AF announces RPA pilot training pipeline
06-21-2010, 07:35 PM
#31
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2005
Position: 777 FO
Posts: 931
How high and mighty so many of you are - you're so brave flying around in your dangerous airplanes. Your arguments are either they shouldn't get fly pay because they aren't as brave as you are (as if it's coming out of your pocket - don't give me that taxpayer dollar line) or they should get it because it will get volunteers into the career so they don't need pilots. If Fly Pay was for being brave and daring to fly, why are there gates to continue getting the pay after the flying is done - is it for reaching a specific level of cumulative bravery? Why does Fly Pay increase, then decrease, with years of aviation service? If it's all about being "brave", why do the pilots get Fly Pay when the passengers don't - are they more brave than the passengers - everyone's life is on the line the same?
CAFB - really - spot on? Give me a break. For the record, that F-16 pilot in the link above was getting hazardous incentive pay for "being in danger" - the Fly Pay was for being a pilot and exercising a specific skill set. Although the Army has due to what/where they fly, the USAF has not had a single combat loss involving aircraft in either theater since the conflict started (that may change depending on what we determine from the latest helicopter loss). All of the USAF losses have involved other factors such as CFIT, etc. The air-air threat is non-existent and the grd-air threat is currently minimal (the Hog has increased exposure in one of the theaters - and even that is low). You all act as if you are the same as the pilots who flew in the Pacific in WWII, or the AAF pilots who flew string and wire aircraft in 1920. Every one of you knows that you are more likely to die on the drive to work than you are in flight - we've probably lost more pilots in off-duty mishaps than on-duty over the last 5 years. The SAFEST place in either theater is in the air (high in the air where the USAF flies) - the worst place is on the roads exposed to IEDs. As a matter of fact, the large (make that LARGE) majority of USAF injuries/losses have been to the ground forces - specifically EOD and those involved in convoy ops. You want my respect for your bravery - go do that job and take as much pay as you want.
The biggest threat today is being punished/prosecuted/held liable for the mis-employment of weapons. I've flown in combat - the toughest part of combat in modern times is ensuring that you had done everything right when you pressed the pickle button/trigger (specifically with respect to CAS). Knowing 100% that the wrong people weren't going to die as a result of your buffoonery. Having to decide whether that little feeling in the back of your mind is enough to prevent you from dropping when the JTAC is trying to do everything he can to drop because his guys are getting attacked, now that is tough. CYA in today's political environment vs having to decide if US troops will suffer from you not dropping.
Those RPA crews that you scoff have employed more weapons individually than most any other crews. If you keep up with the times, they are being burdened now not with just the responsibility of the weapons they employ, but also what they say or don't say that leads to other weapons being employed. No "flying" aircrew has been sacrificed for mis-ID or mis-statement like they are talking about doing for the RPA crews. RPA crews are providing the only CAS/ISR support for MANY of the troops on the ground. They are employing weapons, detecting threats, pointing out said threats, engaging said threats, providing C2 conduits, etc all in support of the ground troop. And they are being tasked with maintaining more battlefield SA than any other US asset to date.
Also, for those who fly over there, these MQ-1/9s are in the same stacks as you, flying in the same keypads as you, and transiting to the same airfields you use. Pushing to lower the qualification level of those who fly the RPA is not what I'd call a move for self-preservation. You can give a supply officer all of the training in the world, but he will never know exactly how critical it is to fly the parameters because he will have never been on the other side at personal risk from deviations. He won't inherently know how to get/stay out of the way of aircraft in the stack setting up to employ while still providing the appropriate level of support to the GFC or troops on the ground.
The reality is that, with respect to the MQ-1/9, the RPA pilot "flies" the aircraft just as much as any other airborne asset. I've got close to 5,000 hours in anything from trainers to heavies to fighters (Form-8's in 7 different military aircraft - not just A, B, C, etc designator differences), so I know what flying entails. I know that the 18XX career field is coming - just because our short-sighted USAF leadership created it does not mean it's right. I know that it's the guy on the ground that will suffer from the lack of support they will get as a result. And I know that I care more about the guy on the ground than I do about some pilot whining about having to go "fly" a GCS for 3 years while troops on the ground are still dying.
