Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[Lawman]

Jeez. I must be stupid because I never make this point very well. But then, I really didn't follow much of what you just wrote, Lawman.

You want enlisted to fly planes/drones? Fine. I agree that a college degree is not really all that necessary to do the job. But pay them the wage that flying planes/drones demand. Don't let the AF get away with paying some guy $45,000/yr to do what the rest of the world pays $120,000/yr to do.

A proper union would never allow equal work for less pay.

Hell, why do we need officers anyway?

Oh c'mon dude nobody is coming out of high school to fly airplanes or drones for 6 figure salaries.

That's the thing lost here. The military by and large is the highest paying "feeder" into the civilian aviation world. Yes I could make 6 figures as a helo pilot for Erickson, but I've gotta get 2500 hours to even sit down at the interview. Drones and airlines are the same. 1500 hours to get looked at by a regional and make waiter money. Nobody is sitting on their ass out of highschool thinking "hmmm... 60k to be an airmen or I could go work for these contractor dudes and make 3x that."

Everybody is screaming about drone pilot shortages. Well when your only source of restock is from 4 year degree commissioned officers who have to spend 2+ years in training to even show up to the job yeah your gonna have issues filling rapid losses. Your 2 years away from effecting any kind of change to man power on your current system because you want to pay as you said fair/competitive wages to what they would make on the outside. Except remember these are entry level guys the day they show up. Nobody on the outside will touch them until that adso is finished.

The other option is something like the Army model. Realize that a lot of guys are sitting at 6-8 years and E6 going "no F'ing way I do this a day longer." But suddenly you make them warrants and give them a different job with x number years of adso and the next time they make that call they are so close to the pay check of the month club they think, "4 more years for a pension.... Ok start the suck." That's what the Army has been doing forever. And the coast guard does it to us with the DCA program.

You've got enlisted guys crewing bombers and gunships, shouldn't they be paid more than some jack ass who sits 10-1600 m-thur closed Friday for training in CE? Of course, but you don't seem to have a problem filling those spots. Hell look at the Navy with nuke guys. That job pays 6 figures the day they leave the Navy with a graduate degree paid for by the Navy but dudes still stay for their 20 weird as that is.

[Chaff]

From enlistment to initial qual would take 1 year of training. Then that 1500 drone hours required to get looked at takes 16 months of flying in an ops squadron. By the end of their 4 year enlistment they could likely be qual'd in two aircraft, Launch and Recovery (if the AF continues to not but auto land) and the hard chargers will be instructors, potential even evaluators if we compare to how SOs and Officer pilots progress now. Unless GA looks at a dude without a degree differently that's 150k+ as a pilot by the end of your 4 year enlistment.

I don't know how you turn that down with only four years invested to re-up or take warrant officer pay. But Nuke dudes stay in the Navy so who knows.

[fox two]

after his relatively short commitment is up, that enlisted man will bolt (probably with his ATP in hand

You're not going to get an ATP after only flying drones....

[Lawman]

From enlistment to initial qual would take 1 year of training. Then that 1500 drone hours required to get looked at takes 16 months of flying in an ops squadron. By the end of their 4 year enlistment they could likely be qual'd in two aircraft, Launch and Recovery (if the AF continues to not but auto land) and the hard chargers will be instructors, potential even evaluators if we compare to how SOs and Officer pilots progress now. Unless GA looks at a dude without a degree differently that's 150k+ as a pilot by the end of your 4 year enlistment.

I don't know how you turn that down with only four years invested to re-up or take warrant officer pay. But Nuke dudes stay in the Navy so who knows.

You've also gotta factor that currently the drone market supply on the civil side is in it's initial growth. It's kinda like how airlines are taking massive waves of guys when only a few years ago dudes were bar tending waiting on a right seat.

And it's still way easier to replace a guy that only took 12 months to produce and cost X number of dollars than to put a dude through an officer producing source and then full up flight school even if you do keep him twice as long. And nothing says your beholden to a 4 year ADSO or that it can't be adjusted like flight ADSO where it's tech complete and not initial entry. Point is so long as the AF is on the path that the only way to get drone operators is to steal rated full up pilots and torture them with a job they didn't join to do it's only making it harder on it's self.

