New aircrew badge announcement made at 22 Wing North Bay

[brihard]

When talking about this specific trade, he has no experience.  It would be akin to me talking about infantry officers qualification.  Despite my experience, I know nothing.  His rank shows me his experience in this trade is minimal.

Badges, CFAOs and DOADs aren’t a trade. It’s basic admin/policy knowledge.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Badges, CFAOs and DOADs aren’t a trade. It’s basic admin/policy knowledge.

Which he was arguing against, with a non-factual statement, backed by nothing. There are many things that are “basic admin/policy” that are outside my ballpark.  Because it is written somewhere doesn’t mean that I am aware and that I hold a correct interpretation.  An interpretation often requires experience.  What may seem like “basic admin/policy” of often more complicated and sometimes complex.

 

[edlabonte]

Maybe wind it in and check the guy out first there, Max. I strongly suspect his half-stripe is not the first rank he's worn in the RCAF, nor that it's a coincidence that his user name matches that of a former NCO out west. This part of your reply was out of line. Rank does not determine the objective factual accuracy of one's comments.

Oh no! I've finally be recognized! 
I guess my 12 years of being aircrew is totally invalidated because I successfully applied for UTPNCM and have a super low rank because of promotion policy.  Makes sense.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Oh no! I've finally be recognized! 
I guess my 12 years of being aircrew is totally invalidated because I successfully applied for UTPNCM and have a super low rank because of promotion policy.  Makes sense.

I am sorry but your 12 years of experience as aircrew do not show at all in your reply.

 

[Jarnhamar]

Is CFAO 55-10 out of date and full of inaccuracies?

 

[Good2Golf]

I am sorry but your 12 years of experience as aircrew do not show at all in your reply.

But your own judgemental attitude certainly did. 

Particularly interesting was your attestation that...

There are many things that are “basic admin/policy” that are outside my ballpark.

Certainly you are more than just a fighter pilot and highly acclaimed test pilot?  Don’t you believe that a senior officer, no matter their MOSID should have a sense of duty and responsibility to understand basic (if not advanced) administration and policy (and regulations, etc.)?  If you aspire to be a Commanding Officer or higher leader,  I think you might wish to consider working on gaining a better understanding of administration of CAF/RCAF  personnel, including the place that policy and regulations has in such a role, as well as perhaps some empathy to better appreciate those whom you may lead in the future.  I agree with Brihard that your disproportionate unloading on edlabonte was unwarranted and showed room for improvement in dealing with others.  It is right to expect more from you, Max.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Jarnhamar's question remains unanswered, however: "Is CFAO 55-10 out of date and full of inaccuracies?"

Wouldn't the answer to that question potentially resolve the issue of who is or isn't Flight crew, etc. etc.?

 

[dapaterson]

CFAOs were to be replaced with DAODs at the turn of the century so there would be a single, consistent, type of information mapping for orders / admin instructions.

CFAOs were to be replaced with DAODs in the 2010 timeframe following Strategic Review and Deficit Reduction Action Plan so there would be a single, consistent, type of information mapping for orders / admin instructions.


If a CFAO is old and out of date, identify the OPI and their responsible general officers / senior civilians for the past 20 years and ask "Why haven't you done your job in maintaining the information needed for the day to day operation of the CAF?"

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Quite correct DP, but of little use in resolving the issue.

You know as well as I do that many CFAO's were simply re-issued with little or no changes as DAOD's since their contents were judged to still be correct and relevant. So wether it is still in a CFAO (which, if not replaced by a DAOD can still be a valid "order") or it has been replaced by a DAOD, the issue remains of wether the contents of CFAO 55-10, as quoted, is out of date or inaccurate.

 

[SupersonicMax]

But your own judgemental attitude certainly did. 

Particularly interesting was your attestation that...

Certainly you are more than just a fighter pilot and highly acclaimed test pilot?  Don’t you believe that a senior officer, no matter their MOSID should have a sense of duty and responsibility to understand basic (if not advanced) administration and policy (and regulations, etc.)?  If you aspire to be a Commanding Officer or higher leader,  I think you might wish to consider working on gaining a better understanding of administration of CAF/RCAF  personnel, including the place that policy and regulations has in such a role, as well as perhaps some empathy to better appreciate those whom you may lead in the future.  I agree with Brihard that your disproportionate unloading on edlabonte was unwarranted and showed room for improvement in dealing with others.  It is right to expect more from you, Max.

