PDA

View Full Version : Are enlisted airmen next to pilot UAVs?


JohnP
12-22-2008, 01:08 PM
:pilot:Are enlisted airmen next to pilot UAVs?

By Michael Hoffman - Staff writer
Posted : Sunday Dec 21, 2008 13:18:36 EST

The Air Force is desperate for UAV pilots, yet it stands alone among the services in its policy that only officers are allowed to fly large unmanned aerial vehicles.

But next month, in a reversal of policy, 10 nonrated officers — those without aviation training — will begin instruction on flying Predator and Reaper UAVs. could enlisted airmen be next?

Chief of Staff Gen. Norton Schwartz left open the possibility immediately after he approved allowing nonrated officers to fly UAVs.

“No options are off the table, ... I don’t dismiss that as a possibility,” he said as he walked down from the stage at the Air Force Association convention in Washington, D.C., in September.

Three months later, in early December, Chief Master Sgt. of the Air Force Rodney McKinley said the option for enlisted pilots remains in play and he had “confidence enlisted airmen have the capabilities if tasked.”

Defense Secretary Robert Gates describes the demand for UAVs as “insatiable” as ground commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan have come to depend on the full-motion video and close-air support they provide.

To keep up, the Air Force has put UAVs on top of its wish list. Next year, 52 of the 93 aircraft the Air Force will purchase are unmanned.

Likewise, the demand for pilots and sensor operators grows as the Air Force looks to establish 50 Predator and Reaper orbits — round-the-clock combat air patrols — by 2012. That’s an increase of 17 orbits from the Air Force’s current total, which will require 1,100 crews of one pilot and one sensor operator. The service now has 474 crews, according to Air Combat Command.

To meet the surge in demand, the Air Force is ramping up its training pipeline, growing its training capacity from 160 new crews per year to 360 by 2010 with the opening of new training schools at Holloman Air Force Base, N.M., and March Air Reserve Base, Calif.

Critics, however, say that by restricting the UAV pilot career field to officers, the Air Force has unnecessarily limited its UAV growth potential — and point to the Army, in which enlisted soldiers fly UAVs in the war zones, track insurgents and fire on targets.

Those critics include some in Congress. The more congressional funding that goes to purchasing UAVs and training operators, the more lawmakers and their staffs are studying UAV operations.

One congressional staff member sitting in a defense authorization committee that has studied both Army and Air Force UAV pilot programs said questions arise about why the Air Force can’t have enlisted pilots.

“It’s difficult for us to come right out and say, ‘Air Force: You shall not use officers as pilots; you shall use sergeants,’” he said, asking not to be named. “But it’s perfectly obvious to everybody except senior levels of the Air Force that that’s what they need to do.”

Some critics point to enlisted UAV pilots as a potential cost-saving measure. Rated pilots, proficient after years of expensive training and flying hours, are cycled into UAV slots for two to three years at a minimum. When pilots return to manned aircraft, requalification training comes with a big price tag. It costs roughly $700,000, for example, to send F-15 pilots through a requalification course, according to a Rand Corp. report published in November.

Piloting debate

Chief Master Sgt. Bruce Garcia, 196th Reconnaissance Squadron superintendent, said he is convinced an enlisted airman could fly a UAV.

“The simple answer is yes. I don’t see why they couldn’t fly them,” said Garcia, who oversees the enlisted sensor operators who fly UAV combat missions out of March.

M.L. Cummings, a former F/A-18 pilot and director of the Humans and Automation Lab at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, agreed.

“The Army’s enlisted program is a good illustration of that,” said Cummings, who teaches UAV ground control station design.

Air Force leaders argue that comparisons between its programs and the Army’s are misleading because enlisted soldiers fly smaller UAVs that don’t carry the same weapons load as Air Force Reapers and Predators.

But that argument has lost weight as enlisted soldiers are set to fly the Sky Warrior — a UAV that is a foot longer and can carry 325 pounds more than the MQ-1 Predator — in Iraq this summer.

Four Sky Warriors armed with four Hellfire missiles will be deployed this summer and another four will be shipped a year later, said Maj. Jimmie Cummings, an Army spokesman.

