Massey + Army?
Join Date: May 2002
Location: .
Posts: 74
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Snippet in Pacific Wings:
"Pacific Wings understands that four personnel from the New Zealand Army have commenced flying training to PPL level at the Massey School of Avation in connection with the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)."
"Pacific Wings understands that four personnel from the New Zealand Army have commenced flying training to PPL level at the Massey School of Avation in connection with the use of UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles)."
Last edited by skytops; 27th Sep 2006 at 04:13. Reason: spelling error
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPL makes good sence. I would rather trust a grunt with a ppl than a grunt without with UAVs. I'm am extremely surprised that nz army had the smarts to do this. As for the airforce why would you bother with all the palava of a wings cse for UAVs?- bit of an overkill.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Friend also said that she that thought that they are artillery but one is an engineer (a captain none the less). Does anyone know what type of UAV they will be using? - predator - global hawk - radio model with a box brownie camera? Saw the snippet in the pacific wings as well, how come there's no big press on this? Why is the army doing this and not the air force?When will the army tell everyone that they will be flying uavs - whats happening with caa? do we have to watch out for them in G class airspace where will they be flying them? I sure hope they do get these guys trained as the pausity of aviaiton knowledge in the army must be huge. When was the last time they operated anything that flew?
Lots of questions but it just seems that UAVs would be something our army would be getting in about 100 years from now and it is a bit of a surprise.
Lots of questions but it just seems that UAVs would be something our army would be getting in about 100 years from now and it is a bit of a surprise.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Army things that fly!
Bagpipe, I'm sure you meant Artillery, not Army. Army have been operating "things that fly" for quite some time.
The RAAF shouldn't have any major issues with the Army operating UAV's because it is for the purpose of direct support of Artillery and other ground force elements. Keeping the UAV operations 'in house' will allow the Arty Cps to develop doctrine and procedures much sooner and more efficiently than if they were borrowing the assest from the RAAF on an as-available basis. (Similar to the reason for Army getting the Helo's in the first place)
The Army have been testing UAV's for several years now and have decided this is the way to go. All the Army Aviation bashers will vent their frustrations no doubt. Good luck to them
The RAAF shouldn't have any major issues with the Army operating UAV's because it is for the purpose of direct support of Artillery and other ground force elements. Keeping the UAV operations 'in house' will allow the Arty Cps to develop doctrine and procedures much sooner and more efficiently than if they were borrowing the assest from the RAAF on an as-available basis. (Similar to the reason for Army getting the Helo's in the first place)
The Army have been testing UAV's for several years now and have decided this is the way to go. All the Army Aviation bashers will vent their frustrations no doubt. Good luck to them
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Load of shut.
Yes, after climbing off my high horse I realised my error there! There is an identical scheme (possibly linked) operating over here that is encountering some snide opposition armed with nothing more than a grudge. Gives me the shuts.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Runaway Gun
Cheers for pointing out Love monkey's error Maybe he's got the runaway gun - probably had a hard day at work -so no big drama. he actually re-enforces what I am sayin- The Nu Zulland army has absolutley no aviaition knowledge yet they are starting a UAV team from scratch (it seems). the aussies by comparison operate fixed wing ( twins for 1 topo??) and black hawks / chinooks and soon aussie tiger - serious kit that you can't cheat with. So add uavs on top and you already have the critical mass. Iif you went into the kiwi army's HQ and asked them what qnh was they would probably look at you very bug eyed. I doubt the air force would be too keen to help them much as the last time they got neutered with the losss of the a-4.
Cheers for pointing out Love monkey's error Maybe he's got the runaway gun - probably had a hard day at work -so no big drama. he actually re-enforces what I am sayin- The Nu Zulland army has absolutley no aviaition knowledge yet they are starting a UAV team from scratch (it seems). the aussies by comparison operate fixed wing ( twins for 1 topo??) and black hawks / chinooks and soon aussie tiger - serious kit that you can't cheat with. So add uavs on top and you already have the critical mass. Iif you went into the kiwi army's HQ and asked them what qnh was they would probably look at you very bug eyed. I doubt the air force would be too keen to help them much as the last time they got neutered with the losss of the a-4.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: NZ
Posts: 656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Nu Zulland army has absolutley no aviaition knowledge yet they are starting a UAV team from scratch (it seems).
absolutley no aviaition knowledge
S2K
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: new zealand
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bagpipes "radio model with a box brownie camera?" is of the scale of vehicle being used- though possibly a digital camera- they're lighter. However LM's "The RAAF shouldn't have any major issues with the Army operating UAV's because it is for the purpose of direct support of Artillery and other ground force elements. Keeping the UAV operations 'in house' will allow the Arty Cps to develop doctrine and procedures much sooner and more efficiently than if they were borrowing the asset from the RAAF on an as-available basis." is pretty close to the intent- just sub in RNZAF for RAAF.
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: South of the border
Age: 53
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because it's airborne it doesn't have to be owned/operated by the Air Force. Even if there was a desire to give the Army boys some airborne instruction from the RNZAF, it wouldn't happen as half the CT-4/E fleet has been grounded for over a year. The Air Force can't meet its own pilot training outputs. And as for the average soldier being capable of meeting the current RNZAF solo standard - not likely. It would require a completely new syllabus and standard, which would end up duplicating what is already done in the civilian world anyway.
Massey's the place for them.
Massey's the place for them.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Capt W E Johns , Bang on Biggles. It makes really good sence that the army uav boys and girls learn rudimentary aviaiton stuff, 40-50 hrs of flying would do them a hell of a lot of good to understand aviaiton. I'm just really keen to see what they are going to fly, where and when? I would have thought that there would be an article in media with piccies and some CAA warnings about the army UAV. Does anyone know if this stuff in the wings? Its not in the latest sup so maybe they just play in waiouru and no were else? Is it (heaven forbid in NZ)- a black project!! although if I found out via thord party they are training at massey then it can't be too classified -or maybe thats kiwi classified? -Bro-fidential.