[Tonka]

You're not going to get an ATP after only flying drones....

yet.

[Homestar]

You're not going to get an ATP after only flying drones....

Yeah, you're probably right. But my guess is that they'd at least be commercial SEL with the instrument rating.

My only point, really, is that paying enlisted/warrants 45k/yr to do the exact same job as the Major sitting next to him but making $120k/yr is just not a good solution (nor is it fair...the enlisted/warrant should be making the same pay--any union man would agree).

But hey, if the Army's doing it then it must make sense, amirite?

[Lawman]

Yeah, you're probably right. But my guess is that they'd at least be commercial SEL with the instrument rating.

My only point, really, is that paying enlisted/warrants 45k/yr to do the exact same job as the Major sitting next to him but making $120k/yr is just not a good solution (nor is it fair...the enlisted/warrant should be making the same pay--any union man would agree).

But hey, if the Army's doing it then it must make sense, amirite?

Except they are not equals. That Major doing the same job as say the 2Lt sitting next to him is getting more money isn't he? It's not because he is more drone pilot it's because he is more officer and more use to the AF. You get the same effect with warrants. We don't have command authority, we aren't investing staff courses of 6 months or more to breed them into commanders, none of us are going to pentagon positions. If you were asking some E5 to do the exact duties and responsibilities as some Cpt or Major then yes he would have a reason to bitch, but he won't be asked to do that so your point on equality for all is moot. What next line up all the airmen in your formation and decide whose job justifies higher base pay. "Hey Fred... All you do is paperwork so your base pay shouldn't equal Tom's."

The other part of that is you don't need a population of officers only in drones. The only people that seem to think that is the Air Force. Involved in the process of employing them sure, but acting like your MQ-1 and our MQ-1 are so different is just trying to inflate egos. They are both slinging Hellfires and performing targeting. Differences is ours are being piloted by enlisted operators with an aviation officer overseeing the operations. Yours... Get washed an worked on by enlisted dudes but don't let them touch the thing if it's flying.

You can't tell me somehow Army enlisted dudes can learn to fly a UAS and the AF guys can't.

[Homestar]

You can't tell me somehow Army enlisted dudes can learn to fly a UAS and the AF guys can't.

That's not the point and you know it. The problem is inherent in the Air Force culture.

[BFM this]

You can't tell me somehow Army enlisted dudes can learn to fly a UAS and the AF guys can't.

Adding another parallel anecdote to help illustrate the culture hurdle:

In a former life I flew on Marine KC-130s. Our flight engineers, aside from ensuring that the landing gear was lowered, were also taxi qual'd. No shit: depending on the field that we were broken at, they would do all of the usual coord with ground and tower, and do high power engine runs (on the active, if that's all that was available).

Ok, so with that story, let's hear from our AF Herk brethren: would the AF taxi qual a FE?

ETA: Lawman, I agree with you. Enlisted could operate these things just fine, alongside O's, yet still within their managerial lanes. Boundaries would likely be required regarding mission sets, weapons employment, etc., but I still think it would be worthwhile.

Change is often resisted because as soon as you allow change, someone is tacitly admitting that the old paradigm was wrong. Case in point: for years I didn't think that I could fly Mil because of the 20/20 eyesight requirement. ...until it changed to 20/70, then it was game-on. But that begs the questions: what was the reasoning behind the legacy requirement, and how much talent flowed under the bridge through the years because of it?

Edited July 28, 2015 by BFM this

[xaarman]

I could see a squadron comprised mainly of E's doing the flying, and O's running the squadron. Like Os for Sq/CC, DO, and maybe ADOs/Flight CCs, while the enlisted did the majority of the line flying. Everyone would be flight qual'd, but the roles in the squadron would be very different.

[Hercster]

Adding another parallel anecdote to help illustrate the culture hurdle:

In a former life I flew on Marine KC-130s. Our flight engineers, aside from ensuring that the landing gear was lowered, were also taxi qual'd. No shit: depending on the field that we were broken at, they would do all of the usual coord with ground and tower, and do high power engine runs (on the active, if that's all that was available).

