Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[Steve Davies]

Finally, some respect:

http://www.amazon.com/Drone-Pilot-Log-Academy-X/dp/150300032X/ref=zg_bsnr_226498_7

[Sim]

Finally, some respect:

http://www.amazon.com/Drone-Pilot-Log-Academy-X/dp/150300032X/ref=zg_bsnr_226498_7

Is there an option field for a hellfire into wedding celebration?

Edited November 18, 2014 by Sim

[pcola]

flying preds at Cannon is still better than sitting behind the customer service window at Hickam...

I think I'd take the window at Hickam over the container at Cannon. At least I'd still have a view. To each his own though.

[Guest]

http://breakingdefense.com/2014/11/war-is-no-video-game-not-even-remotely/

Interesting read.

[ARIs 'R' Us]

The new 202V3 has changed "See and Avoid" to "Sense and Avoid."

Hmmm

[Breckey]

Does that include TCAS as well?

[Ram]

The new 202V3 has changed "See and Avoid" to "Sense and Avoid."

Hmmm

Oh good. Everyone knows it's safer to stare at the MFD near your ballsack than it is to actually look outside.

[Chaff]

Skywalker did it

[Red Fox]

Oh good. Everyone knows it's safer to stare at the MFD near your ballsack than it is to actually look outside.

Ram, were you in the USAF in the mid 90's when a C-141 collided with a GAF C-160 off the coast of West Africa? The investigating board determined TCAS would have saved both crews. The CSAF at the time, Gen Ryan, did not like that finding and argued to remove it. The AMC/DO argued for it and the finding remained. (I had a friend who was on the safety board and witnessed the argument, so I'm telling the story 2nd hand and from memory). There are times when pilots flying a heavy cannot move the plane fast enough to avoid a collision when using only see and avoid. Sometimes the closure rate is too fast and there is not enough time. In the case of the C-141 accident, the C-160 was unobserved (TCAS would have changed that), but the board determined even if it had been seen, based on the closure rate, the crew could not have reacted quickly enough to avoid the collision (the aircraft commander was actually out of the seat at the time). IMO, the visibility in the C-17 and C-130 is not that great and terrible when compared to the bubble canopy of the Tweet (using the 3 planes I flew post UPT as examples). The MFDs in the C-17 are in a good location and with two pilots, it works well to have one pilot looking inside or be head's down at certain times, like when there is a TCAS alert. TCAS has probably saved several if not many aircrew, military and civilian. (It also gives airlifters great SA during Red Flags). So for heavies, sense and avoid works. Back in 1991, there were two A-10s from Alex that mid-aired, killing both pilots (had a friend on that board also). The board determined they converged at an angle where they didn't see each other until it was too late. TCAS may have helped them also.

[ARIs 'R' Us]

The point of TCAS is to verbally alert you so that you can keep your eyes outside until TCAS squawks, and then after while you're "CLIMBing" or DESCENDing."

Having a copilot stare at a screen when you have a TA is not the intent, and is also a bad idea.

I've had 4 HATRs. TCAS saved me on one of them, My eyes on the other 3.

[HU&W]

Interesting conversation. Recommend thread split. Sometimes our SA bubbles shrink; that's when TCAS is really nice.

[Red Fox]

The point of TCAS is to verbally alert you so that you can keep your eyes outside until TCAS squawks, and then after while you're "CLIMBing" or DESCENDing."

Having a copilot stare at a screen when you have a TA is not the intent, and is also a bad idea.

I've had 4 HATRs. TCAS saved me on one of them, My eyes on the other 3.

You misinterpreted my post. When I was flying the C-17, It was procedure for the PNF to go heads down to select the TCAS page on an MFD and gain SA on the potential conflict when there was a TCAS alert. I never wrote "stare at a screen" (looking inside does not equal stare at a screen) and yes that is not the intent and a bad idea. My point is; there are times heavies cannot maneuver fast enough when relying soley on see and avoid. The fact that TCAS saved your bacon once has proven its worth and supports sense and avoid. I was a Tweet IP at Willy and at Randolph, so I understand what it means to have one's head on a swivel. But even at a UPT base, it wasn't just see and avoid. As an example: while flying in the pattern, I knew the whereabouts of every other aircraft (back in the day there was an 8 aircraft limit in the pattern at the same time) by listening to the position calls. Because of that, I was able to anticipate potential conflicts and look in that sector of the canopy for the other aircraft. So, it was more than just see and avoid. I see TCAS augmenting a crew's SA, much like the pattern position calls did for me those many years ago.

[Ram]

Let's just agree that "sense and avoid" means different things to fighter vs. heavy pilots.

These days, in the age of JHMCS/NVGs/FCR/HSD/HAD/HAS/LINK-16/SATCOM in the single-cockpit F-16, the very LAST thing a new wingman needs is another excuse to not look outside.

