Azimuth Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) The RPA route is a reason why the USAF needs to bring back Warrant Officers. However the USAF has a big anti-Warrant Officer sentiment, much like allowing Enlisted to fly RPA's. Somehow we can refuel aircraft in the air, load Abrams tanks on a C-5, calculate TOLD and be a systems expert on a CV-22, and fly as airborne linguists speaking Russian, Arabic, or Chinese...but we can't pilot RPA's. Edited June 7, 2015 by Azimuth
busdriver Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 At the risk of derailing this thread; we just had this discussion at work recently: what makes RPAs different than every other aircraft in the Air Force? Why are enlisted or WO pilots ok there but not in F-16s? At the end of the day I think the sticking point isn't can person X be a pilot, both have been in the past; but rather what does that mean for the personnel system, the AF leadership system, squadron dynamic and culture?
xcraftllc Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) (Yeah we might need to take this to another thread). Basically, the Army's argument is that enlisted UAS guys are fine because they are essentially always under the supervision and leadership of an officer in some capacity (usually in the form of some kind of mission commander type at the UAS control station, sometimes that's a warrant officer). Actual manned platforms are basically commanding themselves, therefore you need at least a warrant officer. I think the same argument can be applied to the big blue. Basically manned aircraft need to have officers (people with higher education and leadership training), but as long as there is an officer present, enlisted personnel can operate drones. Edited June 7, 2015 by xcraftllc
fox two Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 The UPT direct UAV pipeline is about to open back up according to the CSAF. Link?
guineapigfury Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Here's the reality: For an enlisted guy, flying a drone is cool, something to be proud of. If they get to do it, they feel accomplished and will likely continue to serve. ... Guinneapig fury, I agree with making the guard/reserve units that are already flying drones more active in order to fill gaps but if you are suggesting that more guard units be converted then of course I think you're wrong. We're basically a Total Force now and one of the only ways that the AF has been able to stop some of its best pilots from leaving is by letting them palace chase to guard units. The guard is more active than ever, and the AF cannot meet its mission requirements without the help. ... EDIT: Grammar I don't think putting enlisted folks in the left seat is going to be any more beneficial to their retention than keeping them in the right seat. SO retention is appalling and they already have a "cool job" that they should be proud of. My opinion is that the novelty of flying RPAs would wear off about halfway through that second mids rotation (just like it does for the 18X's). Then they'd be even more disgruntled than your officer pilots because they're making half as much money for the same work. I could be wrong. I think the ANG/ARC should get this mission because they're better at taking care of people. The inherent sucks of flying RPAs are so unmitigatable that we need a powerful counter. AGR being the new normal for RPA crews just might do the trick. Stand up a new squadron in every state that doesn't have a CAP and we'd go a long way toward fixing the problem. Or hire some contractors to take over this mission. Just my two cents.
scoobs Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Why do you think the guys flying Uav's in the Army are happier then the AF? Different environment with different rules? Did everyone who went from a fighter to Rpa end up back in a manned aircraft?
Breckey Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 It probably has to do with how they're utilized (ie unit owned vs COCOM). There was a post on the Army's UAV control a couple months back but I can't find it.
guineapigfury Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 Why do you think the guys flying Uav's in the Army are happier then the AF? Different environment with different rules? Did everyone who went from a fighter to Rpa end up back in a manned aircraft? My guess is that they're happier because they aren't doing Remote Split Ops. My understanding is they deploy as a unit and fly from downrange*. So when they're home ... they're home. Contrast that with the USAF's planned RPA career path of being deployed in garrison doing shiftwork for 20 years with the only possible break being instructing at the FTU in Alamogordo. Ugh. Also, at this point if you see a guy in an RPA squadron with real wings, he probably flew heavies or bombers. I've been doing this bullshit for 3 years and my previous squadron got exactly one guy direct from fighters, and he was medically unable to continue flying fighters. Out of a hundred or so pilots, we had about 5 with a fighter background. It might have been different at other locations. I've been at Holloman for several months and I have not seen a single fighter dude coming through as a student unless he's going to a Guard or Reserve unit. Lot's of 18Xers, heavies pilots, MC-12 people and a sampling of bomber dudes. I have seen noone go back to manned flying. *Someone correct me if I'm wrong on this.
