Drone Pilots: We Don’t Get No Respect

[Herk Driver]

I know this has been talked about somewhere and my apologies if already posted.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-automate-mq-9-takeoffs-and-landings-424975/

[viper154]

Great. Take away the only semi good deal. 

[General Chang]

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

[Ram]

Sure, Chang. You guys at A1 have only had about 15 years to figure this out. I'm sure if we just wait a little more, you'll get it right this time.

[viper154]

26 minutes ago, General Chang said:

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

Oh really? Glad you plan on honoring that "promise" you just sold to 100+ UPT grads and stuck them in the box. Glad your plan to fix the manning issue is to screw over the pilots you non vol'd to RPAs. That should really help the morale. Hope your star stabs you in the jugular on your way to work tomorrow. If you are who you say you are. 

Edited May 20, 2016 by viper154

[WTFAF]

Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

I want some of what this idiot is smoking. He deserves to have his ass parked in a GCS doing shift work enjoying the "opportunities" of RPA leadership.

[wegotoeleven]

On May 5, 2016 at 7:58 AM, Herk Driver said:

I know this has been talked about somewhere and my apologies if already posted.

https://www.flightglobal.com/news/articles/usaf-to-automate-mq-9-takeoffs-and-landings-424975/

This was taken out of context by an Aussie journalist who asked that question to the panel. After he asked it I had a suspicion he might do just that. I wouldn't hold my breath for GA to develop a usable  auto takeoff and land for MQ-9 anytime soon. Gray Eagle has a different CONOPS which is why it works for the Army. 

[MooseAg03]

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

If a forced re-cat happens, there are a large number of non-vol'd guys in my squadron who will punch at the earliest opportunity. Right now the only thing keeping us holding on is the slim possibility of returning to ANY manned aircraft.

If I see 11M3K disappear from my primary AFSC, I will drop PC paperwork the next day. And I'll keep applying until I'm let go to the guard or my ADSC expires.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Magellan]

4 hours ago, General Chang said:

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

At what manning level?  I have lived shift work at the 6-7 person per CAP for 2 years with occasional spikes to 8 per CAP(the other two years of ops).  You CANNOT sustain that for a career.

Oh by the way guys on wing, group, sq, and OSS staff that don't have their hind end in an ops cell, a briefing room or GCS for 6-7 hours a night don't count.

Until A-1 realizes that support staff are just that, and mans the combat requirement AND the support requirement you will continue to have RPA manning problems because of burn out.

The best things to EVER happen in the RPA community was when the TAMI guys got sent back to Fighters and the UPT direct guys went to manned aircraft.  I am sure A-1 was pissed as hell at what this did to their spreadsheets, but HOPE that guys could get back to what they signed up to do made life a hell of a lot better for everyone involved.

Right now though the 11M types on loan to the RPA community are getting screwed and they are pissed.  If you don't send them back to manned aircraft you will see 80% get out as soon as their commitment is up.  And if you stop loss them I would be wearing a bullet proof vest to work every day if I were a sq/cc or higher.

You can only push people so far before they breakdown and the Air Force is playing a very dangerous game.

[Clark Griswold]

56 minutes ago, Magellan said:

At what manning level?  I have lived shift work at the 6-7 person per CAP for 2 years with occasional spikes to 8 per CAP(the other two years of ops).  You CANNOT sustain that for a career.

Oh by the way guys on wing, group, sq, and OSS staff that don't have their hind end in an ops cell, a briefing room or GCS for 6-7 hours a night don't count.

Delta Hotel

You just stated what A1 knows but pretends they don't know or actually doesn't know, that as they don't deep dive into the manning situation:  box checking careerist who go to RPA assignments soon after MQT find somewhere to be at the Wing other than in the ops squadron.  I can't tell you how many "fast burners" I saw come, get their RPA stink on them, do some job with a fancy bullshit title, work bankers hours, breeze over and man the shelter only a Friday morning then disappear for another two weeks.  

On the Excel spreadsheet everything looks fine but in reality only a portion of the pilots actually fly the line, a real analysis would not just be 11Us or 18Xs in positions in the UMD at Base X it would also involve comparing flying hours/sorties each of those individuals in those positions actually do, put that on a graph and you will see a cluster of hideouts with low hours, probably rank in the O-4 range and a good chance of PCS'ing soon to a school slot or other special duty without doing much in their time at said RPA assignment to serve the community / do the mission...

But I/m not cynical... not one bit...

Saw this in my MAF time also but it was especially egregious in the RPA world..

[guineapigfury]

The term you're looking for here is "daywalker".

[Clark Griswold]

Ha - said non-flying aviators also called seagulls in other communities.

[ThreeHoler]

Ha - said non-flying aviators also called seagulls in other communities.

Penguins?

[MooseAg03]

We like to print out the lowest 30-60-90 times and hang it in the office so we can shame those you speak of.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[herkbum]

Penguins?

We called them pigeons-you had to throw rocks to get them to fly.

[BFM this]

[usually around 2 in the afternoon during the last week of the month]

"Oh, hey there MCC, I'd like to get scheduled in 5 different GCSs for 0.2 each."

