Flight pay for UAV operators

[Brett]

******http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_uas_career_100909w/******

Flight pay for never leaving the ground? No aeromedical issues to deal with, no flight physical requirements? It's bad enough they are referred to as pilots but NOW they get flight pay?

I know how important they are to the GWOT but they are not pilots.

[ender_wiggins]

That links not working, at least not for me.
However, they do have to meet the flight physical requirements.
They are also giving the flight pay to the enlisted sensor operator.

[GackMan]

Well, they have to go to flight school and they have to stay current as pilots... A friend of mine is doing the AF fixed wing transition right now, getting T38 time so he can bomb dudes with a predator.

Not sure I agree witht he AF, to me it doesn't make sense that an E5 can't do it... but the AF decided you need to be a pilot and the FAA seems to agree that if you are moving one of these through air space you need to be a pilot.

I agree that if the shoe was on the other foot and they didn't get FP but had to be pilots, how many would say "fuck this" and bail?

edit: you have to take the ***** off the end link Brett posted. This will work: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_uas_career_100909w/

[OldSwabbie]

******http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_uas_career_100909w/******

Flight pay for never leaving the ground? No aeromedical issues to deal with, no flight physical requirements? It's bad enough they are referred to as pilots but NOW they get flight pay?

I know how important they are to the GWOT but they are not pilots.

Some of these are "Real" pilots. My son in law flew UAV's in the Army and was deployed to Iraq once with the 172 Stryker Brigade. He was a Specialist.. but.. some birds could only be flown by officers, the big, new ones with alot of firepower on them. The birds that Dustin (SIL) flew were Un-armed.. IMHO it doesnt sound right.

[GackMan]

Civillian UAV operators working for companies like Insitu: http://www.insitu.com/scaneagle have to be pilots as well. Just saying.

[ender_wiggins]

edit: you have to take the ***** off the end link Brett posted. This will work: http://www.airforcetimes.com/news/2009/10/airforce_uas_career_100909w/

Thanks
I guess I've never seen anyone do that before.

This topic has been hased to death at least eleventy billion times all over the internet. People appear and post all kinds of love or hate for the way things are going.

The Air Force flies Predators and Reapers from CONUS over operational areas, right now especially in CENTCOM. Is this job comparable to the job the enlisted Army guys are flying? Different people will produce different answers.

Do you need an officer to drop firepower? I don't know what the laws are. Who shoots mortars? I'm sure it's not officers. A hellfire is not all that and a bag of chips as far as warheads on foreheads goes.

The Global Hawk as far as I know is the only USAF UAV which is a jet, and it is a long sucker.

I don't know all the details, but typically, the UAV pilots have indeed been officers who were taken from the actual flyng an aircraft world and assigned to the UAV world.

However, I believe the AF is introducing courses to take officers and never put them in a pland and train them on UAVs.

BTW - if you're seriously going to study this topic you need to know a few things
- UAV = Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
- UAS = Unmanned Aerial System
- RPV = Remotely Piloted Vehicle
- RPA = Remotely Piloted Aircraft

Same thing, the AF just can't make up its mind on some things, and has kept changing the name.

The sensor operator is an enlisted guy. Originally they were imagery analysts (1N1), the AF just made a new careef field of UAV sensor operators to separate them from the 1N1s.

The folks who do a whole lot of work on these systems such as the comm and data guys who keep the vital link going, and the intelligence folks who exploit the data collected from the UAVs don't get the extra money.

There are bajillions of enlisted AF DGS folks who have been controlling sensors and exploiting intel for years.

Also, many of the UAV folks are stationed at Creech, and they get extra money just for being there because the place sucks so much.

TF Odin anyone?

[Brett]

Sorry, put the ** on there to prevent a direct link.

[SOTB]

You don't need to be an officer to fly a UAV -- you need to be a teenager....

[CarbineM1]

lots of aviators maintain status and pay on simulators...not much difference IMO

[KidA]

Not a pilot but I always figured that "flight pay" was there to compensate the fact that you could fall out of the air in a metal coffin and because of the shit hours- kind of like how "airborne" pay was there to compensate you for the fact that you fell out of the air just slow enough to keep you from (mostly) breaking bones and because at a 0dark30 jump your ass still had to be in PT formation at 0615.

So in my simplistic view if you are not in the air in a metal flying coffin, you don't get the same flight pay as the guys who are.

[Brianj]

So in my simplistic view if you are not in the air in a metal flying coffin, you don't get the same flight pay as the guys who are.

No, but you get a flight suit (although I see so many non-aircrew USAF guys in these lately, maybe it's just another working uniform).

[Matchanu]

Not a pilot but I always figured that "flight pay" was there to compensate the fact that you could fall out of the air in a metal coffin and because of the shit hours- kind of like how "airborne" pay was there to compensate you for the fact that you fell out of the air just slow enough to keep you from (mostly) breaking bones and because at a 0dark30 jump your ass still had to be in PT formation at 0615.

So in my simplistic view if you are not in the air in a metal flying coffin, you don't get the same flight pay as the guys who are.