:2c:

Regards
G2G

Thank you for your feedback.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

So that's who's wearing all the flight suits. Supply must be fully stocked now that non-aircrew are wearing them.  :nod:

AECs and AC Ops only wear flight suits when posted to an AWACS unit in the US or Europe, hence why the Col is wearing the patch on his CADPAT.

Actually, the CADO on operational dress was updated in Jan 2020:

CADO 1-006 Operational Dress

9. The following occupations may wear the flight suit as dress of the day:
a. Aircrew (Pilot, ACSO, AES Op, SAR, Flt Eng, LM, AWAC qualified AEC and AC Ops);
b. RCAF, Division and Wing CWO, Wing Comds and HCols of flying Sqn/Wings;
c. Technicians (when employed as tech crewman);
d. Canadian Army Combat Arms (when employed as a Tactical Aviation Door Gunner);
e. Flight Surgeons, Flight Nurses and Flight Medics (when employed during Med Evac); and
f. Flight Stewards (when employed with operational flying unit).

OPI: 1 & 2 CAD CWO
ISSUED: 12 Jan 2020
SUPERSEDES: 26 Nov 2018

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Does the badge change mean anything past face value?

From what I gather, the AEC and AC Op trades never felt they were properly included in the "aircrew" group, which is why I made the rub that technically they still aren't IAW the official policy.  ;D

This gives them the 'aircrew' vice 'flight crew' look on operational and DEUs, which must have been important enough to them to pursue. 

I've met a few folks from the AEC/AC Op community, spending several days with them as the 'majority numbers' at a conference at the Glass Palace;  this conf included some time with BGen Boyle and the leadership and council of Col Lachapelle throughout.

These comments are from the article if some folks didn't see them:

“With a 40+ year flying history at Tinker, AECs and AC Ops have flown side-by-side on the E-3 AWACS with our USAF mission partners, on operations at home and abroad. These personnel are integral to the execution of the mission and as such, the RCAF Commander’s decision is a great recognition of their efforts and myriad hours flown in support of operations.”
LCol Shawn Guilbault - Commanding Officer Canadian Detachment, 552 Air Control Wing, Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, USA

“The issuing of aircrew wings is an incredibly momentous milestone that formally acknowledges the important role that to Aerospace Control Officers and Operators hold on the E-3 AWACS, directing air operations toward mission accomplishment. This recognition of the role held by AECs and AC Ops now publicly and ceremoniously denotes the true nature of the significant operational contribution we have made for years.”
LCol Jill Lutz - Commanding Officer Canadian Detachment, Joint Base Elmendorf-Richardson, Anchorage, Alaska, USA

“An important point of pride, and excitement, in my life is the ability to serve Canada in such a unique way. While duty and diligence are common to all CAF members, my experiences are unique to a select few. Being recognized for the work we do and the distinct way in which we serve our country is very rewarding!”
Maj Melissa Dupuis - Commanding Officer, Canadian Forces Recruiting Centre Prairies and the North, Calgary, AB

“I was thrilled to hear the fantastic news for the AEC/AC Op community.  This decision has been a long time coming and is a result of the hard work of past and present AECs/AC Ops. This is something our operational community will proudly wear for generations.”
Maj Matthew Galvin - Assistant Director of Operations, NATO AWACS Squadron 1, NATO Air Base, Geilenkirchen, Germany

“As the Air Operations Branch CWO and as someone who proudly wears my AWACS wings, I am exceedingly pleased to see this important initiative has come to fruition. I have always advocated that AC Ops and AECs should be wearing the correct type of wings to reflect our role as aircrew and that we have a direct impact on mission accomplishment and aircraft operations. I look forward to wearing the new wings with pride and will continue to advocate for AC Ops and AECs within the RCAF and CAF.”
CWO Randy Reisch - Air Operations Branch CWO, RCAF Air Staff, NDHQ Carling, Ottawa, ON

“These AWACS wings are a symbol of collective pride and shared resolve. They embody the essence and professionalism of all service members, past and present, who have served under them.”
CWO Marc Corriveau - NCOPD Course Director & Instructor NATO School, Oberammergau, Germany

“A lot of time and effort has been placed into ensuring that the AWACS Wings are delivered to all who served as part of its crew. The effort put towards this agenda captures the appreciation for the nature of the work and sacrifices that the crew aboard AWACS aircraft have made, are making, and will make. The gesture is appreciated and the upgrade will be worn proudly.”
Sgt James Kelly - NORAD Plans NCM5 Wing Ops Support Squadron, Goose Bay, NL

Speaking as an aircrew Warrant Officer, I say "BZ" to the air force for the same reasons I said BZ when the Door Gunners badge was formerly announced and presented.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Wow! good job on finding an old out of date document.  The errors included are numerous.  FREE ADVICE: If somebody is quoting CFAOs, read carefully, it's probably wildly out of date like this one is.

