NEW: Follow the Editorial Staff on
StrategyPage Twitter Link


GROUND COMBAT +

AIR COMBAT +

NAVAL OPERATIONS +

SPECIAL OPERATIONS +

HUMAN FACTORS +

SPECIAL WEAPONS +

WARFARE BY THE NUMBERS +

LOGISTICS +

TOOLS +


Visit StrategyPage's US Cavalry Store



Murphy's Law Article Index : Current 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics

Limping Pilots Keep UAVs On The Ground

July 10, 2009: The U.S. Air Force is facing some interesting problems while trying to obtain sufficient pilots for its unmanned aircraft (mainly Predators, Reapers and Global Hawks). The air force insists that all ground controllers for UAVs be officers, as well as conventional pilots (of manned aircraft). All the other services use non-pilot NCOs to fly the UAVs. Most air force pilots would rather fly a manned aircraft, instead of sitting on the ground sending commands to a UAV.

But this air force policy has created some other problems as well. UAV operators must continue to meet the same physical standards as pilots who operated manned aircraft. Thus UAV operators who have suffered leg injuries (broken toe, sprained ankle, or fractured leg) are told they cannot operate UAVs until their leg injury  heals. A leg injury doesn't prevent a pilot from operating a UAV, but the regulations still insist that UAV operators follow the same medical restrictions as manned aircraft pilots. Some commanders have ignored this rule, when faced with a UAV operator shortage, and a limping UAV pilot who really wants to get back to work.

The air force has to deal with the fact that UAVs, while remotely piloted aircraft, don't have to be operated by someone who can also fly a manned aircraft. Then there's the decades old controversy over whether all pilots (most of whom are highly trained warriors, not leaders, which is what officers are supposed to be) must be officers.

At the start of World War II, the army air force (there was no separate air force yet) and navy both had enlisted pilots. These men were NCOs ("flying sergeants") selected for their flying potential and trained to be pilots. Not leaders of pilots, but professional pilots of fighters, bombers and whatnot. Officers trained as pilots would also fly, but in addition they would provide the leadership for the sergeant pilots in the air and on the ground. As the Army Air Corps changed into the mighty Army Air Force (2.4 million troops and 80,000 aircraft at its peak), its capable and persuasive commander (General Hap Arnold), insisted that all pilots be officers. Actually, he wanted them all to be college graduates as well, until it was pointed out that the pool of college graduates was too small to provide the 200,000 pilots the Army Air Force eventually trained. But Arnold forced the issue on officers being pilots, and the navy had to go along to remain competitive in recruiting. When the air force split off from the army in 1947, the army went back to the original concept of "flying sergeants" by making most pilots "Warrant Officers" (a sort of super NCO rank for experienced troops who are expected to spend all their time on their specialty, not being diverted into command or staff duties.) Many air force pilots envy the army "flying Warrants" because the Warrant Officers just fly. That's what most pilots want to do, fly a helicopter or aircraft, not a desk. But a commissioned officer must take many non-flying assignments in order to become a "well rounded officer." Many air force pilots don't want to be well rounded officers, they want to fly. So a lot of them quit the air force and go work for an airline. But often they stay in the air force reserve, and fly warplanes on weekends, and get paid for it. This is considered an excellent arrangement for the many pilots who take this route.

But now the air force has this growing force of UAVs, which are piloted from the ground. Increasingly, as the flight control software improves, the pilots do less piloting and more "controlling" (sending a few orders to the airborne UAV, and letting the software take care of the details.) Initially, the fighter and transport pilots ordered to perform UAV duty were not happy about it. In addition to losing flight pay, they were not flying. While guiding a Predator or Global Hawk from the ground could have its exiting moments, there was no hiding the fact that you were sitting on the ground staring at a computer screen most of time. Worse yet, you couldn't "feel" the aircraft in flight. Pilots know well that this aspect of flying is one of the most enjoyable, exciting, and useful aspects of their job. Being a UAV jockey had none of the fun, challenge, or extra pay of real flying. The air force finally decided to give the UAV pilots flight pay, and promise them they could go back to "real aircraft" after two or three years of UAV work.

A fifteen week training course is used to train pilots to operate UAVs. Since qualified pilots are taking this course, the washout rate is only two percent. Some pilots are even volunteering to stay with the UAVs, even though the air force still considers UAV controller work as a "temporary assignment." UAVs have not yet become a distinct "community" in the air force, with an official job description.