Herk Driver Posted June 7, 2015 Posted June 7, 2015 (edited) It's pretty unnerving reading this thread. I'm very relieved that I went guard when I made the switch to the AF. Army flight school was stressful, and I managed to come out on top and get what I want, but at least I didn't have to worry about stuff like this! The Army doesn't do very many things right with regards to aviation, but one of the things it nailed is the way it handles its UAS (RPA) program. The program always was, is, and always will be completely separate from regular flight school, and the operators are enlisted. That's not to say they let any old joe fly a Grey Eagle, they have high standards for applicants. Here's the reality: For an enlisted guy, flying a drone is cool, something to be proud of. If they get to do it, they feel accomplished and will likely continue to serve. No one goes to the Academy or puts all their life's time, money, and energy into getting into flight school to go RPA. This is a life commitment, we grew up our whole lives dreaming about flying and working hard to earn a career in the field. So, correct me if I am wrong but the Army enlisted guys don't fly this thing to landing, right? It has an auto land system. So are you talking about maneuvering it around targets or something else? Edited June 8, 2015 by Herk Driver
xcraftllc Posted June 8, 2015 Posted June 8, 2015 (edited) To my understanding they actually do the takeoff and landing portions too (for the Grey Eagles anyway, I think they have a net system for one of the small ones). They deploy with their equipment and have an option to use direct line of sight control. What I mean by the "mission commander type" is an officer at the control facility who is there to supervise, call the shots, takeover if necessary, etc. Again this is just my understanding from what I've heard talking to the guys who were deployed with us. Seriously though, didn't mean to derail the thread! Edited June 11, 2015 by xcraftllc
Herk Driver Posted June 11, 2015 Posted June 11, 2015 (edited) To my understanding they actually do the takeoff and landing portions too (for the Grey Eagles anyway, I think they have a net system for one of the small ones). They deploy with their equipment and have an option to use direct line of sight control. What I mean by the "mission commander type" is an officer at the control facility who is there to supervise, call the shots, takeover if necessary, etc. Again this is just my understanding from what I've heard talking to the guys who were deployed with us. Seriously though, didn't mean to derail the thread!I'm deployed at a location with the Gray Eagle now. The enlisted dude pushes a button and this thing auto lands. It flies a programmed flight path as well. No one physically flies it to landing or for a go-around. Take offs, IDK. I asked who was landing one that was inbound as an emergency landing and the info above came straight from the unit commander. Edited June 11, 2015 by Herk Driver
scoobs Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 (edited) I'm deployed at a location with the Gray Eagle now. The enlisted dude pushes a button and this thing auto lands. It flies a programmed flight path as well. No one physically flies it to landing or for a go-around. Is that different than the AF? Edited June 12, 2015 by scoobs 3
guineapigfury Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Is that different than the AF? Yes. The Air Force deploys a relatively small number of crews to launch and recover our RPAs.
Ram Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Is that different than the AF? Over 1200 posts and still... no one knows what the hell you are doing here. Squawk IDENT and go with AFSC. 3 1
Sim Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I'm deployed at a location with the Gray Eagle now. The enlisted dude pushes a button and this thing auto lands. It flies a programmed flight path as well. No one physically flies it to landing or for a go-around. Take offs, IDK. I asked who was landing one that was inbound as an emergency landing and the info above came straight from the unit commander. Last time I checked (3 years ago) they have few civilians on standby in case of emergency and/or winds/autoland issues.
Herk Driver Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Last time I checked (3 years ago) they have few civilians on standby in case of emergency and/or winds/autoland issues. This was an emergency and it was auto landed. They were worried about lots of issues that night and were specifically asked to put their best "pilot" at the controls...they told me that it was not physically flown to the runway...they had to override multiple system defaults just to get it to take the command to auto land...YMMV
scoobs Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 Yes. The Air Force deploys a relatively small number of crews to launch and recover our RPAs. I meant flying a predetermined route. 3
herkbum Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I meant flying a predetermined route. What predetermined route?
Kenny Powers Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 If only there was a thread where we could talk about drones... 2
Ram Posted June 12, 2015 Posted June 12, 2015 I meant flying a predetermined route. Squawk IDENT and go with AFSC. 2
matmacwc Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 No, there was a correction for a while. Starting around 2013, unless you recatted or went to WIC, you got an assignment out of RPAs as an 11F. But like everyone else, I see big AF about to ignore its recent lessons learned. Small window of opportunity. Sure some guys went back to a fighter, as a Major or Major select with 200 hours and as a wingman. Have fun as a non-vol to MC-12s, they were fodder.
guineapigfury Posted June 13, 2015 Posted June 13, 2015 Small window of opportunity. Sure some guys went back to a fighter, as a Major or Major select with 200 hours and as a wingman. Have fun as a non-vol to MC-12s, they were fodder. And now we're seeing a major influx of MC-12 guys at the MQ-9 FTU.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now