Rated to Fly: The Predator and Reaper operators that the Air Forces wants to churn out of its new UAV pilot training program starting next year (see below) will not be rated pilots in the service's traditional sense of the phrase, but they will be qualified to fly and operate these multi-mission platforms safely and effectively, including in civil airspace, Brig. Gen. Darrell Jones, director of force management policy on the Air Staff, said Tuesday at AFA's Air & Space Conference. During a briefing with reporters, Jones said the UAV operators that the Air Force has used to date have been rated pilots who have graduated from specialized undergraduate pilot training and are qualified to operate a certain type of manned platform such as an F-16.Under one facet of a new program, Jones said officers of various career fields and experience levels—but not flight experience—up through the rank of captain would be trained as UAV operators. The Air Force "will work the FAA issues" so that the new crop of UAV pilots "are able to operate the Predators in national airspace and meet all of the requirements that the FAA and international organizations would impose upon anyone who flies an aircraft of that size in their airspace," he said.
In the past, the Air Force has used only rated officers to operate its larger sized, multi-mission UAVs like Predator and Reaper since instrument-qualified pilots were necessary to fly in FAA- and ICAO-controlled airspace. Further, the Air Force held the view that rated officers were better prepared to deal with the demands of operating these complex systems under difficult battlefield conditions, including flying in proximity to manned aircraft and employing weapons in time
Holy mother of ZXQ what is this guy thinking? beware! the USAF is about to get really sued after one of these video game operators flying packman into an Airliner. No wonder why the SEC of the AF keeps firing these people.
Yep
The great thinkers are at it again> Change will be hard in the AF. But in the recent events of Strategic Command and their ability to haul payloads of their choosing and to lax standards as new and changing......
Well
As I see it, it will be like the Army and UAV operators and all the "new"ideas like not having to pay what the Army formerly called ACIP (Aviation Career Incentive Pay) and whatever the USAF calls it.....
It's probably one motive to eliminate flight pay and give everybody chance to to be their very own Predator driver like all those movies out there. How else is the AF gonna get qualified combat staffers without even being in theater??
More bling and patches ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D!!!!!!
Holy snuffles. Flight following on every flight if we're gonna have these kids flying those things in my airspace.
Quote from: stratoflyer on September 19, 2008, 05:12:30 AM
Holy snuffles. Flight following on every flight if we're gonna have these kids flying those things in my airspace.
They have to be escorted an non-military air space, even if the pilot has a million hours and is a ATP.
Well at least all of the butterbars in UPT can stop sweating....
Quite right. #1 son-of-aveighter, currently at SUPT, lives in fear of an assignment to UAVs. It is a great motivator for serious studying.
Actually, the AF is looking to trim pilot training to essentially the level of private pilot for UAV operators. In the AF this does not constitute a "rated" pilot. Despite what the article seemed to indicate, there is no current push for UAV operators to have no actual flight experience.
This Article is from the AFA
as to pilots?? well are they going to be private pilots?? truth is the pent. wanted to use NCOs, they use a number of civilians too.
Don;t expect the FAA to give them the green light on Non-Rated pilots flying UAVs in US Air Space . besides when we get out of IRAQ we will have a glut of UAV pilots with nothing to do. Don't expect them on the border either. It is cheaper and more efficient to use the current supercubs with GS12 border patrol pilot.
UAVs are overrated, too expensive to fly ($3,000+/hr) crash one 5 Million plus to replace.
Lets face it The top Leadership of the USAF has lost some credibility with the Sec. of Defense, Sec of AF, and they seem to be hitting a large number of noncombatant's in the theatre, this is really bad. I suspect that the resulting studies after the war will focus on targeting issues when using a TV camera to make your decision to go or no go.
Quote from: wingnut55 on September 20, 2008, 04:18:22 AM
This Article is from the AFA
as to pilots?? well are they going to be private pilots?? truth is the pent. wanted to use NCOs, they use a number of civilians too.
Don;t expect the FAA to give them the green light on Non-Rated pilots flying UAVs in US Air Space . besides when we get out of IRAQ we will have a glut of UAV pilots with nothing to do. Don't expect them on the border either. It is cheaper and more efficient to use the current supercubs with GS12 border patrol pilot.
UAVs are overrated, too expensive to fly ($3,000+/hr) crash one 5 Million plus to replace.
Lets face it The top Leadership of the USAF has lost some credibility with the Sec. of Defense, Sec of AF, and they seem to be hitting a large number of noncombatant's in the theatre, this is really bad. I suspect that the resulting studies after the war will focus on targeting issues when using a TV camera to make your decision to go or no go.
Overrated?
They are the number one requested platform by the on-the-ground warfighter!
Sure they cost $5M if you crash one...but how much is an F-16?....and how much does it cost to fly one of those bad boys?
I would like to know where you are getting your info about the number of non-combatants we are hitting...and which platform you suggest would help reduce this number.
QuoteThey are the number one requested platform by the on-the-ground warfighter!
Possibly because there isn't really an alternative for low and slow aerial observation as there had been in the past.
Well, I don't know all that much about UAV's and all that fancy techno toys, but I do think that we will never loose human pilots in manned airplanes, and the pilot culture will not die in the AF.
QuotePossibly because there isn't really an alternative for low and slow aerial observation as there had been in the past.
Impressive grasp of the obvious! :clap:
Let's face it. Electronics and technology have made flying different. You might even say easy.
A pilot is not needed with the equipment readily available today. A pilot to do the hand flying and processing of analog flight instruments and analog navigation instruments and radios is not needed anymore, except maybe to take-off and land.
I understand the Air Force for some time has had 2 sets of pilots for UAV. One for take-off and landings. They take off and then hand over the aircraft to someone who can fly the UAV in cruise but who is not trained to land.
Many tasks which previously required a pilot can be handled by someone who is not qualified to fly as a pilot. Pilots are being replaced by IT people. And then you don't need the 20/20 uncorrected eyesight or hand/eye coordination the Air Force has always required for pilots.
What is even scarier is the fact that some of our Part 121 operations are being flown by young pilots who may be good flying an FMS but have never been tested when it comes to real flying skills.
If you read the details of those plans, it will be almost impossible to get such a slot, and they are EXTREMELY small in number (10 per year, I think). The minimum standard for admission will be so high, anyone qualified for application will be just as qualified (or more) for UPT entry (not to mention UNT). I don't understand why words in policy planning were even wasted in talking about it.
Additionally, they'll get more applications and assignments from the current pilot pipeline than they can handle. If there's another round of "banking" (which always occurs after conflicts), those individuals will also take priority. So many layers above that...
Don't hold your breath. You might have a token non-flier here and there, but that situation will be similar to being an astronaut. Current selections at NASA are either a bajillion hours of combat time with test pilot command, or PhD in physics, medicine, or engineering by the age of 23.
Quote from: DG on September 23, 2008, 02:17:41 AM
Let's face it. Electronics and technology have made flying different. You might even say easy.
A pilot is not needed with the equipment readily available today. A pilot to do the hand flying and processing of analog flight instruments and analog navigation instruments and radios is not needed anymore, except maybe to take-off and land.
I understand the Air Force for some time has had 2 sets of pilots for UAV. One for take-off and landings. They take off and then hand over the aircraft to someone who can fly the UAV in cruise but who is not trained to land.
Many tasks which previously required a pilot can be handled by someone who is not qualified to fly as a pilot. Pilots are being replaced by IT people. And then you don't need the 20/20 uncorrected eyesight or hand/eye coordination the Air Force has always required for pilots.
What is even scarier is the fact that some of our Part 121 operations are being flown by young pilots who may be good flying an FMS but have never been tested when it comes to real flying skills.
Yo, DG! How many hours do you have?
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 23, 2008, 10:19:31 PM
If you read the details of those plans, it will be almost impossible to get such a slot, and they are EXTREMELY small in number (10 per year, I think). The minimum standard for admission will be so high, anyone qualified for application will be just as qualified (or more) for UPT entry (not to mention UNT). I don't understand why words in policy planning were even wasted in talking about it.
Additionally, they'll get more applications and assignments from the current pilot pipeline than they can handle. If there's another round of "banking" (which always occurs after conflicts), those individuals will also take priority. So many layers above that...
Don't hold your breath. You might have a token non-flier here and there, but that situation will be similar to being an astronaut. Current selections at NASA are either a bajillion hours of combat time with test pilot command, or PhD in physics, medicine, or engineering by the age of 23.
Interesting analysis. Wrong on almost every count.
Quote from: DG on September 23, 2008, 02:17:41 AMI understand the Air Force for some time has had 2 sets of pilots for UAV. One for take-off and landings. They take off and then hand over the aircraft to someone who can fly the UAV in cruise but who is not trained to land.
Nope, that aint right.
The UAV takes off and lands under the control of a pilot who is at the same location the UAV is at.
