HAHA. I was handed a copy of the QR&O's, photocopier and an unlimited supply of paper and empty binders. Was told 'we need 40 copies'. Single sided copier so got really good at refeeding the paper to put the second side on.Big Pistons Forever wrote: ↑Wed May 06, 2020 11:06 am Yup, most newbies will do a stint as the SLJO ( Shitty Little Jobs Officer). Some of the "work" assigned would make being a rampie rather appealing as apposed to say updating paper copies of QR&O's, been there done that
RCAF Cyclone Down
Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore
-
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1177
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Do they use a tethered buoy?
Would it be possible for one to hit the tail rotor?
Would it be possible for one to hit the tail rotor?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
When I was waiting pilot training, I manned the Ops Desk (dispatch) and flew regularly (about once a week) and got to travel everywhere in North America. All that being paid ~50K a year. Beats any ramp jobs.
Going for the deck at corner
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Experience is something you acquire a fraction of a second after needing it.
58
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Pray tell, what has the accident rate in the military been for the past 20 years? One or maybe two Snowbird accidents - always dangerous work - I can't think of any SAR aircraft or helicopters, a Hornet or two - again, dangerous work - no transport accidents, a few training accidents, etc. Considering the low number of accident given the flying rate, "experience" level and the dangerous nature of the flying, I would have to say that it is pretty damn safe.
Everyone is inexperienced at the beginning. The issue is how do you manage it until enough experience is gained either through training or scaring oneself. A pilot with a fresh set of wings doesn't fly operationally immediately; if they are lucky they are off to an Operational Training Unit immediately and will spend months learning a new aircraft then years flying under supervision either as an FO in multicrew aircraft or as a wingman in single seat operations.
The system works well in managing the risk and that is demonstrated by the safety record.
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Luckily there is some overlap between civilian and military so we can compare apple to apple. Like would you rather get in the back of a twin otter and go to the north pole with a 20000 hour Kenn Borek captain or an RCAF twin otter pilot with "excellent training"?
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4562
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
How much do orders play into PDM in the military. Does "I order you to do this mission", take precedence over "I don't feel safe doing this mission under these conditions"? Or is that the end of it, and you fire up the bird and take your chances?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Ultimately the AC makes the final call to fly or not. We utilize a MALA (Mission Acceptance Launch Authority) matrix to determine risk and if risk is too high for the AC to self-authorize, he/she must seek higher authority. I’ve routinely had SAR pilots call me at night asking for authority to launch due to variable X.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
No disrespect, but are you sure that’s a question you want to ask after 2013?Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 2:36 pm Luckily there is some overlap between civilian and military so we can compare apple to apple. Like would you rather get in the back of a twin otter and go to the north pole with a 20000 hour Kenn Borek captain or an RCAF twin otter pilot with "excellent training"?
FWIW, I wouldn’t hesitate to ride with 440 Sqn or Borek. Now, can you show some respect and stop with the military/non-military pilot nonsense?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
The two naval officers on board were MARS I believe. Part of their job on board the ship would have been directing the helo during operations, (i.e. they would be the ones on the ship telling the aircraft where to go and look for an enemy submarine, etc...). I don’t know the exact details of MARS officer training, but training programs for similar jobs usually include familiarization with how related trades work, (i.e. pilots visit the terminal control facility and tower during training). The idea is to give the trainees a more concrete understanding of the bigger picture. These officers were on board the helo so that they could get a better understanding of one of the inner workings of one of the key assets they control.Eric Janson wrote: ↑Tue May 05, 2020 3:25 amThe question nobody seems to be asking:- Why were there 2 sailors on board?
- Jean-Pierre
- Rank 5
- Posts: 390
- Joined: Sun Oct 04, 2009 4:56 pm
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
I didn't bring up the military/non-milatary topic I'm just responding to some post above. It was said there is no civilian equivalent to military and I give an example with one. There are other example with civilian flying just as dangerous or more than military. Like forest fire fighting, crop spraying, heli-logging. This is in peacetime mind you. During war when people are trying everything they can to kill you then there is no equivalent in civilian flying other than maybe humanitarian flying in some violent place.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
In peacetime, no civies are hoisting from a rolling ship in high winds and sea state, icing up, at night, on nvg, a few hundred miles off shore, at bingo fuel. Firefighters aren’t flying low level letdown profiles requiring high g inverted dives close to the ground. It would be uncommon for civies to fly in formation at 500 kts, 250’ agl. Few civies have a crew day and crew rest rules (often broken) that the military uses - until they’re waived and the military crew extends to 26 hours etc. We all have jobs to do with associated risks. To say that military aren’t facing heightened risks in many of the daily flight profiles (in peace time) is not an accurate or informed statement.Jean-Pierre wrote: ↑Fri May 08, 2020 6:24 am
I didn't bring up the military/non-milatary topic I'm just responding to some post above. It was said there is no civilian equivalent to military and I give an example with one. There are other example with civilian flying just as dangerous or more than military. Like forest fire fighting, crop spraying, heli-logging. This is in peacetime mind you. During war when people are trying everything they can to kill you then there is no equivalent in civilian flying other than maybe humanitarian flying in some violent place.
-
- Top Poster
- Posts: 5861
- Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2004 7:17 pm
- Location: West Coast
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Best part of non military flying, I don't have to write PER's
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
Amen BPF - I wrote 15 this year and signed 32. But at least I got to fly a bit too.
-
- Rank 11
- Posts: 4562
- Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 2:33 am
- Location: YYC 230 degree radial at about 10 DME
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
That's positive. Not being military, I assumed that you do what you're told and that's that, and if you don't like it there's a cushy desk waiting for you .SAR_YQQ wrote: ↑Thu May 07, 2020 11:18 pmUltimately the AC makes the final call to fly or not. We utilize a MALA (Mission Acceptance Launch Authority) matrix to determine risk and if risk is too high for the AC to self-authorize, he/she must seek higher authority. I’ve routinely had SAR pilots call me at night asking for authority to launch due to variable X.
Just to confirm terminology, Maritime Surface and Sub-Surface Officers (MARS)?
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
It depends. There are circumstances where the direction to fly your mission may come from higher levels, and you go. You do not, not go. There are circumstances where you say no and stand by your decision in the face of pressure. It's complicated and depends on who has command and to what degree. Ultimately, you can be ordered.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
To be clear, as a flying supervisor, I would never pressure aircrew to fly a mission - nor have I ever seen such pressure exerted on aircrew. Ultimately the authority resides within the AC to fly, he cannot be ordered to fly against his will. If his objections to fly are nefarious or without merit, he will face consequences for sure. If the reasons are due to mission safety, aircraft serviceability or weather - the AC will always be protected.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
From the sounds of it now, being military or civilian had no bearing on this crash. Making poor decisions is universal.
Someone is now saying this happened during a "high speed, low level" photo op pass.
It's 2020 and still people push the limits to the end, for no good reason.
Someone is now saying this happened during a "high speed, low level" photo op pass.
It's 2020 and still people push the limits to the end, for no good reason.
Re: RCAF Cyclone Down
What if they did this within the limits of the aircraft and the rules?Heliian wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 6:14 am From the sounds of it now, being military or civilian had no bearing on this crash. Making poor decisions is universal.
Someone is now saying this happened during a "high speed, low level" photo op pass.
It's 2020 and still people push the limits to the end, for no good reason.
Going for the deck at corner