USAF Proposes Single-Operator MQ-9 Cockpit

[dimsum]

The USAF now operates 60 continuous surveillance orbits with the MQ-9 and MQ-1 Predator, which requires a cadre of about 1,000 pilots and 1,000 sensor operators.

By redesigning the ground station for single-pilot operations, like the Lockheed Martin F-16, the air force could potentially reduce the manpower requirement by hundreds of sensor operators, Otto says.
- See more at: http://www.uasvision.com/2015/10/29/usaf-proposes-single-operator-mq-9-cockpit/#sthash.huQfPdSb.dpuf

http://www.uasvision.com/2015/10/29/usaf-proposes-single-operator-mq-9-cockpit/

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I've no payload operator experience on a UAV, but I know how busy things can get for the operator once 'things start happening'.  I could see this perhaps working for routine surveillance, but maybe not so much in a dynamic environment.

I am curious to see the thoughts of this on here from people who have GCS seat time.

 

[dimsum]

I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).

This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).

I thought it seemed...busy...but my only GCS time was the guided tour.

This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).

Thinking back to the good ol days of your last posting?  Just think, now you are getting to enjoy a fine, fine day in the ditch!  >

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D

 

[SupersonicMax]

I can't see this happening in anything other than transit.  I have trouble seeing how one can use radios, Chat and maintain a camera as well as monitoring aircraft (if in orbit).

This, coming from someone with GCS seat time (in both seats).

Guess what single seat attack pilots do?!

 

[Loachman]

Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D

They're not Pilotless. The Pilot just isn't inside of them.

Single-seat fighters seem able to use targetting pods and drop/launch weapons fairly well, so I cannot say that a UAV job cannot be done by one person. I would not think it ideal, though.

Decent technology and a good GCS may make it feasible.

We typically operated Sperwer with four in the box (Mission Commander, Aerial Vehicle Operator, Payload Operator, and an Int Guy.

I wouldn't say that the Sperwer system, including its GCS, was crappy, but - yes, it was crappy. Each crew position only had one monitor, so the AVO had to constantly flip through pages on it to see his complete instrumentation. Comms between the box and outside was via Mirc chat, so the MC spent a bunch of time typing and it's hard to fly while doing so. Voice would have been better and that, combined with a few other simple technical improvements, could have allowed the MC and AVO to be combined (and, as a side benefit, I'd have been able to shout at the clueless thuds [some of them certainly were, but some were alright-to-good] on the other end of the fibre-optics cable when they were not paying attention). The Int Guy did not have to be in the box at all, but some Rotos had MCs who did not have a Tac Hel and/or recce background and I think that he/she was added in order to compensate for any such lacks.

We were very envious of the Reaper GCS. The air conditioning actually worked, they had more monitors than a Best Buy, and, oh, the comfy chairs....

One can only dream of such comfy chairs. We had standard Staples rolly office chairs with, were one fortunate, all five casters.

 

[dimsum]

Guess what single seat attack pilots do?!

The distracting part is the Chat - it's the same program as the ones in the TOC, etc. and we need to monitor XX chat windows. 

As an analogy, imagine replacing all tactical comms that manned aircraft do by voice with chat messages to XX different agencies. 

We typically operated Sperwer with four in the box (Mission Commander, Aerial Vehicle Operator, Payload Operator, and an Int Guy.

For background, Heron had 2 stations:  GCS and Int Cell (Canadian) or GMS (Ground Mission Station - Australian).  GCS had the Air Veh Operator and Payload Operator, while GMS (Canadian) had 3 Int Ops or (Australian) 1 ISRO (Mission Commander, usually Int O but can be various), 2 Int Ops and an EW team. 

Comms were mostly Chat to customer/tasking authority and radio for ATC, with ICS for the two boxes.  Again, lots of things were trialled and by the end of the Australian tour, and the GCS looked very different than the beginnings of the Canadian tour with more TV screens bolted on, etc.  EITS - what you saw was prob half of the hardware that I was using by the end. 

 

[Eye In The Sky]

I have seen where we've had 2 NavComms; 1 to handle the 'comms' on the multi's, HF etc and one as the "Mirc Monkey" with XX windows to monitor; both hit points of being saturated.  Each platform has its own variations on how they ANC, I doubt a single-seater would be able to monitor XX chat windows...

 

[dimsum]

Anybody sees the irony in trying to reduce the number of "pilots" you need to fly pilotless planes.  ;D

Actually, the USAF wouldn't be reducing the number of RPA Pilots but Sensor Operators.  It would be interesting to see what would happen to them, since they're a specialized (ie. off the street) field that doesn't really have any manned counterpart.