Maj. Hilton Nunez, Army UAV Division team chief, said the debate over whether a UAV pilot should have a commission is moot as long as that pilot receives the right training.

“When you look at this and say, ‘Shouldn’t an officer be doing this?’ then that’s implying that officers are smarter than enlisted folks when in fact it’s just the difference of the training,” he said.

The Army starts training its enlisted UAV pilots straight out of basic training. The pilots spend the first nine weeks in a common core UAV training before moving to training specific to the platform they will fly. Hunter and Shadow training is 12 weeks and Sky Warrior training is 25 weeks. As of October, the Army had trained 3,200 UAV enlisted operators, Maj. Cummings said.

Air Force Predator and Reaper pilots spend two to three months learning to fly UAVs at Creech Air Force Base, Nev., said Lt. Col. Lawrence Spinetta, 11th Reconnaissance Squadron commander.

However, these airmen have spent hours inside these manned aircraft cockpits conducting the “many more tasks and missions” the Air Force expects from its UAV fleet than “the Army expects of its UAV force,” Spinetta wrote in an article in the November/December issue of C4ISR Journal, a sister publication of Air Force Times.

Those aviation skills are especially useful for complex missions. Following a vehicle with a Predator or Reaper requires the pilot to maneuver the aircraft with a joystick instead of setting points on a map for the unmanned aircraft to follow, he said in a phone interview.

“Chasing vehicles through the crowded streets and urban canyons of Sadr City demands more precise control than a generic, fixed, computer-generated orbit can offer,” Spinetta wrote.

He said the Air Force also needs an officer in control when orders come to fire a Hellfire missile at that vehicle, especially at a time when UAVs are becoming more deadly. An MQ-9 Reaper can carry the same weapons load as an F-16, and an officer is needed to oversee the use of that firepower, Spinetta said.

Chief Master Sgt. Steven Hanson, superintendent of the 214th Reconnaissance Group, agreed. “An officer should be the one who carries the responsibility of crashing one of these aircraft or bombing the wrong target.”

However, Nunez argued enlisted troops armed with M-4s carry the burden of lethal force as they walk the streets of Iraq and Afghanistan every day.

But a big piece of the debate, some say, entails how enlisted flyers would be accepted in the Air Force’s culture.

It’s not that “enlisted don’t fly because they don’t have the ability. They don’t fly because pilots run the Air Force and they want to keep it that way,” Hanson said.

Col. Curt Sheldon, assistant to the director of air operations, said the Air Force wants officers to fly because it gives them that experience when they lead flying squadrons.

Having officers fly is ingrained into the Air Force culture, and in the early stages of UAV aviation that is where the service will start, he said.

“It’s not 1909, when it comes to [UAVs] but it’s darn near close,” said Gen. Stephen Lorenz, commander of Air Education and Training Command.

“When you start something new, you start with what we know and we have had officers as pilots from our beginning,” Sheldon said.

Air Force Brig. Gen. Lyn D. Sherlock, director of air operations for operations, plans and requirements at the Pentagon, was one of the key leaders to decide to open UAV piloting to nonrated officers. She said the Air Force has not yet extended the same opportunity to enlisted airmen because of the need for UAV pilots to integrate their mission with a wide range of assets and units, tasks for which the Air Force trains and develops officers.

“We need them to bring their officer expertise to our headquarters and working with our partners in the other services within the joint world,” she said at the AFA convention in September.

Loren Thompson, a defense analyst with the Lexington Institute, said the debate over enlisted or officer falls to the services’ priorities regarding quality versus quantity.

“The main driver of Army operational practice is the desire to get reconnaissance to war fighters in the field as fast as possible,” Thompson said. “The Air Force is more oriented to national- and theater-level users. It’s much more interested in getting the mission right and protecting the airframe than a quick turnaround.”