After the UAV is at altitude and the sensors check out, control is then turned over to the Mission Crew who fly it and operate the sensors while it is on station.
In short, the Launch/Recovery Crew takes off and lands the UAV while the Mission Crew operates it while it is on station.
The Launch/Recovery Crew is at the location the UAV is at while the Mission Crew is back here in CONUS.
And the pilot on the Mission Crew is perfectally capable of landing the UAV. The only differnce in the crews is that one is deployed and the other isn't.
All members of both crews have to be fully mission qualified to be able to fly Operational Missions.
Quote from: aveighter on September 23, 2008, 11:56:24 PM
Quote from: desertengineer1 on September 23, 2008, 10:19:31 PM
Interesting analysis. Wrong on almost every count.
OK, let's do the smack down...
__________________
In January 2009, the Air Force will begin the second approach, a small-group testing of a program to train approximately 10 active-duty officers to specifically fly unmanned aircraft. Colonel Lee said the lessons learned from the first group will be used to train a second group of 10.
_____________________
OK, so that means only 10 NON-RATED candidates among the hundreds (or thousands) of available Class 2 or better qualified personnel. This also includes, banked UPT (post Iraq), UNT students, or Navigator track graduates due severe force reduction in the next few years (BRAC too), and only "Active Duty" candidates - which excludes any reserve or ANG members. Sorry, you don't make a case here. Out of 40,00 officers, only 10 is a very slim margin. If you are not currently tied to aviation, you aint got a chance.
______________________________
"The plan is to develop and validate training programs that prepare non-UPT pilots for wartime UAS duty," Colonel Lee said. "We will continue to uphold the highest levels of Air Force flight safety standards."
______________________________
This is the general escape clause when someone raises the concern why only UPT or UP Class 2 or higher candidates are selected for the UAV "non-rated" track. I've heard this before... been there, done that..
______________________________
In the next couple of weeks, Air Force officials will select approximately 10 percent of UPT graduates to begin UAS training when they graduate in October. Their UAS training will be at Creech Air Force Base, Nevada.
________________________________
OK, so you have about 300 UPT graduates per year to choose from. Add to that, 300 UNT graduates (always free game for the UNT to UPT upgrade), and say, 100 pilot track slots in high-priority assignments needing re-slot. That gives 700 per year. And you assign a specific number - 10 - for non pilot rated candidates? That's a selection rate of 10/700 - or 1.4%!!!!!
Sorry, your argument of "Wrong on all counts" doesn't hold the weight here.
Thanks for playing....
Quote from: PHall on September 24, 2008, 02:51:08 AM
Quote from: DG on September 23, 2008, 02:17:41 AMI understand the Air Force for some time has had 2 sets of pilots for UAV. One for take-off and landings. They take off and then hand over the aircraft to someone who can fly the UAV in cruise but who is not trained to land.
Nope, that aint right.
The UAV takes off and lands under the control of a pilot who is at the same location the UAV is at.
After the UAV is at altitude and the sensors check out, control is then turned over to the Mission Crew who fly it and operate the sensors while it is on station.
In short, the Launch/Recovery Crew takes off and lands the UAV while the Mission Crew operates it while it is on station.
The Launch/Recovery Crew is at the location the UAV is at while the Mission Crew is back here in CONUS.
And the pilot on the Mission Crew is perfectally capable of landing the UAV. The only differnce in the crews is that one is deployed and the other isn't.
All members of both crews have to be fully mission qualified to be able to fly Operational Missions.
Well...he is sort of right.
It is sort of like a pilot who has not got his required number of takeoffs and landing....they have to get a check ride with a CFI.
The pilots who are doing "remote split operations" here state side are not currently qualified to do LRU "Launch and Recovery Unit" duties. They have to go back for refreasher training before they are deployed to anb LRU site.
Quote from: aveighter on September 23, 2008, 11:56:24 PM
Yo, DG! How many hours do you have?
3600 hours, over 40 years. Mainly piston prop. Mainly ASEL. CFII. Check Pilot Evaluator.
Tags - MIKE
The real conversation isn't whether "real" pilots in combat situations will be gone next year or even next decade, but that the writing is on the wall.
Most aviators I've spoken to agree that the last fighter pilots have already been born.
Unmanned flight isn't slow to adoption because of technology, but because of inertia - ordinance can deliver itself, air-to-air combat is mostly an exhibition skill, and jumbo jets are capable of landing themselves in full IFR conditions like it was a sunny day.
Short of Skynet pushing us back to the 50's, this train is rolling, like it or not. When the public's perception of unmanned flight equals the technological reality, bus drivers, truck drivers, and pilots all over the world are going to be searching for new gigs.
(btw, I don't like it, but no one is asking me)
Quote from: Eclipse on September 24, 2008, 02:53:32 PMair-to-air combat
I don't see how they can replace "real" pilots in dogfights.
After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.
Tags - MIKE
Who are we "dog-fighting"?
Quote from: Eclipse on September 24, 2008, 04:04:25 PM
Who are we "dog-fighting"?
Are you saying we never again will see air to air combat?
Quote from: DG on September 24, 2008, 04:00:19 PM
After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.
Yet. ;D
Quote from: DG on September 24, 2008, 07:07:52 PM
Quote from: Eclipse on September 24, 2008, 04:04:25 PM
Who are we "dog-fighting"?
Are you saying we never again will see air to air combat?
I'm saying that the likely hood of it becomes increasingly slim as the weapons get more sophisticated. There are very few countries left that are our adversary that also have an aerial capability to challenge us.
That doesn't mean never, that mean less likely - and we can't continue to pay for every possible scenario that might occur. And at some point the UAV's will become capable of air-to-air (assuming they aren't already). Immersive VR environments that put the "pilot" in the "cockpit" while still on the ground will provide 360° views as if they were there (assuming we're not wet-wired into the controls by then).
If you accept the statement that the "last fighter pilot has been born", that's still a 20-40+ year stretch of manned flying, just in decreasing numbers, especially for combat aircraft.
Imagine what tech will be like in 40 years.
^Definitely not good recruiting rhetoric.
AFB Had this today, funny: http://www.afblues.com/comics/uav-baby.wmv
UAV life MAY not be as happy as one would think right now
look at DefenseNews.mht
>:D >:D
"Schwartz also explained how the "insatiable" demand for Predator and Reaper missions over Iraq and Afghanistan has led to the need for more UAV pilots.
The Air Force will immediately start taking pilots straight from undergraduate pilot training while also setting up a new career track for UAV pilots to fill that need, Schwartz said.
In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.
Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.
Starting in January, a group of 10 active duty officers - not pilots - will be the first to test if the Air Force could develop a pipeline of pilots that would fly only UAVs during their careers."
Quote from: DG on September 25, 2008, 02:14:26 PM
In the near term the Air Force will start sending UPT graduates straight to fly UAVs during their first tour. One hundred pilots will be selected each year for as many years as this type of need remains, Schwartz said.
Air Force officials said last week these pilots will return to flying manned aircraft after this first tour, which will last three to four years.
I'm not a pilot but this has to be a BAD thing for those 'lucky' enough to get slotted into UAVs. Three to four years of essentially playing a video game is sure to degrade their actual piloting skills (situational awareness, etc.), to say nothing of the effect it will have on their ability to withstand the physical aspects of manned flight ops. I wouldn't be surprised if some of these pilots never make the transition back to manned flying. This would have a negative effect on morale, add even more stress to UPT, and ultimately result in wasting valuable training dollars on pilots that will never be fully utilized.
Methinks they'd better get the UAV-only program spun up post haste!
Quote from: aveighter on September 23, 2008, 11:56:24 PM
Interesting analysis. Wrong on almost every count.
OK, just for an "I told you so" moment - the application rules have been released. Here's what was reported in the local base paper regarding non-pilot applications:
1. Completion of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) test.
2. Captains with 4-6 years of Total Active Federal Commissioned Service as of 5 Jan 2009.
3. NOT a current pilot (umm... duh)
4. Combat System Officers, Panel Navigators, EWO, WSO [I assume this means only these can apply?]
5. Officers and ABM's are eligible to compete if they are not currently in training, awaiting training, or previously eliminated from UPT.
6. Non-rated line officers are eligible [How nice of them to consider non-flyers... LOL!]
7. Be less than 30 years old Jan 5, 2009.
8. AFQT minimum score of Pilot greater than 25, Navigator greater than 50 (if no AFQT, complete AFQT by Oct 31, 2008)
9. Two years time on station by July 1, 2009.
10. No previous military pilot training experience.
__________________________________________________________
My analysis.. I TOLD YOU SO...
If you go down the list, particularly concentrating on 2, 4, 7, and 9, as an all-inclusive set of requirements, essentially NO non-flying officers qualify. Even throwing out the Navigator/EWO/WSO requirement, you will NOT find very many officers with 2,5,7, and 9.