If the GCS can be changed so that all chat is taken out and replaced by secure voice, that will be a massive step in possibly reducing it to a single-person job.  However, MQ-9s are primarily ISR and not strike aircraft.  Even in the manned world, ISR aircraft (P-3s, MC-12s, etc) are currently multi-crew with a sensor operator dedicated to looking down the EO/IR. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

The distracting part is the Chat - it's the same program as the ones in the TOC, etc. and we need to monitor XX chat windows. 

As an analogy, imagine replacing all tactical comms that manned aircraft do by voice with chat messages to XX different agencies. 

For background, Heron had 2 stations:  GCS and Int Cell (Canadian) or GMS (Ground Mission Station - Australian).  GCS had the Air Veh Operator and Payload Operator, while GMS (Canadian) had 3 Int Ops or (Australian) 1 ISRO (Mission Commander, usually Int O but can be various), 2 Int Ops and an EW team. 

Comms were mostly Chat to customer/tasking authority and radio for ATC, with ICS for the two boxes.  Again, lots of things were trialled and by the end of the Australian tour, and the GCS looked very different than the beginnings of the Canadian tour with more TV screens bolted on, etc.  EITS - what you saw was prob half of the hardware that I was using by the end.

If I had room in the aircraft, I am pretty sure I could manage the chat.  I know what mIRC is and I have used it in the CAOC.  It ain't that bad.

Single pilot[\s] operator UAV is feasible, provided your selection for the position is appropriate.

 

[dimsum]

If I had room in the aircraft, I am pretty sure I could manage the chat.  I know what mIRC is and I have used it in the CAOC.  It ain't that bad.

Single pilot[\s] operator UAV is feasible, provided your selection for the position is appropriate.

Alright - I'll bite.  What is appropriate for your selection of RPA Pilot? 

I'm keeping "Pilot" as opposed to "Operator" as any MARS officer will tell you, "Pilot" as in harbour pilot has been in use a little while prior to the lighter-than-air variety. 

 

[SupersonicMax]

If you make it single pilot, you need to have a selection that is similar to what the selection for fast jet is, consistig of both objective and subjective evaluation of capabilities (perhaps minus the above average hands and feet).  Being able to properly multi-task, fast and correct decision making, based on limited available information being the most important skills to master.

 

[Baz]

If you make it single seat vs two then there will be a decrease in capability and/or an increase in training bill, no matter how you cut it.

I can see it working for the roles nearer strike.  For the roles nearer ISR collection, I'm not so sure.

Fast jet guys are selected to be very good at what they do.  They aren't any better, or even as good, as what some others do; like multi mission long endurance and surveillance and attack, or long endurance ISR collection and analysis.  You would be hard pressed to do what a Cyclone does with less than four; heck, managing the radar completely can eat up one (although EITS can correct me).

 

[SupersonicMax]

If you make it single seat vs two then there will be a decrease in capability and/or an increase in training bill, no matter how you cut it.

I can see it working for the roles nearer strike.  For the roles nearer ISR collection, I'm not so sure.

Fast jet guys are selected to be very good at what they do.  They aren't any better, or even as good, as what some others do; like multi mission long endurance and surveillance and attack, or long endurance ISR collection and analysis.  You would be hard pressed to do what a Cyclone does with less than four; heck, managing the radar completely can eat up one (although EITS can correct me).

I don't believe that 2-seat always increase capabilities.  It can, in some cases decrease your capabilities in half, having 1 guy dedicating half of his brain to sorting the other person out and the other half to doing his job.  A well coordinated crew can indeed be a force multiplier but it is definitely not a given.  Your training bill will decrease as you only put half the people through the pipe and some items that would be duplicated in both syllabi could be omitted. 

I am pretty sure I could do, with some training, pretty much any job in an aircraft.  I don't think everyone, with some training, could do my job. This may sound obnoxious, but I believe that we select our Fighter guys pretty well and I believe they are the best the RCAF has to offer in terms of technical officers.

 

[Baz]

I am pretty sure I could do, with some training, pretty much any job in an aircraft.  I don't think everyone, with some training, could do my job. This may sound obnoxious, but I believe that we select our Fighter guys pretty well and I believe they are the best the RCAF has to offer in terms of technical officers.

It is obnoxious.

Reality is, pretty much any selected aircrew in the RCAF could be trained to do your job... it would just take longer and would be prohibitively expensive; and wouldn't produce as good a product.

Conversely, you would require just as much training as anybody else to do our jobs.  You think you could shorten the passive acoustics course?  You think you can be a Maritime Crew Commander without the same experience.  You think you are inherently better at putting a helo on a moving deck at pitch 5 roll 20.

I am also very good at what I do... and I'm very good at what I did in the military.  I also don't think I can do your job, nor the job of a senior defence scientist.