The air force has been putting some non-pilot officers through the UAV operator course, and is offering them a career as a UAV operator. Some manned aircraft pilots have already asked for this. Some of these pilots see UAVs as the Next Big Thing and want to get in at the beginning. Others like the fact that UAV operators work from bases in the United States, meaning that they won't have to go overseas, without their families, constantly.

The other services save a lot of money by using NCOs as UAV controllers. Sergeants and Petty Officers are paid less, and they don't get flight pay. No one has been able to demonstrate any better performance on the part of the air force pilots who operate UAVs. In the long run, the enlisted UAV "pilots" will probably be superior, because they are making a career of this sort of thing.

Unlike the traditional "pilot and crew" arrangement for aircraft, larger UAVs, like the Predator, are operated by a team. Typically, a Predator is attended to by a pilot and two sensor operators (NCOs), who monitor what the cameras and other sensors are picking up. Because a Predator is often in the air for 24 hours at a time, and is often flying over an active battlefield, and is looking real hard for specific stuff, the "crew" has to be changed every 4-6 hours to avoid fatigue. Moreover, each Predator unit might have several UAVs in the air at once. The new software means that each shift needs only one pilot, for up to four airborne Predators, and up to eight sensor operators. The pilots also operate the weapons, if any of the Predators are carrying missiles. But most of the time, Predators fly missions without using missiles.

The air force, because of their fixation on officer pilots running UAVs, has sometimes taken the lead in developing better flight control software. For their smaller (under ten pound) UAVs (used for base security), the operator cannot "fly" the UAV, but merely enters locations (waypoints) into the laptop used to control the aircraft, or uses a mouse to click on a spot on the map the UAV is to fly to. This way, the air force can justify not having an officer pilot involved.

But despite the air force initiative in developing better UAV flight control software, they have not gotten a lot of this stuff into service, at least for their most heavily used UAVs, the Predators and Reapers. The air force has a lot of civilian flight control software to draw on. Commercial airliners have had software that can land an aircraft without pilot intervention (and this is used to take the workload off pilots during difficult landings). The air force's largest UAV, the Global Hawk, is highly automated (it can take off, cross an ocean, and land, all by itself.) The navy is borrowing heavily from civilian flight control software to create a combat UAV that can land on an aircraft carrier by itself, and fly semi-autonomously in cooperation with manned aircraft. But in the air force, there is continued resistance to making too many of their UAVs autonomous, and put pilots out of work.

 

submit to reddit
Send Link to a Friend
Next Article LOGISTICS: Taking Self-Serve To A New Level


Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Sort in Reverse Order Posted

debtslayer    Debtsleigher   7/10/2009 3:29:34 PM
Donald L Miller claims in his book, Masters of the Air: America?s Bomber Boys Who Fought the Air War Against Nazi Germany, that General Hap Arnold was a racist commander.  According to the book, Arnold felt that including black personnel in all white units (especially units with southern whites) would lead to discipline and morale problems.  And, as SP has repeatedly stated, he wanted the pilots of the USAAF to be all college boys.
Now, from what I've learned and read about of economics and union policies in the 50s-70s, the quickest way for a union (or any entity for that matter) to exclude racial minorities is to require everyone joining to have a college degree.  This was overturned in several court cases in the 1970s.
 
Here are my questions:  Is this a case of the USAFs requirement of a college degree for trainee pilots being, in reality, a holdover from an old policy of racial descrimination?  And would it not make sense to review it, and possibly rescind it, for the purposes of not only logical personnel assignments, but also to put the last vestiges of racism in America's Armed Force away forever?
 
Quote    Reply

Killjoy    It's about the mission   7/11/2009 11:35:32 AM
Apparantly people have forgotten why we have an Air Force.  We have an Air Force not just to support ground troops (even though the Air Force does that very well), the Air Force also has a mission to dominate in the domains of air, space, and cyberspace.   So if there's a need to send a strike package half-way around the world to strike targets and produce strategic effects, that's an Air Force mission.  The Army would never send a single solidier, a single tank, or a single airplane thousands of miles behind enemy lines to strike point targets. They would send a whole division.
 
And when the Army sends a division, they have layer upon layer of supervision and leadership to make sure the well-armed soldier only produces effects within the scope of the commander's intent.  So even when they use elisted pilots to fly UASs, they have senior NCOs and officers supervising that mission. 
 