CAFB - really - spot on? Give me a break. For the record, that F-16 pilot in the link above was getting hazardous incentive pay for "being in danger" - the Fly Pay was for being a pilot and exercising a specific skill set. Although the Army has due to what/where they fly, the USAF has not had a single combat loss involving aircraft in either theater since the conflict started (that may change depending on what we determine from the latest helicopter loss). All of the USAF losses have involved other factors such as CFIT, etc. The air-air threat is non-existent and the grd-air threat is currently minimal (the Hog has increased exposure in one of the theaters - and even that is low). You all act as if you are the same as the pilots who flew in the Pacific in WWII, or the AAF pilots who flew string and wire aircraft in 1920. Every one of you knows that you are more likely to die on the drive to work than you are in flight - we've probably lost more pilots in off-duty mishaps than on-duty over the last 5 years. The SAFEST place in either theater is in the air (high in the air where the USAF flies) - the worst place is on the roads exposed to IEDs. As a matter of fact, the large (make that LARGE) majority of USAF injuries/losses have been to the ground forces - specifically EOD and those involved in convoy ops. You want my respect for your bravery - go do that job and take as much pay as you want.
The biggest threat today is being punished/prosecuted/held liable for the mis-employment of weapons. I've flown in combat - the toughest part of combat in modern times is ensuring that you had done everything right when you pressed the pickle button/trigger (specifically with respect to CAS). Knowing 100% that the wrong people weren't going to die as a result of your buffoonery. Having to decide whether that little feeling in the back of your mind is enough to prevent you from dropping when the JTAC is trying to do everything he can to drop because his guys are getting attacked, now that is tough. CYA in today's political environment vs having to decide if US troops will suffer from you not dropping.
Those RPA crews that you scoff have employed more weapons individually than most any other crews. If you keep up with the times, they are being burdened now not with just the responsibility of the weapons they employ, but also what they say or don't say that leads to other weapons being employed. No "flying" aircrew has been sacrificed for mis-ID or mis-statement like they are talking about doing for the RPA crews. RPA crews are providing the only CAS/ISR support for MANY of the troops on the ground. They are employing weapons, detecting threats, pointing out said threats, engaging said threats, providing C2 conduits, etc all in support of the ground troop. And they are being tasked with maintaining more battlefield SA than any other US asset to date.
Also, for those who fly over there, these MQ-1/9s are in the same stacks as you, flying in the same keypads as you, and transiting to the same airfields you use. Pushing to lower the qualification level of those who fly the RPA is not what I'd call a move for self-preservation. You can give a supply officer all of the training in the world, but he will never know exactly how critical it is to fly the parameters because he will have never been on the other side at personal risk from deviations. He won't inherently know how to get/stay out of the way of aircraft in the stack setting up to employ while still providing the appropriate level of support to the GFC or troops on the ground.
The reality is that, with respect to the MQ-1/9, the RPA pilot "flies" the aircraft just as much as any other airborne asset. I've got close to 5,000 hours in anything from trainers to heavies to fighters (Form-8's in 7 different military aircraft - not just A, B, C, etc designator differences), so I know what flying entails. I know that the 18XX career field is coming - just because our short-sighted USAF leadership created it does not mean it's right. I know that it's the guy on the ground that will suffer from the lack of support they will get as a result. And I know that I care more about the guy on the ground than I do about some pilot whining about having to go "fly" a GCS for 3 years while troops on the ground are still dying.
Seems most who are criticizing the UAS career field are looking through the prism of "how does this affect me?" Do they get the same pay, prestige, awards that I get? Do they get to wear wings? How does that make my wings look? Flight suits?? Whaat? Next thing you know they'll wear leather jackets like mine! The nerve! In truth, many of you sound like 8th graders. The real questions should be about what they bring to the fight, will they make us better, and what can they do for the warfighter on the ground. Across the board, UAS' are doing a fantastic job in the AOR and have become a major player. Sorry if you don't like it, but change is a constant. Deal with it.
06-21-2010, 08:50 PM
#32
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Deuce - I was going from memory (and speaking of USAF aircraft only). BTW - I have great respect for those who fly all forward-firing ordnance aircraft in theater, if for the liability they face in the event of employing weapons if nothing else.
Need a very recent example of a day in the life? Asset providing support to guys on ground. Threat emerges from nowhere firing weapon. Asset crew ID's threat. Asset crew points out threat. Threat eliminated. Time from first sentence to 5th sentence, 20 seconds. Layers of C2 between asset crew and guys on ground - zero. Direct quotes from guys on the ground: "Thanks for coming through" and "You guys rock". The video exists as proof. Think you can do that without being engaged, without a mentality as if you were there? Think you stay that engaged throughout your tanker flights?
USAF equals support - all of it - except for Global Strike, and even they may be support depending on what they attack and why. As a result, USAF officers should be focused on how to best provide the support the warfighter needs. Instead, we have a few officers whining about how RPA crews might get Fly Pay.
