Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[Prosuper]

I think this will follow the progression space ops followed. 20 years ago, satellites could only be operated by officers. The next step was allowing enlisted folks to build contacts and run ground systems, but not send commands to satellites. Next enlisted were allowed to send commands with an officer verifying, but they couldn't be vehicle experts or engineers. Now they can send commands, become vehicle experts and engineers, and they are breaking into other mission areas. They are still trying to figure out what to do about having a senior Captain sitting next to an A1C doing exactly the same job, but the point is it's happening right now, and you really can't tell a difference between the two. Young enlisted Airmen in OSS and OGV teach and evaluate Captains on a daily basis. It's pretty common to have a SrA teaching an IQT class full of Captains.

For many career fields, officer vs enlisted matters only in the paycheck. It'll be interesting to see how it all plays out and whether RPAs will follow the space model. With the budget the way it is, why wouldn't the Air Force want to pay half the price for the same result?

It happens the other way too, back in the 90's in AWACS there were enlisted weapons controllers until they decided to make the officers rated and we all know enlisted can't be rated and do the same job. So if drone pilots are rated now does that make it impossible for enlisted to be ever pilots of anything? Another point would it be better to have enlisted pilots who would stay in the job and become very proficient for a long period compared to a officer on the command career track. In a other AFSC's like air traffic controller they have officer controllers but they do the bare minimum to stay qualified due to leadership responsibilities and the enlisted do the heavy lifting so there is the model we need maybe to look at. Compared to Army Aviation the officers fly but just to stay qualified even in the AOR where the CWO's fly the majority of the missions.

[Learjetter]

If we are going to pull officers out of the kill chain when we are employing weapons, or just have them supervise a la GCI, then why are we paying officers to fly our airlift and tanker assets? In WWII we had enlisted pilots, and the Army who flies more aircraft than either the Air Force or the Navy (yes they are helos, but you still have to train their pilots) takes 18 year olds out of high school and trains them to be manned pilots. We should be able to run an enlisted man through UPT and have him fly a C-17 or C-130 or KC-10 with minimal issues. And before the good idea fairy steps out, having Warrants in the AF is a truly horrible idea because you then take all the tactical experience that everyone on this board seems to think is what will make some the next Billy Mitchell and cap them as a DO and you have guys who are gunning to be Generals both on staff and in every echelon of leadership about SQ/CC.

Why are you limiting it to mobility assets? IIRC some WWII "Flying Sergeants" and WAFs flew fighters.

[matmacwc]

I personally think the whole thing can be done by enlisted folks, but the Air Force has this paradigm of "Officers do the killing because airpower is strategic and overarching." For RPAs, I think a paradigm shift is in order.

Not in the least, unless you want your RPAs to wear reflective belts. Officers are usually taught to think outside the box, work in but around the rules, find s new and creative way. Enlisted usually follow a checklist and some obscure regulation none of us have heard of. Open the flying ranks at your risk.

[backseatdriver]

Not in the least, unless you want your RPAs to wear reflective belts. Officers are usually taught to think outside the box, work in but around the rules, find s new and creative way. Enlisted usually follow a checklist and some obscure regulation none of us have heard of. Open the flying ranks at your risk.

Word of this may not have made it to your corner of the pointy-nose world, but there's actually a multitude of enlisted currently serving in the "flying ranks" and surprisingly enough most of them are capable of astounding feats such as thinking outside the box, working in but around rules, and finding new and creative solutions to problems.

[Azimuth]

Not in the least, unless you want your RPAs to wear reflective belts. Officers are usually taught to think outside the box, work in but around the rules, find s new and creative way. Enlisted usually follow a checklist and some obscure regulation none of us have heard of. Open the flying ranks at your risk.

You do realize that there are some aircraft that train O's and E's to fly together and to work together right? Enlisted PJ's, SERE, CCT's, worked just fine for decades before the invention of CRO/STO's. In fact TAMI 21 also took a bunch of shitty staff jobs and converted the grade required from CGO/FGO to SNCO's. Apparently Levitow must have been following a checklist when he jumped on those flares to save the his crew and aircraft winning the MoH. There's no way he could've think outside the box.

