Cool potential mission -- chasing UAVs

[RiverAux]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

 

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

you got it

[Gunner C]

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]

^ 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]

^ 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]

^^^  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]

^^^  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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. 

[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

[DNall]

My cousin flies the U28 for AFSOC. It's not exactly a slow mover. T6 or T41C/D is probably the better fit. In fact, transferring a couple T41Cs (210hp Cessna 172) to CAP would be a good move for this project.

As far as pilot currency, AF would have to keep a couple of their folks current in whatever airframe. Not a big deal. I'm sure there is a flying club there & some of these guys flying out of it already. Just a matter of letting them do prof flying in CAP bird now too, maybe. Long as CAP crews have pref in the flights, it's really just using our program as an umbrella, so go for it as far as I'm concerned.

[cap801]

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

South Bend NM or South Bend IN?

Indiana.  We don't have a South Bend, NM, just because there aren't enough rivers here to have a south bend 

We actually just got a PC-12 (maybe 2) with our AFSOC mission here.  I got to learn all about it on the Cannon AFB cable TV channel.  I would have to say that a PC-12 could fly chase, but it would be a lot more expensive and a lot more cumbersome than a C-182, IMO.

[davidsinn]

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

South Bend NM or South Bend IN?

Indiana.  We don't have a South Bend, NM, just because there aren't enough rivers here to have a south bend 

Norte Dame Student? You should look me up when you get here. I'm not too far from there. I can tell you which units you want to be in.