Ok, so with that story, let's hear from our AF Herk brethren: would the AF taxi qual a FE?

Doubtful...think of the safety analysis that would have to be done. Think of the paper and powerpoint briefings...think of the children!

Seriously though, probably not. We'd just burn a whole crew to get the check done, just taxi early to the runup area and then join the formation for a good ol' Black Jack-20. And then take the lead because they'll have an oil overtemp, 2 will have to reset SKE, 3 actually needs to drop an actual so he'll drop back to 4, while 4 will do a dry pass which is great training for the indoc nav, and finally they'll all drop off after the third route while we do pro and ask for an overflight just because.

Edited July 28, 2015 by Hercster

[Lawman]

I could see a squadron comprised mainly of E's doing the flying, and O's running the squadron. Like Os for Sq/CC, DO, and maybe ADOs/Flight CCs, while the enlisted did the majority of the line flying. Everyone would be flight qual'd, but the roles in the squadron would be very different.

And that's just it, yeah it's a cultural hill to climb. But, it's not like it hasn't been demonstrated and is working somewhere else.

It wasn't that long ago where you only let real full up pilots fly drones or better yet wanted pointy nose types to fly armed drones because some C-17 or AWACS guy firing ordnance was just so culturally not ok. Now you have specific career track drone pilots coming into this but your still trying to generate guys over a period of years to grow and meanwhile cutting into your force of no kidding jet pilots. That's like the braves pulling a center fielder an sending him down to the minors to fill up their farm teams roster. And I'm not saying that to insult drone guys as less of a pilot I'm saying the AF invested far more dollars in making CPT shmuckatelle an F-16 or C-5 pilot why does he need to be in a conex at Cannon for any other reason than the AF won't explore routes outside the flight trained officers only route.

Enlisted guys with special training... Warrants... There are options outside of "use pilots to back fill drones." And I'm not saying it won't be without growing pains. The Navy tried aviation warrants for 60 squadrons because the progression of career got so narrow at the top they needed to lower the number of junior officers rather than give half of them the guillotine at year 11. It wasn't the concept of operation that killed the idea it was the few guys they sent through on the trial run stepped on their dicks and ruined it for everybody.

[Liquid]