[Clark Griswold]

Penguins?

We called them pigeons-you had to throw rocks to get them to fly.

That's it - also analogous to referenced bird in that they stand around squawking while simultaneously dropping turds everywhere

[Lord Ratner]

We called them pigeons-you had to throw rocks to get them to fly.

Pigeons are the pilots you have to throw rocks at to get to fly. Penguins are the pilots that won't fly no matter what you do to them.

[1969RPOL36]

Just goes to show that maybe droids aren't nearly as intersting or rewarding as those above the line people like to say they are as they're force-feeding the Kool Aid.  If they were, you'd have those people with better than a single digit 90-day lookback.  Of course, exceptions apply.

[Clark Griswold]

On 5/20/2016 at 1:30 PM, MooseAg03 said:

We like to print out the lowest 30-60-90 times and hang it in the office so we can shame those you speak of.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We did that too until a Lt Col Shoe Clerk at one of the aforementioned bullshit queep offices whined, the DO folded like an accordion and the shit list came down, disheartening but that was years ago. 

I imagine it is cyclical like most things, leadership changes and the shoe clerk level of infection ebbs and wanes, seems like from this and other threads that as some operations have grown,  the RPA enterprise, being the discussed here, and as large part of it is done "deployed in garrison" the temptation for shoe clerks is to go there, have their records look operational but in reality they are Power Point and TMT warriors, the problem being that the billet they are in is supposed to be for an actual AF Line officer doing mission duties not queep.  

Gonking on this made me wonder if this could be a solution or at least mitigation technique:  

What about canned OPRs for certain assignments that are operational and need everyone on the field / max participation in the actual mission to keep the QOL as high as possible by everyone actually doing first the military mission they were trained to do then additional duties could be mention (if at all) in a one line, maybe two on the OPR?

Bullets would be mainly pulled from data collected about the performance of the unit, generic in nature then following those the one or two bullets about how Capt X's expert yada yada process improvement saved the AF yada yada...

The push line in the RPA OPR could be Hours-Sorties-TDY for LRE/LNO-Crew Position (AC/IP/EP) and that could be say 50% of a score with the other being 25% being peer ranking, 25% commander ranking = Capt X is 1 of 20.

This would be a disincentive for rated guys to only fly once in a while thereby causing other aviators in their Wing to have suffer poor QOL because they want wings and flight pay but not have to actually do a lot of it.  

Would work in the MAF too as there were several offices I saw young but well connected Capt new ACs abscond off too only to deploy to Istres when it was convient for them while there dudes getting 250+ days in the desert on any given rolling 12 month look back...

Just a thought, I'm all about going big and trying to get big changes to the AF but we may have to look for other smaller less stunning ways to defeat the evil of shoe clerkerism

Edited May 22, 2016 by Clark Griswold
minor

[guineapigfury]

I like the idea of peer review.  Maybe give every officer of similar rank (+- 1) who's been in the same unit for at least a year a vote on whether their peer can have a DP.  75% required to promote, or something like that. 

[Sim]

On 5/20/2016 at 1:15 PM, General Chang said:

This is only the first step.  If we can get more enlisted RPA pilots to take over all non-combat RPA roles, then permanently reclassify all current RPA pilots into the RPA career field, we will no longer need to pull pilots out of cockpits for RPAs.  This would solve rated manning problems faster than any bonus increase (although A1 will continue to pursue that with Congress).  Lots of reasons to be positive, people.

You have no idea how wrong you are....

[SurelySerious]

You have no idea how wrong you are....

It's because he's a trolling ass clown.

[Clark Griswold]

10 hours ago, guineapigfury said:

I like the idea of peer review.  Maybe give every officer of similar rank (+- 1) who's been in the same unit for at least a year a vote on whether their peer can have a DP.  75% required to promote, or something like that. 

Not bad.  Basically, the shoe clerk gets ahead by having data on their records that looks like some sort of objective evidence of important, effective efforts towards the mission of the Air Force but in reality is just massive queep generation / processing.

Going to harder definitions of that data or some other objective measure, coupled with a peer ranking can prevent shoe clerks from helping shoe clerks and could start to turn the tide.  If the stats that really matter are tied to systems or measures that are not as prone to manipulation, shoe clerks will have to pull their weight.

Trying this in the RPA enterprise first given its fast growth, high operational tempo, low satisfaction ranking by members might be a way to "fix" the community.  Can't change the fact that it is still driving droids but at least the buds in the squadron could get a better QOL by keeping that X percent that don't want to play unless there is only 5 seconds left on the clock in the whole game.

[Guest]

I like the idea of peer review.  Maybe give every officer of similar rank (+- 1) who's been in the same unit for at least a year a vote on whether their peer can have a DP.  75% required to promote, or something like that. 

Peer, superior, and subordinate review are all flawed. I can't tell you what the correct solution is, but popularity does not equal effectiveness. My SOS flight had 4 DGs, and only one deserved it (and being prior army enlisted and old as fack, wasn't going to do him much good anyway).