The application criteria, IMHO, eliminates almost all non-flying officers not qualified for eventual UPT competition in the first place (reference my original post).
I've been doing this for about 20 years now. It's going to be a long time before the pilot circle is broken.
Spacing - MIKE
Quote from: desertengineer1 on October 11, 2008, 12:57:07 AM
Quote from: aveighter on September 23, 2008, 11:56:24 PM
Interesting analysis. Wrong on almost every count.
OK, just for an "I told you so" moment - the application rules have been released. Here's what was reported in the local base paper regarding non-pilot applications:
1. Completion of Basic Aviation Skills (TBAS) test.
2. Captains with 4-6 years of Total Active Federal Commissioned Service as of 5 Jan 2009.
3. NOT a current pilot (umm... duh)
4. Combat System Officers, Panel Navigators, EWO, WSO [I assume this means only these can apply?]
5. Officers and ABM's are eligible to compete if they are not currently in training, awaiting training, or previously eliminated from UPT.
6. Non-rated line officers are eligible [How nice of them to consider non-flyers... LOL!]
7. Be less than 30 years old Jan 5, 2009.
8. AFQT minimum score of Pilot greater than 25, Navigator greater than 50 (if no AFQT, complete AFQT by Oct 31, 2008)
9. Two years time on station by July 1, 2009.
10. No previous military pilot training experience.
__________________________________________________________
My analysis.. I TOLD YOU SO...
If you go down the list, particularly concentrating on 2, 4, 7, and 9, as an all-inclusive set of requirements, essentially NO non-flying officers qualify. Even throwing out the Navigator/EWO/WSO requirement, you will NOT find very many officers with 2,5,7, and 9.
The application criteria, IMHO, eliminates almost all non-flying officers not qualified for eventual UPT competition in the first place (reference my original post).
I've been doing this for about 20 years now. It's going to be a long time before the pilot circle is broken.
Spacing - MIKE
I don't think you are reading those rules right.
The Canadians are using UAVs for search and rescue now, this year in their annual exercise they simulated finding a downed pilot in the woods, and the dummy pilot was a member of the Parliment (Smart move)
They are moving full bore
Quote from: wingnut55 on October 11, 2008, 05:23:41 AM
The Canadians are using UAVs for search and rescue now, this year in their annual exercise they simulated finding a downed pilot in the woods, and the dummy pilot was a member of the Parliment (Smart move)
They are moving full bore
Apples and oranges....
The FAA will not allow UAV's to fly in unrestricted airspace without an escort.
The Canadians don't seem to have that problem, at least not out in the bush.
Get the FAA to allow UAV's to fly anywhere unescorted and the use of UAV's for SAR in CONUS will be feasible.
TFRs are often used around a Disaster area, and UAVs have been flown over that area, the UAV does not have to be a global hawk in size, UAVs (And there are thousands). I know the FAA policy, however the FAA is a very political organization, driven by politics of big business, We are not, nor is General Aviation, look at the cost of Av gas (no reason for av gas to be $6.00) GA has little voice in congress. CAP has little voice in the Pentagon, Military officers still see us as the little kids dressed up in Halloween soldier costumes parking cars.
Quote from: DG on September 24, 2008, 04:00:19 PM
I don't see how they can replace "real" pilots in dogfights.
After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.
Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.
Quote from: Mustang on October 28, 2008, 04:01:22 AM
Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.
Wrong. They have everything in common.
Both are hand flown. Can not use an autopilot.
Quote from: Mustang on October 28, 2008, 04:01:22 AM
Quote from: DG on September 24, 2008, 04:00:19 PM
I don't see how they can replace "real" pilots in dogfights.
After all, the Thunderbirds when executing their show maneuvers do NOT and can NOT use an autopilot.
Aerial combat and the Thunderbirds' demo routine have next to nothing in common.
Both are increasingly irrelevant in today's threat spectrum?
Quote from: Eclipse on October 30, 2008, 11:32:50 PM
Both are increasingly irrelevant in today's threat spectrum?
Particularly if your interest lies in IT.
And not in flying skill.
Its my first post here at CAP Talk and I am very new member of The Civil Air Patrol (NOT SURE IF THE INK IS YET DRY ON MY MEMBERSHIP CARD) but I would like to contribute to this conversation.
I believe UAV's are absolutely the future of combat aviation. Any current fighter/attack aircraft is capable of FAR more than the any pilot. Many of us (me certainly included) enjoy the romantic notion of an actual human being at the controls but it's likely not the future.
If the same mission can be accomplished with the same or greater probability of success (along with less risk to a service members life) then please tell me the reason for taking that risk. The fact is that combat aviation is (theoretically) a job that can be done with a UAV. These are no robots in the sky. They still have a human being at the other end who ultimately needs to pull the trigger. Imagine going against something that was completely unmanned -- It would be near impossible to win an air to air engagement. (ever try to beat a computer chess machine set to expert mode?) Situation awareness is an issue that could be dealt with not only with technology but with more manpower per mission (i.e. split the duties between say 3 pilots instead of one).
A UAV in combat ops could pull G's and perform maneuvers that would tear the intestines out of a human inside the cockpit. It is an issue that really does need to be looked at critically. I sincerely hope that those command level types that will make the decisions on this issue in the future do not dismiss it because it breaks with tradition.
We must remember that though combat aviation is cool, it is generally a support role. It takes boots on the ground to take and secure an area. Therefore it would be impossible to have a platoon of "Unmanned Rifleman" secure an small village and then provide medical care to those that live there. A combat air patrol or AG mission could be done without hesitation given the technology.
If I was in UPT I might be a bit nervous about pulling that duty too... but what are ya gonna do?? Time marches on. I bet those cavalry types were really ticked off when they decided to actually take their horses away many years ago.
Its probably about time sell your stock in the company that makes piddle packs.
This is an old topic, but my conscience can't resist.
In February of 2008, I was given 5 days to get to Creech AFB near Las Vegas, Nevada. Its the home of the UAV, lying on the southern edge of the Nevada Test & Training Range. I spent more than 3 months backfilling a position normally held by a UAV pilot so he could fly combat operations full time.
The Predator is the right mission for the war we're fighting -- something our former chief of staff did not recognize, as his top priority was more F-22s. The Predator and to a greater extent the Reaper provide a capability that is simply unmatched by any other Air Force in the world. We can keep a UAV on a particular station 24/7/365. Its how we watch the bad guys. When its time, we can then destroy that bad guy. There are simply more bad guys than there are airplanes available to put on orbit.
And even if we had the airplanes, we don't have enough pilots and sensor operators to "fly" them. So the Air Force is robbing them from other airframes. I met one young F-15 driver who had only recently become combat ready, only to be forced into the "TAMI 21" program which does just that. How horrible! The only reasonable solution to adding enough pilots to keep up with the SecDef's demand for UAVs was to add a second (non-UPT) pipeline. This will hopefully keep more real pilots in the cockpit where they belong.
UAVs are not meant to dogfight, nor are they meant to drop large loads of heavy ordnance. In fact, using any ordnance at all is strictly a USAF-only capability, and its why we require an officer (formerly, a rated officer) to control the airplane. The Army and Marines have UAVs without weapons, but their pilots are enlisted.
Regardless, the conclusion I reached while spending time near the UAV program is that it is killing the soul of what it means to be an aviator in the United States Air Force. It is a shame. For those reasons, a non-UPT pipeline is an excellent idea.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
Scott, Officers serve at the needs of the service, not the other way around. Many Officers in all branches wanted a different career field then the one they actually received. If an Officer gets pushed into flying a UAV, tough. They need to suck it up, and do their duty. There are many that join the Air Force in hopes of flying, and they may never see an airplane in their entire career.
I am sick of the whining from these young Officers. If you don't like the way your country wants you to serve, resign your Commission and go drive a 777 for Delta.
Tim
Quote from: Timbo on January 07, 2009, 03:26:27 AM
Scott, Officers serve at the needs of the service, not the other way around. Many Officers in all branches wanted a different career field then the one they actually received. If an Officer gets pushed into flying a UAV, tough. They need to suck it up, and do their duty. There are many that join the Air Force in hopes of flying, and they may never see an airplane in their entire career.
I am sick of the whining from these young Officers. If you don't like the way your country wants you to serve, resign your Commission and go drive a 777 for Delta.
Tim
I wonder, my dear Timbo, when did you finish SUPT?
Quote from: Timbo on January 07, 2009, 03:26:27 AM
Scott, Officers serve at the needs of the service, not the other way around. Many Officers in all branches wanted a different career field then the one they actually received. If an Officer gets pushed into flying a UAV, tough. They need to suck it up, and do their duty. There are many that join the Air Force in hopes of flying, and they may never see an airplane in their entire career.
I am sick of the whining from these young Officers. If you don't like the way your country wants you to serve, resign your Commission and go drive a 777 for Delta.
Tim
Thats one way to keep your retention rate up.
