AVO warrant program and more

[Swanee]

Rambling...we trained up a cadre of drone pilots a bunch of years ago, sending them to the USAF MQ1 pipeline. We had some failures...and they were all single anchors. Couldn't mentally visualize they plane operating in space without their derriere in the seat.

Yeah. There are plenty of stories of F/A/FA-XX pilots who couldn't make the transition- some have to to with the fact that you have to be very far ahead of this airplane- it's too slow and there are no options that will get the airplane there quickly or to make up lost time. You're either always in the position you need to be in or you're going to be well behind. And you're a slave to the airplane logic.

An awful lot of the block & tackle work of drone ops can be gained by operating the smaller Part 107-sized drones. Plan the flight, fly the plan, good briefs, WX, etc. Aviate, navigate, navigate, communicate. Signing for the plane. You also get to crash some and if disciplined, do investigations. I wonder if mixing that into the pipeline wouldn't have value. You could literally get someone a thousand hours flight time in a year hand-flying, first person video, GCS ops, night over the horizon and so on.

Just spitballing...

I have always thought, and still think, that group 3 UAS, like the RQ-21 or RQ-7, would be a great RPA/UAC/UAS Advanced trainer airplane.

That is exactly what the Navy might think right now.

Yeah. It doesn't surprise me. But it concerns me.

Speaking as an NFO who has about 800 hours G4/5 UAC time (and no Class A’s!) it can be done.

That being said, I am a huge foe of the idea that sim time is as good as live time for UAS training. Live training in manned aircraft and flying unmanned is absolutely necessary if you want operators who are in any way proficient, not just “trained in procedures.”Those are two different things in UAS just as they are in a manned aircraft.

Yeah, but you're not an NFO right out of Primary. Your beard is a bit grey...

We're on the same page.

 

[nittany03]

Rambling...we trained up a cadre of drone pilots a bunch of years ago, sending them to the USAF MQ1 pipeline. We had some failures...and they were all single anchors. Couldn't mentally visualize they plane operating in space without their derriere in the seat.

Wonder if this is generational, tbh . . . and I mean within the past 30 years. I rocked the hell out of every T-34 sim known to man, and managed to muddle through single-anchor T-45C TS as it existed in the early 2000's. I was that airshow geek who knew my life's dream and bought/downloaded Fighters Anthology/Janes [fill-in-the-blank] my entire childhood. I got stashed with the Marine Prowler folks for awhile pre-API, and amused the JOs flying rails boat passes in the sim. Obviously, the AWs crew knows how my pilot career turned out post-TRACOM, because the sim != the jet.

My point in bringing that all up is to wonder about the exact opposite problem. Were there people who Big Navy stuffed into UAVs after getting their single-anchor wings who were the exact opposite of twentysomething me? I was a geek who could fly a sim to save my life, or a T-45C with video game glass cockpit screens, but struggled with a gray jet with steam gauges and no HUD. Were they so-called jocks who could instinctually fly a jet to save their lives while physically there, but couldn't fly a proverbial sim? Either way, it's an HR fail on Big Navy's part, but we've all seen that before.

 

[taxi1]

Wonder if this is generational, tbh …

Were they so-called jocks who could instinctually fly a jet to save their lives while physically there, but couldn't fly a proverbial sim?

Good question.

Our cadre was all old dudes wearing cheaters and on blood pressure meds or had bad backs they lied about to the flight docs, yet some rocked it, some didn’t. I couldn’t predict in advance, either.

It was an interesting data set.

 

[HSMPBR]

Our cadre was all old dudes wearing cheaters and on blood pressure meds or had bad backs they lied about to the flight docs, yet some rocked it, some didn’t.

Say it ain’t so. Not in my navy.

 

[taxi1]

Say it ain’t so. Not in my navy.

You want to see an ugly drill team...

 

[Flash]

So dumb question time, what are the AVO's actually going to do when it comes to Navy UAV's? Are they going to be the 'PICs' or more sensor managers and 'mission commanders'? Because it would make sense to me to do the training they are doing right now to be MC's, not PIC/AC's.

 

[Gatordev]

Wonder if this is generational, tbh . . .

I don't think it's generational, I think it's just some people are more adept at certain things. Sometimes that's in a sim, sometimes that's in a plane. Some people take naturally to being mechanically linked to a machine, be it a car on pavement or a plane through the air.

I was an airshow geek, too. I loved playing flight sims and I certainly attribute some of my initial helo hover success to Jane's, but I was absolutely terrible in the T-34 sims, not great in the -57 sims, okay in the -60 sims, mostly just due to long-term exposure and learning the game logic, and I usually want to throw up in the -135 sim. But I'd argue I'm pretty solid in the real thing(s). For me, it just clicks better when in the real environment.

 

[Uncle Fester]

So dumb question time, what are the AVO's actually going to do when it comes to Navy UAV's? Are they going to be the 'PICs' or more sensor managers and 'mission commanders'? Because it would make sense to me to do the training they are doing right now to be MC's, not PIC/AC's.

Stingray AVOs in particular - the last time I was involved in MQ-25 HMI, and it was only as an advisor, the concept was for a “single seat,” flight crew, ie, the AVO would also manage sensor employment, single-seat Hornet style. Albeit there would also be a “back room” in the control center to assist with things like comms and crypto.