http://www.airforcetimes.com/article/20140416/NEWS/304160065/GAO-Air-Force-Improve-morale-drone-pilots

So these people are feeling sorry for themselves.

Are these people the same as the ones who actually sit in the aircraft or are they no different than people who fly model airplanes?

[This message has been edited by Rabid Cougar (edited 4/21/2014 8:56a).]

nah, different...

drones "operators" are like video game pilots.

my kids is like a Jedi on Call of Duty, but that doesn't make him a soldier - amirite?

Just a few short years ago the AF was sending UPT grads - pilots - directly to jobs flying drones. So yeah, those guys and gals WERE pilots.

I don't know if any recent UPT grads have been screwed in that way. Canyon would know.

Well, I might have a little clue, but not much.

My understanding is that they are starting a different pipeline for drone operators. Not doing the UPT to drone anymore. But there was at least one drone "drop" from her UPT class in late 2013. I believe that one was a National Guard slot, and he knew he'd have drones from the start.

On a somewhat related note, they have changed the pipeline for the Osprey. At first, they were sending folks to Helos, then to the Osprey. After getting some experience, the Osprey guys told them it's nothing like a helo. So now you go straight from UPT to Ospreys, if that's your drop. One of her UPT classmates did that, he was like the 2nd or 3rd ever to go that route, but it's common now.

One of her USAFA friends from the class behind her got Ospreys. He's from Amarillo, where they are assembled, so that's kind of cool.

"Despite a GAO recommendation that the Air Force evaluate the possibility of using enlisted personnel to fly drones, the Air Force reiterated its position that an officer is necessary “to ensure rank is commensurate with responsibility.”"



Meanwhile, an Army SPC.....

[This message has been edited by Fly Army 97 (edited 4/23/2014 8:48p).]

quote:

---

...the Air Force reiterated its position that an officer is necessary “to ensure rank is commensurate with responsibility.”"

---

I have NO problem with that position and totally agree with it. (Disclaimer: I'm a retired AF officer).

The subject of killing our "enemies" with drone attacks is definitely worthy of debate and IS being currently debated. It's the old "collateral damage" argument.

I will damn well guarantee you that if GW Bush had ramped up the drone kills like Obama has there would be hell to pay for him in the MSM.

No matter what side of the debate you are on, to put that responsibility on an Army SFC is just plain wrong IMO.

Disclaimer: You are one of my favorite posters on this board. I can't remember another time when I have disagreed with you.






[This message has been edited by NormanAg (edited 4/23/2014 9:26p).]

The responsibility of the officer is to press the launch button when they are told to.

The enlisted sensor operator guides in every weapon except a JDAM.

The CDE calls are made by a separate platform 90% of the time.

The JTAC, who are mostly enlisted, issues the 9 line and takes responsibility for the weapon. Well, he and the GFC.

My point is that the possible ethics elective that officer may have taken really doesn't help them much, even if they were making CDE decisions. I'll take the decision of Norman's 10yr SFC over any LT.

My caption would have finished, "...somewhere in Afghanistan is operating this..." and probably quite well.

"No matter what side of the debate you are on, to put that responsibility on an Army SFC is just plain wrong IMO."

Norman's response is interesting because that is exactly how the Army conducts business with Gray Eagle. One difference aside from the rank and platform capability. We grab a few ground control units and go forward. Our enlisted have been doing quite well for years...as have our Warrant Officers in aircraft.

It's a cultural thing. I've deployed with the Air Force before, so I'm very familiar in how they view and utilize our ranks in practice. But suppose we can just disagree on the level of responsibility one can take as a SFC or SPC. Same can be said for LTs and CPTs leading how they do..



[This message has been edited by Fly Army 97 (edited 4/26/2014 10:26a).]

FWIW, I have no problems with Warrant Officers. I grew up as an AF brat at a time when they still had WOs. My dad was an E-8 and had several AF WO friends. I also knew several high school/college friends who were Army WOs.

I guess my issue has to do with the relationship between "responsibility" and what I have always called the "big picture". Officers (including Army WOs) are educated/trained to have a "big picture" view.

I'm guessing Army NCOs - not as much. (No reflection on them, BTW.)