What do you think?

http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2008/12/airforce_enlisted_uas3_122108/

Woody
12-22-2008, 01:32 PM
I know there is a shortage of UAV pilots .UK forces would offer full time service for any reservist with the speciality . Though it would probably be easier just to phone them up indviduially cant be that many.
The larger ones can fly through air traffic controlled space so the rules say you need a qualifed pilot at the control .No real need to be an officer though job is flying not leading .Maybe Air Force is worried its image is going to be changed from dashing pilots in leather flying jackets .To pasty geeks hunched over keyboards and monitors :D

03_SHOOTER
12-22-2008, 01:55 PM
Why not just go to the local High School? Any kid who's any good at all with any computer game can be taught to handle UAV's.

JohnP
12-22-2008, 02:03 PM
Why not just go to the local High School? Any kid who's any good at all with any computer game can be taught to handle UAV's.


I emailed my old unit. It seems the computer geeks are taking over!

The UAV training is not much more than a great simulator with practical applications.

I think its time to re-vamp the old "High Flight" poem.

From:

"I have slipped the surely bonds of Earth,
and danced the skies on wind swept wings."

To:

"I have tripped across the BX parking lot,
and trashed the skies with World of Warcraft ease."

:o

HairyEyeball
12-22-2008, 02:53 PM
Or, just use 'government logic': Find the pimply-faced kids living on pizza and Jolt cola, tell them it's a new MMPRPG and commission them.

Collo
12-31-2008, 04:15 AM
Or, just use 'government logic': Find the pimply-faced kids living on pizza and Jolt cola, tell them it's a new MMPRPG and commission them.

Isn't that what they do anyway? :p

In all seriousness; despite the simplicity of the role; I can not see the Royal Australian Air Force give this role to an Airman position.

The RAAF is in the current process of implementing the Global Hawk into her capabilities. With the quantity of the aircraft and the budget that we have compared to the American designers; it would be a very uncharacteristic move by the Air Force to give command of these weapon platforms to Airmen or even senior Airmen.

JohnP
12-31-2008, 08:33 AM
Isn't that what they do anyway? :p

In all seriousness; despite the simplicity of the role; I can not see the Royal Australian Air Force give this role to an Airman position.

The RAAF is in the current process of implementing the Global Hawk into her capabilities. With the quantity of the aircraft and the budget that we have compared to the American designers; it would be a very uncharacteristic move by the Air Force to give command of these weapon platforms to Airmen or even senior Airmen.

In times of budget crunches and cutbacks, it is not surprising that the Air Force would give the control to the enlisted forces. In the early '80s the role for final control of close air support was given over to a traditionally officer role with strong success.

It's not too major of a problem to train an experienced airman to fly. Push up makes the houses smaller; pull down makes the houses bigger.

Collo
12-31-2008, 08:02 PM
I am not saying it wouldn't be in fact; as you mentioned it would most likely be more financially viable for the Air Force (both RAAF/USAF) to employ senior Airmen in these roles.

The RAAFs' P-3C Orions currently only fly two officers on board and the remainder or plastic SNCOs in roles that some twenty years ago where held by officers. So following this trend our Air Force might do the same. As I mentioned in my previous post; I personally could not see the Air Forces reverting this role to an Airman but I'm not saying it won't happen.

soccermark23
12-31-2008, 09:20 PM
You have to remember that currently when flying a UAV the crew is made up of one officer and one enlisted person. The officer is the pilot, while the enlisted member controls all sensor operations. It seems to me like it wouldn't be that far of a stretch to just go the next step and have enlisted members fly the UAVs as well. Heck they might even be able to do some sort of setup where there is one officer overseeing 3 crews of enlisted pilots and sensor operators, or something else along those lines.

Collo
12-31-2008, 10:16 PM
Heck they might even be able to do some sort of setup where there is one officer overseeing 3 crews of enlisted pilots and sensor operators, or something else along those lines.

Not a bad idea at all.

I have been silenced on the matter. :)

03_SHOOTER
12-31-2008, 10:50 PM
It might be good to point out that during WWII there were several "Enlisted" Pilots, and later still many Enlisted men went through Pilot training and upon completion of that training were promoted to Lt. even though they had no college at all (Chuck Yeager is a primary example of this).

