Cool potential mission -- chasing UAVs

RiverAux · April 18, 2008, 03:04:39 AM

In the May NEC agenda ihttp://level2.cap.gov/documents/2008_May_NEC_Agenda.pdf Agenda Item 10 is a proposal evidently originating with the Air National Guard to use CAP to "chase" unmannned aerial vehicles -- FAA wants them followed in US airspace. They're seeking authorization for a 6 month test of the concept in CA, but there are apparently a bunch of issues that would need to be worked out. If you read further it looks like the ANG might actually be operating the CAP aircraft without CAP members some of the time.

Showing again that the AF isn't really interested in anyone but the AF is this objection from CAP-USAF focusing on the fact that this would be supporting the ANG in their Title 32 (state) status which would "complicate" the situation. Jeez, aren't we all on the same team.

bosshawk · April 18, 2008, 03:53:08 AM

Apparently we are not all on the same team when you discreetly inquire of some of our lawyer friends. Like most other things in life, now, we pretty much have to comply with the legal interpretations of everythng. Sad, but true.

mikeylikey · April 18, 2008, 04:02:13 AM

So our CAP planes would be "loaners" to the highest bidder then? Thats my take on it if we can't fly the mission and the ANG would be the A/C Opperator.

PHall · April 18, 2008, 04:34:01 AM

The California Air Guard is starting up a UAV "School House" at March ARB/Southern California Logistics Airport.
From what I have heard, the FAA is really hot on having "chase" planes for the student missions to help protect the civilian aircraft.
This is probably what generated the proposal since about the only other aircraft the Air Force has that can fly that slow are helicopters. And they're not exactly cheap to fly and maintain!

CASH172 · April 18, 2008, 04:42:43 AM

Quote from: PHall on April 18, 2008, 04:34:01 AM
The California Air Guard is starting up a UAV "School House" at March ARB/Southern California Logistics Airport.
From what I have heard, the FAA is really hot on having "chase" planes for the student missions to help protect the civilian aircraft.
This is probably what generated the proposal since about the only other aircraft the Air Force has that can fly that slow are helicopters. And they're not exactly cheap to fly and maintain!

Outta curiosity, what has the ANG been using all this time?

PHall · April 18, 2008, 06:25:59 AM

Quote from: CASH172 on April 18, 2008, 04:42:43 AM
Quote from: PHall on April 18, 2008, 04:34:01 AM
The California Air Guard is starting up a UAV "School House" at March ARB/Southern California Logistics Airport.
From what I have heard, the FAA is really hot on having "chase" planes for the student missions to help protect the civilian aircraft.
This is probably what generated the proposal since about the only other aircraft the Air Force has that can fly that slow are helicopters. And they're not exactly cheap to fly and maintain!

Outta curiosity, what has the ANG been using all this time?

They've been training with the Active Duty at Creech AFB, NV.

MikeD · April 18, 2008, 06:26:21 AM

I read this and had a totally different idea of what "chasing" a UAV meant. Then again I've worked mostly with the small ones, and, oh, the storeis I definitely won't tell online or in front of any recording device until the NDA expires.... Lets just say that the hand-launched ones can end up in some very interesting places.

The Pred-B at work was able to fly over some of the really expensive areas of SoCal without a chase. Then again, we were a major help to the firefighters for wild fires, and started planning with the FAA a couple of months before fire season.

Chase for UAV's could be a nice mission to rack up flight time, and give people the excuse to fly more often. Don't forgot that you need scanners and observers to, uhh, watch for the UAV and nearby traffic!

NIN · April 18, 2008, 02:35:41 PM

Just set the UAVs up to tow banners over football games. The AF can fund the CONUS UAV missions thru ad revenues, and it will be hard as heck to miss big banners trailing behind, so VFR see & avoid is handled.

No? Hrrmph.

RiverAux · April 19, 2008, 12:32:42 PM

I've actually got some mixed feelings about the general purpose of this mission. In the short run, it would be a nice way to directly help the military and generate a ton of flying time. However, in the long run, I'm also fairly confident that UAVs will replace CAP for a lot of our aerial damage assessment work and probably some SAR work as they get spread out to the various National Guards and the AGs look for ways to use their new toys.