Quote from: aveighter on January 08, 2009, 01:29:43 AM
I wonder, my dear Timbo, when did you finish SUPT?
Never had the desire. We all have wants, be we all never get everything we want!
I honestly do not feel anything for any Officer (read 1st Lt, 2nd Lt, maybe CAPT) that went to school to fly, but instead flies in a different role. They need to grow up. Before I got locked into my career field in the Army, I was an Armor Officer. That was not even one of my choices. I still reported to Fort Knox for my Armor Basic Course, and served without making my frustrations known (I wanted Chemical, honestly). I got the Army to pay for med school and I got locked into being a medical Officer.
All I hear these days are young Officers criticising the services for not allowing them to do what they want. Well service in the Armed Forces does not mean a guarantee on what your career will be. Really your only choice is what armed service you will serve in. Even in the Enlistment Contracts, career fields can be requested, and almost guaranteed, but the needs of the service dictate what you will really be doing.
My advice for these young pilots, wanting to be the next top gun........welcome to 2009. The world has changed during your 4 years at the academy, and we fight a totally different war. Too bad you thought you could actually fly if you joined the Air Force.
I do believe you have better opportunities for flying in the Navy/ Marine Corps and Army. There are more aircraft in the Army to begin with. Granted they are not the jet type, but the Navy has those.
When was the last aerial dog fight?? 2002? When was the last bombing run done by an AF SQD?? Afghanistan 2004!
The AF flies people, bullets, food and fuel. They also operate the joint battle management centers in the sky coordinating ground and air assets. The air assets they coordinate are Army missiles/ artillery and UAV's.
I will admit we need fighter jocks! They are a line of defense against real threats like China and ?? However, for the time being we need those skilled pilots (some of them) to work on the UAV side. Crappy? YES!
Timbo....
They are not all young officers who are complaining.
Also....let me spin a tale for you.
Let's say the Army needed a bunch of Vetinarians.....and instead of training up a bunch of new ones from scratch they decided to transfer a bunch of doctors and PA over to the Vet careeer feild with the understanding that it was only going to be a 3 year tour and then you are back to brain surgury or what evey your original platform was.
Then...the Army changed their mind and now you are looking at doing vet work for the rest of your career.
In the mean time you are still competeing for promotion against the brain surgeons....who for what ever reasons look down on all vets.
That is the situation in the USAF.
Sure we all have to suck it up and solder on.....(in the USAF we say "shut up and color"). But there is a degree of a broken promise here. The USAF is just now embrasing the UAV as a legetimate platform worthy of a full career field to man and manage it.
As a young officer you got stuck in Armor....but you had a reasonable expectation that you could make 4 star general in that career field. UAV pilots do not have that same expectation. It is getting better....but in the early days.... UAVs were manned by a lot of dead-enders, wash-outs and other people who's career prospects were not too good in their original platform. Those guys who (and most UAV pilots fit this discription) who were not wash-outs or dead-enders were getting (or at least felt they were) getting a taint of "guilt by association" by being lumped in with the few "bad" apples.
++++++Don't start flameing me yet++++++
I have nothing but respect for all UAV pilots (well as far as any maintence guy can have for any flyer type ;D). There are a lot of great pilots and leaders in the UAV career field, there are a lot of just average pilots/leaders...but because UAV became the dumping ground for all the "good" platforms to get rid of their marginals.....there is an abundance of dead-enders. And it is that problem that has tainted the UAV pilots as far as promotions go.
Having said that.....Es-god....UAVs are the wave of the future and if the aviation community can't see that and adapt to it....maybe it is time to have high turn over rate. Sure it is stupid to spend a lot of training on f-15 training just to switch him to UAV's but it is because the USAF was/is so reluctant to embrase UAVs that we shot ourselves in our collective feet.
The USAF never had a dedicated UAV career field. All pilots/Navigators were either loaners from other platfroms (to go back after 3 years) or had their platforms retired (some C-130 models and helos). The USAF company line was they would not accept any UPT pipe-line students. They had to be experinced/mission qualified pilots first.
Like you said there are not enough pilots to go around. So they are scrambleing to fill the gaps. You can only steal so many rated officers from other platforms before you start to hurt those career fields so now we got to go farther afield.
First step......non rated officers......next step.......enlisted pilots????? What would that do with to the aviation community?
^ OK. But I still think it is the younger Officers doing all the whining.
"Air Force trained me to be a fighter jock, now I have to go fly a UAV, I should have never joined". We need to get the UAV platform rolling, which means some jocks need to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the service. Tough beans!!
If the Army told me......"you will now be a vet", I would be upset, but would salute and be the best vet I could be.
Anyone doing anything in the military should be grateful for the chance to serve their country. There are many more who would join just to push a broom if they were allowed to.
Quote from: Timbo on January 08, 2009, 06:40:33 PM
^ OK. But I still think it is the younger Officers doing all the whining.
"Air Force trained me to be a fighter jock, now I have to go fly a UAV, I should have never joined". We need to get the UAV platform rolling, which means some jocks need to make a sacrifice for the greater good of the service. Tough beans!!
If the Army told me......"you will now be a vet", I would be upset, but would salute and be the best vet I could be.
Anyone doing anything in the military should be grateful for the chance to serve their country. There are many more who would join just to push a broom if they were allowed to.
Timbo.....right now this very instant I am sitting 40 feet from some of those officers who are whinning....and they come in all ranks.
And they do salute and be the best UAV pilots they can be.....but some of them did get the big screw and they do have the right to say "stop it....I'm not happy about it".
Timbo, if you haven't figured it out yet, lordmonar works in the AF UAV community and is very current on what goes on there.
Don't confound young Timbo with anything factual. He is on a roll.
It's always amusing to see such a fellow get all exercised, expounding passionately and at great length on matters with which he has no actual knowledge.
Patrick, I have a Shut up and Color patch from class 09-11, SUPT Columbus AFB just last month. The drop went well (no UAVs). Number one son of aveighter is off to Ft. Rucker to fly helicopters as a precursor to the CV-22 (he hopes).
Quote from: PHall on January 09, 2009, 01:33:54 AM
Timbo, if you haven't figured it out yet, lordmonar works in the AF UAV community and is very current on what goes on there.
No.....not until his last post did I gather he may be working with them. So thanks for schooling me, but save your remarks for someone else.
Quote from: aveighter on January 09, 2009, 02:20:44 AM
Don't confound young Timbo with anything factual. He is on a roll.
It's always amusing to see such a fellow get all exercised, expounding passionately and at great length on matters with which he has no actual knowledge.
Patrick, I have a Shut up and Color patch from class 09-11, SUPT Columbus AFB just last month. The drop went well (no UAVs). Number one son of aveighter is off to Ft. Rucker to fly helicopters as a precursor to the CV-22 (he hopes).
???
Nice. Very professional. Don't assume that I have no knowledge on the subject. You don't know me. I will chalk up your post as an attempt to be cute and amusing. Deep down though......I now know what type of person you are, and I did not even have to meet you face to face. :-* :-*
All I can say is needs of the service. It is in your contract and you are aware of it...or you shouldnt have signed.... so dont cry about it suck it up and drive on. I had a bunch of buddies get moved from one MOS to another because of lack of numbers. I get that it may hurt your Career but that should give you more reason to push harder. If your upset because you will never be a 4 star because of your field chosen for you then I am sorry and it sucks for you but their are bigger things at stake here in the military than your career. I am in a MOS that will most often than not get picked up for anything over E-8. Is that discouraging kind of but then again it means that I have to put that much more effort into what I am doing and be better than all the other guys that are in the right MOS. Sorry but again needs of the service
Quote from: hatentx on January 09, 2009, 07:55:20 AM
All I can say is needs of the service. It is in your contract and you are aware of it...or you shouldn't have signed.... so dint cry about it suck it up and drive on.
We all don't get to do what we wanted. I feel bad for those that get shafted, but as hatentx said "needs of the service". Now more than ever we need Officers that are professional enough not to come out in forums and in articles in Army/Navy/MC/AF Times and whine.
There are many more Enlisted individuals that signed up to push papers and cook, be administrative types and adjutants that find themselves patrolling in Iraq instead. There are also other Officers in the Marine Corps and Army that were trained to do things like civil affairs, public affairs even chemical and engineering duties that also find themselves and their units pounding the sand. That I find more unfair than the fighter jocks being moved from one airframe to another.
How about spending 10 years training to be an Engineer and when the war starts that you trained for, you find yourself leading an engineer company doing house to house clearing or running convoy operations. Is that fair. Nothing about serving in the military is fair. It was never meant to be. We go and do what we are told to go and do. The difference between my examples and the UAV situation, is those Officers are still flying (just in a different way). The engineers, civil affairs and chemical corps Soldiers are not even doing anything remotely similar to what they trained for.