Edited August 28, 2013 by Azimuth

[discus]

Not in the least, unless you want your RPAs to wear reflective belts. Officers are usually taught to think outside the box, work in but around the rules, find s new and creative way. Enlisted usually follow a checklist and some obscure regulation none of us have heard of. Open the flying ranks at your risk.

Perhaps some time on the flight line around the SrA or SSgt fixing your jet would do you some good. Go on, hand him a tool or two. Ask some questions, have him show you some tricks he knows... He won't bite and you will walk away with a whole new attitude.

Edit - because the more I read over your post, the more I believe this is perhaps the most asinine, elitist comment I have seen on here in a while.

Edited August 28, 2013 by discus

[LookieRookie]

[Rmarsh]

It happens the other way too, back in the 90's in AWACS there were enlisted weapons controllers until they decided to make the officers rated and we all know enlisted can't be rated and do the same job. So if drone pilots are rated now does that make it impossible for enlisted to be ever pilots of anything? Another point would it be better to have enlisted pilots who would stay in the job and become very proficient for a long period compared to a officer on the command career track. In a other AFSC's like air traffic controller they have officer controllers but they do the bare minimum to stay qualified due to leadership responsibilities and the enlisted do the heavy lifting so there is the model we need maybe to look at. Compared to Army Aviation the officers fly but just to stay qualified even in the AOR where the CWO's fly the majority of the missions.

I get your point, but *allegedly* they made ABM's rated officers so they would have more legal culpability after the blackhawk shoot-down in 1994, after the families of the fallen erroneously sued the wacker pilots.

I personally think the whole thing can be done by enlisted folks, but the Air Force has this paradigm of "Officers do the killing because airpower is strategic and overarching." For RPAs, I think a paradigm shift is in order.

For those discussing enlisted dudes flying RPAs. Is there a reason you believe manned aircraft should be piloted by officers or could they be piloted by enlisted as well? Just wondering what everyones thoughts are and how they draw their lines.

Honestly, this argument seems like a good case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". I don't think they (Big Blue) have a good reason to change the system, and I have no doubt that there are many enlisted folks who could control RPA's just fine and spend a career doing it ala army WO's, but why would they bother to create that whole new paradigm?

*edited for clarity

Edited August 28, 2013 by Rmarsh

[matmacwc]

Yeah, yeah, flame on. Not hating on enlisted (they aren't FAIPs), just trying to point out two different worlds, maybe just a pointy nose thing.

[Azimuth]

maybe just a pointy nose thing.

Checks

[xaarman]

Enlisted creativity while flying isn't fun until they tell you "Don't mind the burning smell, we're soldering back here."

[ak47]

Perhaps some time on the flight line around the SrA or SSgt fixing your jet would do you some good. Go on, hand him a tool or two. Ask some questions, have him show you some tricks he knows... He won't bite and you will walk away with a whole new attitude.

Clearly you've never been around C-5 maintainers.

[Tonka]

Honestly, this argument seems like a good case of "If it isn't broke, don't fix it". I don't think they (Big Blue) have a good reason to change the system, ...but why would they bother to create that whole new paradigm?

$$$(we're just a little broke, and we like to buy expensive stuff)

[Prosuper]

Clearly you've never been around C-5 maintainers.

If I had to work on that Lockheed flying piece of shite I would be in a foul mood also, I'll take Buffs in ND then A C-5 in Dover. Also if your getting attitude you might be talking to dudes at a enroute i.e. Hawaii where its a good place to be broke for mx .In my day we preferred to break at Clark AB. Unlike Bagram where if you get the engines started to get some airspeed over the wings your going. Got nothing but kudos for my 737-400's and NG's I work on now.

[17D_guy]

I spent a decade enlisted before I crossed over into the "O's". Granted all of my time has been in the Comm community, but the cultural differences between the O and E side are very hard for me to describe beyond "more is expected."

Not just leadership, management, or other nebulous words that hold varying meanings. Sure I'd have E's that would stay with me late to work Inspection checklists, but no enlisted person was there as late as all the (non-sh*tbag) officers. Only one enlisted guy (MSgt in my flight) would look ahead more than 2 weeks to see what was coming up that could get the CC slapped. Signing my name to a piece of paper now means more, legally and personally, than it did before. My peers are conscious of their reputations more than my peers when I was enlisted.