That's a good point.

Can I get jump pay for playing a video game that involves jumping?

That being said, I'm for anyone in the military getting more pay.

[Rough Raven]

You don't need to be an officer to fly a UAV -- you need to be a teenager....

Or even a young kid with incredible gaming skills.

How appropriate there's an "Ender Wiggins" commenting here. :biggrin:

(Now slipping back to my post-apocalyptic dystopia...)

[JD Bobcat]

What about the 'older' pilots sliding into these pilot drone slots ..... should they give up flight pay .... ?

.. if an E-5 monitors these things while loitering over targets .. and then the brass comes in to pickle the Hellfire's ... should either get 'at risk' bonus bucks .. (just sayin') .. ??

[SN]

lots of aviators maintain status and pay on simulators...not much difference IMO

Agree, plus all the aviators pulling staff jobs who continue to get flight pay and bonus $$$.

[GackMan]

Not a pilot but I always figured that "flight pay" was there to compensate the fact that you could fall out of the air in a metal coffin and because of the shit hours- kind of like how "airborne" pay was there to compensate you for the fact that you fell out of the air just slow enough to keep you from (mostly) breaking bones and because at a 0dark30 jump your ass still had to be in PT formation at 0615.

So in my simplistic view if you are not in the air in a metal flying coffin, you don't get the same flight pay as the guys who are.


I always thought it was incentive pay to maintain a skill that is perishiable and in demand in the civillian world.

[SOTB]

I always thought it was incentive pay to maintain a skill that is perishiable and in demand in the civillian world.I understood it was a Haz-Duty pay. IE, a number of military people I know had X MOS, but upon flying and doing that MOS, also got flight pay. So IMO, this isn't about incentive, except to ignore the risks....

[Dark Helmet]

Wow. I really don't understand this at all.

[GackMan]

I understood it was a Haz-Duty pay. IE, a number of military people I know had X MOS, but upon flying and doing that MOS, also got flight pay. So IMO, this isn't about incentive, except to ignore the risks....


When I was on flight status I got $150 haz pay and I was a day/night/nvg flight instructor for crew members. The pilots, on the other hand, got $600 incentive pay after 6 years on flight status. I was always under the impression that it was all about retaining them after XX dollars were invested in getting them up to speed. It was a big deal whenever a W2 made it to the $600 man... they had to buy beer that payday weekend.

Edit: Ok - this was bugging me so I had to google...

Here is what I found:
http://www.airforcetimes.com/static/money/pay_charts/2007flightpay/

There are 3 categories of pay:

Aviation Career Incentive Pay - Comissioned pilots get this. It goes up and then comes down as rank and time in flight status increase.

Career enlisted flier incentive pay - enlisted dudes who's job is to ride in aircraft for their whole career. Awarded en lieu of Hazard pay.

Hazardous duty incentive pay - just what it sounds like.

I still don't know for sure - but the caveates to ACIP say things like "12 years of operational flying by 18th year of aviation service to receive continuous flight pay through 25 years of service."

Does that mean that once they've flown for 12 straight years, they can come off flight status and still get ACIP? The intention seems to be to keep trained pilots in the service and "available" but not flying and not in any danger of crashing their desk. But they can still be placed back on status in the event the need should arise to put them back to work flying.

[WS-G]

Civillian UAV operators working for companies like Insitu: http://www.insitu.com/scaneagle have to be pilots as well. Just saying.
...and anything in the civvy world involving UAVs is a serious dead-end. I personally would not even consider doing that.

[Square]

I still don't know for sure - but the caveates to ACIP say things like "12 years of operational flying by 18th year of aviation service to receive continuous flight pay through 25 years of service."

Does that mean that once they've flown for 12 straight years, they can come off flight status and still get ACIP? The intention seems to be to keep trained pilots in the service and "available" but not flying and not in any danger of crashing their desk. But they can still be placed back on status in the event the need should arise to put them back to work flying.

What you're referring to there are called flying "gates." There are three gates that AF (don't know about other services) flyers need to reach in order to keep their flight pay. Every month on aeronautical orders, with a valid flight physical, and you fly is counted as a gate month. If you can't maintain one of those three things you don't get credit for that month. What you describe above is more or less right. The first gate is 8 years worth of months in the first 12 years. The second gate is 10 years of months within the first 18 years, and so on. Meeting those gates pushes out how long you can receive flight pay should you lose one of the three things I mentioned above.

Where this really comes into play is when the AF is looking to staff its staffs. The service wants to have rated officers (pilots, navs, ABMs) on its staffs. Those staff billets rarely are also flying billets. My career field is managed such that no officer will be pushed out to staff until he or she has met their second gate requirement. I'm not sure how other career fields are managing their people, but I know that most of the staffs are shortfalling their rated officer billets in order to fight the wars.

Clear as mud?

[GackMan]

...and anything in the civvy world involving UAVs is a serious dead-end. I personally would not even consider doing that.