Regardless of it's age, the CFAO has not been superseded and therefore is still CAF policy.  There are no errors in the ORDER (don't forget what the 'O' in CFAO stands for when you get all :tempertantrum that relate to the AWAC badge.  It is quite clear, actually.  Should it be superseded and removed, and simply ported into CFP 265 with modern language?  That would be the common sense approach to me, but until it is...the CFAO applies.  Full stop.

Canadian Forces Administrative Orders

Please be advised that the CFAOs are in the process of being superseded by Defence Administrative Orders and Directives (DAOD), manuals, standard operating procedures (SOPs) or other instruments, or are being cancelled completely with no replacement instrument, as required. As such, CFAOs are neither being written nor amended. The OPI for the CFAO collection is DSCS.


You'll note that it doesn't say "and or no longer applicable even if they are viewed as old/out of date".

I guess my 12 years of being aircrew is totally invalidated ...

Any chance you were a Loadie or AWACs type during those 12 years?  Just wondering if the tone/content of your replies is linked to that "professional frustration" LMs and AWAC AC Ops might experience not being formally recognized for their contributions to RCAF flying ops with the other folks who are "wheels in the wheel" and accept the same risks. 

 

[Quirky]

Actually, the CADO on operational dress was updated in Jan 2020:

CADO 1-006 Operational Dress

9. The following occupations may wear the flight suit as dress of the day:
a. Aircrew (Pilot, ACSO, AES Op, SAR, Flt Eng, LM, AWAC qualified AEC and AC Ops);
b. RCAF, Division and Wing CWO, Wing Comds and HCols of flying Sqn/Wings;
c. Technicians (when employed as tech crewman);
d. Canadian Army Combat Arms (when employed as a Tactical Aviation Door Gunner);
e. Flight Surgeons, Flight Nurses and Flight Medics (when employed during Med Evac); and
f. Flight Stewards (when employed with operational flying unit).

No wonder there are shortages of flight suits. IMO, only para a. should be wearing them on a daily basis, the others only when needed for zooming around. Keep it in the closet unless you need it for the day, this will reduce unnecessary wear and tear and exchange at supply. I even found it odd that Flight Stewards are allowed to wear them, do they really need an allotment to be serving food and drinks on a passenger airliner?  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Is CFAO 55-10 out of date and full of inaccuracies?

Yes, it is out of date.  Example;  Para 10(a)...most of those trades do not even exist anymore.  Integral Systems Tech?  Most of those trades either fall under AVS Tech and ATIS Tech now...and I do know that ATIS Techs 'fly' on AWACs. 

However...Para's 5-9 (aircrew badges) and Para 10(f) aren't inaccurate;  they do seem to be out of step with the spirit and intent of the RCAF and this particular subj/thread. 

Jarnhamar's question remains unanswered, however: "Is CFAO 55-10 out of date and full of inaccuracies?"

Yes

Wouldn't the answer to that question potentially resolve the issue of who is or isn't Flight crew, etc. etc.?

Yes.  I think the intent of the RCAF leadership is clear, the policy has yet to catch up.  I like to see these linked a little closer but...

The corrective admin action could be to write a DAOD to replace, or make the applic changes in CFP-265.  Do we really need a DAOD to address this subj?  I'd like to think not, personally.  Port it over to 265 where all other dress direction is/should be.

 

[dimsum]

No wonder there are shortages of flight suits. IMO, only para a. should be wearing them on a daily basis, the others only when needed for zooming around. Keep it in the closet unless you need it for the day, this will reduce unnecessary wear and tear and exchange at supply. I even found it odd that Flight Stewards are allowed to wear them, do they really need an allotment to be serving food and drinks on a passenger airliner?  :

Well, points C through F suggest that they only wear them during such duties, which would be when they're "zooming around". 

As for Flight Stewards, I suspect it's more for ALSE and fire safety than anything else.  I'm not sure if they go onboard Polaris flights if there aren't passengers - they might.