Also, I'm sure that - after reading "sense and avoid" (just threw up in my mouth a little), not one single pilot here said to himself: "oh...I guess that means I can also clear by using the radios, too," despite your super-awesome Tweet pattern anecdotal evidence. I've done the white jet IP thing too, and white jet drivers aren't the only dudes in the cockpit who understand how you can use your ears to aid in conflict SA. Maybe you have heard of the conventional/pop BSA pattern...

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

[matmacwc]

Is this where I insert the -135s need to turn off that damn observation light while tanking. The -135 will not see an avoid a fighter, or am I starting a new/old arguement.

[StoleIt]

Let's just agree that "sense and avoid" means different things to fighter vs. heavy pilots.

These days, in the age of JHMCS/NVGs/FCR/HSD/HAD/HAS/LINK-16/SATCOM in the single-cockpit F-16, the very LAST thing a new wingman needs is another excuse to not look outside.

Also, I'm sure that - after reading "sense and avoid" (just threw up in my mouth a little), not one single pilot here said to himself: "oh...I guess that means I can also clear by using the radios, too," despite your super-awesome Tweet pattern anecdotal evidence. I've done the white jet IP thing too, and white jet drivers aren't the only dudes in the cockpit who understand how you can use your ears to aid in conflict SA. Maybe you have heard of the conventional/pop BSA pattern...

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Hard to clear with your ears when half the jets are getting clearances from merc and the other half don't have merc...

[SurelySerious]

Hard to clear with your ears when half the jets are getting clearances from merc and the other half don't have merc...

mIRC. And isn't someone supposed to call mIRC clearances on the CRC freq? Maybe not, it's been a while.

It becomes especially apparent in the windowless world that even with listening to the radio and a Link16 display, it's no substitute for being able to look around. TCAS would be another aid, but I'd take a second radio before that (given inability to visually search by some new system).

Edited November 21, 2014 by SurelySerious

[Red Fox]

Let's just agree that "sense and avoid" means different things to fighter vs. heavy pilots.

These days, in the age of JHMCS/NVGs/FCR/HSD/HAD/HAS/LINK-16/SATCOM in the single-cockpit F-16, the very LAST thing a new wingman needs is another excuse to not look outside.

Also, I'm sure that - after reading "sense and avoid" (just threw up in my mouth a little), not one single pilot here said to himself: "oh...I guess that means I can also clear by using the radios, too," despite your super-awesome Tweet pattern anecdotal evidence. I've done the white jet IP thing too, and white jet drivers aren't the only dudes in the cockpit who understand how you can use your ears to aid in conflict SA. Maybe you have heard of the conventional/pop BSA pattern...

We might just have to agree to disagree on this one.

Ram, Yes, it is a matter of semantics. I come at it from an airlifter point of view and read "sense and avoid" as using all tools available, not as staring inside at an MFD. Again, TCAS has saved heavy aircraft (including commercial) that would not have been able to maneuver quickly enough to avoid collision if the pilots had relied solely on "see and avoid". TCAS would have saved the C-141 off the coast of Africa and most likely the two A-10s from Alex (as I mentioned in a previous post).

Being a former ATC IP yourself, then you understand what I mean about keeping track of the aircraft in the pattern (I wan't trying to glorify myself BTW. That was the best example of using something other than one's eyes I thought of at the time.) Did that not help you visually clear? It certainly helped me. When you are on the range, like R2211 near Eielson, where one would fly the BSA pattern you referenced (correct me if I'm wrong), I imagine you use radios to help with SA. Am I wrong? Also, I'm guessing you use your RADAR for SA also? Am I wrong? TCAS/Mode S/Mode 5 for a heavy is similar to RADAR in that it gives some presentation of aircraft that the pilot might not yet see. Gives SA, so he/she might know where to look in the canopy. It's another tool, similar to radio SA, similar to RADAR, IMO. This is really my only point. It helps. It doesn't replace. So, I'm not bothered by the term "sense and avoid" vs. "see and avoid". The change in term would not alter my clearing pattern or use of cockpit displays.

I'll grant you this: this is your USAF and no longer mine. You are still flying and I'm not and haven't for years. You currently have far more at stake than I do. I have the luxury of pondering the term's meaning without having to experience its impact. Therefore, your concerns matter, while my opinions are simply opinions shared on a flying board.

Regards, RF

[Azimuth]

Is this where I insert the -135s need to turn off that damn observation light while tanking. The -135 will not see an avoid a fighter, or am I starting a new/old arguement.

If anyone knew what the fuck an "observation light" was.

[Lord Ratner]

Is this where I insert the -135s need to turn off that damn observation light while tanking. The -135 will not see an avoid a fighter, or am I starting a new/old arguement.

Which light?

