Australian Army Aviation Corps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FFS. Same old and bolds, the same defences being dug, the same tiresome debates. I'm sure there's another thread on here somewhere where you can discuss what could've and should've been. Emergov - If you're out there, you posted on the last incarnation of this thread something about pay being looked at again. If you're in the know - it would be interesting to hear about what AAAvn is doing to address the bloody awful pay scales that new pilots will find themselves on. As well as anything else being done about retention.
Open question to AAAvn pilots - what would keep you in beyond your ROSO these days? Is it just more money? More flying? Better management of the SSO career path?
Last edited by Felix the Cat; 18th Dec 2012 at 00:14.
glossy pieces of kit with great facades, but nothing of substance - or able to deliver an operational result - behind them.
The only segment of the RAAF that actually performs in it's role is 92 wing.
AAvn might not be delivering the way they should be, due mainly to the mismanagement of DMO and lack of operational exposure (though they see far more action than the RAAF) but handing over to the RAAF will not solve a thing. Stating that we do not need to be capable of expeditionary combined force operations shows a complete lack of understanding of modern warfare and operations in our region. ALL operations to Australia's north are expeditionary by their very nature. All deployable air elements. The RAAF will become more accountable for delivered capability as time goes by costs increase. If it fails to deliver, as in the UK, it will be cut.
The notion of handing over an Armed Recon helicopter to the Navy shows a complete lack of understanding of the capability and how it supports land warfare outcomes. I would go one step further and put appropriately trained infantry soldiers behind the gun.
I respect your extensive service and experience BR71; I also understand your attachment to the Huey and it's downstream development, but frankly I am surprised you would make suggestions such as those above.
Felix
You probably won't get anyone posting. These pages are watched and they have been told to stay away.
Regardless, this is only a forum and nothing said here will ever, ever have any impact on the future of the ADF rotary fleet.
Last edited by Trojan1981; 18th Dec 2012 at 01:04.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bushranger 71
I know this is menial as a point in all this discussion, but the font you use now is awful. I find it almost unreadable, and now skim your posts rather than the detailed read they deserve.
Can you either change font, or if nor make it all BOLD before posting?
I know this is menial as a point in all this discussion, but the font you use now is awful. I find it almost unreadable, and now skim your posts rather than the detailed read they deserve.
Can you either change font, or if nor make it all BOLD before posting?
Last edited by rjtjrt; 18th Dec 2012 at 02:07.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Australia
Posts: 85
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hang in there Felix
I haven't got any news for you about pay and capability allowance Felix. It is being 'discussed'.
Don't hold your breath for any quality of discussion here. With the exception of you, 1981, and BR71 (despite his nostalgia), this thread will continue to spiral into chauvinist rants from ex FLTLT and FSGT who have never been within 20 miles of a capability decision, and who are incapable of differentiating between a 'discussion' between people with an opinion, a 'proposal' put to a decision maker, and an actual 'decision'.
Andu in particular seems to barely be on passing terms with the facts, and feels that an aside at the end of a bar-room chat is sufficient evidence to validate his opinion of Army Aviation.
My contribution is this:
Most if not all of what has been posted here since the thread went maverick is false. That minority of opinion which has some basis in fact is so utterly biased as to be laughable. The only difference between the efforts of RAAF RW and AAAvn is that AAAvn are fixed in place by three, gusting four major acquisitions/disposals, having had three squadrons fully engaged in generating detachments for operational deployment for the best part of 7 years.
RAAF have shown themselves quite capable of screwing this stuff up., At least BR71 displayed some lucidity in his post about the current problems with F18E, Wedgetail, and other air projects.
As for claims that we are all on some ASIO watch list, I for one have nothing to worry about, having fashioned a very comfortable and stylish tinfoil hat last week; wearing it right now. I have also bought twenty-three copies of Catcher in the Rye, for some reason...