This is why we dont have life long military commitments. When your time is over, you can leave.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 09, 2009, 08:07:18 PM
This is why we dont have life long military commitments. When your time is over, you can leave.
Correct, on the surface. Try telling that to the guy who had been out of the Service for three years and got the "return to AD orders". totally different subject though.
That falls under the Stop loss part of your contract. Atleast I know that is how it is worded in the enlisted side of things. You will serve at most 8 years with your IRR time as well. So still not a career. On joining the military you understand you have no clue what you are going to be doing, unless your contract states you are going to be a 15Y10 or what ever your MOS may be. On the officer side it is even more of a stretch because you are needs of the military point blank. You want your first choice then score high enough that is it right there. While again I see that it sucks to be pulled from a Field in which you enjoy working and put into one that you dont enjoy I must again say drink water and drive on. Hell I choice my MOS and had it in my contract. That did stop them from placing me in the Orderly Room for a while did it? It didnt stop them from making me do other jobs that is outside of my MOS. It isnt going to stop them from moving me out of my MOS and Airframe and placing me as a squad leader for a group of guys on two different Airframes with two different MOSs either. I am sorry to say needs of the Army. Does any of that going to look good for me later on down the line??? I dont know but I am sure that having time in combat in a leadership position in my MOS would do better than being in one completly removed from anything that I am close to being school trained on. If Officers wish to whine about that let them not forget the enlisted guys who get it done to them just as often and while unhappy about it shut up and get the job done.
Quote from: Flying Pig on January 09, 2009, 08:07:18 PM
This is why we dont have life long military commitments. When your time is over, you can leave.
Well a pilot has a half-life (career) long commitment almost, usually when their commitment is up, they can leave around the 10 years of service mark.. stupid to get out with all of the flight pay, aviation career incentive pay, and 10 more years to get a retirement check...
And I too work in the AF UAV community, on the analyst side of the house...UAVs are doing the persistent ISR stare required (example: http://integrator.hanscom.af.mil/2006/July/07202006/07202006-15.htm ) It is typically the UAV that cues the fighter/bomber.
For the second topic of this discussion, I would be pretty pissed if I busted my ass in UPT, and if I did not want to go UAVs and did get them. Why? Because the UAV pilots in my opinion are way overtrained. I agree totally with the pilot program they are starting...especially when the Army is using mainly NCOs. The Global Hawk pilots just double click a map basically of where they want it to go... Predator is a bit more hands on. Developing a pilot training program for UAVs is much overdue, in an effort to use resources wisely. If this test program works, I am sure we will see a UAV career field, and the amount of fighter pilot slots will probably decline a bit for active duty (Since F-22 squadrons are less in size than your typical F-15/F-16 squadron, and as more older fighters are transitioned to the ANG and Reserves). Most of the cargo pilots I have talked to enjoy the UAVs. It is the type A personality folks who have already been flying fighters for a while that are a bit disgruntled.. but they still put their 110% into their current roll.
Cheers
Well said Lt. The service commitment is ten years after undergraduate pilot training is completed.
You are also correct in that after the extraordinary effort and dedication required to first make it to pilot training and then be successful in earning the silver wings, the thought of assignment to a UAV is to horrible to contemplate for most. This is completely beside the fact that the cost of training an Air Force aviator is in the vicinity of two million dollars now. Does this reflect negatively on UAVs? No. It merely reflects the idea that pilot candidates go to the service to be in the aircraft and flying. There is a better way and the Air Force recognizes this fact as shown by the development of a specialized UAV track for operators of that technology.
Are UAVs important? Extremely. Should UAV operators come from the traditional, so called, rated pilot tracks? No. The path the Air Force is now on is the correct one.
I want to be a valuable member of the Air Force but I dont belive that I can pass a flight physical, mostly due to eyesight restrictions. If I was given a chance to fly a UAV I would take it gladly. On the other hand I know that flying the UAV is not going to get me anywhere in my career. That is why I'm asking for emergency management and intelligence, hopefully I will get one of those.
Got to point out one little problem with the headline: UAV's won't be flown by non-pilots, they'll be flown by
non-rated pilots. Technically, anyone is a non pilot until trained. The background they choose from may be non-pilots, but they'll be be pilots once the training is finished.
Quote from: nesagsar on January 13, 2009, 12:53:55 AM
I want to be a valuable member of the Air Force but I dont belive that I can pass a flight physical, mostly due to eyesight restrictions. If I was given a chance to fly a UAV I would take it gladly. On the other hand I know that flying the UAV is not going to get me anywhere in my career. That is why I'm asking for emergency management and intelligence, hopefully I will get one of those.
Don't know about emergency management, but intel is one of the prime uses for UAV's and hence the pilots flying them.
As far as eyesight goes, a UAV operator probably won't have any (or many) restrictions on eyesight. Which is probably why they're pulling from Nav's, ABM's and related flight fields. A friend of mine took the AF flight aptitude test for grins and giggles, and was told that he qualified. He mentioned his eye problems (he can't get Lasik for some reason), and was given literally the same job list as what
desertengineer1 has on page two of this thread. He couldn't be a pilot, but he could be crew. If it is what you really want, it's worth looking into.
"Needs of the service" is the buzzword that "leadership" uses to justify its lack of foresight.
My main point remains: UAVs are destroying what it means to be an aviator in the United States Air Force. Its an absolute shame.
Interestingly, the FAA doesn't consider UAV pilots to be pilots in some sense. While working at Creech I attempted to help a RATED military pilot with a current Form 8 (a checkride form, roughly equivalent to the CAPF-5) to add a Single Engine Land category to his commercial certificate under FAR 61.73. The FAA refused, saying that it wasn't an airplane (essentially). I wouldn't expect that ruling to be final, but that's what I got from the FSDO.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
^ Different situation. IDK. The FAA says it isn't a plane, guess it's not a plane. If they come out and say a UAV is in fact a plane, I have an old radio controlled mustang from '67 that I guess they would have to include as well.
There are many reasons why the FAA is hesitant now. The decision they make will in fact affect aviation in this country. There was talk about UAV's being flown in disaster relief and missing person searches. If they say UAV's are planes, does that mean UAV pilots have to be a card carrying member of the pilots club? What happens when I fly my UAV into the side of a school bus full of children and am not a pilot.......see the problem I am sure the FAA is facing.
Honestly CAP would make a great resource in finding UAV folks, for Continental US applications. Searches with UAV platforms will appear, it is just a matter of finding who will be building them, and what rules come with owning one.
Right there, Timbo, you may have hit the nail squarely on the pounding surface.
UAVs should be "flown" by people who WANT to fly them. Happy people make productive people.
The basic pilot training requirements for UAV pilots is roughly the Private certificate.
CAP has a large population of Private certificate pilots who are well-motivated to helping the Air Force's needs.
That's a pie-in-the-sky type of logic, but the important point here is that CAP is an underutilized resource to our parent organization. We have expertise and heritage in operating light single engine airplanes, and now Uncle Sam has let a contract for training pilots when they already have that indigenous capacity within CAP. See where I'm going?
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
A huge part of the problem with putting new UPT grads into the UAV program is that they end up far behind their peers who went on to manned weapon systems in career development. I remember the pain of the young pilots who got assigned to UPT as an instructor right after graduation (FAIPs - first assignment Instructor Pilot) and the ones who got a first assignment flying OV-2s and OV-10s. While I am sure there are some who overcame the assignments, they had a very hard time competing with their peers who went directly to the major weapon systems after UPT for key squadron assignments (Stan Eval, Weapons & Tactics, etc) later in their career. FAIP was a curse word.
<-- Tweet FAIP. :D Goods and bads: lots of flying, good. Didn't grow up in an MWS: bad. Had the experience to know where to go when the MWS didn't look so rosy any more: PRICELESS.
FAIPs nowadays typically head to their units with more aviation experience than their peers, thanks largely due to the fact that it is a 3-year controlled tour instead of a neverending competition. That said, they (we) often will only get one operational assignment prior to being hot for staff or some other such non-flying assignment.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
Also remember when they were "banking" pilots?
They sent a bunch of officers to UPT then sent them off to do comm, CE, Services, etc jobs until there was a need for more pilots.
There was a bunch of disgruntled officers!
I see a lot of that in the UAV field.
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:51:54 PM
Also remember when they were "banking" pilots?
They sent a bunch of officers to UPT then sent them off to do comm, CE, Services, etc jobs until there was a need for more pilots.
They still don't do that....do they??
All the Services "Bank" Officers, just in different ways.
The Army and Marines will give an Officer his or first choice of career field, after they perform three years in a branch detail to a "needed and undermanned" field. Mine was Armor. I wanted the Business related field of Adjutant General, but had to first serve time driving tanks through mud at Fort Knox, and then in Korea. Ya, it sucked, but I understood the needs of the Service came before my personal desires.
