What's the future look like for an RPA career?

There would likely bit some odd pride/resentment if the RPA pilot positions were both Es and Os, from the E side.
The Os probably wouldn't care quite as much, since they'd be making more money for the same kind of job. They might resent the fact that they didn't get something manned out of UPT, if AFPC was already filling positions with non-pilots.

In my current unit, we can switch out co-pilots and Flight Engineers. The aircraft commander is always a pilot, and the FE is not allowed to be on the controls. As an AC, a good FE can be better than a new co-pilot in many situations. The only time it is annoying is when you need a dual-pilot crew for certain currencies or you need to fiddle with something in the cockpit but can't hand off the controls. There is some competition, and the FEs take a lot of pride in being excellent at up-front duties.

Bottom line: having mixed O and E crews in one crew position can work, as long as you design operations and training accordingly.
 
In my current unit, we can switch out co-pilots and Flight Engineers. The aircraft commander is always a pilot, and the FE is not allowed to be on the controls. As an AC, a good FE can be better than a new co-pilot in many situations. The only time it is annoying is when you need a dual-pilot crew for certain currencies or you need to fiddle with something in the cockpit but can't hand off the controls. There is some competition, and the FEs take a lot of pride in being excellent at up-front duties.

Bottom line: having mixed O and E crews in one crew position can work, as long as you design operations and training accordingly.

That's actually pretty interesting...does the November have the "one pilot qualified in model/one qualified observer" min crew requirements?
 
I am not underestimating the enlisted force. I am looking at morale and retention.

I don't think that they (enlisted) can't perform, I think that the pilots forced in to RPA world through 2016 (FY17) and showing up op world in 2017 (FY18) for their 1st assignment out of UPT will not be thrilled to know that the AF now believes an E5 can do the job.

I think that the enlisted member will not be thrilled sitting next to that O3 getting the new bonuses they just released, when they are not getting one..

Valid points. But Air Force needs to do what will be best for the Air Force in the future, not worry about how some officers or enlisted airmen won't be happy.

It happens all the time in the military, minor current issues preventing changes from happening.

My proposal, in case anyone care, will be by 2020, RPA pilots will be enlisted and next 5 years will be used for transition.

If the Military can figure out how to open combat arms positions to females, Air Force can figure out how to transition to RPA pilots being all enlisted.
 
Bullet and I were discussing this issue last night. One thing that I found interesting was he said when the RPA program came online it was the FAA that forced them to be pilots.

I do agree that in the future the chances are that they will be enlisted, but I don't think it can happen overnight.
~ Look at how long it takes the AF to boneyard and airframe. I think it took them @7 years or more for the F4 and the 111.
 
One of my twins was here for an overnight visit last night and we discussed this issue with him. He is *so* glad the RPA drops were not part of his class.

I do like the idea of reinstituting the Warrant Off program.
 
If it's enlisted…. there's little justification to have officers in it too….
 
My guess would be that the AF will bring in an initial enlisted cadre at the E5 through E7 rank of handpicked volunteers. If the test proves successful, I believe the AF would then create an enlisted RPA pilot AFSC and restrict it to NCOs serving on a second or subsequent enlistment. I can’t see a first term airman being given this responsibility. As the enlisted force matures and grows their own Chief and Senior Master Sergeants, the need for direct officer oversight will diminish until there are no longer any officer RPA pilots. That’s why it will take a long term view to transition to an all enlisted pilot force.


Pima, I wasn’t trashing WSOs. I think their promotion shortfalls in the late 80s and early 90s was due to the F-4s and 111s going to DM. That created a surplus of WSOs all competing for a limited number of competitive promotable jobs. When I retired in ’96, Bullet was a young captain who hadn’t competed for major yet and I’m sure he had heard the horror stories from his more senior squadron mates about promotion problems within their community. It sounds like the AF corrected the situation after I retired and he certainly went on to a successful career. Timing is everything.