They should be arguing how non-combat and/or flight experienced crews will be a danger to all of the manned assets in theater. They should be arguing that there is no way that a non-aviator will be able to visualize all of the aircraft in the CAS stack around them, while having to provide the ISR support required to the guy on the ground, while figuring out who they work for right now (JTAC, GFC, TOC, CAOC, ???), while remaining in or close to an immediate WEZ, while maintaining a high degree of battlefield SA, while operating as an airborne C2 between ground elements when the situation requires, while maintaining SA on aircraft parameters / airspace / weather / systems / etc, while giving the guy on the ground SA on routes / threats / patterns of life / etc (what, it's not all FMV?), while ensuring compliance of ROE/SPINs and maintaining a full working knowledge of said ROE/SPINs in multiple theaters simultaneously, etc. I will tell you this - if we all agree that a non-aviator can do all of that, it is only a VERY SMALL step to put him inside the airplane and teach him how to fly an ILS.
I work with Army Captains who have a very thorough knowledge of the bigger Army picture and how to apply force to the enemy whether as a squad, maneuver element, or as part of a larger integrated package. They are by all means Doctrine literate. Meanwhile, the USAF Captains and Majors are still upset because someone else might get to wear a leather jacket or get a couple hundred bucks per month extra.
We need to find the best, MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent our troops on the ground from getting ambushed or blown up by IEDs - but by all means we'll have to do it without giving Fly Pay to someone who doesn't deserve it! It's time for you to grow up and be warfighters in this time of war - and before any of you write "look who's playing Officer", it's time somebody does.
Need a very recent example of a day in the life? Asset providing support to guys on ground. Threat emerges from nowhere firing weapon. Asset crew ID's threat. Asset crew points out threat. Threat eliminated. Time from first sentence to 5th sentence, 20 seconds. Layers of C2 between asset crew and guys on ground - zero. Direct quotes from guys on the ground: "Thanks for coming through" and "You guys rock". The video exists as proof. Think you can do that without being engaged, without a mentality as if you were there? Think you stay that engaged throughout your tanker flights?
USAF equals support - all of it - except for Global Strike, and even they may be support depending on what they attack and why. As a result, USAF officers should be focused on how to best provide the support the warfighter needs. Instead, we have a few officers whining about how RPA crews might get Fly Pay.
They should be arguing how non-combat and/or flight experienced crews will be a danger to all of the manned assets in theater. They should be arguing that there is no way that a non-aviator will be able to visualize all of the aircraft in the CAS stack around them, while having to provide the ISR support required to the guy on the ground, while figuring out who they work for right now (JTAC, GFC, TOC, CAOC, ???), while remaining in or close to an immediate WEZ, while maintaining a high degree of battlefield SA, while operating as an airborne C2 between ground elements when the situation requires, while maintaining SA on aircraft parameters / airspace / weather / systems / etc, while giving the guy on the ground SA on routes / threats / patterns of life / etc (what, it's not all FMV?), while ensuring compliance of ROE/SPINs and maintaining a full working knowledge of said ROE/SPINs in multiple theaters simultaneously, etc. I will tell you this - if we all agree that a non-aviator can do all of that, it is only a VERY SMALL step to put him inside the airplane and teach him how to fly an ILS.
I work with Army Captains who have a very thorough knowledge of the bigger Army picture and how to apply force to the enemy whether as a squad, maneuver element, or as part of a larger integrated package. They are by all means Doctrine literate. Meanwhile, the USAF Captains and Majors are still upset because someone else might get to wear a leather jacket or get a couple hundred bucks per month extra.
We need to find the best, MOST EFFECTIVE way to prevent our troops on the ground from getting ambushed or blown up by IEDs - but by all means we'll have to do it without giving Fly Pay to someone who doesn't deserve it! It's time for you to grow up and be warfighters in this time of war - and before any of you write "look who's playing Officer", it's time somebody does.
06-22-2010, 02:44 AM
#33
China Visa Applicant
Joined APC: Oct 2006
Position: Midfield downwind
Posts: 1,930
USAF equals support - all of it - except for Global Strike, and even they may be support depending on what they attack and why. As a result, USAF officers should be focused on how to best provide the support the warfighter needs. Instead, we have a few officers whining about how RPA crews might get Fly Pay.
If we could all just realize that being support is okay, and that NOT everyone is a warrior, the entire DoD would be a lot better off.
06-22-2010, 08:12 AM
#34
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
KC10,
What's wrong with giving these guys flight pay? Maybe all staff officers should not receive flight pay since they aren't currently flying aircraft. Get rid of the gates, that'll show them!