The Air Force doesn't work like that.  A strike package (which could be a single airplane) has to be able to accomplish its mission without any supervision.  That's why the Air Force uses officers.  You need someone in the left seat of the aircraft with the judgment, maturity, and authority to make decisions that could have strategic consequences.  It's not about who's capable of controlling the aircraft.  It's about level of responsibility.
 
And it works.  Air Dominance is an American birthright.  The US Air Force is the best in the world, which is why most other countries use the US as a model.  Look at Desert Storm, Kosovo, and the opening days of OIF and OEF.  The proof is in the pudding.
 
By the way, the Air Force Predators and Reapers have been much more successful and effective at producing operational and strategic effects than any other service.  The Army's Sky Warrior program is still in its infancy.  And they're basing large elements of that program on the Air Force model.  So why all of sudden do we think the Army knows best?
 
The author is simply incorrect about the motive behind the development of automation.  The fact of the matter is that there's no such thing as an autonomous aircraft.  A quick comparison of the Predator to the Global Hawk shows that the Predator, which gives the pilot the abilit to go to full manual control if needed, has been much more successful than the highly-automated Global Hawk.  Despite the hype, the technology just isn't there yet.   But by putting experienced aviators in the GCS and giving those aviators the ability to control the aircraft through its full envelope of performance, we've been able to change the way we fight counter-insurgencies.  We would do well to keep that in mind.
 
-Killjoy
 
 
Quote    Reply

JFKY    Didn't read all the Air FOrce Screed...   7/11/2009 1:49:37 PM
1) College-educated...is NOT racism.  College-educated means capable of learning...being an airplane driver is a technical subject for which no dummies may apply..sure lotsa of geeks and weirdos with huge unsupported egos, but no dummies.  A college degree is a marker for that capacity. 
So, "Hap" Arnold may have wanted college boyz because they all wuz gonna be white....though that argument runs aground on the fact that Howard University and and a number of other BLACK colleges existed, so there would have been BLACK college degreed personnel...but the why then is irrelevant.  We toast each other by Clinking" glasses as a remnant of a ritual of mixing our drinks to prevent poisoning, you subordinate follows to the right rear, IIRC, to cover your sword side with his shield, and we "salute" in order to show that we have no weapons in our hands....the point of this long history less on is show that cultural artifacts take on a life of their own, and move beyond the original "why" and become customary or adopt to new reasons.  So no the USAF is NOT being racist in requiring a college degree, unless you also want to think we toast one another for fear of being poisoned by our host.
 
As to the rest...why do UAV or ANY pilots have to ossifers?  I have no "kick" with paying an F-15 driver $80,000 per year, just don't make $40,000 of Captain's pay....make it $30,000 for a W/O and $50,000 for Flight Pay.  People fly because they want to be PILOTS, not because they want to be officers.  So I say make more Flying Sergeants and Warrant OFficers and fewer USAF officers.
 
Quote    Reply

Killjoy    It's about the mission   7/11/2009 10:26:19 PM
Apparantly people have forgotten why we have an Air Force.  We have an Air Force not just to support ground troops (even though the Air Force does that very well), the Air Force also has a mission to dominate in the domains of air, space, and cyberspace.   So if there's a need to send a strike package half-way around the world to strike targets and produce strategic effects, that's an Air Force mission.  The Army would never send a single solidier, a single tank, or a single airplane thousands of miles behind enemy lines to strike point targets. They would send a whole division.
 
And when the Army sends a division, they have layer upon layer of supervision and leadership to make sure the well-armed soldier only produces effects within the scope of the commander's intent.  So even when they use elisted pilots to fly UASs, they have senior NCOs and officers supervising that mission. 
 
The Air Force doesn't work like that.  A strike package (which could be a single airplane) has to be able to accomplish its mission without any supervision.  That's why the Air Force uses officers.  You need someone in the left seat of the aircraft with the judgment, maturity, and authority to make decisions that could have strategic consequences.  It's not about who's capable of controlling the aircraft.  It's about level of responsibility.
 
And it works.  Air Dominance is an American birthright.  The US Air Force is the best in the world, which is why most other countries use the US as a model.  Look at Desert Storm, Kosovo, and the opening days of OIF and OEF.  The proof is in the pudding.
 