So yes, it does suck to go through flight training and be sent to pilot UAV's. They will eventually develop the field and hopefully pull non-rated Officers for UAV. This seems (after reading further) to be a quick way to fill the needs of the branch. Lets hope that when the promotion TIG comes up, those flying UAV's will be lumped in (how does the AF say?) with non-pilots (line??).
Thank heavens, they haven't done the bank since the early to mid 90s.
Now the Air Force simply either turns the pilot faucet on or off (at full blast or near-zero production) based on its forecasted needs. If unforcasted events take place and too many pilots either stay or jump ship, then they do a RIF (reduction in force) like they did in 1995 or we simply do without and have a vacuum of needed experience. All cheap shots aside, its pretty difficult to predict the future needs of America's military more than a myopic distance ahead.
The other not-so-awesome tactic the Air Force undertook with "force shaping" was to eliminate 40,000 personnel in the guise of "we'll use the money to recapitalize the fleet." Translation: Air Force senior leadership would do ANYTHING to buy more F-22s. The F-22 is an absolutely dominant platform, but it doesn't do anything for us in the war we're currently fighting. In the end, we kicked out 40,000 people and found out that it didn't save us a significant (if any) amount of money. The second priority, the KC-X tanker--well, we all see how well that's going since officials have punted to the incoming administration on the issue.
With its focus on the F-22 and other issues, the Air Force simply wasn't doing everything it could (or should) to support the war. This, combined with the nuclear unsurety incidents, led to major shakeups in our leadership. You'll note that a fighter general is not running the Air Force right now, and that's a first for many years.
So, we finally started a second pipeline for UAV pilots. Its what we needed.
Good luck and good hunting,
-Scott
www.CAP-ES.net
(dang, I'm gonna fall off this soap box!)
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:51:54 PM
Also remember when they were "banking" pilots?
Banking beats what they did to the '75 year group. "Go home and we will get you in UPT in a year" --- a year later "So sorry, if you want to come on active-duty, pick a non-flying career field or just go about your life."
Quote from: Short Field on January 16, 2009, 05:52:42 AM
Banking beats what they did to the '75 year group. "Go home and we will get you in UPT in a year" --- a year later "So sorry, if you want to come on activity, pick a nonflying career field or just go about your life."
Well that sucks. Again.....serve your country in the way your country asks you to. Translation: take the hit, cry a little and drive on. I wonder how many fighter jock wannabees decided to get out. Did they let them out?? Should have sent them over to the Marines or Army.
Quote from: Timbo on January 16, 2009, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: Short Field on January 16, 2009, 05:52:42 AM
Banking beats what they did to the '75 year group. "Go home and we will get you in UPT in a year" --- a year later "So sorry, if you want to come on activity, pick a nonflying career field or just go about your life."
Well that sucks. Again.....serve your country in the way your country asks you to. Translation: take the hit, cry a little and drive on. I wonder how many fighter jock wannabees decided to get out. Did they let them out?? Should have sent them over to the Marines or Army.
No, they didn't have to come back. It was a clean break, no obligation or anything.
^ Wow. Some people got a free ride to school I would imagine.
If you have the grades and apply yourself, getting money for college is easy. Getting to fly fighters is a whole different challenge.
I was conditionally released to go back into the USMC (I got out in '71) but they kept jerking me around about a guaranteed flying slot for so long that I finally went on active duty in the USAF. The other services' flying programs had extremely long waiting lists as USAF 2Lts tried to find a flying slot. All of us had finished the Flight Instruction Program while in AFROTC. There was a whole lot of talent and no flying slots hitting the streets at the same time. Remember, this was the drawdown from Vietnam. It took most of us 18 months to get on active duty after being commissioned. We were out so long they started a "re-blueing" course at OTS for us to attend before reporting for training in our career fields.
Banking pilots was McPeak's plan to try to keep faith with the young officers and avoid repeating the mess of the 70s. I do salute him for that.
Quote from: Short Field on January 16, 2009, 05:52:42 AM
Quote from: lordmonar on January 15, 2009, 11:51:54 PM
Also remember when they were "banking" pilots?
Banking beats what they did to the '75 year group. "Go home and we will get you in UPT in a year" --- a year later "So sorry, if you want to come on active-duty, pick a non-flying career field or just go about your life."
They did the same thing to the 1990 year group. A class-action lawsuit was threatened since they all had contracts saying they would be going to pilot training after graduation, and those who stuck around eventually got cycled into UPT. The contracts don't say that anymore.
Quote from: Timbo on January 16, 2009, 06:32:01 AM
Quote from: Short Field on January 16, 2009, 05:52:42 AM
Banking beats what they did to the '75 year group. "Go home and we will get you in UPT in a year" --- a year later "So sorry, if you want to come on activity, pick a nonflying career field or just go about your life."
Well that sucks. Again.....serve your country in the way your country asks you to. Translation: take the hit, cry a little and drive on. I wonder how many fighter jock wannabees decided to get out. Did they let them out?? Should have sent them over to the Marines or Army.
I'm sorry, but this isn't World War II.
That attitude went the way of the B17.
Quote from: Timbo on January 16, 2009, 06:32:01 AM
Again.....serve your country in the way your country asks you to. Translation: take the hit, cry a little and drive on. I wonder how many fighter jock wannabees decided to get out. Did they let them out?? Should have sent them over to the Marines or Army.
How many decades of military service do you have??? I am two years short of three. It wasn't a matter of the "wannabees" getting out - they were out and had to ask to come on active duty. They also didn't get an option of going to the Marines or Army - the other services were booked up as well.
Here's a job posting from a well known defense contractor in Palmdale CA:
"Pilot, Unmanned Air Vehicle 4Perform Air Vehicle Operator functions during developmental test and operational flight of Unmanned Aircraft. Plan and execute tests in accordance with FAA and ICAO procedures, and prepare flight test documentation. Coordinate and assist in the execution of ground and flight test events. Prepare and deliver briefings to company, customer and user staff personnel. Support operational test and evaluation planning that integrates specifications, operational user, and test and evaluation requirements. Key engineering skills necessary to perform flight-test activities (strategy and approach, design, planning, scheduling, test coordination, conduct, and report generation).Basic Qualifications: BS in engineering with 9-13 years experience in aerospace. Must be a commercial pilot with current instrument rating, minimum of 500 hours as pilot in command, and have current FAA Class III medical certificate or better. Active DoD Top Secret Clearance is required and ability to obtain Special Access Clearances.Preferred Qualifications: Military rated flight experience. Unmanned air vehicle pilot qualifications. Instructor pilot qualifications. Flight Test experience is also a plus. Relocation Assistance Available. Security Clearance Required."
Wow, there might be 3 whole people with those quals... :-\
Quote from: cnitas on February 23, 2009, 06:29:54 PM
Wow, there might be 3 whole people with those quals... :-\
Sounds like someone wrote it for a buddy or three. I remember seeing a job announcement before that required a Doctorate in the field. It was a GS-7 job.
I am currently out of work as a software engineer, so I have been looking at the job boards and the big name defense corporations for work in my field (avionics sw engineer). Along the way I am coming across more and more of these types of listings... the one above is from Northrop for a Palmdale job... Raytheon also advertises, oddly enough for a UAV pilot job out of Indianapolis... I think I have seen others as well.
Specifically tailored for an specific individual? Possibly, but if you had the quals to compete for this type of job, wouldn't you be trying to fly a "real" airplane instead - and put this job opp at the end of your list? I am thinking that it might be a tough sell for the companies to hire a well qualified pilot to do this kind of work... and keep in mind some of these UAVs fly for days at a time... needing several pilots per mission...
Suppose you have an ATP, 2500+ hours of flight time, type ratings, etc, would you take this job?
...me, I'll stick to programming the UAV rather than flying it...
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on February 26, 2009, 06:17:37 PM
I am currently out of work as a software engineer, so I have been looking at the job boards and the big name defense corporations for work in my field (avionics sw engineer). Along the way I am coming across more and more of these types of listings... the one above is from Northrop for a Palmdale job... Raytheon also advertises, oddly enough for a UAV pilot job out of Indianapolis... I think I have seen others as well.
Specifically tailored for an specific individual? Possibly, but if you had the quals to compete for this type of job, wouldn't you be trying to fly a "real" airplane instead - and put this job opp at the end of your list? I am thinking that it might be a tough sell for the companies to hire a well qualified pilot to do this kind of work... and keep in mind some of these UAVs fly for days at a time... needing several pilots per mission...
Suppose you have an ATP, 2500+ hours of flight time, type ratings, etc, would you take this job?
...me, I'll stick to programming the UAV rather than flying it...
In the past I have applied, (not looking now), never heard a word back. General Atomics is looking right now. My guess you need somebody on the inside.
The Preditor has the same flight characteristics of a Cessna 150, only it can fly for 30 hours.
It is definitely a growth industry.
