On Sharing airspace with "non-rated UAV "pilots"

[vaughn]

It appears that the Air Force is experimenting with non-rated UAV "pilots".
Since as a civilian pilot I could potentially be sharing the same airspace
with these folks, I am not sure this gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.

Of course, the government could always "solve" any potential problem with
more restricted airspace...

Vaughn

"Citing a projected shortfall of 1,500 pilots over the next decade, the U.S.
Air Force has begun training 10 non-pilots to fly unmanned aerial vehicles,
or UAVs. The Air Force says UAVs flew 400,000 hours in 2008, double the rate
of the previous year. Because every sortie requires support from seven
people on the ground, officials say existing fighter and bomber personnel
simply cannot keep up with demand. FlightGlobal.com (3/12) "

[a[_3_]]

On Mar 13, 1:29*pm, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> It appears that the Air Force is experimenting with non-rated UAV "pilots".
> Since as a civilian pilot I could potentially be sharing the same airspace
> with these folks, I am not sure this gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
>
> Of course, the government could always "solve" any potential problem with
> more restricted airspace...
>
> Vaughn
>
> "Citing a projected shortfall of 1,500 pilots over the next decade, the U..S.
> Air Force has begun training 10 non-pilots to fly unmanned aerial vehicles,
> or UAVs. The Air Force says UAVs flew 400,000 hours in 2008, double the rate
> of the previous year. Because every sortie requires support from seven
> people on the ground, officials say existing fighter and bomber personnel
> simply cannot keep up with demand. FlightGlobal.com (3/12) "

This website

http://www.uavm.com/uavregulatory/access5unite.html

and others strongly indicate that it's unlikely UAVs will be flying in
United States airspace anytime soon unless you count R/C models.

I hope that indication is correct. On a related note, I think training
other than that required to become a licensed pilot should be required
to fly a UAV.

[[email protected]]

vaughn > wrote:
> It appears that the Air Force is experimenting with non-rated UAV "pilots".
> Since as a civilian pilot I could potentially be sharing the same airspace
> with these folks, I am not sure this gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
>
> Of course, the government could always "solve" any potential problem with
> more restricted airspace...
>
> Vaughn
>
> "Citing a projected shortfall of 1,500 pilots over the next decade, the U.S.
> Air Force has begun training 10 non-pilots to fly unmanned aerial vehicles,
> or UAVs. The Air Force says UAVs flew 400,000 hours in 2008, double the rate
> of the previous year. Because every sortie requires support from seven
> people on the ground, officials say existing fighter and bomber personnel
> simply cannot keep up with demand. FlightGlobal.com (3/12) "

Once they are trained, I would imagine they then become rated UAV pilots.

I would think that most of these will be flying in areas with lots of
sand and an occasional camel.

I would hope that the AF has enough foresight to provide appropriate
training for UAV only pilots that will fly in the civil airspace.


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

[george]

On Mar 14, 9:30*am, wrote:
> vaughn > wrote:
> > It appears that the Air Force is experimenting with non-rated UAV "pilots".
> > Since as a civilian pilot I could potentially be sharing the same airspace
> > with these folks, I am not sure this gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
>
> > Of course, the government could always "solve" any potential problem with
> > more restricted airspace...
>
> > Vaughn
>
> > "Citing a projected shortfall of 1,500 pilots over the next decade, the U.S.
> > Air Force has begun training 10 non-pilots to fly unmanned aerial vehicles,
> > or UAVs. The Air Force says UAVs flew 400,000 hours in 2008, double the rate
> > of the previous year. Because every sortie requires support from seven
> > people on the ground, officials say existing fighter and bomber personnel
> > simply cannot keep up with demand. FlightGlobal.com (3/12) "
>
> Once they are trained, I would imagine they then become rated UAV pilots.
>
> I would think that most of these will be flying in areas with lots of
> sand and an occasional camel.
>
> I would hope that the AF has enough foresight to provide appropriate
> training for UAV only pilots that will fly in the civil airspace.
>
There are lots of brand new CPL's out here who'd be only to happy to
fly UAVs until a real job comes up

[BT]

<
> I would think that most of these will be flying in areas with lots of
> sand and an occasional camel.
>
> I would hope that the AF has enough foresight to provide appropriate
> training for UAV only pilots that will fly in the civil airspace.
>

UAVs or more correctly UAS (Unmanned Aerial System) are flying right now
and outside of restricted airspace.
Just check all the NOTAMS for flying around Southern California for UAS
flying.

Border Patrol is flying a lot of UAS along the AZ/NM border with Mexico and
also starting along the ND Canadian border out of Grand Forks AFB ND.

BT

[Todd W. Deckard]

a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. The operator is not "flying
it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...

[vaughn]

"Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in message
m...
>a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. The operator is not "flying
>it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...

And?

I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any other
plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I follow. For
lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the controls. If we
don't hold UAVs to that standard as they evolve, eventually our government
will decide that UAVs need to be separated from manned traffic. Knowing how
the govenrnment works, I can assure you that the result of that will be the
airspace allocated to us human pilots shrinking dramatically and quickly.