By the way, the Air Force Predators and Reapers have been much more successful and effective at producing operational and strategic effects than any other service.  The Army's Sky Warrior program is still in its infancy.  And they're basing large elements of that program on the Air Force model.  So why all of sudden do we think the Army knows best?
 
The author is simply incorrect about the motive behind the development of automation.  The fact of the matter is that there's no such thing as an autonomous aircraft.  A quick comparison of the Predator to the Global Hawk shows that the Predator, which gives the pilot the abilit to go to full manual control if needed, has been much more successful than the highly-automated Global Hawk.  Despite the hype, the technology just isn't there yet.   But by putting experienced aviators in the GCS and giving those aviators the ability to control the aircraft through its full envelope of performance, we've been able to change the way we fight counter-insurgencies.  We would do well to keep that in mind.
 
-Killjoy
 
 
Quote    Reply

chuck00       7/13/2009 9:00:47 AM
Well you hit the problem on the head officers as flyer, I think the AF has a lot of learning to do, one of them is that enlisted people can and should be flying these aircraft in concert with officers. If the other services are doing it why not the AF, it because they are affraid that if officres are not doing it then there will be strong pressure to reduce even eleminate officer pilots because enlisted can do the job  just as well. Maybe its time to test that theor and look at what needs to be done in the future, Pilots are expensive they do especially dangerous and very tough jobs, but if an enlisted person can meet or exceed this requirement then why not make nco pilots a new level for the USAF. I for one think it time to relook at Pilot training and expertest. And the issue of them being leaders well that is a question that has to be answered soon. The failure of the AF to address support issues, going it alone and other means the general in charge of the AF, just might have to be retrained or removed we need more not less jointness in the AF. Let get into the game AF.
 
Quote    Reply

Herald12345    I'd like to introduce you to some CLUELESS people I read around here.   7/13/2009 12:58:41 PM

Apparantly people have forgotten why we have an Air Force.  We have an Air Force not just to support ground troops (even though the Air Force does that very well), the Air Force also has a mission to dominate in the domains of air, space, and cyberspace.   So if there's a need to send a strike package half-way around the world to strike targets and produce strategic effects, that's an Air Force mission.  The Army would never send a single solidier, a single tank, or a single airplane thousands of miles behind enemy lines to strike point targets. They would send a whole division.

 

And when the Army sends a division, they have layer upon layer of supervision and leadership to make sure the well-armed soldier only produces effects within the scope of the commander's intent.  So even when they use elisted pilots to fly UASs, they have senior NCOs and officers supervising that mission. 

 

The Air Force doesn't work like that.  A strike package (which could be a single airplane) has to be able to accomplish its mission without any supervision.  That's why the Air Force uses officers.  You need someone in the left seat of the aircraft with the judgment, maturity, and authority to make decisions that could have strategic consequences.  It's not about who's capable of controlling the aircraft.  It's about level of responsibility.

 

And it works.  Air Dominance is an American birthright.  The US Air Force is the best in the world, which is why most other countries use the US as a model.  Look at Desert Storm, Kosovo, and the opening days of OIF and OEF.  The proof is in the pudding.

 

By the way, the Air Force Predators and Reapers have been much more successful and effective at producing operational and strategic effects than any other service.  The Army's Sky Warrior program is still in its infancy.  And they're basing large elements of that program on the Air Force model.  So why all of sudden do we think the Army knows best?

 

The author is simply incorrect about the motive behind the development of automation.  The fact of the matter is that there's no such thing as an autonomous aircraft.  A quick comparison of the Predator to the Global Hawk shows that the Predator, which gives the pilot the ability to go to full manual control if needed, has been much more successful than the highly-automated Global Hawk.  Despite the hype, the technology just isn't there yet.   But by putting experienced aviators in the GCS and giving those aviators the ability to control the aircraft through its full envelope of performance, we've been able to change the way we fight counter-insurgencies.  We would do well to keep that in mind.

 

-Killjoy

 

You understand it and you get it. Its not that easy to tele-operate is it?

Herald
 
 
Quote    Reply





New Strategy - Wargames at Discount Prices
1.Modern Air Power: War Over the Middle East
2.Commander: Napoleon at War
3.Close Combat: Watch am Rhein
4.Gallic Wars
5.Fast Action Battle: The Bulge

100+ Computer and Board games all with free shipping.
 
 
 

StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2009StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy