UAVS Flown by NON-PILOTS

Started by wingnut55, September 18, 2008, 11:35:30 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

wingnut55

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.

heliodoc

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!!!!!!

stratoflyer

Holy snuffles. Flight following on every flight if we're gonna have these kids flying those things in my airspace.
"To infinity, and beyond!"

Eduardo Rodriguez, 2LT, CAP

lordmonar

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.
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DC

Well at least all of the butterbars in UPT can stop sweating....

aveighter

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.

wingnut55

#6
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.

lordmonar

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.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

RiverAux

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.

stratoflyer

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.
"To infinity, and beyond!"

Eduardo Rodriguez, 2LT, CAP

aveighter

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:

DG

#11
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.

desertengineer1

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.


aveighter

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.

PHall

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.

desertengineer1

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....






 

lordmonar

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.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

DG

#17
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

Eclipse

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)

"That Others May Zoom"

DG

#19
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