Why do they want officers (college graduates) flying UAVs? Are you kidding me? Some of you guys don't get it. You could probably have 8 year olds that are proficient in XBox that could fly them. You want someone that is assumed responsible (at least they completed college) to pilot UAVs. We've crashed a lot of these things and a few guys are currently getting hung due to hitting the wrong target. UAVs are frontline and in our current effort to appease media and the Afghans, there is a lot of pressure to get things right. I don't want 18 year olds on the controls. Not all officers are responsible, and many enlisted folks could be more gifted aviators, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we can find more reasons to take incentive pay from the rest of us. You fly the KC-10, big deal. Do you ever get hostile fire pay or combat zone exclusion? Do you think you really deserve it? Maybe you should pay that money back.
I don't fly UAVs, but have no desire to do so. If the AF wants to pay a few hundred dollars for people to fly UAVs, what's the problem? It's a crappy job, give these guys a break..
What's wrong with giving these guys flight pay? Maybe all staff officers should not receive flight pay since they aren't currently flying aircraft. Get rid of the gates, that'll show them!
Why do they want officers (college graduates) flying UAVs? Are you kidding me? Some of you guys don't get it. You could probably have 8 year olds that are proficient in XBox that could fly them. You want someone that is assumed responsible (at least they completed college) to pilot UAVs. We've crashed a lot of these things and a few guys are currently getting hung due to hitting the wrong target. UAVs are frontline and in our current effort to appease media and the Afghans, there is a lot of pressure to get things right. I don't want 18 year olds on the controls. Not all officers are responsible, and many enlisted folks could be more gifted aviators, but you have to draw the line somewhere.
Maybe we can find more reasons to take incentive pay from the rest of us. You fly the KC-10, big deal. Do you ever get hostile fire pay or combat zone exclusion? Do you think you really deserve it? Maybe you should pay that money back.
I don't fly UAVs, but have no desire to do so. If the AF wants to pay a few hundred dollars for people to fly UAVs, what's the problem? It's a crappy job, give these guys a break..
06-22-2010, 09:43 AM
#36
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
Hacker, somehow "support" became synonymous with sub-class in the USAF. Whether it's the empowerent of the finance clerk, the erosion of the authority of the line officer, the student bill of rights, or all things cumulative - we've become obsessed with the individual over the mission/task. It's now an insult to ask someone to do their job, as if you are better than them. It's now vogue to worry about what everyone else is getting. It's not that a pilot is given the role of flying his aircraft so he can support the war, we pay for him to fly his aircraft because he's so cool and is entitled.
In the Marines, they take great pride in supporting the grunt.
We are equipment operators. We are a cog in the process that has some end result, and that end result is more important than the individual's happiness.
In the Marines, they take great pride in supporting the grunt.
We are equipment operators. We are a cog in the process that has some end result, and that end result is more important than the individual's happiness.
06-22-2010, 10:58 AM
#38
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,262
bottom line is, anti-uav dudes try to discredit the profession using 2 distinct arguments. 1, uav pilots dont share the same risk, and 2, the job is beneath real pilots. i argue against both and have provided a credible rationale due to combat experiences and i'm not even a uav guy!!! yet. uav pilots have a different risk which in many cases is far more significant. a uav in iraq/afghan has no need for the support pilots in the tanker/cargo role either. the damn thing can loiter for 24 hours and we can contract world air or somebody to fly it in theater. who's important now? this isnt a ****ing match, really it isnt. but the typical lt/junior capt who *****es out both sides of his mouth is a tired point of view. i think 99% of us have at one time been that lt/capt who thought he had it all figured out. times are changing and people will slowly come around to accept the change. of course uavs arent the end all be all, but for the current conflicts we are involved in they are the most efficient lowest cost option. hence the secdef and chief of staff view on it.
side note, i heard a viper porch assignment officer took a uav follow on. a dude in a promotable billet who writes his own follow on ticket goes to a uav. wowsers! that speaks volumes.
side note, i heard a viper porch assignment officer took a uav follow on. a dude in a promotable billet who writes his own follow on ticket goes to a uav. wowsers! that speaks volumes.
2.) Yes many (if not most) pilots feel the job is beneath them. They didn't bust their ass through college, commisioning programs, pre flight, flight school, RAG/RTU, etc., to go sit in a box for 12 hours at a time. You can't argue that the skill set to fly a Pred isn't lower than a Viper/KC-135/whatever. Guys have proven themselves and worked their ass off for their wings because they wanted to fly. To stifle all that effort by making them fly an RC plane with a camera is a kick in the junk. Especially for guys realizing a life long dream.
I'm not saying UAV's don't have their place, they absolutely do, but flight pay, combat, pay, Bronze Stars, etc is a stretch for what amounts to a systems operator that is in ZERO danger of anything more than spilling coffee in his lap, or a sun burn living in Vegas.