Don't hold your breath for any quality of discussion here. With the exception of you, 1981, and BR71 (despite his nostalgia), this thread will continue to spiral into chauvinist rants from ex FLTLT and FSGT who have never been within 20 miles of a capability decision, and who are incapable of differentiating between a 'discussion' between people with an opinion, a 'proposal' put to a decision maker, and an actual 'decision'.
Andu in particular seems to barely be on passing terms with the facts, and feels that an aside at the end of a bar-room chat is sufficient evidence to validate his opinion of Army Aviation.
My contribution is this:
Most if not all of what has been posted here since the thread went maverick is false. That minority of opinion which has some basis in fact is so utterly biased as to be laughable. The only difference between the efforts of RAAF RW and AAAvn is that AAAvn are fixed in place by three, gusting four major acquisitions/disposals, having had three squadrons fully engaged in generating detachments for operational deployment for the best part of 7 years.
RAAF have shown themselves quite capable of screwing this stuff up., At least BR71 displayed some lucidity in his post about the current problems with F18E, Wedgetail, and other air projects.
As for claims that we are all on some ASIO watch list, I for one have nothing to worry about, having fashioned a very comfortable and stylish tinfoil hat last week; wearing it right now. I have also bought twenty-three copies of Catcher in the Rye, for some reason...
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: North Arm Cove, NSW, Australia
Age: 86
Posts: 229
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello rjtjrt; thank you for the heads up re font change – screen resolution perhaps! I began using it in a website development project because the wider spacing of characters seemed easier reading for older eyes, but we will reconsider. Gratias!. Have changed this from Courier New to Arial.
For others. Forums like this are only worthwhile if there is reasoned open-minded debate. My contributions have nought to do with nostalgia as proffered by Emergov or lack of appreciation of armed recon and other Army roles, as indicated by Trojan 1981. But there are plenty of lessons to be learned from past conduct of operations that have not really been heeded.
Army Aviation handicapped itself by dogged pursuit of Project Air 87 resulting in forfeiture of more versatile scout recon and utility gunship capabilities. Had they not been so focused on an AAH capability, then they might not have got sucked into the European origin Tiger. And regarding your single Service rant T1981, I do not have an Air Force biased perspective and have argued for decades that RAAF priorities could be better balanced, much to the dismay of some colleagues.
T1981; the push behind LPD acquisition was capacity to deploy largish expeditionary forces which the former Chief of Army, General Peter Leahy recently opined was not an affordable concept of operations for Australia. He postulated that the primary emphasis in defence planning should be affordable means of deterrence against interference with trade corridors. Having acquired these big platforms, they would of course be used where appropriate to support say regional intervention operations. It thus makes sense to me to base Tiger on these seaborne means and have all the European origin helo platforms (Tiger, MRH90, Squirrel) operated by the same service. There seems no reason why Navy aircrew could not operate the Tiger when required for Army support requirements, as is intended with MRH90. Tiger roles could be activated when any national strategic assessments indicate regional interventions might be necessary, as it arguably does not have justifiable role applicability on continental Australia.
There are a few informed people in the defence commentariat expressing concerns like 'formulation of DWP2013 is apparently not going well'. It seems the cloistered process will not embrace public input as previously and maybe the Services are not even involved, such is the Public Service domination of DoD. Significant economic constraints are on the horizon for Australia so there will likely be some changes of direction from DWP2009 planning.
There is somewhat hysterical clamour about defence budget cuts and the lobbying for increased expenditure continues; but few are addressing that the ADF could be much better managed within existing or even less funding. Like it or not, there will have to be some economies made and what is arguably least affordable is maintaining 3 separate air arms within the small ADF. Just how that might be rationalised has been the gist of some discussion here, which could be recognized more by some contributors as just debate.
For others. Forums like this are only worthwhile if there is reasoned open-minded debate. My contributions have nought to do with nostalgia as proffered by Emergov or lack of appreciation of armed recon and other Army roles, as indicated by Trojan 1981. But there are plenty of lessons to be learned from past conduct of operations that have not really been heeded.
