UAVS Flown by NON-PILOTS

[hatentx]

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"

[Earhart1971]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[lordmonar]

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.

[Mustang]

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.

[Gunner C]

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.

[heliodoc]

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!!!!

[Earhart1971]

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.

[Mustang]

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. 

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....

[ricks]

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?

[lordmonar]

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....

No...the Pilot pickles the Hellfire.

[es_g0d]

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! 

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.

[DG]

The King Air Crash at Martinsburg, WV, was what the Garmin guys were talking about at the National Board.

What were they saying?

[Earhart1971]

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.

[DG]

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?

[citizensoldier]

Blackrain,

I hear ya sir.  You guys were leaving as I was getting there.  Of course you know my feelings on gun trucks.

CS

[Earhart1971]

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?