However, I think the fighter CSO is on its last legs. Lakenheath is converting to the single seat F-35 leaving SJ and MH as the only F-15E wings in the AF. Dwindling number of career opportunities as a CSO is why I suggested to my son he put the RPA job second on his list when he sought my counsel.
 
Bullet and I were discussing this issue last night. One thing that I found interesting was he said when the RPA program came online it was the FAA that forced them to be pilots.

Perhaps FAA influenced AF's decision. But I think FAA requirement is just an excuse or it served AFs need. Would the AF modified something on F35 because FAA wanted it? The Army was flying RPA or UAV way before the AF, but they started out with enlisted pilots. I guess FAA have jurisdiction over civilian air space, but not overseas (primary flying space for RPA). I believe restricted air space is controlled by the DoD. During GWOT, it would have not been difficult for the DoD to get some sort of waiver from the FAA. Lastly, if AF decided to have a requirement for RPA fly CONUS civilian air space for whatever reason, which probably got FAA involved I have to ask why?
 
Does FAA not have authority over ALL U.S. airspace, regardless of the fact that some areas (very limited) may be DOD? Test flights, training, etc, is often over U.S. airspace.

It's good to remember WHY we have civilian oversight in the U.S. The last thing I'd love is constant military flights, of any branch over my house.

It's not the "Sound of Freedom" when it's over U.S. lands.
 
Perhaps FAA influenced AF's decision. But I think FAA requirement is just an excuse or it served AFs need. Would the AF modified something on F35 because FAA wanted it? The Army was flying RPA or UAV way before the AF, but they started out with enlisted pilots. I guess FAA have jurisdiction over civilian air space, but not overseas (primary flying space for RPA). I believe restricted air space is controlled by the DoD. During GWOT, it would have not been difficult for the DoD to get some sort of waiver from the FAA. Lastly, if AF decided to have a requirement for RPA fly CONUS civilian air space for whatever reason, which probably got FAA involved I have to ask why?

The AF flies RPAs in CONUS airspace all the time. Their training units are in Texas, Nevada, and New Mexico. There are also Reserve units in North Dakota and New York who fly training missions daily. When any of these units are not deployed they are flying missions in CONUS air space.

Stealth_81
 
Not to go off topic too much, but I want to say this for those that now fear CSO drops
F-4s and 111s going to DM. That created a surplus of WSOs all competing for a limited number of competitive promotable jobs.

I am assuming you mean Davis Monthan when you say DM. That is not where they were truly going for the 111. They went to Cannon.
~ It was a blood bath at RAF Heyford for BOTH pilots and WSOs in 1993 if they were young O3s. Nobody was safe.
~~ We arrived at Elmendorf in 1995, after Bullet converted. At the 1st spouse's coffee everybody would say where their last base was in their hi, my name is. 5 of the 6 all said an ALO position. Only 2 of us were pilot wives, the rest were WSOs.

FFWD to 1998, those that opted to stay in and go to Cannon did convert for the most part.

Additionally, you are talking a different time. In 96, when you retired the AF was already coming back from the RIF. I am still friends with many of those that went through FTU at MH for the 111 in 1989. There were 6 WSOs in that class with 8 pilots. Not one was RIF'd. All made rank to O5 or higher.

I don't disagree that it is a dieing breed, but... if my kid asked me which path to take with a long term goal of flying manned airframes, I think you already answered why they should go CSO.
~ Think about it...the AF has xtraining boards for UPT. Do they take that F15E guy/gal that has flown manned or the guy in RPAs that is undermanned that has never flown a manned airframe during a deployment or at Red Flag?
~~ Do you actually believe they will release an RPA pilot out of RPA school faster than a CSO or Nav for UPT?
 
Last edited:
Maybe it is just me, but I think people think that these drones are the size of what just caused havoc at the US Open.

An MQ-9 has a wingspan of 66 feet and length of 36 feet
~ Basically, for most people here...bigger than the foundation of your home!
~~ If you own a 2 story home you are looking at a 4800 sqft home foundation wise. Ranch style you are at 2400 sqft. That is the size of the MQ9.
~ They have a cruise speed of 230 mph and ceiling of 50K feet.