Of course, it will all be done "in the interest of our safety".

Vaughn
>
>

[Mike Schumann]

You better have an operational transponder or there's no chance that a UAV
operator is going to be able to see you.

Mike Schumann

"vaughn" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in message
> m...
>>a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. The operator is not "flying
>>it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...
>
> And?
>
> I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
> want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any
> other plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I
> follow. For lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the
> controls. If we don't hold UAVs to that standard as they evolve,
> eventually our government will decide that UAVs need to be separated from
> manned traffic. Knowing how the govenrnment works, I can assure you that
> the result of that will be the airspace allocated to us human pilots
> shrinking dramatically and quickly.
>
> Of course, it will all be done "in the interest of our safety".
>
> Vaughn
>>
>>
>
>

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 13, 10:29*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> It appears that the Air Force is experimenting with non-rated UAV "pilots".
> Since as a civilian pilot I could potentially be sharing the same airspace
> with these folks, I am not sure this gives me a warm, fuzzy feeling.
>
> Of course, the government could always "solve" any potential problem with
> more restricted airspace...

That you may be surprised to learn that many F-16 pilots are not
rated. Its optional to take your civilian checkride. I have full faith
that the Air Force's rating requirements are more than good enough.

-Robert

[Robert M. Gary]

On Mar 14, 4:57*am, "vaughn" >
wrote:
> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in messagenews:iLWdnTfnofaWkybUnZ2dnUVZ_gyWnZ2d@earth link.com...
>
> >a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. *The operator is not "flying
> >it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...
>
> * *And?
>
> * *I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
> want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any other
> plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I follow. *For
> lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the controls. *If we
> don't hold UAVs to that standard as they evolve, eventually our government
> will decide that UAVs need to be separated from manned traffic. *

Again, many F-16 pilots are not rated either. The Air Force doesn't
require its pilots to obtain civilan ratings.
In anycase, the only time the Global Hawk is flying outside of class A
airspace in the US is in TFRs.

-Robert

[vaughn]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
Again, many F-16 pilots are not rated either. The Air Force doesn't
require its pilots to obtain civilan ratings.

Of course not. To me, "rated pilot" means either a civilian or a
military pilot.

Vaughn

[vaughn]

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...

>That you may be surprised to learn that many F-16 pilots are not
>rated. Its optional to take your civilian checkride.

I thought that was a given. I have no problem with military pilots. This
thread is about military non-pilots being given poloting jobs.

>I have full faith that the Air Force's rating requirements are more than
>good enough.

I agree. But you seem to have missed the point of this thread.

Vaughn

[BT]

Robert.. True.. they do not hold "civilian ratings". But that have completed
a course of instruction to include pilot training and a check ride in a
course/classroom environment acceptable to the FAA. All they need to do is
take a current "Form 8" to the local FSDO along with the results of an
"equivalency" written test and they can be issued Commercial, Instrument,
Multi Engine Ratings (if the Form 8 is for multi engine aircraft).

Global Hawk is flying in TFR or Restricted Airspace.
Other UAS, Predator, Raven, are not necessarily in a Restricted airspace.
Many are flying outside of the airspace.. check the local NOTAMs around So
California

BT


"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
...
On Mar 14, 4:57 am, "vaughn" >


Again, many F-16 pilots are not rated either. The Air Force doesn't
require its pilots to obtain civilan ratings.
In anycase, the only time the Global Hawk is flying outside of class A
airspace in the US is in TFRs.

-Robert

[dhl]

In article >,
"vaughn" > wrote:

> "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in message
> m...
> >a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. The operator is not "flying
> >it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...
>
> And?
>
> I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
> want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any other
> plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I follow. For
> lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the controls.

bah - operating a UAV isn't piloting. You don't need to be a pilot
to operate a UAV.

[Varactor]

On Mar 15, 3:19*pm, dhl > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"vaughn" > wrote:
> > "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in message
> m...
> > >a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. *The operator is not "flying
> > >it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...
>
> > * *And?
>
> > * *I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
> > want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any other
> > plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I follow. *For
> > lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the controls.
>
> bah - operating a UAV isn't piloting. *You don't need to be a pilot
> to operate a UAV.

In WWII didn't real pilots take great delight in trashing UAV's? I
wonder what a good wake vortex would do?

Cheers

[Stubby[_3_]]

On Mar 14, 9:19*pm, dhl > wrote:
> In article >,
>
> *"vaughn" > wrote:
> > "Todd W. Deckard" > wrote in message
> m...
> > >a GlobalHawk is flown entirely with a mouse. *The operator is not "flying
> > >it" they are commanding it over specific profiles ...
>
> > * *And?
>
> > * *I have no particular problems with sharing airspace with a UAV, I just
> > want it to be able see and avoid other planes at least as well as any other
> > plane out there, and I want to to follow the same rules that I follow. *For
> > lots of good reasons, that includes a rated pilot at the controls.
>
> bah - operating a UAV isn't piloting. *You don't need to be a pilot
> to operate a UAV.

Will you buy a ticket on a large passenger plan if it doesn't have a
human pilot?