Frankly I've always thought that having a requirement that only Officers could fly was bogus, and nothing more than a way to keep the "glory" jobs (and the Flight Pay) for the Officers so that they could feel like warriors without actually having to get too dirty.

Collo
01-01-2009, 12:33 AM
Frankly I've always thought that having a requirement that only Officers could fly was bogus

I have to agree and I am a fan of the policy that the US Army have in regards to their chopper pilots being Warrant Officers. I know that a US Warrant Officer is totally different to our Warrant Officers but the idea of having Os' is a bit stalwart of the old days. My old mob have the stringent rule that only officers can fly within our helicopter regiment which puts rather heavy pressure on our recruitment and retention policies.

wukong
01-01-2009, 11:50 AM
The problem of enlisted pilots is not one of either skill or pay, it is a matter of force structure. There is an enormous staff overhead that aviation requires whether it be Air Force, Army, Navy or Marine Corps. For example, the Air Force has a requirement to provide a fighter pilot for every Army maneuver unit from battalion to corps. A requirement to provide an airlift pilot for every maneuver unit from brigade to corps. In addition there are staff requirement at wing, air division, numbered air forces and major commands that have to be filled with pilots. These jobs require officer grade personnel due to the fact that they must deal with the other service branches at an equivalent level.

It takes 7 to 10 years of operational flying to fill these positions as a non-flying billets. The services barely justify the number of cockpits now in existence on operational requirements. The number of flying hours budgeted to these cockpits barely meet the operational training requirements of current war plans. In addition to readiness, these limited cockpits must provide for the overhead necessary to support the total force structure.

Placing an enlisted pilot in the cockpit reduces the number of pilots that can be used to fill the overhead. When I left the active Air Force in 1991 the total flying hour cost of a C-5 was approximately $25,000 dollars (amortization, personnel, O&M). The cost of someone to manipulate each individual UAV is insignificant when compared to the total cost of the overhead which is required to support the UAV.

03_SHOOTER
01-01-2009, 01:01 PM
Sounds to me like more "justification" to protect the "high profile" jobs. Ossifers are "managers", let them manage, but it doesn't take an Ossifer to turn a yoke or handle a HOTAS. The entire concept of the Ossifer Corps is a holdover from the days where the "noble" were the Officers and the "commoners" were the enlisted men, and frankly it's just as much garbage today as it was then.

From a financial standpoint, an O-1 Pilot with 2 or less draws $2,555.70 a month base pay, while an E-3 with 2 or less draws $1,587.90 a month. That means that 2 Ossifers make more than 3 Enlisted men regardless of their job (I used that breakdown based on the average promotion pace). Add Flight pay of $125 a month (2 years or less) and you put 3 Enlisted in cockpits for the cost of 2 Ossifers, and you also have the added bonus of not having to deal with the "Holier than thou" attitude. If you absolutely have to have Offiers to deal with the other Services, fine, after "X" many years (say 10), and "Y" many flight hours (say 500+), when they've proven their worth, THEN Commission them to fill the non-flying Staff positions.

wukong
01-01-2009, 01:40 PM
A brilliant suggestion from a brilliant mind!

deal with the "Holier than thou" attitude

In your particular case, it's no doubt true.

PhilK
01-01-2009, 02:15 PM
Or the Air Force can just bring back Warrants and have them fly your aircraft. (And yes, I have read why they got rid of Warrants in the first place.)

At the end of the day, the Air Force can do whatever the hell they want to, just as long as my Army Aviation Corps is left alone.

03_SHOOTER
01-01-2009, 03:49 PM
A brilliant suggestion from a brilliant mind!

In your particular case, it's no doubt true.

If it is, I learned it from having to deal with individuals like you who thought that they were too good to have to comply with Regulations like the rest of the "lesser beings" in the Air Force. That's probably why I so enjoyed putting people like you on the ground and introducing you to the finer points of a full ground search.

Javelin66
01-01-2009, 05:36 PM
Just to be clear, Shooter did you just tell us that you enjoyed rolling around on the ground with other men?