The MQ-1 is just slightly smaller 55 feet by 27 feet. Ceiling height of 25K feet.

In other words, an issue, is these drones are also flying around in the same airspace as manned airframes with armament on board. Hence, why the FAA placed their own regulations.
 
In other words, an issue, is these drones are also flying around in the same airspace as manned airframes with armament on board. Hence, why the FAA placed their own regulations.

I would argue that RQ 7 shouldn't be flying in inside United States operationally (I.e. by collecting intelligence or shooting missiles). Training can be done inside military restricted air space.

If RQ 7s are flying in the U.S. operationally, I am thinking perhaps I should start believing in all those conspiracy theories about the government is spying and killing US citizens in the United States.
 
Last edited:
The AF does not fly the RQ7. We are now mixing things here.
~ The RQ7 has a wingspan of less than 20 feet with a top speed of 126mph, whereas, the MQ9 has a cruise speed of 230 mph and 66 feet. The RQ7 has a range of @69 miles. The MQ 9 has a range of over 1150 miles. The RQ weighs 180 lbs, the MQ9 weighs @4900 lbs empty. 10,500 max weight for take off.
~~ That info is from Google, which we know... the internet is never wrong :biggrin:

The topic is why the AF uses pilots (officers) and not enlisted like their sister services. The size of these unmanned airframes may be exactly why they opt for officers when you start to realize how large they are compared to what is in the inventory for the Army. Or for that fact the mission.

Now, from what I have read about the MQ1 and 9 it has a crew of 2 (pilot and sensor operator)
~ The sensor operator is enlisted.
~~Conduct reconnaissance and surveillance of potential targets and areas of interest
Discriminate between valid and invalid targets using radar, electro-optical, low-light, infrared video imagery and other tracking system
Assist RPA pilots through all phases of mission

So, in the end, this debate that you can have enlisted in the field flying missions is for naught. The comparison of TACPs is the same here. TACP may call in the strike, but it is the ALO that orders it. Just like the sensor operator and the RPA pilot, if crap hits the wall, it is the pilot's career will take the 1st hit. It is how the AF wants it for responsibility.

Additionally, another reason goes back to the size and airspace procedures.
Training can be done inside military restricted air space.
This is true, but you typically have to fly through civilian airspace to get to the military restricted air space.
~ Elmendorf is located in Achorage, AK. Literally the back gate drops you into downtown Anchorage
~ Pope and Seymour Johnson AFB are 70 miles by car from Raleigh. A lot closer by the way the crow flies
~ San Antonio, where not only do they train the RPAs, but the home of the Flight Training Wing for IPs that will be instructors at UPT. (Randolph AFB)
~ Nellis AFB is located in Las Vegas. Home of WIC and Red Flag. Creech is there too, the RPA base.
~ Little Rock AFB is in Little Rock, Arkansas (school house for C130s)

The point I am making is before you get to that military restricted air space you have to fly through the civilian air space first. That comes back to the whole FAA requirements regarding why they may want a 10,500 lb unmanned airframe with a cruising speed of 230 mph, carrying ammunition to be an FAA qualified pilot compared to the RQ7.
~ Also since the MQ9 has a 1150 mile range, they are going to be flying through other countries air space.

FWIW, I think Welsh will retire next summer without settling this issue. He will let the next CSAF to determine what path the RPA should take regarding personnel. If I am correct, than that means this aspect will not be addressed for at least 1 more year. I think his goal regarding RPAs has been done already. He is trying to leave the next CSAF on day 1 the shortage the RPA community is feeling. Bonuses and pulling from UPT for only 1 year allows the next one to have enough time to create their own path before hitting the fire.
 