Great discussion going on here. Let me add an alternative perspective. They said it wasn't possible to arm RQ-1 with Hellfires. Fortunately others in USG disagreed. They said you shouldn't arm UAVs and employ lethal fires without a fighter pilot in the seat that understood CAS and fires, so only fighter pilots should fly UAVs. They said only pilots had the airmanship required to fly UAVs. They said unless you went to pilot training and learned about airspace, radio calls and instruments, you couldn't and shouldn't fly UAVs. They said a fighter pilot was too valuable to fly UAVs, that it was easy, and only the worst pilots should fly them. They picked the pilots they didn't want in their squadrons to go to UAVs. They decided that we should fly RPAs from remote locations, despite the fact you could fly remote split operations from anywhere in the world, including in major metropolitan areas where families would be happy to live. They realized there was nothing unmanned about these UAVs and changed the name to Remotely Piloted Aircraft. They killed UCAV development because they think a pilot must be in the seat, even when the pilot is the limiting factor in the aircraft. They think the next generation bomber should be manned. They decided the only way to keep pilots flying RPAs relevant was to create a companion aircraft program so RPA pilots could fly real aircraft and stay in touch with real flying, but this was not feasible because flying RPAs is not an easy part time job and there is no time. They thought it would be ok assure pilots they would go fly RPAs, then return to the cockpit, with no intention of changing the manning or accessions to actually honor that promise. They told us that 18Xs could not fly RPAs. They told us it would take years to figure out how to train non-pilots how to fly RPAs. They told us nobody would volunteer to fly RPAs. They told us the bonus for RPA pilots should be less than the bonus for real pilots. They decided that RPAs were easy and marginalized the employment of lethal weapons in combat. They actually think the RPA pilot guides the AGM-114 or GBU-49/12 to the target. They denigrated the RPA mission and those who conducted the mission, regardless of how much the joint force and civilian leadership value RPAs. They think enlisted airmen cannot fly RPAs, despite direct evidence of outstanding Army enlisted and warrant officer performance. They did not think auto takeoff and landing was a valuable capability worthy of investment, and preferred to crash aircraft during takeoffs and landings due to pilot error and insufficient training at a staggering rate, while the Army successfully employs auto takeoff and landing with a near perfect mishap prevention rate. They decided that the phrase "permissive ISR" would be used to discredit RPAs by pushing the narrative that they were not able to operate in denied airspace, while avoiding the same conversation with mobility, tankers, C2, and satellites. They forgot that we may have missions when manned aircraft will not be allowed to fly and that RPAs may be the only access we have to non-permissive environments. They developed the phrase "Pred Porn" to delegitimize the FMV value to Ground Force Commanders, Joint Force Commanders and Senior Civilian Leaders. They do not understand how RPAs integrate multi-source intelligence to accomplish national level objectives. They decided "Combat Time" for RPAs employing lethal fires in close proximity to friendly forces was not combat, but orbiting a combat support aircraft near a combat zone, with no threat of enemy fire or additional danger, was worthy of "Combat Time". They decided combat support aircrew were eligible for Air Medals, while in no immediate danger from enemy threats, while RPA crews conducting actual combat missions were only eligible for Aerial Achievement Medals. They failed to recognize that there may be situations where manned aircraft may be denied access to airspace, not only because of the threat, but because of political considerations and the risk of being shot down in denied area. They think a pilot who practices killing people but never performs this skill in combat is more of a warrior than those who actually kill people. They decided to not fund RPAs, after reducing the number of CAPs in the first few years, they planned to go to zero CAPs so they could commit the money to other priorities. They decided to keep the RPA crew ratio below a sustainable level, crushing OPSTEMPO, morale and sustainability. They let RPA crewmembers separate early to meet short term manpower reduction goals, before their commitment was up, even from squadrons where the pilot and sensors were undermanned in that unit. They decided to not invest in RPA technology, stating and I no shit quote "every dollar we spend on MQ-9s is a dollar we can't spend on F-35". They are telling us they can't fix the current RPA crew shortage. They are telling us they don't know how to improve morale. They are telling us RPAs are not important to our nation's defense. They think pilots with no RPA experience are qualified to command RPA squadrons, groups and wings. They use the phrase CT/COIN to marginalize the current fight and emphasize the importance of near peer competitor threats. And they will continue to recommend we stop flying RPAs so we can invest in more important weapon systems and more important missions. When will we stop letting them make these bad decisions and give this bad advice? When have they lost enough trust and confidence of our joint partners and civilian leaders? When will we realize that "they" are actually the problem and that we should not value their recommended solutions? It is time to get ISR out of ACC, to let ACC focus on what they value and what they are the best in the world at, and most importantly, stop ing up RPAs.

[RASH]

Shack

[Homestar]

Who is "they"?

[Azimuth]

How's AFSOC RPA training compare to ACC's? If RPA's leave ACC, who should own them?

Who is "they"?

ACC

I could see a squadron comprised mainly of E's doing the flying, and O's running the squadron. Like Os for Sq/CC, DO, and maybe ADOs/Flight CCs, while the enlisted did the majority of the line flying. Everyone would be flight qual'd, but the roles in the squadron would be very different.

So like now? I'm in charge of Stan Eval, as a MSgt, because my Flt/CC is deployed for six months to the CAOC, all of my SELO's are deployed, Red Flag, AC upgrade, etc. I walk into the Scheduling office and it's completely ran by Enlisted with an occasionally Copilot, their Flt/CC is deployed as well. I walk into Training Flight and it's the same story.

A majority of squadron's in AMC are ran by Enlisted because most of the Officers are gone. The only Officers I routinely see are the Sq/CC and one ADO who's filling in until October when we get our DO in.

