• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

JUSTAS: the project to buy armed Medium Altitude Long Endurance (MALE) UAVs

There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation. Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.
 
There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation. Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.
That works great in Cold Lake. I can guarantee you that a Hornet det close to a big city would be a huge satisfier.
 
There are advantages to co-location - ability to post to a new job without a change of geolocation. Yet another tiny CAF det where you're going to be moving lots of people in and out doesn't act in the best interest of the institution to retain talent.
The flip side of that coin though, is that it can easily be in the best interest of the institution to retain talent. Looking at CFB Edmonton for example - a big base with plenty of jobs/trades/units. Vibrant city with lots going on, great employment opportunities for a spouse and educational opportunities for the kids/teens, etc.

It isn't as affordable as it was even a few years ago, but our real estate market is in desperate need of a correction. (As are plenty of other places in Canada, it would seem.) Still, it isn't anywhere near as expensive as plenty of other places, and rent is decently reasonable.


I don't imagine we will be moving lots of people in and out for the UAV trade, especially if we are just talking the GCS's. It will be a fairly small and closed community regardless, given it's size - but moving them somewhere with opportunities for the entire family will do more to retain members than moving them somewhere fairly isolated and boring.

0.02
 
What UAV Trade?

UAVs will be flown by pilots, with AESOps and possibly ACSOs colocated.

The actual airframes can be based anywhere, and will have the usual support folks - a token AERE officer who pretends they are in charge, with Air Maint Supervisors to keep the AVN, ACS and Air Weapons folks doing their jobs (plus the supply folks to keep the parts flowing).

And a metric shit ton of Int Os and Int Ops to actually leverage the tremendous streams of data that yet another platform with a wide array of sensors will generate.
 
Until air regulations are significantly changed, I don't see and medium/large UAS operating in Canadian airspace without a pilot at the (remote) controls.

Of course, there may be options to accept lower medical standards for a UAS pilot than, say, a CF-18 pilot, as the environmental concerns are significantly less (no G-force, no O2 mask etc)...
 
Until air regulations are significantly changed, I don't see and medium/large UAS operating in Canadian airspace without a pilot at the (remote) controls.

Of course, there may be options to accept lower medical standards for a UAS pilot than, say, a CF-18 pilot, as the environmental concerns are significantly less (no G-force, no O2 mask etc)...
That decision hasn’t been made yet. Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.
 
That decision hasn’t been made yet. Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.
There were ACSOs flying Herons on the det after mine in KAF, though I can’t say I can provide any feedback on how it went.
 
There were ACSOs flying Herons on the det after mine in KAF, though I can’t say I can provide any feedback on how it went.
Class 1 and 2 UAS may be piloted by anyone with a basic or advanced course (TC’s course until we develop our own). The discussions are focused on Class 3 UAS (basically a normal airplane without a crew).
 
Class 1 and 2 UAS may be piloted by anyone with a basic or advanced course (TC’s course until we develop our own). The discussions are focused on Class 3 UAS (basically a normal airplane without a crew).
The Heron appears to be a Class 3 if I’m reading correctly. Though it was a war zone so there were technically no rules to be violated at the time.
 
That decision hasn’t been made yet. Our allies are starting to use non-pilots in command of UAS in non-segregated airspace and while it is a remote possibily at the moment, it still is a possibility that we do something like that.
Isn’t this whole discussion, by its very nature, about ‘remote’ possibilities?
 
Serious question.

How many aircraft does a typical Air Traffic Controller control concurrently? And does talking to a pilot, rather than texting a robot, make life easier or more difficult?
 
Serious question.

How many aircraft does a typical Air Traffic Controller control concurrently? And does talking to a pilot, rather than texting a robot, make life easier or more difficult?
CPDLC is exactly that - ATC chatting via text messages to aircrew. Most structured airspace (ie controlled) is vast with set routes in and out of congested airspace. Edmonton ACC controls the north (where presumably our UAS would operate) - separation is achieved through RVSM procedures and the exacting positioning of aircraft due to enhanced GPS technologies (RNP below 1.0 etc).
 
Back
Top