I know what you're trying to say PIMA regarding the TACP, but the enlisted JTACs have full control authority for CAS, and if the ALO does not have his/her JTAC qualification (for whatever reason) they have more authority than him/her. That authority is delegated directly from the ground maneuver commander (the dude in charge of everything in his area) to the JTAC(s). And the ALOs aren't really ordering those, they help facilitate (liaison and control) the Army's CAS requests. The enlisted JTAC on the ground will almost always retain control even if a FAC(A) (an officer) checks on. But that's all minor details, I do understand the point you were trying to make.

Back on topic, RPAs/UASs are going to continue to grow. The Army has already been fielding the Gray Eagle which is closer in size to the Predator/Reaper and all of those are increasing their capabilities in terms of range and weapons. So the demand is there and the supply is coming regardless if it's a commissioned pilot or enlisted operator. I don't see a problem with having enlisted drone operators and maybe an O as a flight or squadron commander. The least of my worries would be someone's ego, save the AF some money and send the Os back to the manned world and bring in E drone operators.
 
I think the Army has a unique option, not currently available the Air Force... Warrant Officers. Bull, thoughts on going that direction for the Army UAS stuff?
 
There are some cadets who mentioned being interested in RPAs (they did not want to be pilots), but after hearing more about the problems surrounding RPAs, they are no longer interested. The RPA issues aren't just turning off potential pilots, but others who would otherwise be interested. The cadets do their career research, and know that RPAs is not where you want to go even if you would be interested in flying them instead of planes.
 
Additionally, another reason goes back to the size and airspace procedures.

This is true, but you typically have to fly through civilian airspace to get to the military restricted air space.
~ Elmendorf is located in Achorage, AK. Literally the back gate drops you into downtown Anchorage
~ Pope and Seymour Johnson AFB are 70 miles by car from Raleigh. A lot closer by the way the crow flies
~ San Antonio, where not only do they train the RPAs, but the home of the Flight Training Wing for IPs that will be instructors at UPT. (Randolph AFB)
~ Nellis AFB is located in Las Vegas. Home of WIC and Red Flag. Creech is there too, the RPA base.
~ Little Rock AFB is in Little Rock, Arkansas (school house for C130s)

The point I am making is before you get to that military restricted air space you have to fly through the civilian air space first. That comes back to the whole FAA requirements regarding why they may want a 10,500 lb unmanned airframe with a cruising speed of 230 mph, carrying ammunition to be an FAA qualified pilot compared to the RQ7.
~ Also since the MQ9 has a 1150 mile range, they are going to be flying through other countries air space..

This is a little disingenous. Technically, military aviators have zero civilian qualifications. You can go out and do the military competency test and get your ratings with minimal effort but getting wings doesn't mean jack to the FAA until you do. When I fly a military aircraft I don't fly as "instrument rated commerical pilot with rotary endorsement" Hurricane, I fly as 1stLt Hurricane, Naval Aviator. If I want to go rent a Cessna and fly around on the weekends, no one cares that I fly helicopters "professionally" (Ha) and I have to pull out my pilot's license. The FAA trusts that the military trains you properly and gives you the familiarity with civilian procedures nececessary to operate within the national airspace system. Also, in places where military special use airspaces abut busy civilian airspace (like SoCal, where I fly) there's also usually letters of agreement between the military/civilian agencies to simplify routing in and out and reduce controller workload. (And, btw, a quick scan on the AFBs you posted on skyvector shows nothing cosmic as far as airspaces go. Stuff's not that complex)

Does FAA not have authority over ALL U.S. airspace, regardless of the fact that some areas (very limited) may be DOD? Test flights, training, etc, is often over U.S. airspace.

It's good to remember WHY we have civilian oversight in the U.S. The last thing I'd love is constant military flights, of any branch over my house.

It's not the "Sound of Freedom" when it's over U.S. lands.

Oh, come on. Take off the tinfoil hat. If you don't want constant military flights over your house...don't move next to a military airfield. They've all been there for like 70 years before anyone else moved nearby. And, despite that it can be restrictive and annoying, we do consider what we're flying over. We don't just buzz over people's houses at 200 feet for the hell of it.