So basically we're reaching up out of the coffin to hand the undertaker some more nails to use to put the lid on.

isuhawkeye · April 19, 2008, 12:35:02 PM

QuoteHowever, in the long run, I'm also fairly confident that UAVs will replace CAP for a lot of our aerial damage assessment work and probably some SAR work as they get spread out to the various National Guards and the AGs look for ways to use their new toys

you got it

Gunner C · April 19, 2008, 02:07:47 PM

Quote from: MikeD on April 18, 2008, 06:26:21 AM
Don't forgot that you need scanners and observers to, uhh, watch for the UAV and nearby traffic!

Don't count on it. Scanners and observers will be elbowed out of the way by pilots as usual.

IMO, this whole thing is bogus. If you really read it, ANG pilots will be flying the missions. Period. If there are CAP personnel on board, they will be right seat (baloney). They need our aircraft, not us. This isn't cool, it's a slap in the face. But just watch the NEC roll over and get their tummies stroked. Once again, we take it in the shorts.

One force? Phooey.

GC

mikeylikey · April 19, 2008, 04:39:24 PM

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

It rings of pure crap. NHQ will absolutely roll over and let them do whatever they want. If this happens, I want the "Air Force AUX" to return to the tails of the plane. Because in reality when that NG pilot takes command, that Aircraft becomes Air Force.

PHall · April 19, 2008, 10:19:04 PM

Quote from: mikeylikey on April 19, 2008, 04:39:24 PM
^ Well said. That was my impression also. WE are "not good enough", but our equipment is.

It rings of pure crap. NHQ will absolutely roll over and let them do whatever they want. If this happens, I want the "Air Force AUX" to return to the tails of the plane. Because in reality when that NG pilot takes command, that Aircraft becomes Air Force.

Okay, here's a hypothetical.

If National does not cooperate with the ANG on this. The Air Force could "repossess" the aircraft they need to do the job.
After all, the Air Force paid for them.

Something to think about maybe?

And before you say this is BS, show me in the regs where it says they can't do it.

isuhawkeye · April 19, 2008, 10:58:20 PM

^^^ That angle was actually tried a few years ago. The aircraft are registered and owned by the Civil Air Patrol Corporation. THe Air Force would have to take the corporation to court to reposes them.

Flying Pig · April 19, 2008, 11:20:45 PM

Quote from: isuhawkeye on April 19, 2008, 10:58:20 PM
^^^ That angle was actually tried a few years ago. The aircraft are registered and owned by the Civil Air Patrol Corporation. THe Air Force would have to take the corporation to court to reposes them.

Im just curious. What situation arose that the AF tried to repossess our planes?

isuhawkeye · April 20, 2008, 12:48:10 AM

you know it has been a few years, but it involved aircraft maintenance directives from Cessna, and an air force inspection team not understanding how civilian maintenance directives work.

Mabye someone else has can provide more information

flynd94 · April 20, 2008, 03:30:56 AM

It would be "cool" if we got to do this type of mission but...... (there's always a but) I don't think we have many members who would be qualified to perform this type of mission. This type of flying would require some sort of formation flight.... something GA pilots aren't taught to do. Its a lot harder to do than you think. I have limited experience from my aerobatics training. JMHO

RiverAux · April 20, 2008, 03:47:48 AM

I had considered that aspect, but I would suspect that it wouldn't be close-in flying at all. Keep in mind that we probably get as close, if not a whole lot closer when working with AF fighters when they're training on intercepting GA aircraft.

PHall · April 20, 2008, 04:23:14 AM

Quote from: RiverAux on April 20, 2008, 03:47:48 AM
I had considered that aspect, but I would suspect that it wouldn't be close-in flying at all. Keep in mind that we probably get as close, if not a whole lot closer when working with AF fighters when they're training on intercepting GA aircraft.

Well considering that the fighters fly formation with us and not the other way around. Doesn't require much more skill for our pilots then flying straight and level.

RiverAux · April 20, 2008, 01:57:27 PM

Incidentally, I don't think any ANG pilots are going to have any more experience in doing this sort of mission in a 182 than are any CAP pilots. If anything, they are probably going to be less experienced in flying these planes than many of our mission pilots. There could be exceptions either way, but keep in mind that they're looking at CAP because they don't have this capability themselves.