EDIT: Azimuth, lol.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Lord Ratner

[brabus]

Probably the nacelle lights that eclipse the sun when it comes to burning my retinas. Bonus points if they're full bright when we're going in and out of thick clouds at night...1/2 the time it's OK, the other 1/2 my NVGs are instantly 100% washed out and I nearly hit the damn wing of the tanker.

That said, thanks for always being cool and turning them down when I ask.

[Azimuth]

Probably the nacelle lights that eclipse the sun when it comes to burning my retinas. Bonus points if they're full bright when we're going in and out of thick clouds at night...1/2 the time it's OK, the other 1/2 my NVGs are instantly 100% washed out and I nearly hit the damn wing of the tanker.

That said, thanks for always being cool and turning them down when I ask.

Almost as bad as those flashing blue and red lights that you guys forget to turn off at night.

[TreeA10]

I would question the ability of TCAS to work in the very dynamic, rapidly changing environment in the fighter world with high turn rates, low turn radius and a very small legal clearance bubble. Operating at low altitude throws in an additional layer of difficulty. In a combat environment, it probably isn't a good idea to transmit position, altitude, etc. The A-10 midair referred to was a serious break down in the contract between the two pilots and neither fixed it or noted the error with catastrophic results.

That being said, I think TCAS is a good idea. I've done two "no shit" avoidance maneuvers, one on base leg to Newark and one just after takeoff out of Orange County, CA. Nothing like pushing over at 1700 feet towards water to get your attention.

[SurelySerious]

In a combat environment

Exactly, this TCAS discussion is only valid in a benign threat environment. If your threats are anything more capable than the Taliban, pretty sure we won't be transmitting exploitable modes/codes, so tcas is NA. RPAs need a second radio before tcas, which coincidentally also allows better combat capes.

[MCO]

I would question the ability of TCAS to work in the very dynamic, rapidly changing environment in the fighter world with high turn rates, low turn radius and a very small legal clearance bubble. Operating at low altitude throws in an additional layer of difficulty. In a combat environment, it probably isn't a good idea to transmit position, altitude, etc. The A-10 midair referred to was a serious break down in the contract between the two pilots and neither fixed it or noted the error with catastrophic results.

That being said, I think TCAS is a good idea. I've done two "no shit" avoidance maneuvers, one on base leg to Newark and one just after takeoff out of Orange County, CA. Nothing like pushing over at 1700 feet towards water to get your attention.

2

I think TCAS is a great SA tool, but I absolutely hate when copilots are looking inside or just staring at the HUD and tell me we are clear because TCAS says so. Look outside the damn plane and confirm! Especially on low levels.

[Red Fox]

I would question the ability of TCAS to work in the very dynamic, rapidly changing environment in the fighter world with high turn rates, low turn radius and a very small legal clearance bubble. Operating at low altitude throws in an additional layer of difficulty. In a combat environment, it probably isn't a good idea to transmit position, altitude, etc. The A-10 midair referred to was a serious break down in the contract between the two pilots and neither fixed it or noted the error with catastrophic results.

Tree, Yes, excellent point. I think it would be the same for TAWS also. Would you agree?

And you know of the A-10 midair that I referenced. I worked with two guys at Randolph who had flown A-10s at Alex at the time of the accident who described what happened to me. One of them, being the investigating safety officer, was one of the first at the accident sight. Very tragic indeed.

I understand about the serious break down in the contract. But, do you think TCAS would have made a difference (as that one last link in the chain), given it was a training sortie?

When I began flying in the USAF there was no TCAS, or data Links, or GPWS, etc. Hell, I didn't even fly with an INS or flight computer or a HUD until I was well over 10 years into my flying career (not trying to puff myself up here, its for context.). I remember it being a big deal when the Tweet got the electronic DME display. I flews lots of VFR in the Tweet and Herc without the newer avionics. So maybe my habit patterns formed differently. I didn't have the tools that today's pilot does. I was taught and I taught contact flying meant looking outside and using the horizon as the primary attitude reference. Everything inside was backup. That was a given. I'm reading comments here expressing concern about new guys spending too much time with their heads down and using the "toys" in place of basic aviation practices. Are things being taught differently today or is just too tempting for some to use the electronic magic? (I might have fallen into that habit also if I had them at the time.)

Again folks, I've been out of the arena for a while. This is an interesting topic for me and I still like talking aviation on occasion, but you're the ones in the cockpIts. It's your butts that are at risk, not mine. I can opine on flying boards, you can actually instruct and correct and make valuable contributions and inputs to the worthwhile endeavor of USAF aviation. I envy you for that.

I read far more that I post and enjoy reading the threads. Helps to keep me somewhat informed of the "goings on" of today's AF.

Regards, RF

Recent edit. I initially reference GPWS when I intended TAWS.

Edited November 21, 2014 by Red Fox