Army Aviation handicapped itself by dogged pursuit of Project Air 87 resulting in forfeiture of more versatile scout recon and utility gunship capabilities. Had they not been so focused on an AAH capability, then they might not have got sucked into the European origin Tiger. And regarding your single Service rant T1981, I do not have an Air Force biased perspective and have argued for decades that RAAF priorities could be better balanced, much to the dismay of some colleagues.
T1981; the push behind LPD acquisition was capacity to deploy largish expeditionary forces which the former Chief of Army, General Peter Leahy recently opined was not an affordable concept of operations for Australia. He postulated that the primary emphasis in defence planning should be affordable means of deterrence against interference with trade corridors. Having acquired these big platforms, they would of course be used where appropriate to support say regional intervention operations. It thus makes sense to me to base Tiger on these seaborne means and have all the European origin helo platforms (Tiger, MRH90, Squirrel) operated by the same service. There seems no reason why Navy aircrew could not operate the Tiger when required for Army support requirements, as is intended with MRH90. Tiger roles could be activated when any national strategic assessments indicate regional interventions might be necessary, as it arguably does not have justifiable role applicability on continental Australia.
There are a few informed people in the defence commentariat expressing concerns like 'formulation of DWP2013 is apparently not going well'. It seems the cloistered process will not embrace public input as previously and maybe the Services are not even involved, such is the Public Service domination of DoD. Significant economic constraints are on the horizon for Australia so there will likely be some changes of direction from DWP2009 planning.
There is somewhat hysterical clamour about defence budget cuts and the lobbying for increased expenditure continues; but few are addressing that the ADF could be much better managed within existing or even less funding. Like it or not, there will have to be some economies made and what is arguably least affordable is maintaining 3 separate air arms within the small ADF. Just how that might be rationalised has been the gist of some discussion here, which could be recognized more by some contributors as just debate.
Last edited by Bushranger 71; 18th Dec 2012 at 22:01. Reason: Addendum
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
few are addressing that the ADF could be much better managed within existing or even less funding.
Reducing the numbers of senior officers above unit command level by 50% would be a good start! A CO of mine recently stated that there are two ADFs; the one we work in and the other in Canberra.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm assuming many readers here would have seen General David Hurley's interview on Sky yesterday, where is said (carefully following the approved company line), that the ADF could still manage to deliver the goods, if with some delays in some projects, with the huge reduction in Defence funding.
I suspect I'm not the only one to think that he might have a slightly different slant on the warm, fuzzy, 'all is going swimmingly' line he took in that interview if he knew that what he was saying was strictly off the record.
I suspect I'm not the only one to think that he might have a slightly different slant on the warm, fuzzy, 'all is going swimmingly' line he took in that interview if he knew that what he was saying was strictly off the record.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Recognition of Military Qualifications
Emergov:
Hmm, I'd warrant that I'm the only ex-FSGT in this forum... chauvinist rants? 
I'm about to do some very expensive training in preparation for my impending departure from the ARA. The training I am doing is merely to convert my military multi-engine, command instrument rating and NVG rating to a civil multi-engine, command instrument rating and NVG rating. Seems a bit silly really. If the Australian Army (and the RAN and RAAF for that matter) is a Registered Training Organisation, I'm not sure why CASA can't provide greater recognition. Is it simply a case that the ADF has not engaged with CASA recently to achieve a better outcome?
Anyone know of any CASA ATOs who are in the ARES or ARA??
chauvinist rants from ex FLTLT and FSGT
I'm about to do some very expensive training in preparation for my impending departure from the ARA. The training I am doing is merely to convert my military multi-engine, command instrument rating and NVG rating to a civil multi-engine, command instrument rating and NVG rating. Seems a bit silly really. If the Australian Army (and the RAN and RAAF for that matter) is a Registered Training Organisation, I'm not sure why CASA can't provide greater recognition. Is it simply a case that the ADF has not engaged with CASA recently to achieve a better outcome?
