Cool potential mission -- chasing UAVs

[flynd94]

The capability they don't have is a slow mover........  It would be easy for them to acquire some, just look at trade-a-plane.  There are some C182's out there.  Plus, I do believe all AF (Res, ANG) get training in formation flight.  I just don't think the typical CAP pilot has the airmanship skills required and, I don't think the ANG is going to want to spend that much money training us.  Also, flying C182 isn't that hard....  I would bet that the ANG pilots would have a extremely steep learning curve.  Give me 5 hours with them and, they would have the C182 standing on a dime.

Have you ever flown a intercept mission?  I have flown WADS mission's and, our instructions when they are in the interception phase is to not move.  They get around 200-300ft off the wing.  My experience with group aerobatics had me within 10 ft off a wingtip so, this didn't bother me.  On each intercept I had a different crew (who were CAP pilots) who all commented how close they were getting and, how nervous they were getting.

I will continue to believe that most (I didn't say all) CAP pilots wouldn't be able perform this type of mission.  I am a check pilot and, lets just say that a good number have a hard enough time performing maneuvers to the PPL PTS.  Once again, JMHO and, experience giving checkrides in 2 wings.

[RiverAux]

Since "formation flying" wasn't even mentioned as one of the many troublesome issues to be worked out if this mission was to occur I think its fairly safe to assume that we won't be very close to the other aircraft.  Since CAP doesn't get all freaked out about CAP pilots maintaining visual contact with other aircraft in the landing pattern at uncontrolled airports, which is probably more dangerous than this would be, I don't think it is a major issue.

Also, CAP crews will have priority over the ANG crews to fly the missions according to the proposal unless "an ANG operational mission requirement" prevents it, whatever that might be. 

[mikeylikey]

"an ANG operational mission requirement" prevents it, whatever that might be. 

Like chasing a UAV??  That would be an operational mission requirement, wouldn't it be??

[Gunner C]

"an ANG operational mission requirement" prevents it, whatever that might be. 

Like chasing a UAV??  That would be an operational mission requirement, wouldn't it be??

That's the point.  They're going to find any excuse possible - especially since they'll be able to get their flight time for a small fraction of what it would cost the government in an AF aircraft.

Don't forget, a USAF LNO from MER crashed a DCWG aircraft on takeoff last summer.  The AF basically said "sorry about your luck."  We're not going to get that aircraft replaced, even though it was the AF that broke it.  If they're going to use our aircraft, we need a policy of "You break it, you buy it."

That will never happen.  Any damage that occurs during one of these missions with USAF crews will fall on the corporation (read: you) to repair.

GC

[mikeylikey]

^ I totally agree.  CAP will reap no rewards or benefits between this "joint tasking".  WE may get a chance to wash the plane once the Air Guard finishes with it. 

[MIGCAP]

^ Well said.  That was my impression also.  WE are "not good enough", but our equipment is. 

The problem is that is true. 

Ask our HQ if they have envisioned us getting security clearances and how they have established a security office and duty positions etc.  Ask them what they have done to standardize our operations with Air Force protocols rather than some fire department inspired organization scheme.  Ask them what they have done to make us a real USAF Aux, Answer, years of nothing. 

Our people are qualified, or at least qualifiable, turn to your HQ to figure out why we are not the chosen ones. If we really wanted to be the USAF AUX we could, our HQ just doesn't want us to be since then they might have to do things they would not find to be in their personal best interests.

[RiverAux]

I don't think the ANG is really all that interested in getting their folks flying time in 182s.  It does absolutely nothing for them in terms of readiness and I suspect the pilots themselves wouldn't be all that excited about it either.  If the ANG really intended to do most of the flying themselves, there are probably easier ways they could have arranged it rather than going through CAP, which would probably be the most complex way of doing things.

[lordmonar]

^ I totally agree.  CAP will reap no rewards or benefits between this "joint tasking".  WE may get a chance to wash the plane once the Air Guard finishes with it. 

Did you read the proposal?

It says CAP crews get priority seating....unless  ooperation mission requirments prevent this.

Also it looks like the ANG is going to pay for the TDY costs (travel/lodging) and the training costs.

How can this not be a good deal for us?

I am a Pred guy in my day job....and I can tell you the FAA limitations on UAVs is a major factor in our operations.

If the CANG can get this to work.....it will definatly open up a lot of opportunites for CAP.

[RiverAux]

Just how long do you think that they will have this sort of requirement?  If UAVs have to have a chase plane from now until eternity, I don't see them being used much in the US.  What I expect is that over the relative short term they have this requirement, but that it will be dropped in a few years. 

[isuhawkeye]

Quick question,

Are the operational specs of most UAV's in the inventory still classified?

If they are is it appropriate to have Chase aircrews with out appropriate security clearances?

[RiverAux]

If it is needed, I'm pretty sure there are ways for CAP members to get them. 

[mikeylikey]

^ We have a section on Services to input your security clearance so they can verify it.  I think we have enough people with security clearances already that would volunteer for this assignment. 