Quote from: Nomex Maximus on February 26, 2009, 06:17:37 PM
Suppose you have an ATP, 2500+ hours of flight time, type ratings, etc, would you take this job?
If the pay is good, sure, why not? It'd be like playing a big video game and getting paid for it.
Plus, if you get shot down, you just say "fudge it, i'm gonna go get a cup of coffee....my third one of the hour"
*bonus points to who knows where that's from*
Steve, you're not getting it! UAVs are EVIL! It makes me want to join the dark side just to defeat the evil! Don't sell out for money. Stick with your true love, AVIATION!
I stick by my previous statements: UAVs are killing the soul of aviation in the US Air Force.
Quote from: es_g0d on March 01, 2009, 08:26:26 PM
Steve, you're not getting it! UAVs are EVIL! It makes me want to join the dark side just to defeat the evil! Don't sell out for money. Stick with your true love, AVIATION!
I stick by my previous statements: UAVs are killing the soul of aviation in the US Air Force.
You sound like Lt Dahl. ;D
I'm dead serious. There's no "Air Force Blues" joking going on. I enjoyed my (thankfully short) time at Creech AFB, but only because of the off-duty opportunities that I sought out.
I've seen brand-new combat aviators had their hearts ripped out and sentenced to a lifetime of flying a 85 hp rotax motor by remote control. This thread went around and around with it several weeks ago and doesn't need a revisit. So no one needs to chime in with, "shut up and do your duty soldier" stuff.
If you graduate at the top of your class and get an F-15 and subsequently manage to make it through F-15 FTU, then by golly you ought to be an F-15 pilot. There was one young Lieutenant I knew who had this exact thing happen to him. Most of those young folks who are being assigned to UAVs will never see a manned cockpit again in the Air Force.
These things were all important data points in my AF career.
Well....for the most part I think the USAF has seen the light and they will not be pulling pilots from other platforms. It will be a few years more before we see full time UAV pilots but the fundemental shift has take place.
You're quite right of course, Lord Monar. I am glad that the USAF has created a "second pipeline" for UAV operators. It was a needed change that was obvious to the casual observer; unfortunately it took SECDEF attention and a top-down change in Air Force leadership to actually make it happen. The second pipeline will allow UAV operators to be UAV operators and pilots to be pilots.
Making rated officers "fly" UAVs is like making rated officers "fly" missiles as missileers (and the similarities are MANY). I have nothing against either honest profession, I have many friends with experience in each, but that is the proverbial square peg in the round hole.
I truly believe that there's too little emphasis on operations -- synonymous with flying -- in the USAF. UAVs are one more step towards that de-emphasis.
Well I can say, as both an aviator AND a tax-payer, *IF* the airframes can come along to the point where they are completely unmanned, I will DEMAND that it happens.
I love aviation, a true nut, trust me. However the "glory" and "heart" of combat aviation is irrelevant to me when it comes to two things: 1) the mission, 2) spending my tax dollars.
While it would absolutely suck to make it all the way through those schools and be parked behind a joystick in a trailer instead of a cockpit, it is only through the grand lottery of life that one gets to be a fighter pilot anyways. So the grand lottery changed the game on you and now you fly UAV's. So be it.
Again I recognize it sucks, but no, EVER, said life was fair.
Quote from: es_g0d on March 01, 2009, 08:26:26 PM
Steve, you're not getting it! UAVs are EVIL! It makes me want to join the dark side just to defeat the evil! Don't sell out for money. Stick with your true love, AVIATION!
I stick by my previous statements: UAVs are killing the soul of aviation in the US Air Force.
As some of you remember I returned not too long ago from a trip to the sandbox and other than an occasional flight on a transport or Blackhawk I was on the ground.
All I can say to those who end up flying UAVs whether they want(ed) to or not should take a trip through the rehab ward at Walter Reed. And they are the lucky ones. I went with a Brigade that lost 23 in 2005-2006
A UAV beat a gun truck on MSR Tampa and a lot of my buddies would agree
Quote from: blackrain on March 10, 2009, 12:40:07 AM
Quote from: es_g0d on March 01, 2009, 08:26:26 PM
Steve, you're not getting it! UAVs are EVIL! It makes me want to join the dark side just to defeat the evil! Don't sell out for money. Stick with your true love, AVIATION!
I stick by my previous statements: UAVs are killing the soul of aviation in the US Air Force.
As some of you remember I returned not too long ago from a trip to the sandbox and other than an occasional flight on a transport or Blackhawk I was on the ground.
All I can say to those who end up flying UAVs whether they want(ed) to or not should take a trip through the rehab ward at Walter Reed. And they are the lucky ones. I went with a Brigade that lost 23 in 2005-2006
A UAV beat a gun truck on MSR Tampa and a lot of my buddies would agree
Can't beat that argument.
Welcome back.
The UAV is a great weapon; its the RIGHT weapon (for MANY reasons) in the war we're fighting. We need more of them, and soon. These things are not in contention.
The UAV is killing the soul of the aviator. THAT is the problem I have with it.
Quote from: es_g0d on March 10, 2009, 06:12:45 PM
The UAV is a great weapon; its the RIGHT weapon (for MANY reasons) in the war we're fighting. We need more of them, and soon. These things are not in contention.
The UAV is killing the soul of the aviator. THAT is the problem I have with it.
What do I care for the 'soul of the aviator,' as a taxpayer? War get's won by the good guys with minimal collateral damage to civilians, all my airmen come home safe and in one piece for their families. Against that, let the soul of the aviator become something of recreation and private flying.
I'm the greatest fan of the UAV. It really put and helped put the hurt on the badguys. The badguys were VERY aware that "the sound of the lawnmower above" could bring them trouble and usually did. It had a powerful psycological effect even when it didn't fire a shot. Definitely one of our most effective weapons. Couldn't get enough of them as far as I was concerned.
That said, one thing I missed over there, after my family, was being able to fly. I love it too as a good many on this forum do. But I did the job I was tasked with. The military in general is tasked to deter if possible and win if needed our countries wars at the lowest cost in lives as possible. Many years ago Billy Mitchell made enemies by proving that Airpower would take over from Navalpower. Many then had to adapt to the new reality in warfare just like now. My 2 cents.
Great to be back in the USA
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
What do I care for the 'soul of the aviator,' as a taxpayer? War get's won by the good guys with minimal collateral damage to civilians, all my airmen come home safe and in one piece for their families. Against that, let the soul of the aviator become something of recreation and private flying.
And from the mouths of babes comes the wisdom of children.
Perhaps, young Joseph, you could weigh in on the current economic issues too.
Quote from: aveighter on March 11, 2009, 12:35:59 AM
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
What do I care for the 'soul of the aviator,' as a taxpayer? War get's won by the good guys with minimal collateral damage to civilians, all my airmen come home safe and in one piece for their families. Against that, let the soul of the aviator become something of recreation and private flying.
And from the mouths of babes comes the wisdom of children.
Perhaps, young Joseph, you could weigh in on the current economic issues too.
Listern, what did I say that was so off base?
"When I was a child, I spoke as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things"
See? I can quote things too.
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
What do I care for the 'soul of the aviator,' as a taxpayer? War get's won by the good guys with minimal collateral damage to civilians, all my airmen come home safe and in one piece for their families. Against that, let the soul of the aviator become something of recreation and private flying.
Although I think that in many cases the missions performed by UAVs could be performed cheaper and as safely by properly equipped manned light aircraft, I have to agree with the statement above.
Who today weeps for the soul of the cavalryman?
Quote from: RiverAux on March 11, 2009, 02:26:52 AM
Quote from: JThemann on March 10, 2009, 08:58:56 PM
What do I care for the 'soul of the aviator,' as a taxpayer? War get's won by the good guys with minimal collateral damage to civilians, all my airmen come home safe and in one piece for their families. Against that, let the soul of the aviator become something of recreation and private flying.
Although I think that in many cases the missions performed by UAVs could be performed cheaper and as safely by properly equipped manned light aircraft, I have to agree with the statement above.
Who today weeps for the soul of the cavalryman?
Well, if we're talking about using CAP craft to patrol the border and such for missions on CONUS, they definately. We have the fleet in place, we have the pilots, send the drones overseas!
Nope, talking about military missions overseas. Sure, if you're flying down REAL low, use the drone, but if you're in an area with no surface to air missile or anti-aircraft threat and the drone is flying up fairly high, manned aircraft coud do the job. Might take a few more of them given human flight time restrictions, but given how much the UAVs cost, you'd probably still come out ahead.
At some point the Air Force will wake up and smell the coffee.
1. You don't need to use rated Officers to fly a UAV, its over kill, and a waste of resources
2. Non Pilots can be easily trained to fly them.
3. You could easily create a squadron of UAVs with Air Force NCOs and Airmen, with a Rated Officer as the Commander
4. You could Train CAP Cadets to fly them for Home Land Security uses
The Preditor flys like a Cessna 150 and its a Video Game, I think we can train people from scratch with normal teenage Video Gaming experience to fly them. Most CAP Cadets would be better than a 40 year old pilot anyway.
