Failing at throughput is a different issue than failing at training itself.
Six at least, 130J has a Level D full motion and an integrated procedures sim and the 147F has four, a level D full-motion sim, a twin level-D on static mounts that can be upgraded to full motion, a tactically-deployable Level C flight sim (comes in two 20TEU sea cans and an IMAX-grade gunnery simulator. All the Chinook sims and the Herc full-motion can operate real-time together fully integrated so that all crews can interact dynamically with each other as well as AI-driven generated tactical blue and red forces (as well as integrate into USAF and U.S. Army collaborative simulation environments. I would consider six simulators for two fleets to be NOT not many…
Plus the Griffon simulators, plus the Cyclone simulators, plus the 412 simulator in Portage, plus the Hornet simulators in both Bagotville and Cold Lake, plus the Kingfisher and (soon to be?) Cormorant simulators in Comox. Plus the existing Aurora sim in Greenwood.
I think you got them, SKT. My list was just the ones I knew were advanced grade Level D linked through HLA for full collaborative platform and environmental simulation, that I knew from first hand experience working with CAE during their initial development.
Admittedly, I have to not met alot of Guard and USAF reserve aircrew, but every single one has been former Regular USAF that continued to flying part time. It looks like it is possible to join straight into those organizations- I just don’t know how common it is.
The HLA thing is problematic with some of them. Level D is not.I think you got them, SKT. My list was just the ones I knew were advanced grade Level D linked through HLA for full collaborative platform and environmental simulation, that I knew from first hand experience working with CAE during their initial development.
I could see in a perfect world, CP-180 (wag at #) and CH-148 could talk to each other in a maritime ASW-like scenario, etc. and I’d like to think that the CF-355 (again
) should link in with CH-147F, CC-130J and I’d hope aspirationally CH-146 via HLA since those fleets could conceivably all be operational in the same AO in the future.
It is supposed to be part of the specifications of every simulator we buy.I could see in a perfect world, CP-180 (wag at #) and CH-148 could talk to each other in a maritime ASW-like scenario, etc. and I’d like to think that the CF-355 (again
Do we have a Reserve structure that makes it easy for former Reg Force RCAF personnel to continue flying/maintaining part time? What would the cost/benefit analysis of setting up Reserve Squadrons at Pearson or Mirabel look like in comparison to some of the other options. It's been mentioned here before that RCAF pers leave for the greener pastures of civi work...but how can we avoid losing all that investment in training when our squadrons are typically placed far from where commercial airlines are operating? In the long run might not the cost in new infrastructure not be less than the lost personnel value?
The ‘dark-light blue’ side is where I have no insight…I too would think they should electronically lash up…but…
Yes we do. It is very easy to continue to fly as a Reservist with the RCAF. The difference is that the Reservist will (in all cases except one) be part of a Reg F unit.
I'm not suggesting that the process doesn't make it easy for a Reservist to continue to fly with the RCAF but rather questioning whether geography prevents a much greater number of former members from flying (or turning wrenches) with the RCAF.
That is a hard question to answer. In the fighter force- probably yes. I can’t see it as much of a barrier in the rest of the fleets.
yet if your reaction isn't exactly the same in both cases you are dead. Students who start their training with simulators are far easier to convince that they are working with reality in the sim. They don't enter with a pre-conceived bias. Finances are always a problem but the discussion is focusing upon solutions so one solution is to provide funding to create realistic sim. runs so as to lessen the hours required in the real air frame to gain qualification. Good. Part of the contract with Boeing probably includes simulators and they will be state of the art. Australia, Great Britain and all other current users undoubtedly have programmes on the shelf that we can use as well. Purchasing an extra 4 air frames to dedicate to training would also help. 16 is probably very tight and really doesn't give much breathing space for training. As for pilots, start training from the ground up using local facilities whilst your trainees complete their education. Make better use of our cadet programme. There are dozens of airports across Canada that would gladly accept the GOC's money and produce a qualified multi-engined IFR officer candidate at the same time a university or college produces a graduate.
Regular is a misnomer down here, as a large segment of officers are not Regulars per say (the whole # controlled by Congress thing) so you will have Active Duty Reservists who are effectively the same as Regulars for day to day stuff, but they don't have a Regular Commissions, and where commissioned into the USAFR. (it is a larger mess in the Army if that helps... generally only folks who go to Military Colleges get Regular Commissions, a few outliers, like the Citadel exist though, everyone else gets a Reserve Commission, and needs to apply to be a Regular - but again the whole # limits mean that only some get accepted)