Anyone know of any CASA ATOs who are in the ARES or ARA??
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 665
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it simply a case that the ADF has not engaged with CASA recently
We'd asked why in the world the two agencies couldn't save the taxpayer a shed load of money by producing common enroute charts and let down plates. He said that the RAAF had been trying for years, but met with utter intransigence at every step from their opposite numbers at DCA - (who, almost to a man, were ex-RAAF with major chips on their shoulders, possibly because they were ex-RAAF).
I have to say that at the time, we thought that, for the common good and the potential savings that were to be made, the RAAF bloke should have persevered rather than throw his hands in the air and give up. However, after later personal "interaction" with the then DCA, (which just about everybody, and not just the RAAF, then "fondly" referred to as "the Gestapo"), I came to the conclusion that even a saint would have given up dealing with them.
I understand that it was a very similar situation when the military apprentice and trade schools first tried to get civil accreditation for their graduates. Although I'm pleased to learn that quite a bit of progress has been made in that area, as it damn well should be.
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Australian Army Aviation Corps
The argument used to run that it wasn't in the ADF's interests to make it any easier for trained personnel to step out but given the cost of career transition training for senior aircrew across the three services, I would have thought there is a good financial impetus for the bean counters to try and make it happen.
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Australia
Age: 39
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This thread is awesome!
This thread is epic, awesome discussion being had!
Army and choppers: great idea, but in reality its my opinion it has been done poorly for too long.
Army needs rotary lift, and CAS/Armed recce without a doubt. But those capabilities are intensive to raise/train/sustain....and are increasingly complex and expensive today compared to a huey or a kiowa a couple of decades ago. Yeah, it would be perfect if the army could keep doing it alone, but it just might be getting too hard, if it were looked at in the cold hard light of day.
And CASA.....yeah ADF aviators who fly day to day as a military pilot, need to do english proficiency tests for example........because once you are out of a zoom bag you somehow forget how to speak properly. What a joke.
Army and choppers: great idea, but in reality its my opinion it has been done poorly for too long.
Army needs rotary lift, and CAS/Armed recce without a doubt. But those capabilities are intensive to raise/train/sustain....and are increasingly complex and expensive today compared to a huey or a kiowa a couple of decades ago. Yeah, it would be perfect if the army could keep doing it alone, but it just might be getting too hard, if it were looked at in the cold hard light of day.
And CASA.....yeah ADF aviators who fly day to day as a military pilot, need to do english proficiency tests for example........because once you are out of a zoom bag you somehow forget how to speak properly. What a joke.
ADF / CASA
lastvarker
and, as I understand it, a current ADF pilot would also need a medical and a security clearance to be able to fly civilian aircraft. I guess the ADF really is another country
cheers
layman
and, as I understand it, a current ADF pilot would also need a medical and a security clearance to be able to fly civilian aircraft. I guess the ADF really is another country
cheers
layman
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tap opening: From trickle to flood again?
Victoria Police, Careflight recruiting again. No idea how many positions. Bristow (up to 50 pilots 
) and maybe CHC starting again very soon.
I wonder how many Army pilots will join the 30-odd recent departures from the Corps?
Estimating a conservative figure of 10 to 15 that may go in the next 6 months, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will it coincide with a reduction in ROE for Black Hawk and therefore be absorbed without too much more hurt? Or will it force some other outcome?
) and maybe CHC starting again very soon. I wonder how many Army pilots will join the 30-odd recent departures from the Corps?
Estimating a conservative figure of 10 to 15 that may go in the next 6 months, it will be interesting to see how it plays out. Will it coincide with a reduction in ROE for Black Hawk and therefore be absorbed without too much more hurt? Or will it force some other outcome?
Last edited by Felix the Cat; 25th Jan 2013 at 04:13.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When one looks at the lack or understanding and or the lack of interest by some, in the well being of their members. One can only presume that a lack of basic understanding still exists in the armed forces.