Ironically, I also knew that was exactly what you were going to say.  And you don't even realize that what you are saying is you think you are better than me.  In your mind even though I just retired with 26 years service, you know more about all of the military than I do.

 

[Baz]

By the way... we just suffered through a Comd RCAF that didn't know what most of us did, didn't care, try to stuff us into his limited view of the world, failed miserably, and thought we were all beneath him.  He was a product of your selection system...

 

[SupersonicMax]

It is obnoxious.

As I said, I know.  And I don't really care.  It is what I believe.

Reality is, pretty much any selected aircrew in the RCAF could be trained to do your job... it would just take longer and would be prohibitively expensive; and wouldn't produce as good a product.

Not quite.  A lot of people fail along the way.  Some will do other jobs, like ACSO.  I have never heard of an ACSO failing off a course and being re-mustered to pilot and making it to Hornets.

Conversely, you would require just as much training as anybody else to do our jobs.  You think you could shorten the passive acoustics course?  You think you can be a Maritime Crew Commander without the same experience.  You think you are inherently better at putting a helo on a moving deck at pitch 5 roll 20.

I think, in general, you could shorten most courses and lower some of the experience requirements for upgrades.  We have 500 hours Captains (with 2-3 years on squadron) qualified as Mission Commanders, leading multi-national packages.  I don't think it's far stretched to believe they could upgrade to a Crew Commander in a short amount of time.

I am also very good at what I do... and I'm very good at what I did in the military.  I also don't think I can do your job, nor the job of a senior defence scientist.

I have not said you (or anybody else) are not good (or very good) at what you do.  What I am saying is most fighter pilots would be good in any technical trade, and that the opposite is not necessarily true.

Ironically, I also knew that was exactly what you were going to say.  And you don't even realize that what you are saying is you think you are better than me.  In your mind even though I just retired with 26 years service, you know more about all of the military than I do.
[/quote

I don't discredit your experience or how good you are at what you do (did).  I do believe though that in order to make it in a single seat fighter/attack aircraft, you need abilities (cognitive and technical) that other technical trades do not need that could help in those other trades.  A fighter pilot will fly an aircraft, manage a formation, talk to multiple external agencies (tactical & ATC), manage multiple sensors, fuse information, collect information, manage/employ weapons. And I can't really take a break for 5 minutes (and perhaps clear my head) and handoff some of my responsibilities while I take a piss.  I still need to do all of the above while taking a piss.  You do this for 6-9 hours at a time.

I am not saying I do all these individual tasks as good as the guys in the P-3 from my Hornet (after all, I am task-managing and prioritizing).  What I am saying is that if I was to dedicated 100% of my time to one or two of the tasks (like it happens in a multi-crew environment), I would be able to do as well or better.

 

[Baz]

As I said, I know.  And I don't really care.  It is what I believe.

I think, in general, you could shorten most courses and lower some of the experience requirements for upgrades.  We have 500 hours Captains (with 2-3 years on squadron) qualified as Mission Commanders, leading multi-national packages.  I don't think it's far stretched to believe they could upgrade to a Crew Commander in a short amount of time.

I am not saying I do all these individual tasks as good as the guys in the P-3 from my Hornet (after all, I am task-managing and prioritizing).  What I am saying is that if I was to dedicated 100% of my time to one or two of the tasks (like it happens in a multi-crew environment), I would be able to do as well or better.

It's good your job requires arrogance to be truly aggressive,  because you have lots of it.

We had one of your's at 443 quite a while back.  Barely made crew commander and almost flew a crew into the water.  And here's what your community says: we only let him go because he was weak (but he made Major) and we were biased against him (cause as you say haters got to hate).

I've flown with pilot's that talk like you... they were a pain in the assessments because even though they didn't really understand what we were doing, they got in our shorts.

I'm actually quite sure you'd be better than some of us, but not all of us.

But here's what makes me angry, you actually think you are better than those crews at what they do because you made jets, even though you have no idea what they do.  And you belie hat every year of your experience is worth five of theirs.

And in all that it was people from your community that pretty much destroyed some other ones... figure that...

 

[dimsum]

If you make it single pilot, you need to have a selection that is similar to what the selection for fast jet is, consistig of both objective and subjective evaluation of capabilities (perhaps minus the above average hands and feet).  Being able to properly multi-task, fast and correct decision making, based on limited available information being the most important skills to master.

That is exactly what a TACCO on an MH or TACNAV on an Aurora does. 

Seeing as RPAs are pretty much done with the "hands and feet" part (automatic takeoff/landing, flying via keyboard/mouse/trackpad or waypoints), arguably ACSOs are ideal RPA Pilots.