[RiverAux]

I'd be surprised if there were enough of them in this location to be able to handle this mission.  They would definetely need to put in for some new clearances.  However, I suspect that if any of these missions would actually require it, these would be the ones the ANG would fly, but I don't think the liklihood is high.  Again, if this was actually a major issue, I'm sure it would have been included in the long list of issues given in the proposal. 

[PHall]

You know, reading through the proposal again, I noticed that if we did this mission that 3 aircraft would be added to the fleet and they would not be used for anything else.

In other words, the ANG would be providing the aircraft.

Interesting.....

[lordmonar]

Quick question,

Are the operational specs of most UAV's in the inventory still classified?

If they are is it appropriate to have Chase aircrews with out appropriate security clearances?

Basic performance is NOT classified.  As for having chase planes, it is an FAA requirment so security clearances are not an issue for these training flights.

[DNall]

even if security clearances were needed, a secret clearance is not a big deal at all. It just costs a couple bucks that we're not willing to invest in volunteers that may or may not be there when we need them, and you need 3 vols to 1 pro just to cover the same manning hours.

Far as operational requirements. I read that as they need to go flying, CAP can't field a crew, so they're taking the airplane & going flying anyway.

And the UAVs replacing CAP eventually... there's some merit there. As long as Mark I eyeball is our primary sensor, we're obsolete. If you can strap a FLIR on there & satcom for live feed, then you're talking about a legitimate low-cost (at least in manning) alternative. I've said all this before though. Again, the barrier there is the nature of volunteers as a worthy investment category for the reasons I just mentioned.

I'm not sure where the title 32 issue is a problem. CAP would not be conducting law enforcement in any form. It'd be conducting an aviation safety mission per FAA requirements. Even if ANG were to use the UAVs on law enforcement related missions, CAP would be there to keep it from running into things, not to have any involvement in the law enforcement aspect. The guy that changes the oil in a police car is not participating in law enforcement. Certainly there would need to be some firm SOP to make sure all sides understand where that line is, but I don't see it as any kind of problem

[RiverAux]

I think it is that the AF doesn't want to assume federal liability for an ANG mission conducted for the state. 

[cap801]

I really need to keep better tabs on this forum because there's some stuff here that pertains to me.

I live in Clovis, New Mexico, which is where Cannon Air Force Base is located.  We recently had a near-death experience in the last BRAC round but ended up with our F-16's redistributed and an AFSOC (Air Force Special Operations Command) mission coming here.  AFSOC apparently operates Predators and scuttlebutt has it that they will be deployed to Cannon.  One of the merits of our base is the Melrose Bombing Range, about 20 nautical miles west of the base.  The UAV's are going to need some method for transiting this area between the Cannon Class D airspace and the Melrose restricted airspace.

My flight instructor (cadet flight program) is a retired Air Force colonel who was the base commander at Cannon many years ago.  He's been working very hard to get a UAV chase mission for our CAP unit, with some good ideas as well.  Of course, as a volunteer organization, the AF can't solely depend on our mission pilots to chase every time they have an airplane enter or exit the practice range.  One thing I didn't realize is that the Predator pilots are actual pilots--they went through flight training and wound up flying a console.  The Colonel has spoken with a few of these people and believes they would take any opportunity to get to fly an actual airplane, even if it is a Cessna.  Thus, when we can't fly a mission, they can.

Unfortunately, AFSOC is pretty secretive and the Colonel has been received with less than enthusiasm.  They may possibly attempt to extend the practice range all the way to the base, which would be a tremendous inconvenience to civil flying in this part of the state.  They may also build a strip at the range and truck the UAV's between the base and the strip.

The logistics seem difficult but if we could secure this, it would be a major step up in our CAP living conditions.  New plane (we have the oldest plane in the state, and it's a 172.  But it's also the best maintained, IMO), possibly multiple planes, and lots of flying opportunities.  Too bad I'll be in South Bend next year.

[davidsinn]

Too bad I'll be in South Bend next year.

South Bend NM or South Bend IN?

[sarmed1]

The capability they don't have is a slow mover........

to quote Independence Day:  "uhm...that would not be enirely acurate"

USAG does have some single engine "slow movers" in the inventory
AFSOC flies the U-28 (aka Pilatus PC-12.....)and there arent alot of them, not exactly the same as a 182 but close enough when making the comparison in slow mover terms

as far as racking up time for USAF pilots, I think it would be a PITA as I understand it, unless its a well funded mission.  To rack time a pilot would have to be considered "qualified" in the 182, meaning minimum hours in the aircraft as PIC regardless of their being a mission, they would require regular check rides (in addiiton to thier primary mobility airframe) as well as scheduling the no notice check rides etc etc.....it isnt costly to operate the platform, but costly to maintain the operator....easier I imagine to put a CAP driver and a ANG pilot in the other seat to tell him where to go and how to fly and to forget whatever he saw and did. 

mk