Sure, I'd have Amn innovate all day long to get the job done, and work inside/outside the rules, but we're nerds over here and that's what we do: anything for more World of Warcraft time. I never had one who would think into 3rd order effects of what they were doing, which is why they came to talk to me. In fact, I would have SNCO's decide they were going to implement cyber programs that would have destroyed our Sq because they lacked this attitude, or were never instructed in it.

In Cyber MSG side our Amn are the technical experts. I'm highly discouraged to get involved in the actual equipment unless I've got a shoulder monkey watching, past experience be damned. Doesn't mean I couldn't do the work well, it's just not my place. Same for the E's thinking outside the box or other drivel cliche's we're going to use.

In the end, Big Blue wants the Officer attitude and culture in RPA's for some reason.

Edited August 28, 2013 by 17D_guy

[Lord Ratner]

I spent a decade enlisted before I crossed over into the "O's". Granted all of my time has been in the Comm community, but the cultural differences between the O and E side are very hard for me to describe beyond "more is expected."

Not just leadership, management, or other nebulous words that hold varying meanings. Sure I'd have E's that would stay with me late to work Inspection checklists, but no enlisted person was there as late as all the (non-sh*tbag) officers. Only one enlisted guy (MSgt in my flight) would look ahead more than 2 weeks to see what was coming up that could get the CC slapped. Signing my name to a piece of paper now means more, legally and personally, than it did before. My peers are conscious of their reputations more than my peers when I was enlisted.

Sure, I'd have Amn innovate all day long to get the job done, and work inside/outside the rules, but we're nerds over here and that's what we do: anything for more World of Warcraft time. I never had one who would think into 3rd order effects of what they were doing, which is why they came to talk to me. In fact, I would have SNCO's decide they were going to implement cyber programs that would have destroyed our Sq because they lacked this attitude, or were never instructed in it.

In Cyber MSG side our Amn are the technical experts. I'm highly discouraged to get involved in the actual equipment unless I've got a shoulder monkey watching, past experience be damned. Doesn't mean I couldn't do the work well, it's just not my place. Same for the E's thinking outside the box or other drivel cliche's we're going to use.

In the end, Big Blue wants the Officer attitude and culture in RPA's for some reason.

Shhhh. You're ruining the righteous fury of the we're-all-snowflakes crowd with your experience and perspective.

[Rmarsh]

$$$(we're just a little broke, and we like to buy expensive stuff)

I get that, but switching RPA pilots from Officers to Enlisted just to save some salary money seems like nickel & diming to me, But I'm not a finance officer. I supose they could buy another expensive toy or two with the savings.

[Tonka]

I get that, but switching RPA pilots from Officers to Enlisted just to save some salary money seems like nickel & diming to me, But I'm not a finance officer. I supose they could buy another expensive toy or two with the savings.

Conservative savings estimate 1000 pilots?, $30,000/year salary delta = $30mill/year -> 15 years->$1/2Billion... couple in retirement costs, bah, exponential growth of # of required operators, etc... + you solve the promotion problem, help the fighter pilot shortage, get more in line with the other services, and perhaps ease the upcoming RIF(s) effect on the O side.

I would argue you would also need fewer operators overall since they won't have 20 additional duties, spend 1+ year at SOS, ACSC, AAD, career broadening, etc... just spit balling.

[guineapigfury]

Conservative savings estimate 1000 pilots?, $30,000/year salary delta = $30mill/year -> 15 years->$1/2Billion... couple in retirement costs, bah, exponential growth of # of required operators, etc... + you solve the promotion problem, help the fighter pilot shortage, get more in line with the other services, and perhaps ease the upcoming RIF(s) effect on the O side.

I would argue you would also need fewer operators overall since they won't have 20 additional duties, spend 1+ year at SOS, ACSC, AAD, career broadening, etc... just spit balling.

The real savings aren't in turning Os into Es, but Es into Civs on the support side. All those finance and MSG airmen who can accomplish 100% of their tasks from a computer: turn em into GS-whatevers. 30 years to retirement is perfectly reasonable for clerks, and we can stop paying for GI Bill, TA, PCS costs, etc. As an added bonus, you'll reduce turnover and thus make them more efficient since they'll just repeat the same tasks for a couple decades in a row. Also, if they aren't in uniform I bet we'll find a way to leave them at home for the next fight, saving on deployment costs.

