Pilotless military

[finestkind]

Apologise if this, as it probably has, has already been “threaded”. What are your thoughts on the demise of the human pilot. How long before the UAV’s take over all the roles and what justification can be used to keep bums in seats.

[MFC_Fly]

Even UAV's have human pilots, they are just sitting on the ground remotely piloting the aircraft.

[Dash8driver1312]

Skynet is coming. HAL will be helping it along too.

;-)

[Lima Juliet]

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/EF749BA2_5056_A318_A8316B7F19D94F4C.jpg

These are Remotely Piloted Air System wings, so there is a future on the horizon for pilots in the medium term...

... Article here... RPAS Pilots Awarded Wings (http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive/rpas-pilots-awarded-wings-01042013)

[NutLoose]

How apt, shown sitting on a desk.

[cattletruck]

Sending in a well armed pilotless aircraft to take the heat out of a hot spot sounds like a good idea.

Sending in a pilotless aircraft with troops on board to do the mopping up sounds like a silly idea.

Just like those wings, things are not all black and white. :ok:

[TomJoad]

FRI will be cheaper to fund:E

Tin hat on.

[gr4techie]

Do RPAS pilots wear flying suits when sat at their desk, pressing buttons on the computer terminal?

[ShotOne]

Yes. And they also suffer a nearly identical incidence of post-traumatic stress as other aircrew too. Try googling "story of a drone warrior"( sorry don't have a link) for a ripping read.

[1.3VStall]

Flying suits at a desk? What's wrong with uniform?

[Lima Juliet]

The Ground Control Stations (GCS), or "desks" as some uninformed insist on calling them, can get FOD'd with non-approved flying clothing creating control restrictions and loose clothing/jumpers can snag switches and controls. Don't forget that crew changes are frequent with individuals climbing in and out of the seats. The GCS are chocker with lots of electrical equipment that can catch fire and the only exit is to go past this equipment.

So, yes, they do wear flying suits, for obvious reasons. :cool:

http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS914xe15K70lMj56vFw0DFTbGn0KBMHrrf_dQg8TF b-gDf8Zzt

[Bismark]

The Ground Control Stations (GCS), or "desks" as some uninformed insist on calling them, can get FOD'd with non-approved flying clothing creating control restrictions and loose clothing/jumpers can snag switches and controls. Don't forget that crew changes are frequent with individuals climbing in and out of the seats. The GCS are chocker with lots of electrical equipment that can catch fire and the only exit is to go past this equipment.

So, yes, they do wear flying suits, for obvious reasons.




What a bunch of b*****s! Airline pilots quite happily fly in nor mal rig so why not UAV "pilots". It is nothing more that a SOP to the Air Force angst that you are not a pilot unless you are in a flying suit. Same thing happens at the non-flight Air Warfare Course at Cranwell - pathetic.

[TomJoad]

Calm down ladies - do we really need to get all tetchy as to what they wear and why. Hell, as far as I am concerned they can wear a printed floral dress - so long as it's this season. The only important thing is that they do their job. As for civil airline crew apparel is concerned the recent viral video of the BA cabin crew would suggest that they don't really like their dress code either:E

[gr4techie]

The Ground Control Stations (GCS), or "desks" as some uninformed insist on calling them, can get FOD'd with non-approved flying clothing creating control restrictions and loose clothing/jumpers can snag switches and controls. Don't forget that crew changes are frequent with individuals climbing in and out of the seats. The GCS are chocker with lots of electrical equipment that can catch fire and the only exit is to go past this equipment.

So, yes, they do wear flying suits, for obvious reasons.

Leon, that's the best joke i've read all month.

As I write this, I'm careful not to FOD my laptop with the jumper I am wearing. Or snag the "H" and "A" buttons repeatedly.

The other day I went to the bank, the customer advisor did a crew change climbing in and out of the seats perfectly fine. Good job the bank did not catch fire, as we were not wearing flying suits, everyone would have had to snag themselves on everything between us and the only door.

