Pilotless planes could save airlines billions
08-09-2017, 08:08 AM
#51
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
You're speaking from ignorance here bud. Don't get mad, you simply don't know what you don't know. Get a few hundred hours flying armed ISR, CAS, convoy overwatch, or a SOF infil in the reaper where lives on the ground are truly at immediate risk and are depending on you for their survival and success, and then come back here talking about video games.
Heck, try flying one of the special payloads costing millions, identified as critical assets that we only have one or two of in the entire force, and take it to a high priority tasking near a thunderstorm with only a tiny crappy camera to look through and avoid weather that will crash the plane in an instant. Do that a hundred times with a one of a kind payload, then come back and tell everyone how it wasn't any different than playing COD with the bros and required no airmanship.
Seriously, there are ANG and AFR units hiring for MQ-9 positions, and most of them won't have to deploy. Give it a shot, come back and let us know how easy or casual you found the job.
USAF enlisted members are, if I recall correctly, being trained only to fly the global hawk. That platform is significantly more automated than the MQ-1, MQ-9, and several other platforms. Even with the automation, I highly doubt that the opportunity to crash a "platform" worth over $100 mil is equivalent to playing a video game in the minds of anyone who actually does that for a living.
Heck, try flying one of the special payloads costing millions, identified as critical assets that we only have one or two of in the entire force, and take it to a high priority tasking near a thunderstorm with only a tiny crappy camera to look through and avoid weather that will crash the plane in an instant. Do that a hundred times with a one of a kind payload, then come back and tell everyone how it wasn't any different than playing COD with the bros and required no airmanship.
Seriously, there are ANG and AFR units hiring for MQ-9 positions, and most of them won't have to deploy. Give it a shot, come back and let us know how easy or casual you found the job.
USAF enlisted members are, if I recall correctly, being trained only to fly the global hawk. That platform is significantly more automated than the MQ-1, MQ-9, and several other platforms. Even with the automation, I highly doubt that the opportunity to crash a "platform" worth over $100 mil is equivalent to playing a video game in the minds of anyone who actually does that for a living.
08-09-2017, 09:18 AM
#53
You scratched my anchor
Joined APC: Feb 2011
Posts: 4,967
08-09-2017, 10:06 AM
#54
Banned
Joined APC: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,473
08-09-2017, 10:46 PM
#55
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Sep 2016
Posts: 774
The fact is, the military is already doing it. R and D already has taken place. That it the biggest cost. Any costs you have mentioned will be weighed against savings. The industry will defer some of those costs to the government in the form of ATC reform. Management will always view labor as an expense and not an asset. And the flying public could care less. As long as they Save a dollar on a ticket....
08-10-2017, 07:48 AM
#56
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,197
You completely missed the point here bud. There is a very big difference between being in the aircraft having your own life on the line, and sitting in a bunker, or comfortable office, and knowing no matter how bad you may screw up, you still get to go home, have dinner and tuck your kids into bed, and kiss you spouse goodnight. I never inferred the job was unimportant, or even easy. But it is vastly different, with vastly different personal consequences.
GF
08-10-2017, 10:27 AM
#58
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,067
You need work on your reading comprehension my friend. Even though you quoted it, you obviously missed where I said "I never inferred the job was unimportant, or even easy." So we can dismiss your comment accusing me of thinking it is easy. I also did not say there are no consequences. What I said was "But it is vastly different, with vastly different personal consequences." Again, even though you quoted it, you clearly did not read it. So please, read all of what I said and have a clear understanding before you accuse me of something. And yes, the potential loss of your own life is VASTLY different than potentially causing someone else to lose their life. Especially if those other people are unknown to you and live on the other side of the planet.
08-10-2017, 05:10 PM
#59
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: May 2010
Position: Baja Vermont
Posts: 5,197
You're way off base, NEDude.. Unless you know some suicides from combat-related PTSD, you underestimate the potential personal consequences of being a military UAV operator. Your the one in need something greater than reading comprehension--understanding of what you are typing. I did nit accuse you of anything other than being rather blasé about UAV ops.
Read the excerpt of your post that I highlighted, it sounds like being a drone pilot is without without consequences or a price. Finally, I speak from experience having survived a military head-on mid-air collision in an A-10
GF
Read the excerpt of your post that I highlighted, it sounds like being a drone pilot is without without consequences or a price. Finally, I speak from experience having survived a military head-on mid-air collision in an A-10
GF
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