06-22-2010, 11:22 AM
#39
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2009
Posts: 1,224
Grumble,
I agree that there is little personal risk to flying a UAV. If they crash, they don't get injured or buried. I think we can all agree to that..
They are pilots. I think their job is the pits, and I don't think giving them a little extra pay is out of line. It's INCENTIVE pay. While they don't have their a$$ on the line literally, they sure do legally. We could all find the link to the story, but some UAV guys are going to take it hard by making a mistake in the field. Their mistakes can lead to collateral damage and they have to deal with the mistakes just like anyone else. In short, their a$$es are on the line too....
Bronze star, combat pay.. Well, some of the awards and decs can be a little out of line. I agree with you there. It is the Air Force way to give way too many medals and this certainly lessens it's "value".
UAVs are the future. The career field will become larger. I think it's also more than a bad deal to get assigned one out of UPT. The military puts incentives on all types of career fields that are in need and those that they can't seem to keep good people. Doctors, dentists, pilots, jet mechanics, etc., will often get some sort of bonus and incentive pay if they need to attract or retain people in these positions. I believe they are calling UAV operators incentive pay something else, and I think they deserve it. It's a bad job (for most people) and they receive a little extra money. I don't have a problem with it.
I don't find myself looking at other career fields and think they don't deserve the money they are getting. If I wanted to be a UAV operator (and get their incentive pay), I could probably do it. When I hear enlisted guys complaining about "how good pilots have it", I tell them to go to college and get into UPT. Let's not worry too much about the other guy......
I agree that there is little personal risk to flying a UAV. If they crash, they don't get injured or buried. I think we can all agree to that..
They are pilots. I think their job is the pits, and I don't think giving them a little extra pay is out of line. It's INCENTIVE pay. While they don't have their a$$ on the line literally, they sure do legally. We could all find the link to the story, but some UAV guys are going to take it hard by making a mistake in the field. Their mistakes can lead to collateral damage and they have to deal with the mistakes just like anyone else. In short, their a$$es are on the line too....
Bronze star, combat pay.. Well, some of the awards and decs can be a little out of line. I agree with you there. It is the Air Force way to give way too many medals and this certainly lessens it's "value".
UAVs are the future. The career field will become larger. I think it's also more than a bad deal to get assigned one out of UPT. The military puts incentives on all types of career fields that are in need and those that they can't seem to keep good people. Doctors, dentists, pilots, jet mechanics, etc., will often get some sort of bonus and incentive pay if they need to attract or retain people in these positions. I believe they are calling UAV operators incentive pay something else, and I think they deserve it. It's a bad job (for most people) and they receive a little extra money. I don't have a problem with it.
I don't find myself looking at other career fields and think they don't deserve the money they are getting. If I wanted to be a UAV operator (and get their incentive pay), I could probably do it. When I hear enlisted guys complaining about "how good pilots have it", I tell them to go to college and get into UPT. Let's not worry too much about the other guy......
06-22-2010, 01:53 PM
#40
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2007
Posts: 829
e problem with the UAV vs. fighter argument is that the UAV is doing 70-150 knots and has all the time in the world to work out the problem (or they're so slow they never make it to the problem), and there is virtually zero dyanmic weaponeering because they only carry one or two weapons.
2.) Yes many (if not most) pilots feel the job is beneath them. They didn't bust their ass through college, commisioning programs, pre flight, flight school, RAG/RTU, etc., to go sit in a box for 12 hours at a time. You can't argue that the skill set to fly a Pred isn't lower than a Viper/KC-135/whatever. Guys have proven themselves and worked their ass off for their wings because they wanted to fly. To stifle all that effort by making them fly an RC plane with a camera is a kick in the junk. Especially for guys realizing a life long dream.
The most difficult part of flying tactical has always been employment. Fixed-wing employment is fixed-wing employment, regardless of where you sit. Making the shoot/don't shoot decision, complying with clearances/directives/restrictions/ROE, determining CDE, and placing the aircraft in a WEZ is universal.
What's tougher, teaching employment or ILSs? If we can show that we can teach non-aviators to do all of the above AT LEAST AS EFFECTIVELY AS RATED AVIATORS, we can show that we don't need rated aviators. Putting someone who can do all of the above in a cockpit and teaching him to go from A to B is the easy part.
This is the ultimate scope argument, and you're advocating giving the shop away. If I don't need the ONLY pilot in a weapons-employing RPA to be rated, I don't need any co-pilot on any aircraft to be rated. It's a slippery slope from there.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
