Leaderboard

My experience is limited to Airbus, but even a basic ILS without automation would not be a big deal for single pilot in a mil application scenario (we’re not talking about getting slam dunked into LGA during shit winter WX). I have no doubt the old steam engine types are a different story. I think the mis-branding of this whole thing discussed above is a good way to couch the scenario; this all makes a lot more sense when we’re talking ACE and not necessarily landing at a location with a squadron of bros rested and ready to fly that jet’s next line (e.g. current status quo). In such a scenario, it’s probably a good idea to look at how we can extend crews capability to meet the mission while reducing risk as much as feasible (e.g. single pilot ops during X phase of flight while other dude is racked out).

Scooter knows me. He would be the first one to endorse pilot/NFO (WSO/CSO/whatever you want to call them in the USAF) up front like we had in the Navy. Let's go for a ride Scooter....don't worry...I will get that switch for ya so you don't pull your back muscles reaching over here. I kid....I kid. As we all know, it comes down to money. Nav's are cheaper and faster to produce than pilots. I saw someone mention EP's before. I had to pass the same NATOPS as the pilot, attend the same instrument rating school and had to complete the same boldface as a pilot sitting up front. I did everything except physically fly the jet while guarding handles, pulling levers and flipping switches just like a rated non-flying co-pilot would do, because the Navy trained us like that. Dual pitch-channel disconnect 10 seconds from crossing the ramp at night, Single engine fires off and above the boat, dual gen failure off the cat at night off of Korea (that one really was bad), "CLARA" approaches to the boat where we had no HUD or functioning autopilot to assist, nugget pilot going out for his first round-robin flight in Japanese airspace (those were always fun...the pilots were basically an ATIS-activated autopilot [no smart a$$ comments Scooter] on those since they just did what I told them to do). I will give you one sea story. Black as ink night in the Pacific. I was standing the duty in the ready room, when my roomy PeeWee (NFO) comes in white as a ghost. I see the XO (05) come in from the flight...white as a ghost. Didn't speak a word, very unusual. I cornered PeeWee in our stateroom and asked WTF. XO got vertigo off the cat as he raised the gear, wasn't looking at his horizon gyro and the plane leveled off and started rolling left. PeeWee grabbed the stick and righted the aircraft into correct attitude while telling the crew (XO and the two back seaters he had the jet and what he was doing). Back at the beach a few years later my best friend and I were flying test in the goo one evening and he got the leans way bad. I saw it and asked if he was OK....he fessed up right away and I took the jet while giving him a verbal on what the aircraft was doing. Few minutes later after his grey matter gyro caged...he took the jet back and no issue after that. I know plenty of my NFO buddies that pulled the handle while the pilot continued fighting the jet beyond hard-deck or other not so favorable situation. We were doing front seat pilot/NFO flying before CRM even became the norm. It works. Standing by for wire brushing/return fire. ATIS side note: "CLARA" means the front seat crew can't see the boat after calling the ball at 3/4 mile, but the LSO's on deck can see the aircraft/lights. Typically their comeback after I state "CLARA" is "Paddles contact, you are XYZ-low-slow-high, continue, left or right for line up...power Power...POWER"...whatever they need to tell us to keep us tracking to the landing area. I can count on 4 fingers those approaches, and never want to see those again (three were off of Korea/Japan in the Winter, one in the Arabian Gulf).

not in aircraft that were designed for a crew of two pilots to operate... I get it, IFR approaches are boring admin that shithot fighter pilots don't even talk about because it's so trivially easy. But if you've attended safety briefs you probably also know that admin kills more shithot fighter pilots than any other phase of flight.

Incredible touch giving the helicopter an authentic native American name. Bravo.

Those NGAD timelines aren’t rumor. The 7th Gen Army attack helos (AH-69 “Elizabeth Warrens”) from the 1/1064th CAB are the rumor.

don't tell anyone there are 150+ 12R panel navigators that are about to have no job and are stuck in ACC

oh yeah, that was definitely a beer rant right there.

This is probably the dumbest sentence of this entire thread. Are you pretty sure? How many 46 pilots do you really think are out there that are thinking to themselves “damn, I really wanted fighters…not because they go fast and drop bombs and look cool but because I don’t like flying with another pilot. Maybe AMC will make the KC-46 single pilot and my itch will be tickled and I’ll be a real tanker fighter pilot! Call me Maverick!” You think this is the case? Or…maybe you’re indicting the whole KC-46 community over the actions of a handful of patches at one specific Active Duty wing at one specific Active Duty base? If you’re not in the community, you should probably stay in your lane. Sent from my iPhone using Baseops Network Forums