I had some experience with UAVs when the Army first started experimenting with them. Our biggest problem was that the young soldiers, while perhaps great UAV pilots, did not understand the large picture- what we used to call A2C2, tasking, reporting, maintenance, etc. We wrecked a lot of aircraft and made the RLAs (Real Live Aviators) very nervous as we flew in their airspace. We also fell short of mission requirements quite often.

Once we started imposing requirements similar to those in the manned aviation world, we had much more success. You will still need a Warrant or Commissioned Officer or Senior NCO somewhere in the chain. The Army's initial challenge was that there was no such animal, so we assigned RLAs to the job. This, of course, took them out of the fight, so to speak.

03_SHOOTER
01-01-2009, 05:43 PM
Just to be clear, Shooter did you just tell us that you enjoyed rolling around on the ground with other men?

Not at all. The individual under apprehension did all the rolling, and it was usually in great discomfort. I take it you've never had the joy of being the subject of a full out ground search? Next time you're on an AF base, just saunter out on the Flight Line and argue when the SP's challenge you. I can guarantee that it's something that you'll never forget (or want to repeat).

Billyd
01-01-2009, 06:15 PM
Having dealt with a number of the O-class over the course of my career (both rated and unrated), I can say with some certainty, that if they wore a "bag" they were of the opinion that their sh!t didn't stink. Let me tell you, it did. They broke my equipment and I had to fix it. It was that simple. Of course there are exceptions to every rule and I did know a few.

Back to the question at hand. Enlisted flying UAVs. I don't believe that this should be offered to Airman Snuffy straight out of basic training, but possibly to mid career NCOs (8-12 years TIS).

Wu, I do understand the need to have "equal" footing when dealing with the other services as the Army and Marines are VERY rank conscience. However, we (the AF) need to rethink how we do business. Do those Wing, NAF and MAJCOM positions really require a rated officer or an officer that understands the requirements and employment of air assets?

soccermark23
01-01-2009, 07:08 PM
Not at all. The individual under apprehension did all the rolling, and it was usually in great discomfort. I take it you've never had the joy of being the subject of a full out ground search? Next time you're on an AF base, just saunter out on the Flight Line and argue when the SP's challenge you. I can guarantee that it's something that you'll never forget (or want to repeat).

I believe we call it the saw.

Javelin66
01-01-2009, 08:08 PM
Shooter, I doubt I would have found any joy in the situation, regardless of how the Airmen felt. Was this something you guys would do in the 'dorms' for fun? Was there alcohol involved?

I am not sure where the comments about rank conscienceness come from. The Army and Marines have had junior enlisted guys flying UAVs from the very beginning- although I would say that there is an expectation that with increased rank comes increased experience, training, and skill. The Air Force seems to be the service with the issues here.

As a commissioned officer and leader in the Army (not an 'ossifer and manager'), I have always relied on my NCO leadership and enlisted soldiers to get the job done based on the perspective and guidance I provided.

With respect to the UAV program, the NCOs ran the mission planning, maintenance, training, and safety programs, while the junior guys actually flew the aircraft and ran the payload. In fact, it was rare to find an NCO that was rated as an external pilot qualified to take off or land the A/C (this was before the days when everyone under the age of 30 grew up playing video games).

03_SHOOTER
01-01-2009, 08:47 PM
Shooter, I doubt I would have found any joy in the situation, regardless of how the Airmen felt. Was this something you guys would do in the 'dorms' for fun? Was there alcohol involved?

Sorry Javelin66, I thought everyone knew that I was an SP (Security Police) in SAC, and no it wasn't something we did in the BARRACKS for fun, and alcohol was never involved, at least not on our part.

... The Air Force seems to be the service with the issues here.

As a commissioned officer and leader in the Army (not an 'ossifer and manager'), I have always relied on my NCO leadership and enlisted soldiers to get the job done based on the perspective and guidance I provided.

You nailed it the first time, the Air Force has the issues with it's Ossifers, and particularly flight rated Ossifers, as Billyd pointed out, thinking that their feces does not emit a malodorous air. During their flight training, someone told them that they were Gods gift to someone other than their mothers, and they tend to believe it, while the rest of us mere mortals never seemed to have any difficulty at all realizing that they were in fact just like the rest of us. In my short time in the service, there were damned few "O's" that I had any respect for, and with one notable exception, they were all "Mustangs". The rest were Nacrissistic POS's with delusions of adequacy who would throw an EM under the bus in a second to save their own careers when the only thing the EM did was to follow his lawful orders and do his job 100% according to the BOI's.