I know some pilots that cannot use computers, they don't know how.
I dont have anything to back it up other than being told from and Army UAV pilot, but as he told me that the reason the Army can not fly UAVs with weapons in becasuse 1. that is the Air Force Mission and 2. that not having weapons is why enlisted guys can fly them.
"if your not Cav your not $h!t"
I know the Air Force has a problem with NCOs flying UAVs relative to weapons release. That makes no sense out side the Air Force Culture. An M-1 Tank is more lethal than a preditor and its commanded by an NCO.
The Air Force Pilots "Union" needs to adjust to the reality. UAVs and the need for them is increasing beyond the production of rated or even non rated officers.
There are not enough Air Force Officers to supply the need for UAV Pilots, rated or otherwise for the expanding UAV needs.
And it is clear that enlisted and NCOs can handle the job, now if a weapon release is needed, then you can have the "Squadron Commander or Flight Commander" at a master panel to launch the hell fire or drop the bomb on target.
So lets say you have a "Squadron" of 30 Preditors, you have 100 Enlisted and NCOs and say 5 or 6 Officers as Flight Leaders. You could run the Squadron in shifts with Preditors airborne all the time, and never miss a beat.
No reason we cannot cover the territory and the UAV needs with that game plan.
Gen GSP, Jr said it best:
Wonder weapons... my God, I don't see the wonder in them. Killing without heroics, nothing is glorified... nothing is reaffirmed? No heroes, no cowards, no troops, no generals? Only those who are left alive... and those who are left dead. I'm glad I won't live to see it . . . Wars may be fought with weapons, but they are won by men. It is the spirit of the men who follow and of the man who leads that gains that victory.
I have to agree. If war becomes too easy, with no cost, then there will be too many wars. UAVs are part of this.
I've got to disagree....Nuclear Weapons have prevented a lot of blood shed.
Granted there will still be a lot of little wars but in no way does technology make war easy.
Technology has always changed the face of war and it is just plain stupid not to research and use all the technological improvements we find.
GSP Jr may have had a nice quote....but I bet he did not reject the technological improvements of the Armored Vehicle or the Machine Gun or the Improved Artillery or semi-auto rifles....all technological improvements that he saw during his time.....all of which made it easier to wage war.
I agree that non-military-pilots could be easily trained to fly UAVs, but I can see an FAA commercial ticket as being the minimum for entry. Even UAVs have to abide by the FARs. I'd love to see CAP get an expanding role in such activities.
Quote from: Mustang on April 01, 2009, 06:36:15 PM
I agree that non-military-pilots could be easily trained to fly UAVs, but I can see an FAA commercial ticket as being the minimum for entry. Even UAVs have to abide by the FARs. I'd love to see CAP get an expanding role in such activities.
Not if they're going to be armed. If they're going to kill people, then they need to be military.
Depending on the Wing you are in....
CAP NEEDS to master the art of establishing more G1000 training stations with 2 monitors and the complete FITS sysytem rather than depending on the chosen few to travel to Kansas, and better training on the "super secret" ARCHER for those requiring it
CAP needed to master the art of getting their aircraft in and out of their hangars by training folks rather than going to a "video" on how to look for hazards of ground handling.
When we (CAP) master those three items..... then we ought then to worry about operating UAV's
Since the armed forces, CBP, and others that are PAID to do this by either mission or contract, then we best do what we do best....SEARCH
If CAP talkers want to argue AF vs Army, NCO vs Officer, AND UAV vs real pilots...that's fine....BUT we have ALOT to clean up ourselves and when I talk this to UAV operators up here..... they shake their heads
Most of the operators out there running UAV's require a Commercial and in some cases, an instrument ticket
But I am agreeing with the RM types here. When CAP gets its marching orders from DHS (which CAP seems to desparately want) then worry about the UAV's .....master the tools we already have!!!! >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D >:D
Unfortunately, the G1000 is not intuitive, and it takes ground school and flight training to get used to the different functions and display options. Experienced Pilots have plowed into mountains on the missed approach, because they were not using (or paying attention) to the terrain avoidance display. The King Air Crash at Martinsburg, WV, was what the Garmin guys were talking about at the National Board.
CAP got the check book open for a while with Home land Security and 911, then I feel they did not ask for enough Operations funding and training funding.
Now I hear we are taking a 4 million Dollar cut in budget.
Quote from: Gunner C on April 01, 2009, 06:58:23 PM
Quote from: Mustang on April 01, 2009, 06:36:15 PM
I agree that non-military-pilots could be easily trained to fly UAVs, but I can see an FAA commercial ticket as being the minimum for entry. Even UAVs have to abide by the FARs. I'd love to see CAP get an expanding role in such activities.
Not if they're going to be armed. If they're going to kill people, then they need to be military.
I guess I was a little over-vague. When I said "non-military-pilots", I didn't mean "non-military", I meant military non-pilots. :D
That said, CAP has had a combatant role before, and putting experienced CAP Pilots at the controls of a Predator or Reaper in order to free up real-live military pilots for more vital duties could be a real force multiplier. Moreover, I may be wrong about this. but I believe the systems/sensor operator is the one hitting the pickle button on UAVs. As long as that individual is military....
Quote from: hatentx on March 30, 2009, 04:54:51 PM
I dont have anything to back it up other than being told from and Army UAV pilot, but as he told me that the reason the Army can not fly UAVs with weapons in becasuse 1. that is the Air Force Mission and 2. that not having weapons is why enlisted guys can fly them.
"if your not Cav your not $h!t"
Does that mean that if you are Cav you are $h!t? J/K, 1/10 CAV Kanaquin Iraq '03 (attached)
What does not having weapons have to do with enlisted guys flying UAV's?
Wouldn't the FAA need to create a whole new set of rules for UAV?
Quote from: Mustang on April 02, 2009, 09:16:54 AMMoreover, I may be wrong about this. but I believe the systems/sensor operator is the one hitting the pickle button on UAVs. As long as that individual is military....
No...the Pilot pickles the Hellfire.
The FAA is trying to deal with the implications of UAVs as we speak. In some cases they don't consider them aircraft, when in other cases they do.
Tongue in cheek, I think the MQ-1 could qualify as a Light Sport. No medical required, just a driver's license! :D
Lastly, confirming what was said earlier and corroborating Lordmonar, weapons release remains with a commissioned officer. If the USAF had its way, ALL UAVs, weapons or no, would belong to them. They've been thus far (thankfully) unsuccessful in that power grab.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 02, 2009, 01:57:44 AM
The King Air Crash at Martinsburg, WV, was what the Garmin guys were talking about at the National Board.
What were they saying?
All they said, (and I don't know if it was a Cessna or a Garmin Rep) that the display functions had the cabability to show yellow (terrain at your alt, and red Terrain above your alt) and the 20,000 hour pilot flew right into the mountain, with a functioning Garmin 1000 panel.
Now it is possible that they did not have the terrain function selected, they cannot tell in the aftermath. It's just that they did not use it or pay attention to it.
Of all the functions to have displayed, in mountain flying, that would be the display to have on, it clearly shows you the location of high ground relative to your flight path.
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 04, 2009, 09:01:29 PM
All they said, (and I don't know if it was a Cessna or a Garmin Rep) that the display functions had the cabability to show yellow (terrain at your alt, and red Terrain above your alt) and the 20,000 hour pilot flew right into the mountain, with a functioning Garmin 1000 panel.
Now it is possible that they did not have the terrain function selected, they cannot tell in the aftermath. It's just that they did not use it or pay attention to it.
Of all the functions to have displayed, in mountain flying, that would be the display to have on, it clearly shows you the location of high ground relative to your flight path.
Did the King Air that went in at Martinsburg have G1000?
Did the Cessna or Garmin representatives make their statements in an open forum at the National Board?
Blackrain,
I hear ya sir. You guys were leaving as I was getting there. Of course you know my feelings on gun trucks.
CS
Quote from: DG on April 04, 2009, 09:33:58 PM
Quote from: Earhart1971 on April 04, 2009, 09:01:29 PM
All they said, (and I don't know if it was a Cessna or a Garmin Rep) that the display functions had the cabability to show yellow (terrain at your alt, and red Terrain above your alt) and the 20,000 hour pilot flew right into the mountain, with a functioning Garmin 1000 panel.
Now it is possible that they did not have the terrain function selected, they cannot tell in the aftermath. It's just that they did not use it or pay attention to it.
Of all the functions to have displayed, in mountain flying, that would be the display to have on, it clearly shows you the location of high ground relative to your flight path.
Did the King Air that went in at Martinsburg have G1000?
Did the Cessna or Garmin representatives make their statements in an open forum at the National Board?
That was the gist. Or else why would they mention it?