[HU&W]

Great discussion going on here. Let me add an alternative perspective. They said it wasn't possible to arm RQ-1 with Hellfires. Fortunately others in USG disagreed. They said you shouldn't arm UAVs and employ lethal fires without a fighter pilot in the seat that understood CAS and fires, so only fighter pilots should fly UAVs. They said only pilots had the airmanship required to fly UAVs. They said unless you went to pilot training and learned about airspace, radio calls and instruments, you couldn't and shouldn't fly UAVs. They said a fighter pilot was too valuable to fly UAVs, that it was easy, and only the worst pilots should fly them. They picked the pilots they didn't want in their squadrons to go to UAVs. They decided that we should fly RPAs from remote locations, despite the fact you could fly remote split operations from anywhere in the world, including in major metropolitan areas where families would be happy to live. They realized there was nothing unmanned about these UAVs and changed the name to Remotely Piloted Aircraft. They killed UCAV development because they think a pilot must be in the seat, even when the pilot is the limiting factor in the aircraft. They think the next generation bomber should be manned. They decided the only way to keep pilots flying RPAs relevant was to create a companion aircraft program so RPA pilots could fly real aircraft and stay in touch with real flying, but this was not feasible because flying RPAs is not an easy part time job and there is no time. They thought it would be ok assure pilots they would go fly RPAs, then return to the cockpit, with no intention of changing the manning or accessions to actually honor that promise. They told us that 18Xs could not fly RPAs. They told us it would take years to figure out how to train non-pilots how to fly RPAs. They told us nobody would volunteer to fly RPAs. They told us the bonus for RPA pilots should be less than the bonus for real pilots. They decided that RPAs were easy and marginalized the employment of lethal weapons in combat. They actually think the RPA pilot guides the AGM-114 or GBU-49/12 to the target. They denigrated the RPA mission and those who conducted the mission, regardless of how much the joint force and civilian leadership value RPAs. They think enlisted airmen cannot fly RPAs, despite direct evidence of outstanding Army enlisted and warrant officer performance. They did not think auto takeoff and landing was a valuable capability worthy of investment, and preferred to crash aircraft during takeoffs and landings due to pilot error and insufficient training at a staggering rate, while the Army successfully employs auto takeoff and landing with a near perfect mishap prevention rate. They decided that the phrase "permissive ISR" would be used to discredit RPAs by pushing the narrative that they were not able to operate in denied airspace, while avoiding the same conversation with mobility, tankers, C2, and satellites. They forgot that we may have missions when manned aircraft will not be allowed to fly and that RPAs may be the only access we have to non-permissive environments. They developed the phrase "Pred Porn" to delegitimize the FMV value to Ground Force Commanders, Joint Force Commanders and Senior Civilian Leaders. They do not understand how RPAs integrate multi-source intelligence to accomplish national level objectives. They decided "Combat Time" for RPAs employing lethal fires in close proximity to friendly forces was not combat, but orbiting a combat support aircraft near a combat zone, with no threat of enemy fire or additional danger, was worthy of "Combat Time". They decided combat support aircrew were eligible for Air Medals, while in no immediate danger from enemy threats, while RPA crews conducting actual combat missions were only eligible for Aerial Achievement Medals. They failed to recognize that there may be situations where manned aircraft may be denied access to airspace, not only because of the threat, but because of political considerations and the risk of being shot down in denied area. They think a pilot who practices killing people but never performs this skill in combat is more of a warrior than those who actually kill people. They decided to not fund RPAs, after reducing the number of CAPs in the first few years, they planned to go to zero CAPs so they could commit the money to other priorities. They decided to keep the RPA crew ratio below a sustainable level, crushing OPSTEMPO, morale and sustainability. They let RPA crewmembers separate early to meet short term manpower reduction goals, before their commitment was up, even from squadrons where the pilot and sensors were undermanned in that unit. They decided to not invest in RPA technology, stating and I no shit quote "every dollar we spend on MQ-9s is a dollar we can't spend on F-35". They are telling us they can't fix the current RPA crew shortage. They are telling us they don't know how to improve morale. They are telling us RPAs are not important to our nation's defense. They think pilots with no RPA experience are qualified to command RPA squadrons, groups and wings. They use the phrase CT/COIN to marginalize the current fight and emphasize the importance of near peer competitor threats. And they will continue to recommend we stop flying RPAs so we can invest in more important weapon systems and more important missions. When will we stop letting them make these bad decisions and give this bad advice? When have they lost enough trust and confidence of our joint partners and civilian leaders? When will we realize that "they" are actually the problem and that we should not value their recommended solutions? It is time to get ISR out of ACC, to let ACC focus on what they value and what they are the best in the world at, and most importantly, stop fucking up RPAs.