When the Air Force introduced the C130 into service in 1958, it reinstated the old WW2 aircrew position of Flight engineer. It also introduced a new position of Loadmaster. It was a paperwork action, designed to allow the aircraft to be safely flown. At least three of the engineers were from WW2 and so still had an entitlement to wear the engineers brevet. However the remaining fellows were not awarded any brevet for some time, and the poor old loadmaster and his engineer mate had to wait until 1964 before correct brevet became available.
The pay scale was only marginally better than what they got before they came on the job. Annual assessments were also unfair as at unit level one was judged by the units but final assessment was done by ones basic mustering and they had little or no interest with what was going on. Because the higher ups lack of support and action and because the base mausterings had lost interest in us, no sustantive promotions were forthcoming and the situation was partly solved in the mid seventies because political interest was starting to appear. In spite of that it took till 1983 for the matter to be resolved.
I see where some of you are puzzled that the pay and conditions are so poor but it took 25 years for the airman aircrew issue to be fixed when it could with good intent be fixed almost overnight.
There still appears today for people to leave in droves and yet the people who should have an interest sweep it under the carpet.
I am sure the army is the same, but I find it a crying shame that so many good people decide to leave leaving most of the dead heads behind.
It is not the facts that it is an old fart moaning, my goodness the same mistakes are being made from 30 years ago.
I wish you all the very best and the sooner our powers to be understand how change is needed the better for you and our country
Regards
Col
l
When the Air Force introduced the C130 into service in 1958, it reinstated the old WW2 aircrew position of Flight engineer. It also introduced a new position of Loadmaster. It was a paperwork action, designed to allow the aircraft to be safely flown. At least three of the engineers were from WW2 and so still had an entitlement to wear the engineers brevet. However the remaining fellows were not awarded any brevet for some time, and the poor old loadmaster and his engineer mate had to wait until 1964 before correct brevet became available.
The pay scale was only marginally better than what they got before they came on the job. Annual assessments were also unfair as at unit level one was judged by the units but final assessment was done by ones basic mustering and they had little or no interest with what was going on. Because the higher ups lack of support and action and because the base mausterings had lost interest in us, no sustantive promotions were forthcoming and the situation was partly solved in the mid seventies because political interest was starting to appear. In spite of that it took till 1983 for the matter to be resolved.
I see where some of you are puzzled that the pay and conditions are so poor but it took 25 years for the airman aircrew issue to be fixed when it could with good intent be fixed almost overnight.
There still appears today for people to leave in droves and yet the people who should have an interest sweep it under the carpet.
I am sure the army is the same, but I find it a crying shame that so many good people decide to leave leaving most of the dead heads behind.
It is not the facts that it is an old fart moaning, my goodness the same mistakes are being made from 30 years ago.
I wish you all the very best and the sooner our powers to be understand how change is needed the better for you and our country
Regards
Col
l
Thread Starter
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Northern Oz
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Centenary of Military Aviation Airshow 2014
I've just had a look at the website for the Centenary of Military Airshow 2014 which is going to be held at Point Cook in March.
RAAF sending 10 types, the RAN is sending 2 current types and 2 warbirds, the Army is sending.... Can anyone guess? Nothing.
Despite the Army being the organisation which kicked off military aviation in Australia, there are no Army aircraft participating in the airshow in either a flying or ground display.
I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. :embarrassed:
RAAF sending 10 types, the RAN is sending 2 current types and 2 warbirds, the Army is sending.... Can anyone guess? Nothing.
Despite the Army being the organisation which kicked off military aviation in Australia, there are no Army aircraft participating in the airshow in either a flying or ground display.
I shouldn't be surprised I suppose. :embarrassed:
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Tiger and MRH turned up to do a static display only. Apparently it was stood up at very short notice. I don't understand why Army are so reluctant to do flying displays.
Anyway, good to see them there. Particularly good to see blue berets being worn again!
Anyway, good to see them there. Particularly good to see blue berets being worn again!