No one is arguing that it's a death sentence or that it's impossible to do. I have 100% confidence I could hand fly a kc-46 ILS to a safe landing, alone, after probably one familiarization sim. That is not the point. The first point is the 46 was never designed with a single pilot in mind. To my knowledge the u-2, and all the jets draco flies were. So that's not a valid counterexample. But the larger point here is that CRM improvements in large crewed aircraft have done wonders for safety over the last 50-100 years, to the point that there hasn't been a hull loss for a major American airline in almost 2 decades. But we are about to throw that down the drain to solve a problem that doesn't exist. On top of that, we are talking about a ~$300 million strategic asset, of which we only have around 50 currently built. How many mishaps can we afford? My worry is not these one-off experimental flights and whether or not the concept is possible. Of course it's possible. But now that the single pilot ops precedent has been set, it's only a matter of time before it becomes normalized, then expected, then mandated so generals can green up their manning slides. And when we start flying like this regularly, the accidents will follow. It's funny the people that actually buy the war contingency line. Got a bridge to sell you. I'm genuinely trying to concoct a wartime scenario in my head where we are magically super flush on -46 airframes with no one to fly them 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️ /endrant

My hat's off to you. I used to listen to NPR on my way to work as well, but it became absolutely too much for me. Now I only listen to it when I want to piss myself off - which is to say, never. It's blatant propaganda. Now that I recognize it as such, I see less value in *understanding* where they are coming from. Their message is from a different universe, using different facts, using different logic. Once I grasped that, I understood there was no longer any return for my time and attention. Yep. I wish more Rs and Ds understood this. We would have more productive conversations about how to help people out. Oh well.

Oh no, someone got a medal before you did when you went through 40 years ago!

VMC only, like fighter pilots?

Defensive Egg; this was the only good one:

Have you guys in the CAF experienced positive results from the 8's and 9's in your organization? My experience was that if they never showed up to work at all a better decision would've been made that day. That's from the squadron all the way up to the MAJCOM. I spent a 3rd of my career on Army bases and while there were some worthless E-9s, some of them were pretty damn helpful at accomplishing the mission. I personally never met one E-8 or E-9 in the AF whose pay fairly equated to what they contributed. Not questioning the MAF or support folks because an immediate flaming about how valuable senior NCOs are would ensue. I saw it at SOS. And at ACSC. A long time ago. The question is for CAF pilots/aircrew.

Did AMC get a waiver from the FAA to fly in class A airspace for a jet that's type certificated for two pilots?

That’s just downright offensive to Rosie.

Don’t forget the ops sup. And SOF! That’s a 4-pilot airplane.

OK... that's pretty funny! I concede!

This line is what has been said for decades by old fighter guys about the new guys as things changed. Wingman today are expected to do things that “only an experienced 4FL/IP” was capable of doing without fucking it away 15 years ago. Technology and ways of thinking change, and the young guys will perform. Your “old crusty guy” mindset serves as a roadblock to tactical progress; instead, empower the young guys to succeed in ways that was thought “impossible” when you were their age. Don’t read this the wrong way, the above is a general statement meant for wide application, it’s not meant to be specific to the wartime single pilot ops scenario. I agree with you overall on that scenario - hard to imagine what problem we’re trying to solve…unless maybe they’re planning on changing the chow hall food contract and know 80% of pilots will be shitting their brains out at any given moment.

So BQZIP's mom is Rosie O'Donnell?

That leaves room for two gunners!

I also fly big airplanes, so I’m not completely clueless. We’re also talking about a single pilot shooting an approach to Guam, etc. in combat. It’s not DL69 with 169 pax and absolutely zero mission to accomplish. Let’s not pretend they’re the same thing. And to your jab at the fighter community, it’s true admin kills guys, but it’s also true probably tens of thousands of precision approaches are flown for every guy who killed himself trying to fly an ILS. I think it’s what you know, and a lot of heavies-from-the-start guys sell their’s and their bro’s capabilities short, because, well, that’s just how it’s always been… Edit: To be clear, I’m not supporting this whole idea being discussed, but I am pointing out there are some things that are overblown…such as one man being able to fly an ILS and put his own gear down.

I don’t know how to fly without an FE to get the lights and speed brakes.

OP username checks. Slapped down like one too.

That just sounds like a copilot but with extra steps. If the AF was gonna go to the trouble of training and manning a squadron with a co-Nav, then might as well go ahead and put an actual copilot in the seat instead.

It’s not the fact that the AF wants to operate some missions single pilot. It’s the fact that the AF wants to take an airframe expressly designed to be operated by a crew, and pilots expressly trained to operate in a crew environment and throw caution to the wind. And when General Numbnuts inevitably touts how successful and great his program is (and he will, regardless of how this thing goes down), airline heads everywhere will sit up and take notice & point to the super successful AF program as they ask the FAA to provide relief from the impending doom of the pilot shortage. Also, there are all sorts of systems designed into tactical single seat aircraft to assist the pilot in maintaining SA. Ever see a HUD baby get into a Dutchess and try to fly a VOR approach on the six pack? It ain’t pretty. Comparing single pilot ops in a fighter vs an airliner is comparing apples and whale dicks.