I don't know man, it might not be a long term career move, but a friend of mine went from making 35-45K a year as a cube dweller to getting paid to go to flight school, going to the sand box and making 200K flying a model airplane... I agree that it won't last forever. But the cubicle will still be there.

[Forestboy]

...and anything in the civvy world involving UAVs is a serious dead-end. I personally would not even consider doing that.

If you are a rated aviator I would agree, if you are an E-4 or E-5 getting out after 4 years the scan eagle contract is pretty good coin for a relatively safe job on a FOB.

[WS-G]

It isn't the money. Try getting hired by an airline, corporate flight department, on-demand operator, flight school, aerial applicator or anything else involving aircraft-strapped-to-one's-backside flying when most of one's background is UAVs; you won't even get invited for an interview. (edit to qualify: of course, there are those GA operations where being related to the owner is all that matters; in those instances, all bets are off.)

[Spinner]

...and anything in the civvy world involving UAVs is a serious dead-end. I personally would not even consider doing that.

I don't know, I have a feeling in the coming years there's going to be a huge increase in the use of UAVs in the civilian world.

I can see them monitoring power lines, scouting for fishing fleets, forestry work, etc.

The AF is still trying to wrap its institutional head around the huge changes coming as far as how they do business in the future.

[SOTB]

I don't know, I have a feeling in the coming years there's going to be a huge increase in the use of UAVs in the civilian world.

I can see them monitoring power lines, scouting for fishing fleets, forestry work, etc....Ditto. I see lots of use of UAVs in the future. The thing is, I don't know how much of that use will require expensive "pilots"....

[WS-G]

I don't know, I have a feeling in the coming years there's going to be a huge increase in the use of UAVs in the civilian world.

I can see them monitoring power lines, scouting for fishing fleets, forestry work, etc.
I'm far from the only pilot who doesn't. Neither I nor any other that I know is willing to be replaced by a UAV, and don't mind seeing the whole concept fail.

[RetPara]

I'm far from the only pilot who doesn't. Neither I nor any other that I know is willing to be replaced by a UAV, and don't mind seeing the whole concept fail.

Ahhh.... we get to the REAL crux the issue... the EGO of pilots....

Between my time with Marine Air and Army Aviation.... I have been around pilots a good deal over the years.

The maintenance of pilots slots is one reason that the Air Force has made a serious attempt to become the major proponent of all things remotely piloted. But if I recall correctly... that was shot down a few years ago (pun intended).

With both the Air Force and Naval Aviation developing what could be a first generation unmanned fighter... I could see this causing major concerns in the pilot community. When pilot seats become much more expensive when you look at the F22 and JSF both about to price themselves out of existence, a lower cost unmanned aircraft can become a cost effective alternative.

There are roles for both.... there are some missions (SEAD) that an unmanned aircraft make a LOT more sense for... while some missions you really should have a carbon based life form driving the bird on site (CAS especially Danger Close CAS).

As for unmanned aircraft in the civil environment.... didn't the FAA put the halt on LAPD or another SoCal LEA from using UAV's?

I think the FAA, at least in CONUS airspace is going to be very restrictive in unmanned aircraft use for civilian use. Hell.... the FAA won't even give LE helicopters the priority in airspace use over news helicopters. So it will take some time probably before unmanned civilian aircraft get much use in CONUS.

[OldSwabbie]

...and anything in the civvy world involving UAVs is a serious dead-end. I personally would not even consider doing that.

Why do you say that? My Son in law was a UAV Operator for the 172 Stryker Brigade (Alaska) and got discharged. He was Immediately picked up by a large UAV corporation and is doing AWESOME. Because of his Military experience in the Sandbox they snapped him up FAST.

But.. he didnt get flight pay when he was "on the stick".. then again he wasnt a shooter either :)

[MikeP]

I think the UAV has a big future whether pilots like it or not.
They make real good sense.

They are affordable, dependable, versatile, and don't have atitudes.

I don't believe in flight pay for someone who's ass never leaves the ground.
Mebbe some skill incentive or something.
I have a hard time with them filing for PTSD, as well.

When I got jump pay, I was required to jump periodically.
Even then, they said the extra cash was to maintain spitshines, haircuts, and fresh starch.
Airborne!

I had a physics related course years ago and the instructor outlined that the last fighterpilot will be a short female with high blood pressure
.

[Spinner]

I'm far from the only pilot who doesn't. Neither I nor any other that I know is willing to be replaced by a UAV, and don't mind seeing the whole concept fail.

I understand a pilot's bias toward manned aviation, because that's the way it's always been done.

But in many instances, the presence of a pilot either isn't necessary or puts him/her at too much risk. We're going to be seeing more unmanned aircraft in the future, with a correspondeing decrease in manned flight for many applications, especially on the battlefield.

Try to think of how you'd be thinking about things if, from the earliest days of the Wright brothers, all aviation had developed as a remotely piloted concept.

Then, one day, one of your commanders approaches and asks you to volunteer to hop on board one of these craft and start flying missions personally. You'd probably oppose such a move for several reasons, but the biggest would be that the remote piloting is the way it's always been done.