I believe "responsibility" and level of education are closely related. The more education an individual has, the more qualified they are to handle "responsibility".

I say that as a retired AF officer with a great deal of experience supervising both junior enlisted personnel and junior officers.

Norman,

Quick hypothetical for you, what is your view on this subject in career fields where the enlisted force has more education than the officers?

For instance myself and several of my colleagues have bachelors degrees from top 4 year universities along with our rigorous technical training pipelune while our LT went to a school I've never heard of but was in a ROTC program. My career field attracts more enlisted airmen with bachelors than most, but the old fashioned idea of the officers being more educated and thus deserving of more responsibility is antiquated at best and at worst a detriment to mission execution.

My career field attracts more enlisted airmen with bachelors than most, but the old fashioned idea of the officers being more educated and thus deserving of more responsibility is antiquated at best and at worst a detriment to mission execution.[/]

When I enlisted in the Marine Corps my platoon commander was more than surprised when he had discovered within the platoon men who had a bachelors degree. The education gap between gap between officers and and enlisted has shrank considerably over the past decade for numerous reasons.

The USAF has a completely skewed/odd view of rank/position allignment. At the base where I work, you find LTCs in command of (what in the Army would be) reinforced platoons. There is one particular position in my organization that (in various 6 mo rotations) has been held by an AF SMSgt, a 2LT and a Major. That does not indicate a great understanding of job demands and/or commensurate rank/experience.

Also...the number of E9s running around here is also all out of whack compared to your average Army post. Then again, maybe they are all just trying to get some kind of SW Asia tour in their 201?

Norman, while I agree on the premise of the big picture, piloting an aircraft isn't the big picture. Tactical fight all the way as far as operators go. Sure, it ties into the operational/strategic picture, but operating a single aircraft does not.....again, we utilize our ranks differently (my premise and opinion).

I do not believe the more education one has the more responsibility they are subsequently qualified to handle.

A education may be a good qualifier the same way the GMAT may screen for those who will excel in an MBA program...but that is about it until we are talking about working outside the tactical fight.

Maybe splitting hairs here, but training (education) drives capability. In our case, we have great training programs for Gray Eagle operators...that and we have something called Mission Command that empowers lower levels of the fight to understand and execute the commander's intent. We need this because our lower level leaders need to be able to execute missions away from the flag pole. It's all about responsibility and empowerment/training required to do so.

I respect your time in service, and having worked/deployed with the Air Force understand there is no changing the minds of those who hold their specific services values close to their heart.

Excellent post Fly Army and the three posts above yours also make good points. I'm not totally convinced, but you guys have made me rethink my position. Good thread!

Agree with AggieEP. Active duty still with over 21 years of service and an E-8. I have more education than a lot of officers. The times have changed drastically. I see tons of new Airmen coming in ow with Bachelor and Masters degrees. I have both as well as a HR certification, Professional Managers certification, and six sigma cert.

Norman, while it may work in the Army, I don't see this model working in the Air Force. Too many cultural columns to overcome. And when it comes down to it, I don't think the population is that big (speculating) to make a difference.

In the Army, eventually every division will have their own Gray Eagle company, but we have a long way to go.

While I see the point of the posters above WRT education, most field grade officers (~75-80%) in the Army have at least a masters degree. Figure probably higher Air Force because CGSC requires one to obtain a masters. I would argue that both enlisted and officer corps are better educated than they were over 20 years ago.

Totally agree!

What timing...
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/drone-stigma-means-skilled-pilots-controls-deadly-robots/story?id=23475968&google_editors_picks=true

quote:

---

The Air Force recently acknowledged that due to a “stigma” surrounding its drone program, many pilots at the controls of the deadly weapons are “less skilled” and officers overseeing them are “less competent” than their manned aircraft brethren, as alleged by the Government Accountability Office.

---

quote:

---

Further, any lethal action taken by drones is decided by officials higher up on the chain than the pilots, making the pilot’s personal judgment less of a factor in deadly operations. The Air Force said such a decision is based on the Theater Rules of Engagement and strikes are authorized by the “correct level of authority” before the order comes down to the pilot to pull the trigger.

---