Another thought/data point to consider in this discussion: Years ago, there was great fanfare in the bizjet community as many manufacturers designed and certified some of their less complex aircraft for single pilot ops. Today, the number of these aircraft that are actually operated single pilot is exceedingly small. Why? It’s often impossible or prohibitively expensive to get insurance for such operations. Why is single pilot so hard to insure? Because the safety record is fukkking abysmal. And that’s for relatively simple aircraft that were expressly designed to be operated by a single pilot on relatively short A-B legs. Now, take an inexperienced kid who probably wasn’t at the top of his UPT class, put him in a 767, and ask him to do a complex mission that may last upwards of 10 hours and involve receiver refueling ops, a combat zone, coordination of dozens of receivers, bad weather, night, and systems degradation and/or emergencies. Sound smart to anyone here? This dumb idea has got to be somewhere in the top ten epically dumb ideas of all time. But hey, someone’s probably hoping for another star on this one, so what the hell, why the fuck not? Not that guy’s ass on the line. In fact, I’ll bet a hundred bucks that the brass that’s pushing this garbage will be the first in line demanding heads on a platter when guys inevitably start bending metal. EPICALLY. STUPID. IDEA.

Honest question: What’s the safety record of communities that fly single pilot hard IFR look like vs the heavy communities? Related: what’s the cost (monetary, lives, collateral damage) of putting, say, an F-16 in the dirt vs. a large transport category aircraft? Also related: Would the single seat communities ever consider ditching their chutes and pinning their seats for the duration of any flight? Also, also related: How often do single seat guys fly single ship, without mutual support? Ever have lead set your shit straight when you were a clueless wingman & used up all your brain cells trying to walk and chew gum? That’s the AC’s role in a big airplane.

Can't agree with you there. The transgender horror show is on the news every day. Unchecked illegal immigration is on the news every day. Drug infested tent cities, BLM, unfund the police, very late term abortions, and on and on. All over the news/entertainment feeds every single day. The only thing I can think of that would cause you to make that statement is that you no longer consider those to be fringe ideals.

True. But you haven't flown with this guy. Lol

Oh my god, the horror, surely there aren’t tens of thousands of pilots who have done this for decades and are currently doing it now, without any automation at all.

It’s threatening one of the dems sources of voters and reducing the effectiveness of a destabilization tool used to help make current America look bad. There is no other rational answer.

Do what the Navy did years ago in the S-3, A-6, EA-6B community, put an instrument qualified Co-NAV in the front right seat. For sure in the S-3 community they went the route of putting a NFO in the front right seat because keeping two single anchor pilots qualed around the boat soon proved too restrictive. I heard rumblings that even the E-2D community is looking at missionizing the front right seat and putting a NFO up there to assist in mission related tasks. I’ve got 1000+ hours in the S-3 riding shotgun with pilots. Other than physically landing on the boat or staying in the baskt (that takes more practice than I had time to master) flying the jet was a piece of cake. We were FAA dual-pilot approved so we could accept those lower mins. Don’t know if the USAF is that brave or already looked at this idea and dismissed it? Heck, “George” is flying the plane 80% of the time anyway right (except in the S-3, that autopilot sucked…but altitude Hold worked)? ATIS

BQZIP's Mom...

...and this is how the new Defensive Egg was born...

Damn, that thread was nearly 18 years ago. We need a "where are they now" type thread lol. Crazy stuff you have here, didn't even know this stuff was a thing. Then again, I'm a caveman when it comes to most thing technology related.

Special operations fighter pilot:

As long as your link(s) are resilient yes. Just my guessing, but if I were a PLAAF officer analyzing Operation Cluster Fornication the Russians are currently executing, one take-away would be the lack of effective EA in disabling C2 links of the Ukranian Air Force's UAVs, the PLAAF in preparing for a fight with us will not be caught deficient in the capability. Anything we deploy that is unmanned or capable of being operated unmanned against a capable foe will need to be operationally effective with or without link back to an LRE/MCE. Maybe not as effective while under control but not a liability. But as the size of an aircraft increases the value of unmanning it decreases as the percentage of mass dedicated to crew for control and sustainment decreases as a percentage of the total mass of the aircraft, it has a diminishing level of return on gain in performance in some areas (endurance, range). You get some more space, power, weight but the profit delta between manned and unmanned starts to diminish as the vehicle gets bigger between manned and unmanned. You may still get some more fuel, cargo, stores, equipment whatever onboard but it may not be enough to warrant the cost of unmanning it. Might.

Not today China

Tell me where the bad EW touched you…

100% agree with you, but it doesn’t help when the 46 Squadron patch openly proclaims that if an F-16 pilot can do it, he can do it in his 46…yes actual words on an open forum. I’m pretty sure many 46 pilots want this bad as it will tickle their itch that wasn’t scratched after assignment night.