39 Sqn media latest

[bombedup6]

Not bad from the Mail. Roll on Taranis?

Meet the RAF's newest combat group: pilotless planes flying crack missions in Afghanistan from 8,000 miles away | Mail Online (http://www.mailonsunday.co.uk/news/article-1032376/Meet-RAFs-newest-combat-group-pilotless-planes-flying-crack-missions-Afghanistan-8-000-miles-away.html?ITO=1490)

[roush]

No mention of the Brits, but a few shots of Creech AFB and what the job entails for those who are interested in flying Reapers.

Video - Breaking News Videos from CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2008/07/09/mcintyre.remote.killer.cnn)

[taxydual]

Not withstanding the rank and rank slides garbage, do the 'operator's' really have to wear flying suits to do the job? For God's Sake!!!

[roush]

Really?



In the face of this technology, ability to strike targets from thousands of miles away, staying airborne of hours on end, conducting IED searches to keep convoys safe, monitoring enemy movements and passing the details onto the guys and girls on the ground etc…etc.. your main issue is do they really need to wear flying suits?

As I understand it, most if not all of the Pilots are away from their primary aircraft type for a few years before returning to them, so as a ground tour it’s pretty good I reckon.



Don’t crews wear a flying suits in the simulators?

I suppose they could always wear blues while flying over Afghanistan and employing weapons. Doesn't seam right though.

[kippernipper]

yeah, taxydual has a point, flip flops and board shorts would be more appropriate - Nevada can get pretty warm...:rolleyes:

[roush]

Fair one :D

[Irish Tempest]

'Flying pay' per se?

[roush]

Would you not keep your flying pay when doing any other ground tour?

[Irish Tempest]

Fair point Mr R, but what about a new fangled name for it. Maybe 'Aircrew Specialist'...pay?

Do Aicrew rcv said pay because they are 'Flying' i.e. using skills routinely in the air as part of a Sqn tour, or is it because they are Aircrew and the once proud recipient of a green suit?

Do snr Officers in Command Appts and above still recieve FP even though the chances of them straping themselves out of their MOD MB desk are perhaps slim at best?

This isn't a fishing question... just curious & naive. Sorry for thread drift.

Besides those slot machines in Vegas need a whole lotta fillin !

[taxydual]

Please don't get me wrong. This is not an anti flying-suit post.

Flying has come a long way since the experiences of our Battle of Britain heroes.
Rather than risking their lives in the air, the pilots are free to leave the room mid-flight, get a coffee, do exercise, read a book or maybe phone their wives at their base near Las Vegas.


Reports the Mail.


Yes I too wore the suit in the sim plus immersion kit plus nomex gloves plus helmet, because I was 'simulating' a live sortie and had to make it as 'real' as possible.


I don't want to take anything away from the skill of these guys controlling pilotless aircraft but, to me, it's a bit OTT to wear the suit. My opinion.



A guy's wings or brevet look equally as good on blues as they do on greens.
Again, my opinion.

[VARIABLE_KNIFE]

I suppose we have to find gainful employment for redundant FJ WSOs somewhere. 65k+ for a sensor operator, something the USAF allows Intel enlisted persons to do..........wonders will never cease :ugh:

[roush]

Can't argue against your point V_K.

As is probably quite obvious, I work closely with 39 Sqn so understand a bit more than the Daily Mail. At no point to Pilots leave the 'cockpit' to phone their wives or make coffee. They fly for a set period of time then swap out with another crew.

I still fail to see the flying suit issue, just think of it as an advanced simulator... with real bombs. The crews are aircrew (not some new playstation geek trade group) and they fly the UAV in busy airspace talking to ATC and other aircraft to arrange deconfliction etc..

They fly above FL200, performing SCAR,CAS and ISAR. This isn't a chuck and throw remote control plane, its a fully ATO tasked asset that is flown initially by guys on the ground in theatre then passed over to the crew in Creech.

There's far more people on the top floor of the AWC wearing growbags than crews on 39 Sqn, and not an ATO in sight.

[Guzlin Adnams]

:sad: Well I'm not a pilot, a lazy eye prevents it so I apologise for my ignorance but do the Army have qualified pilots for Watchkeeper/450?
A good friend of mine (my son's godfather) was up until recently an F15E WSO, told me that his problem with UAV operation, especially at altitudes less than 15000 ft was that operators may not have enough or relevent experience. The chance of an accident or at least an incursion preventing a manned platform from deploying a weapon could exist. I think the American army will use unqualified "pilots" for it's UAV's which at first site is worrying.
I know watchkeeper is a shorter range, line of site vehicle but it seems to me that there could be a risk. It must inspire a degree of confidence to know that the people flying the platform, are are suitably qualified and competant to do so, as in the case with 39.

As an aside, wouldn't a operational pilot who has failed a medical be a pretty good candidate?

[Mr Grim]

Just to correct a few misunderstandings on this thread.

1. It is a Remotely Piloted Aircraft (RPA) not a pilotless aircraft. Big difference.

2. It is a flying tour, not a ground tour.

3. Many jobs in the RAF are annotated for aircrew as they require their specialist skills/knowledge/experience so have no adverse effect on flying pay.

5. The Americans use fully qualified pilots and no ab-initios (different story with sensors).

6. The army do not use qualified aircrew for their smaller, LOS, unarmed UAVs. Yes many airspace users have an issue with this if they want to operate outside specialist airspace. They also have a hefty loss rate.

7. wouldn't a operational pilot who has failed a medical be a pretty good candidate? I would have thought so, but not current policy.

8. And if I must - flying suits are by far the most sensible option. You can't seriously be suggesting blues in Nevada?? The only real alternative is desert DPM and they aren't scaled for that. Also every other country wears flying suits as they are not stuck in a mid 20th century mindset.

[taxydual]

OK, points taken. Argument convincing. Mindset unstuck.

Now, about the reflective sunglasses............

I'll get my coat....:)

[L J R]

,,,and besides that , the reporter from the Mail on Sunday is a T**er who cannot accept an answer from a question that he posed, and made some of the stuff up for a nice read on a Sunday morning.... and by the way, CNN were not the first into their cockpit. I saw an article from my local rag (Lincolnshire) that beat the US press by some 6 weeks, as did the BBC.



...anyone know how to get a job there??

[thunderbird7]

I think the reason for the flying suits is that RAF issue board shorts dont have a pocket to tie on that all important, mission critical, chinagraph pencil. Keep that office FOD free!

[bombedup6]

LJR

SOP for 42/39 Sqns is 2/3 hrs on, 2/3 hrs off. Crew off time is not spent in the cockpit. The Mail is probably right.

[FFP]

The Americans use fully qualified pilots and no ab-initios

That's about to change very soon......