LivingInMEM

I already disavowed the SNAP thing.

My reply has nothing to do with disagreeing on UAV's - I actually agree with him that UAV time is not thought of as being the same as flying time. My response was a reaction to the impression I got that from the tone of the post - there is no shortage of USAF pilots who have no problem talking about how great they are and how dangerous what they do is (no shortage at Nellis AFB - I see them nearly every day during flag season) while dudes on the ground are doing amazing things on a daily basis just to stay alive over in OEF. As I said, I have many issues with the execution of the RPV mission as it stands now - but not "putting their lives on the line" is not one of them. In today's war where our ground dudes are dying every day, the fighter guy calling out the RPV dude for not "risking his life" would be pretty humorous if it wasn't so petty.

Saying they should not be logging flight time is not the same as saying When we go against the Chinese hoards, that'll be a different story - but right now on the whole, our job isn't that dangerous relatively speaking.

But, I have been thinking about this logging of flight time thing - I have not really given it much thought before. Knowing how things go and how government administrators work - I can see this large RPV flight time counting in the distant future, not that I am an advocate of that. You just have to remember that some lawyer or lobbyist will petition some third-party administrator or arbitrator to rule on an interpretation of the rules - in the end, it won't be up to the pilots.

The logging of flight time has nothing to do with putting your life on the line whether it be combat or an ILS, regardless of what anyone here thinks. If it did, the passengers would log that time also - besides, how much is your life on the line for that extra 5 minutes of taxi time that the USAF guys log, or the Tachometer time spent on the ground that the civilians log (or block-block, etc). The whole purpose of logging flight time is to show the practical application of using decision-making skills and judgement in the dynamic environment of aviation. Flying is a skill that is gained through practical application vice reading about it in a book - logged flight time generically equaled experience gained. Today's larger RPV's (not the small LOS models) have all of the facets of manned aviation with the exception of the man in the cockpit - they talk to ATC (take vectors/descent/etc) and comply with all of the clearances and FAR's and have the same flight characteristics as any other multi-thousand pound aircraft and the pilots are doing the EXACT same mental gymnastics and exercising the same hand-eye/motor skills as the traditional pilots. If today's pilots can log flight time for watching the autopilot take them from liftoff to touchdown, so can the RPV pilot - or so they will argue. Every aviation-related decision that an autopilot operator makes is also made by an RPV pilot. If you think of it, the logging of flight time has taken a distinct turn from what it meant 40 years ago - back then, time logged was time at the controls. It will likely take another turn in the future.

USMCFLYR

[QUOTE]What is a SNAP? This must be an AF term.


As you have disavowed the SNAP comment - 1S/1E has already explained how his comment had nothing to do with combat but flying in general.
Please let this line go or I'm going to have to close the thread. I suggested before starting a new thread if you wanted to have a different discussion. Saying the same thing over and over again is just wasting trons in cyberspace.

USMCFLYR

Slice

SNAP = Sensitive New Age Pilot

USMCFLYR

Though your point about flying the enitre flight on autopilot and a UAV might have some common ground - some of the UAVs that I have seen are flown by point and click of the mouse - it will not be the same when passengers are sitting in the seats and the operator is 1,000 miles away in a trailer. If the law making bodies are going to allow that time to count for flying jobs then I'd like to see them to be the first passengers

USMCFLYR

LivingInMEM

I know (even though it's still not a factor in logging time), I was answering Sputnik who thought my answer was motivated by a defense of the RPV.

SNAP = sensitive new-age pilot

They are not all that way, that's why I differentiated. Besides, point-click of a mouse is different than typing on an FMS or dialing in an altitude how? Many new corporate jets and airliners use a mouse/trackball setup. Whether twisting knobs on an FCP or typing in values into a screen, you are still managing an aviation system vs flying - if they put a 777 FCP/FMS in to a GCS, would that make it more like flying?

Pred pilots mostly fly an FMS-style flight plan but hand-fly for weapons employment and takeoff/landing. Reaper pilots spend a lot of their time in sort of an altitude-hold mode where they fly the aircraft in roll and also hand-fly most weapons employment and takeoff/landing. Global Hawk is pretty much all autoflight - no manual option. Pred guys and certainly Reaper dudes spend more time "hand-flying" than most any large glass-cockpit pilot out there.

I am opposed to his new Beta track that allows non-pilots to fly USAF RPV's, so I don't have much for guys getting flying experience through RPV's alone. However, an experienced RPV pilot probably can't be any worse than what some of those pay-for-training places were producing (ouch - that's a whole nother discussion).

ExAF

Can I add my RC model airplane time to my logbook? How about the model planes with the handheld control lines? How about that little helicopter on the rod with the battery in it? Technically that is flying too.

Don't get me wrong. UAVs are critical to today's operations and will only become more prominent in the future. However it is not flying time, it is remote control operation of an aircraft. Log the time separately, but definitely log it.

LivingInMEM

Ex-AF,

Nobody is logging UAV time as flight time right now - but, if we are going to discuss it, what differentiates UAV time and flight time except for where the pilot sits and why is that important to the process?

Typical response on this board is just like yours - throw out an improper analogy. Critical thought, never heard of it. Everyone says that remote flying is not flying, but no one cares to articulate why - I am sure your response to a rules making process would carry much weight.

