UAS Wings

[Bluehawk]

The new UAS wing:

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...c=55936&hl=

[juvatwad]

The new UAS wing:

 

http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/forums/ind...c=55936&hl=

 

 

Since they don't fly, they shouldn't wear any type of wing. Yet again another way to p*ss off rated guys and other aircrew that actually strap into a plane. The badge should be an impression of a pencil-necked geek. Yes, I have a few friends who used to fly fighters, but now do the UAV thing, and they agree with me.

[USAFnav]

Since they don't fly, they shouldn't wear any type of wing. Yet again another way to p*ss off rated guys and other aircrew that actually strap into a plane. The badge should be an impression of a pencil-necked geek. Yes, I have a few friends who used to fly fighters, but now do the UAV thing, and they agree with me.

 

Ditto. Give them an occupational badge, but no wings. Also, no Air Medals. If, while they are flying the UAV from Creech AFB, NV, they happen to do some great things (which is often the case), then award them something else, no medals. I'm now off my soapbox.

Pete

[Bob Hudson]

Ditto. Give them an occupational badge, but no wings.

 

I think this is going to be debated for a long time, but we should consider that the evolution of flying has always included making it easier for the pilot: the inherent risk in today's military aircraft is not the same as it was with F-86's, B-17's, P-51's, Spads, etc. Flyers did not get wings because they could get killed - the got wings because they had learned how to control and aircraft so that it could perform its mission.

 

I am sure that if you had walked into an 8th Air Force ready room in 1944 and announced, "Hey guys we've figured out a way you can take your bombers to Germany and back without leaving England," I don't think too many of them would have worried about not being considered real pilots from that point forward.

 

The new UAV wings are not pilots wings, but they are being issued to people whose job it is to pilot an aircraft.

[Bluehawk]

And, from everything I've read thusfar, the USAF is regarding these as an occupational rating, not a pilot wings - very much like an Observer or Balloonist wing etc.

 

Pilots who fly the UAV are still pilots, duly earned and awarded. This badge is for those who fly the weapon/recon prior to basic flight training as I understand it.

 

No doubt, this may be because there will emerge an AFSC who do nothing but fly UAVs, and never do get to flight school.

[juvatwad]

I am sure that if you had walked into an 8th Air Force ready room in 1944 and announced, "Hey guys we've figured out a way you can take your bombers to Germany and back without leaving England," I don't think too many of them would have worried about not being considered real pilots from that point forward.

 

Actually, I'd bet you're wrong on that one. Every AF pilot I know would not accept anything less than strapping in and taking their weapon system down range themselves. I don't think that's changed from the earliest days of aerial combat.

 

Also, I believe the primary motivation behind the evolution of military aircraft has been lethality, not necessarily safety.

 

 

Ian

[USAFnav]

And, from everything I've read thusfar, the USAF is regarding these as an occupational rating, not a pilot wings - very much like an Observer or Balloonist wing etc.

 

Pilots who fly the UAV are still pilots, duly earned and awarded. This badge is for those who fly the weapon/recon prior to basic flight training as I understand it.

 

No doubt, this may be because there will emerge an AFSC who do nothing but fly UAVs, and never do get to flight school.

 

I think, and please correct me if I'm wrong, that there are already UAV pilots who are just that, UAV pilots -- never been anything else. They have not gone to pilot training, they have never flown in or piloted an Air Force aircraft. That's why I question the pilot-style wings for them. Pilot and navigator are the only two rated positions -- you must go through the flight training and evaluation and are awarded the rating. Others have pilot-style wings because they regularly fly in aircraft -- officer and enlisted aircrew such as flight surgeons, weather officers, weapons controllers, flight controllers, linguists, gunners, boom operators, flight engineers, load masters, and probably some others (electronic warfare officers and bombardiers are rated navigators). The UAV pilot does not fly nor perform duties while airborne, thus I believe they should receive an occupational badge different then the pilot-style wings. I understand, as was mentioned above, that it is an evolving process, but I think it can evolve just fine with a different style badge. I'd love to hear more opinions on this. Please don't misunderstand me, I do believe that UAV pilots are doing a fantastic job and are worthy of recognition, and worthy of a special badge. Back off my soapbox.

Pete

[USAFnav]

I'd like to correct my previous post, just above. According to the 12 October issue of Air Force Times, the first group of UAV operators from non-flying career fields has graduated. Apparently they spent about two weeks in Pueblo, CO, getting flight experience, including a solo, then they had to go to Randolph AFB, TX, for instrument training (probably dual, NOT solo), and then they went to Creech AFB, NV, for further training. The article further states that the next batch of officers from non-flying career fields has started initial qualification at Creech AFB. Now, to me this doesn't clarify whether or not ALL UAV operators will have to solo and have instrument training. I guess, to me, it does have some bearing on what the design of the wings should be -- not sure how I feel about it now. Maybe I'd feel differently if they were required to have regular flights in aircraft for familiarization. Hard to be picky about all this stuff while we're at war, though....

Pete