[MAD Boom]

Must we drone on about this subject again................;)

[charliegolf]

Hell, as far as I am concerned they can wear a printed floral dress - so long as it's this season. The only important thing is that they do their job.

Squaddies wear floral print in lieu of uniform don't they?

CG

[TomJoad]

Squaddies wear floral print in lieu of uniform don't they?

CG

Yes they do - and damm fine they look too.:}

[iRaven]

As I write this, I'm careful not to FOD my laptop with the jumper I am wearing. Or snag the "H" and "A" buttons repeatedly.

Ah, bur GR4techie, does your laptop have a standard combat loadout of 4x Hellfire and 2x GBU-12 bombs? If you get a control restriction with your mouse does 10 tonne of aeroplane go spearing in?

Airline pilots quite happily fly in nor mal rig so why not UAV "pilots".

That's just a trade-off between trying to look smart for the customers and proper PPE. I'll bet that the crew members of Swissair Flight 111 or British Air Tours 28M wished they'd had Nomex on instead of nasty nylon corporate airline uniforms!

Edit: see http://flightsafety.org/ccs/ccs_mar_apr99.pdf You will see that Nomex was only lightly charred after 180 seconds of exposure to flame whereas a nylon shirt turned to a dripping mess in less than 14 seconds - :eek:

Let the UAV boys and girls wear flying suits. These garments are supposed to be cleared for flying and will be part of the release to service, they have been designed so bits don't fall off, they have pen-holders and useful pockets, they are flame retardent and above all they identify them for what they are, military aviators.

I agree with Tom Joad...

iRaven

[Willard Whyte]

I don't think nomex would have saved Swissair 111, even if the whole frickin' 'plane was made of it.

[iRaven]

OK, not the best example for SwissAir and a little bit off topic, but...

The crew then put on their oxygen masks and the aircraft began its descent. Zimmermann put Löw in charge of the descent while he personally ran through the two Swissair standard checklists for smoke in the cockpit, a process that would take approximately 20 minutes and become a later source of controversy.

Shortly after the first emergency declaration, the captain can be heard leaving his seat to fight the fire, which was now spreading to the rear of the cockpit; the Swissair volume of checklists was later found fused together, indicating they were possibly used to fan back the flames.

He must have been really thankfull for the company investing in nice polycotton shirts at this point - RIP a very brave man.

Honestly, I am staggered that the airlines have such a laissez faire attitude to PPE for their crews, as does this article about a talk on Skybrary: SKYbrary - Talk:Fire in the Air (http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Talk:Fire_in_the_Air)

This is an excellent review of the dangers of fire in the air. However, the list of dangers only includes mechanical effects of fire, and limitations to pilot visibility because of smoke. Ignored is direct injury to the crew from heat flux, flame, and products of combustion. In at least 2 recent in-cockpit fires, the crew were probably incapacitated - or dead - before impact. The current emphasis on visibility devices is wise, and will be protective in the future to maintain aircraft control. Breathing 100% oxygen thru a tightly fitted, non-leaking mask will avoid inhalation of cyanide, and other combusion products. But...the crew has no protection against the thermal effects of fire in the cockpit. In fact, crew clothing could not be worse: Short sleeve, acrylic shirts, and trousers of similar fabrics. Artificial fibers simply melt into the skin, offering little heat energy absorption or reflection Nomex and similar fabrics reflect heat and insulate the skin - ask any race car driver who wears at least 2 layers, or military pilots with one layer (and mandator cotton knickers!) Having studied this problem and convened the world's experts in fire resistant clothing, I probabl should be a strong advocate of Nomex for commercial carrier crews. But... Happily, cotton and wool offer some temporary protection against direct flame. Tens of seconds only, but enough to perhaps make a difference in the next in-cockpit fire. A long sleeve denim shirt is far better than a short-sleeve nylon or acrylic. To date, no airline crews wear any fire-resistant clothing, despite ample evidence of need. Only Air Canada has required wool uniforms, after a lethal cabin fire. So, today the AC cabin crew are relatively safe, and able to accomplish their mission of passenger safety. Up front the same airline's pilots - as all other airlines' pilots - disdain cotton or wool, or long sleeves. Sad, and reprehensible.

