fact for many western militaries, having a masters degree is a defacto prerequisite for promotion to Major (Commandant) and beyond.

    Now whether or not students should be taking courses relevant to service (STEM, languages, etc) is a different story. Sending an officer to universityto do arts so as to have 'a' degree is possibly a waste of time but that's just my opinion.


    As Fantasia says it is of definite benefit to the DF to have degree holders

    Even PWC said so

    International norm is for military officers to hold a degree

    PWC said (if I remember rightly) that officers shouldn’t reach Comdt unless they hold a degree

    They also said USAC should be retained but more focused

    Originally posted by Chuck View Post
    Of could of course but it to do so involves a multitude to changes to syllabi, conditions, service agreements between organizations and of course additional money to finance it, whatever the cost may be.

    I've seen first hand the bureaucracy in trying to acquire a printer. That can be a struggle in itself.

    Now apply that to sending 6-10 students to the USA for 6 months.

    Nothing is easy or straightforward. Such a deal would likely vastly eat into the J7 external education budget which screws it for everyone else.
    not forgetting subsistence etc



    Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
    Originally officers were able to do science and arts and that was it. We have since expanded it so people can now to Sports Science, engineering, logistics, languages, science, IT, law, business etc which all benefit the DF.
    +1

    Leave a comment:


  • apod
    replied
    MOD: Just a gentle reminder folks for those of you who don't seem to like playing by the rules and then getting censured when you don't. This forum has rules.You signed up to them when you became a member. OPSEC is one of them. MOD decisions are another. If any body has an issue or an axe to grind fair enough.PM the MODS or ADMINS with your complaints.
    Bitching and thinly veiled sniping because you don't agree with MOD decisions shows a certain level of maturity.No MOD shuts down a thread on OPSEC grounds without discussion on the issue at hand with other MOD's unless it is a glaring breach. The reputation and the existence of this forum and the protection of our comrades is paramount. If you don't agree then you can always stop posting here.
    'Nuff said. Carry on:
    Last edited by apod; 22 August 2018, 14:02.

    Leave a comment:


  • Auldsod
    replied
    Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
    Originally officers were able to do science and arts and that was it. We have since expanded it so people can now to Sports Science, engineering, logistics, languages, science, IT, law, business etc which all benefit the DF.

    Now thats is all I will contribute on that
    Don't think we need much more. Thanks for the insight.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fantasia
    replied
    Originally officers were able to do science and arts and that was it. We have since expanded it so people can now to Sports Science, engineering, logistics, languages, science, IT, law, business etc which all benefit the DF.

    Now thats is all I will contribute on that

    Leave a comment:


  • Auldsod
    replied
    Originally posted by Fantasia View Post
    Undertakings changed after my time. I was on 4 years per year.

    Officers having 3rd level qualifications is pretty much standard throughout developed countries. It is essential for professionalisation of the organisation. To say no one benefits other than the student is just wrong. Anyway I am not getting into that discussion and turning it into an us & them conversation
    I 100% agree with you here. I don't believe there should be a barrier to entry for those below without a third level degree but it should be a pre-requisite when in.

    In the US for example you can't get commissioned without one in the vast vast majority of cases.

    In fact for many western militaries, having a masters degree is a defacto prerequisite for promotion to Major (Commandant) and beyond.

    Now whether or not students should be taking courses relevant to service (STEM, languages, etc) is a different story. Sending an officer to universityto do arts so as to have 'a' degree is possibly a waste of time but that's just my opinion.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X