UAV pilots don't stand in a field and fly an airplane by looking at it. They sit at a set of controls that function not much different than today's fly-by-wire controls, they look through a monitor instead of a window (just like the hyper-sonic airplanes envisioned will do - no windows - I bet they would have still considered that flying), they talk via an aircraft radio to ATC, they fly the aircraft either manually or through an autoflight system, they comply with all clearances and FAR's, they avoid weather, etc, and except for the Global Hawk all takeoffs and landings are done manually (takeoffs and landings are not required to log flight time in manned aircraft anyway). EVERY decision a manned-aircraft pilot has to make, a RPV pilot has to make. Since someone started the discussion, I'd be interested in the REAL arguments of why it won't be considered loggable time in the future.

As I said before, nowhere in the original intent of why pilots were required to log time was the fact that the pilot had to sit in the aircraft - he only had to manipulate the controls. The only reason the pilot always sat in the aircraft is because that is where technology has required him to sit. When it comes to an administrative law judge or an administrator, they will require someone show them that limitation in the regulations.

I am not saying they should log it, but I am capable of envisioning what a likely argument would be if they wanted to change the process. That's how you come up with a counter-argument that is articulate and not based on emotion or reliant on you saying "because they shouldn't."

ExAF

I agree in the future one might be able to log UAV time as flying time. My response was an answer to the question asked as it stands TODAY. Wasn't really trying to make a case one way or the other. I guess the "improper analogy" depends on your opinion/point of view. My personal opinion is that where the person does the manipulation of the controls has EVERYTHING to do with whether the time is logged as flying time or not. You know what they say about opinions though. As far as a logical argument goes...you can do all of the afore-mentioned UAV flying things on a PC with MS Flightsim. Should we allow anyone with Flightsim to log flying time? I know the next argument is that airline pilots do initial qual in a flight simulator. They do, but they already have a pilot license of some sort and have already flown (in an aircraft) to get that license. They also do not log flight time while in said simulator. It is logged as simulator time and does not count towards flight time either. You really do make a good argument for your cause and some day it may be so. You convinced me. Now all you have to do is convince the FAA/ICAO. Someday we may see logbooks with a category for UAV or remotely piloted time mixed in with total time. Believe it or not, I don't really care one way or the other. I do feel like that time should be differentiated though. A UAV pilot does not have deal with or even know about the physiological aspects of flying in an aircraft such as hypoxia, air sickness, GLOC, spacial disorientation, rapid decompression, smoke in cockpit/cabin, etc. Also, I think anyone who has actually flown an aircraft will always say it is still remarkably different experience than flying a simulator or UAV. Please don't take this with a confrontational tone as none is meant. Cheers...ExAF

1Seat 1Engine

I think we already covered that.

I ask myself, why is it that the most exciting and realistic simulator that I ever did (like the 4vx sims at Willie) pale in comparison to the most boring actual flight where I was at the controls?

Have you not had the same experience?

Critical reading would be a good subject to broach also. I think many on this thread have articulated why UAV flying is fundamentally not the same as real. You've ignored their reason or attacked them. Consider that they might be right or that you've skimmed over the answer.

Do you really think the sensation of actually being in a hypersonic aircraft and running the throttles up to max would be somehow analogous to sitting at 1 g on the ground?

I'll say it again. If the hypersonic aircraft comes apart inflight, you die. There's other intangibles like operating in a non 1-g environment. I've never had spacial D on the ground (without the help of alcohol) but I've had it plenty of times in the air.

Ask yourself; do you want to get on an airliner that has a pilot that's never actually left the ground? Or do you want to ride in an airliner where the guy upfront shares and takes ultimate responsibility for your risks. Or at least has the experience of actually being in an airplane.

We all know the answer.

LivingInMEM

I have read the responses critically. I don't think that they should log flight time, but I have been accused of supporting the equivalency of the two flight times. The most common argument against it on this board is "they just shouldn't". The only real argument that has been made is "their lives are not on the line." I hear what you are saying, I don't think that the "lives on the line" argument is pertinent to the issue.

Flying is not about putting your life on the line, it is about the operation of a heavier-than-air piece of metal in a 3-dimensional sea of air and all of the distinctions that go with it. What distinguishes passengers from pilots - because the ONE thing they have in common is that they are all putting their lives on the line? If putting your life on the line was far and away the most significant requirement for logging time, the pax would be filling out their logbook as well.

The USAF has already started to replace required flight time with sim time. The European bubbas have already floated a training program that puts people directly into the right seat of an airliner after a sim-only training program - no flight time and in the right seat of a Part-121 equivalent carrier. Ex-AF may joke about MS Flight Sim, but a lack of fidelity has always been the limfac with logging flight time - as the fidelity crosses a certain threshold, the distinction will go away. As it is, you can update landing currency in a sim and get a type rating - do we really think it will stop there?

I don't really care about this issue, but I'd like to see articulate answers from the pilot group every once in a while. "Because" is the favorite answer as to why or why not here - eventually, we'll learn. After Age 65, the loss of pensions, the weakening of scope clauses, the eventual loss of cabotage protection, etc, etc we'll find that the argument of emotion doesn't carry much weight.

Eventually, RPV technology will make into law enforcement agencies, cargo companies, traffic/news, etc. Even airlines will eventually get there - there used to be a time when people would have told you that they would never ride on a train/subway without a driver. At first, the operators will hire both traditional pilots for the manned aircraft and RPV pilots for the RPV systems. Eventually, they will decide it's time to eliminate the distinction and will pressure the gov't to acknowledge the flight time of the RPV guys (by that time, the autoflight technology of RPV's and aircraft will be the same) and certify their ratings based on that time. All that will need to happen is for the RPV to be categorized as an "aircraft" - read the FAR's, they won't even have to be re-worded. Then, the companies will create a single pay scale that is a marginal increase over the RPV pay scale but a big pay cut from the traditional Capt pay and have the ability to flow the pilots freely from one system to another. And the pilots will have watched their profession erode one more step.