[brabus]

Then you end up with even more civilians who you can't fire no matter how shitty they are, don't give a fuck about doing a good job yet you can't really hold their feet to the fire, hide behind contracts the second you ask them do something you need, etc.

Sure we have similar problems with the shoe universe, but despite all their bullshit, they still wear a uniform and can be told what to do with in constraints of the law, can be told to suck it up and do X with no fight about over-time, etc. Sure they hide behind regs, but 9/10 times they're wrong and you can call them on it after < 6.9 min of CTRL+F. Is it frustrating, hell yes. But you have more options when dealing with a lazy shoe in uniform than you do dealing with a lazy shoe wearing a polo.

Caveat: I know several great civilian employees and this isn't a slam on all of them. But, unfortunately many I've been in contact with are akin to the worst shoes, but more "untouchable."

Edited August 30, 2013 by brabus

[17D_guy]

Conservative savings estimate 1000 pilots?...

Awesome, who then advocates for RPA's at higher levels? Both in and out of the AF? Who guides the acquisition and acts on behalf of the Air Force in addressing operational concerns of a higher level than tactical? When the Army CC is demanding action, who goes to bat for the AF?

The real savings aren't in turning Os into Es, but Es into Civs on the support side...

As Brabus pointed out you're not improving service, you're simply changing out one set of problems for another. They've heavily civilianized the Comm Sq's. Now I have Amn that can't get trained in certain areas since that's a civilian position, or contractor position. My civilians don't deploy, so automatically I've got a morale problem. Additionally the civilians are almost entirely Ex-military (most AF) of some rank and think the Amn/NCO's work for them. Doesn't matter we're 1/2 the size of the force from when they got out. They still want my guys building desks when they get FY funds for new furniture.

I'm convinced most of the problems we're seeing with support in finance aren't due to bad Amn. It's bad training, removal of their ability to actually help you due to power consolidation, and workload/shortages preventing them from becoming experts. Yes, there's always bad Amn but problems this long speak to something else besides recruiting dirtbags continuously just in finance/MPF.

[Tonka]

Awesome, who then advocates for RPA's at higher levels?

You still have supervision, you still have Os that are experts. I wouldn't buy that as a valid argument.

I'm not necessarily advocating the swap (I don't know enough about what is required for the job). I was just pointing out that it is not just a nickel and dime idea.

From an outsiders perspective: reverse the logic and determine why an Officer is not driving (or at least being required to be operating): Tanks, MRAPs, Army Helos, Army UAVs, Boats, Subs, etc... How was it determined that those skills/responsibilities should not be forced on an O? Is it the cost of weapon? The potential impact of errors? The skill set?

[17D_guy]

From an outsiders perspective: reverse the logic and determine why an Officer is not driving (or at least being required to be operating): Tanks, MRAPs, Army Helos, Army UAVs, Boats, Subs, etc... How was it determined that those skills/responsibilities should not be forced on an O? Is it the cost of weapon? The potential impact of errors? The skill set?

Oh, I thought we were talking about the Air Force RPAs. I mean if we're going to base it off other services, why need a college degree for commission (Army), where's Officer Country (Navy) and why not 2 different PT tests a year (Marines)? Doesn't matter what other services do. We aren't on boats, and we don't count the people as equipment.

We're the Air Force. We do things different because we are different.

Have you spent extended time (yr+) joint? Using the Army as an example is...questionable at best.

Again - In the end, Big Blue wants the Officer attitude and culture in RPA's.

That and pilots only listen to other dudes/chicks in flight suits.

[ThreeHoler]

Officers may not be physically driving ships or subs, but the 18 year old helmsman sure isn't there to make critical decisions.

[338skybolt]

This could go in a handful of threads, I'll put it here: ERAU offers new masters program in drone warfare https://nypost.com/2013/09/17/college-to-offer-masters-degree-in-drone-warefare/?utm_source=SFnewyorkpost&utm_medium=SFnewyorkpost