Welcome back Liquid. I'm curious to hear your opinion. If you were CSAF for a day, how would you realign the RPA enterprise? Would AFSOC be a better fit, either as lead MAJCOM or for the entirety of the enterprise? Would it do better under some sort of ISR/armed ISR specific hybrid command modeled after the AFGSC or Cyber moves? Where would you put them and what would be the first thing you'd do to 'fix' the issues?

[xaarman]

Wow, that post. Upvoted! I remember in 2010-2011 there was RUMINT of standing up an ISR MAJCOM but I can't imagine it being on the table now with the AFGSC/AETC swaparoo.

So like now? I'm in charge of Stan Eval, as a MSgt, because my Flt/CC is deployed for six months to the CAOC, all of my SELO's are deployed, Red Flag, AC upgrade, etc. I walk into the Scheduling office and it's completely ran by Enlisted with an occasionally Copilot, their Flt/CC is deployed as well. I walk into Training Flight and it's the same story.

A majority of squadron's in AMC are ran by Enlisted because most of the Officers are gone. The only Officers I routinely see are the Sq/CC and one ADO who's filling in until October when we get our DO in.

I was never in AMC (RJ/AETC guy) but yeah, if it's happening now and "working", no reason not to formalize it.

Edited July 29, 2015 by xaarman

[Magellan]

Everything Liquid said is spot on.

This man and his staffers should take the blame. Hawk Carlisle has been awesome and the first thing he did was go to CSAF, SecAF, and SecDef and sound the alarm.

I agree an ISR command would be the way to go, but getting there from here is going to be damn near impossible in the short term. This is because there is no one qualified to lead it, and no bodies to staff it. You have maybe 2 guys with stars (Gjersten and Hecker) out there that somewhat get it, and 2 O-6's between Cliffie Cluff and Slider Cantwell who are both solid. The rest of the O-6 level leaders with the exception of Raygun Alves have mostly just been corporate yes men.

AFSOC's RPA situation is even more broken than ACC's but ACC is the bigger of those two monsters since they run the school house and everything except the 3 SOS and 33 SOS. Both of which are the biggest retention drain on the community; just ask anyone who has been there. Their problem is they have continually brought in former 53 drivers into leadership positions, and they would rather run their people into the ground than tell their leadership the truth. OR they are just that ignorant that they don't understand what they are putting their line flyers through.

[11F]

Gen Welsh and Gen Carlisle (most likely his replacement) are believers in some form of Information Command that will incorporate DCGS, ISR, AOC, C2, cyber, and space (I've probably left something out). This goes back to Lt Gen Deptula's brainchild from years ago. If you ask Welsh or Carlisle, they'll say it's about 8-10 years out. If Hawk takes over as CSAF, they have 5 years to keep the ball moving. Their staffs are already at work on the plans.

[HuggyU2]

This man ... should take the blame.

That's because he was a FAIP.

[Ram]

That's because he was a FAIP.

Don't lump us all in with that guy.

FAIPs are handpicked....

.....like a booger.

Edited July 29, 2015 by Ram

[Champ Kind]

Gen Carlisle (most likely his replacement)

Not Gorenc?

[BFM this]

Droids gave me cancer.https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33569161

[guineapigfury]

Droids gave me cancer.https://www.bbc.com/news/health-33569161

Laugh all you want, but I've never seen as many perma-DNIF folks as I have in RPAs. I can count on one hand (and have a thumb left over) how many line flyers* I know who have done back to back ops tours without having some sort of major medical issue.

*Does not include daywalkers.