Enough said?

[ShotOne]

Sorry, Raven but aside from being wildly off thread, the Swissair fire was so severe the pilot seats had molten metal poured onto them. What kind of uniform do you recommend for that? Would nomex suits would have made the slightest difference? For what it's worth I've yet to come across an acrylic or nylon airline uniform. Most are a wool mix which, while by no means fireproof, compares quite well in terms of fire resistance to the pre-nomex issue of RAF suit.

[Ken Scott]

I've often found it amusing that people pour scorn on aircrew for wearing flying suits on the ground when not flying and yet many of those same people wear combat clothing when they have not the slightest intention of crawling around in the mud fighting a battle.

[Wensleydale]

Up front the same airline's pilots - as all other airlines' pilots - disdain cotton or wool, or long sleeves. Sad, and reprehensible.


Far too many years ago, one of my first flying instructors (CCF Flying Scholarship) told us off for wearing t-shirts to fly a Cessna 150. He undid his shirt cuffs and showed us the badly scarred tissue that extended from his wrists to nearly his elbows - he had been flying a Canberra with his flying suit sleeves rolled up above his flying gloves when the aircraft had suffered a flash fire. A very visible lesson was learned by us all.

[Party Animal]

Flying suits are perfectly acceptable for RPAS/drone/UAV drivers.

It's the strapping in to a 5-point harness and connecting up the dinghy lanyard that gets me! :E

[gr4techie]

I've often found it amusing that people pour scorn on aircrew for wearing flying suits on the ground when not flying and yet many of those same people wear combat clothing when they have not the slightest intention of crawling around in the mud fighting a battle.

In my previous posting, we wore number 2B (short sleeved) routine WORKING dress. Same for every course I have been on. Believe it or not, it is perfectly okay to wear no 2B uniform sat behind a desk, it will not kill you. I must only wear CS95, or whatever is replacing CS95 this week, about once a year for CCS or when OOA.

I just find it baffling rpas operators must wear a flying suit to control a drone flying over Angela Merkel.

I once knew an aircrew bod, who was punted to the units airshow office whilst he was holding. He wore his flying suit every day to the office whilst he was waiting for his flying training to start. Yes, we did give him stick for it.

I once read a complaint on a station commanders forum asking why everyone has to get changed out of their coveralls and into no 2 dress to walk into clothing stores, except Biggles in his flying suit?

[NutLoose]

Flying suits at a desk? What's wrong with uniform?


Probably because the MOD haven't got around to procuring Multicam Slippers and Dressing Gowns for them yet.


I've often found it amusing that people pour scorn on aircrew for wearing flying suits on the ground when not flying and yet many of those same people wear combat clothing when they have not the slightest intention of crawling around in the mud fighting a battle.


But then again, try walking around the station, going into the Airmens mess, SHQ, Medical Centre etc in Engineering overalls, same thing really, they should stay at work flying wise ( Manned).

[Backwards PLT]

The big difference that many seem to miss is that a flying suit is an official uniform. (No 14?), whereas I do not believe that engineering overalls are.

The subject is a pretty boring perennial for the haters but iRaven hit the reasons on the head and, as Len said, while most of the army pitch up to work in MTP (or variants of) there really is no rational argument against aircrew wearing flying suits, whether they actually get airborne that day or not.

Personally I think it is a good reminder to those around the stations that think the RAF is about admin rather than Air Power.

[Corporal Clott]

Backwards TLP

No 14 dress it is :ok:

http://www.raf.mod.uk/rafcms/mediafiles/9647375B_D363_F9C0_C62C0A00FC6755B7.pdf