With respect to the UAV program, the NCOs ran the mission planning, maintenance, training, and safety programs, while the junior guys actually flew the aircraft and ran the payload. In fact, it was rare to find an NCO that was rated as an external pilot qualified to take off or land the A/C (this was before the days when everyone under the age of 30 grew up playing video games).

Back to the UAV program, I have no doubt that any kid who was ever any good at Microsoft Flight Sim or Janes USAF could handle a UAV with no problem whatsoever. All the need is someone to tell them where they're going, and what they're supposed to do when they get there.

wukong
01-01-2009, 10:07 PM
Having dealt with a number of the O-class over the course of my career (both rated and unrated), I can say with some certainty, that if they wore a "bag" they were of the opinion that their sh!t didn't stink. Let me tell you, it did. They broke my equipment and I had to fix it. It was that simple. Of course there are exceptions to every rule and I did know a few.

You are absolutely correct on this point. The Services have done extensive psychological testing dating back from WWI and WWII on those most likely to get thru pilot training with minimum cost and to be successful in this career field (ala Curtis Lemay, Greg Boyington Robin Olds). If you look at the pilot personality profile index what you find is basically a son-of-a-bitch. Pilot candidates are testing for a personality profile that does not lend itself to being socially popular. I didn't make the rules, but I do meet the profile as most of my peers. My guess is that people who are sought to fly the UAV will also meet the profile. I didn't break your equipment, it quit working under my tender care.

http://www.humanfactors.illinois.edu/Reports&PapersPDFs/isap03/dilwietan.pdf

The objectives of early personality studies centered on the identification of personality characteristics that might predict successful adaptation to military aeronautics for use in pilot selection. A consistent pattern of findings emerged from these studies, which described military pilots as more achievement oriented, outgoing, active, competitive, dominant and

less introspective, emotional, sensitive, and selfeffacing than their non-flying counterparts (Ashman & Telfer, 1983; Fine & Hartman, 1968).

Within the broad category of military pilots, a subset has often been labeled as the “right stuff,” who in addition to the above personality traits, tend to be the most aggressive, dominant, exhibitionistic and self aggrandizing (Retzlaff & Gibertini, 1987).

Even if we did have enlisted pilots, nothing would change. Instead of having "gods" with leaves or bars, you would have to tolerate "gods" with stripes. You would probably find these lesser gods even more obnoxious.

Back to the question at hand. Enlisted flying UAVs. I don't believe that this should be offered to Airman Snuffy straight out of basic training, but possibly to mid career NCOs (8-12 years TIS).

My guess would be to go after Air Traffic Controllers, they have similar profiles and they know airspace rules.

Wu, I do understand the need to have "equal" footing when dealing with the other services as the Army and Marines are VERY rank conscience. However, we (the AF) need to rethink how we do business. Do those Wing, NAF and MAJCOM positions really require a rated officer or an officer that understands the requirements and employment of air assets?

Already positions are being unfilled. TAC started manning command posts with nonrated Os in 1986. I don't know if they still maintain such a program, initially these people had not the foggiest idea of what was happening in their world as they had nothing in their background to relate with. The flip side is that in a situation where the ANG and especially the NG is activated for Federal service, not a whole lot of infrastructure pilots come with the units.

An analogous situation would be the practice of medicine by HMOs. Who do you want making decisions about whether or not you need surgery, a physician or an accountant?

Woody
01-02-2009, 06:29 AM
They used to say about pilots in the fleet air arm "their not paid more just paid early ":devil: guess hard to justify flight pay if the only danger your in is
repetive strain .The british army air corp (aka tiney tiny airways:D) has enlisted and officer air crew . Enlisted aircrew fly Officers fly and then go off and do staff jobs .

03_SHOOTER
01-02-2009, 11:06 AM
Disregard post.