Without going into crazy detail because it'd be boring, Restricted Areas and other special use airspaces for use by the military are all kind of "owned" by the FAA. If you look on a civilian chart there will be a controlling agency assigned to it. BUT! All those guys will tell you if you're Joe Cessna bombing around is if the restricted area is active or not. A military agency will actually control who goes in and out if it is active.
For flights within a restricted area, a military pilot will only talk to military agencies. For flights out of a restricted area, he'll possibly talk to civilians as well depending on the route of flight and type of flight plan and play by the same rules as everyone else. Rules for other airspaces, like Military Operating Areas, are different.
 
Last edited:
Hurricane,

I think you missed my point, or I poorly posted.

My response was to Member regarding training can be done in "restricted military air space"
I am not disagreeing with him. I was just saying that they have to fly through civilian air space first to get to that restricted air space.
~ IE some of our AFB are in BF Egypt, like Eilson, Mt. Home, Lakenheath, etc, but many are in air space that deal with commercial air space.

I am not disagreeing about the 0 qualifications. However, as a pilot in the military you have an FAA FCI physical, right? You can fly Cessnas and Pipers all day long with an FAA instructor. You can't go up on your own without passing the FAA requirements.
~ My DS is a C130J pilot, he has his PPL too. However, he is not a "instrument rated commercial pilot". That would mean he needs to pay for more FAA classes/ratings.

We are not talking manned airframes here. We are talking drones that can be the size of a Cessna or Piper weighing 10K lbs fully loaded with armament and cruising speed of 230 mph at an altitude of 50K feet.

In the end I find this conversation about E or O ridiculous. The AF has a budget. Until the point that they can't afford to throw money hand over fist to certain personnel without damaging them on a whole, than this is all moot.

Army uses Es instead of Os. Great! That is their checkbook, and that is how they decided to spend their budget.

The AF is not asking for more money from the DoD for RPAs to dig them out of this hole, are they? It is the AF using their checkbook.
~ A branch that is called the Prima Donnas, corporate, bankers, etc.

As a taxpayer I get it. Just saying where is the line drawn? If you were a stockholder of Apple, would you be this invested in what position/title a mid-level employee has?

This ego thing keeps getting bantered about, but I wonder now if it is being misconstrued...who's ego is it really?
~ The pilot wanting a manned airframe
~ The enlisted wanting to fly the RPA
~ Sister branches bickering like siblings within a family.

If any of you have a REAL problem with AF officers flying the UAV over enlisted for cost or respect issues, than get off this forum and start dialing your congressmen/Senators. Email Gen. Welsh.
~ Tell them that in your mind this is abuse of taxpayer funds.

Best thoughts, hopes and wishes to everyone.
 
Last edited:
I'm pretty boot, but I'm going to go on a limb here and assume I know more about flying in both military and civilian airspace than you.

You don't always have to go through civilian airspace to SUAs. It's dependent on where the airfield is and how the airspace is constructed. Either way it's irrelevant.
As a pilot in the military, I don't have anything to do with the FAA as per physicals or really anything else. Technically, per the FAR/AIM, my Navy flight phys counts as a 3rd class medical, but that's going down a real deep rabbit hole.

What I'm getting at is that the FAA trusts the military to certify competent, safe pilots of manned aircraft and allows them to fly through their airspace without putting additional civilian restrictions on them. The assumption is that if someone is good enough to get the thumbs-up from the military that they're good enough to dick around through civilian airspace to get where they need to be. I get that the Air Force UAVs are big or whatever (certainly much larger than the USMC ones) but I see no reason that the FAA wouldn't trust the Air Force to train UAV operators, or why the FAA would care whether the UAV operator has shinies on his collar or not.
The hold-up for Enlisted (or Warrant! Which seems like a pretty great idea actually) RPA pilots seems to be internal to the Air Force and more related to weapons release authority. My understanding is that initially they wanted guys piloting UAVs who were familiar with dropping ordnance, because that's a pretty serious business. But that's just spitballing on my part.
 
Back
Top