 

[Eye In The Sky]

No wonder there are shortages of flight suits. IMO, only para a. should be wearing them on a daily basis, the others only when needed for zooming around. Keep it in the closet unless you need it for the day, this will reduce unnecessary wear and tear and exchange at supply. I even found it odd that Flight Stewards are allowed to wear them, do they really need an allotment to be serving food and drinks on a passenger airliner?  :

The better question is, do Flight Stewards and Attendants perform any fire fighting duties as part of the crew duties?  If so...they are required to wear them (direction this is pretty clear in BGA 100, FOM, etc).  Focus should be on 'duties and associated/potential dangers' vice 'what trade a mbr is'.  :2c:

 

[Eye In The Sky]

You know as well as I do that many CFAO's were simply re-issued with little or no changes as DAOD's since their contents were judged to still be correct and relevant. So wether it is still in a CFAO (which, if not replaced by a DAOD can still be a valid "order") or it has been replaced by a DAOD, the issue remains of wether the contents of CFAO 55-10, as quoted, is out of date or inaccurate.

Any CFAOs that are replaced with DAODs are indicated as such on the internal CFAO webpage.  So, until the subj CFAO is replaced with a newer instrument..it still remains a CFA Order.

This outdated CFAO issue is not limited to badges;  NCM OT/Remuster policy (CFAO 11-12) is another example of an avoidable clusterf$$k that wasn't avoided;  11-12 was supposed to be superseded by a 5000-series DAOD (I have a draft copy of it...5002) but never was.  Now NCM remuster policy is a smathering of unofficial terminology and policy that does not line up with CFAO 11-12..and 11-12 is Ref A to VOTP messages.  :

 

[Eye In The Sky]

Badges, CFAOs and DOADs DAODs aren’t a trade. It’s basic admin/policy knowledge.

True; but you're giving someone else a free pass with the "free advice" comment to BlackAdder providing current CAF policy in the form of an Order because it doesn't support their contention as to what 'aircrew' is. 

Regardless of any opinions on age/quality of an order (CF Admin Order included), they remain just that - Orders.  The poster you're advocating for doesn't seem to me to be demonstrating basic policy knowledge or the understanding that an order is to be followed.  The QR & Os are actually quite clear on this, for either a NCM or Officer (the definition, of course, including OCdts).

4.02 - GENERAL RESPONSIBILITIES OF OFFICERS
(1) An officer shall:
A.  become acquainted with, observe and enforce:
i.  the National Defence Act,
ii.  the Security of Information Act,
iii.  QR&O, and
iv.  all other regulations, rules, orders and instructions that pertain to the performance of the officer's duties;

Of course, Ch 5 has almost the identical entry for NCMs (Art 5.01)

The argument 55-10 is old and imperfect and therefore (supposedly) invalid doesn't demonstrate basic knowledge of admin/policy. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

The term "Aircrew" refers to those with an aircrew medical category.

Is that a fact?  Well...let's take a closer look.  I think what you're trying to refer to is the CAF Medical Category Air Factor (All CAF mbr's have an AF).

Reference:  CFP 154, Canadian Armed Forces Medical Standards - Annex A The Medical Category System

Aerospace Control trades are aircrew and are subject to the same restrictions that the rest of the flying community like crew rest and alcohol consumption.  It's not like Flight Steward/Attendant or Door Gunner that are manned by non-aircrew trades and have the upswept badge.

A1 - Assigned to pilots (00183) medically fit for unrestricted duties

A2 - Assigned to Air Combat Systems Officers (ACSO) (00182), Flight Engineers (00021), Airborne Electronic Sensor Operators (AESOP) (00019) and Mission Specialists medically fit for unrestricted duties in air operations  ('Door Gunners' are Mission Specialists IIRC)

A4 - Assigned to Search and Rescue (SAR) Specialists (00101, Aerospace Controller (AEC) (00184 including Air Traffic, Air Weapons Controllers), Aerospace Control Operator (AC Op) (00337 including Air Traffic, Air Weapons), Loadmasters (00170-01), Flight Stewards (00165-01), Flight Attendants, Aeromedical Training Officers (AMTO) (00197), and Flight Technician – Aeromed (00334-05), Flight Surgeons (00196-04), Flight Nurses (00195-01), Flight Medical technicians (00334-01) medical fit for unrestricted duties in air operations

I'm sure you can see the big, obvious, gapping holes in your statement?  I'm pretty familiar with the BGA100, FOM etc.  Are you really suggesting the door gunners can have a beer 2-3 hours before flying?

- I'm not sure you understand the admin or medical policies on aircrew, flight crew etc as well as you think, 12 years of NCM aircrew time or not. 

- of more concern, I sense a bit of a chip on your shoulder at those "non-aircrew" upswept wings types, even though door gunners are considered more critical to "the safe operation of an aircrew" by the CAF medical system. 

Feel free to prove me wrong...