Sputnick stated that many feel that the UAS is not an airplane, but no one has really attempted to articulate why. First of all, I will preface that the important roles of the UAV pilot have less to do with flying and more to do with employment. But, since that is a common perception, here are the stats: The Reaper is bigger / can fly higher / carries more payload / carries more ordnance / and can fly farther than the U-28, the RC-12, the T-1, the C-21, etc. For some reason, a 11,000 lb turboprop powered craft that has a 66' wingspan, flies close to 300 knots, as high as 50,000', carries at least 3,000 lbs of ordnance, and costs as much as $53 million is not an aircraft. I don't get it, but why would you think that? Is it because the pilot is not sitting in the aircraft? It seems to me a pilot is tasked with taking a collection of parts into the atmosphere, accomplishing the task at hand, and getting it back on the ground on in one piece no matter where he sits. No one calls yo a pilot simply because you sit in the front seats, I have seen pictures of FA's in the front seat, but they were still FA's. No, I think you are considered a pilot because you can take an aircraft from the chocks, into the air, and back to the ground safely and consistently regardless of the conditions or situation. If you can do it from a console, you can do it from the cockpit. And, if you can do it from the cockpit, you can do it from a console. Seeing as this $53 million / 11,000 lb aircraft is operating in the same atmosphere and using the same physics as "real" aircraft, operating at the same speed as "real" aircraft, operating higher than "real" aircraft, and carrying more bombs than most "real" aircraft - why would the judgement, decision-making skills and hand-eye coordination requirements of the operator be any different than those of a "real" aircraft. Is it the automation - and is the automation any different than any of our current airliners?

Everyone is quick to say that it would be easy to train a non-rated officer to be a UAV pilot, but what about a generic air-land heavy pilot?

For example, why do we need the UPT grad swinging the gear handle on a C-5? What does the C-5 copilot do that we can't teach to a non-rated officer? He isn't a decision-maker, just a control manipulator (a UAS pilot is a decision-maker). Can't we teach a guy how to hand fly, run the automation, work the radios, etc in the sim and let him move over to the airplane? It isn't like he'd be on his own, he would be under the direct supervision of an AC, IP, or EP. Heck, give him some additional sim training and enough time watching the AC do his thing, and he'll be ready for the left seat after a while. Why not? What difference does it make if he is in a real airplane or a sim - it isn't like they pull a lot of g's or go over 30 degrees of bank - if he can fly MS Flight Sim, he can fly a C-5. Not comfortable with moving him to the left seat - just make the non-rated guy a permanent copilot. For AC, we can put the UPT grad straight into that seat. What decisions do a C-5 AC have to make that a UPT grad hasn't already made? If there are any, just cover those in training and he'd be good to go. It's just Pt A to Pt B, not like he'd have to do anything such as AR or touch-and-goes, we'll save those for the IP's (the UPT grads who were AC's first). It is possible, isn't it. Of course it is. Chances are, as long as nothing went wrong, you'd never notice the difference. The fact is, whatever argument you use for putting non-rated officers in UAV's can be used for putting them in C-5's - probably even more effectively. Hands-off Cat III with rollout, any non-rated officer can sit through one of those - and it is probably cheaper to install a certified Cat III system in the C-5 than it is to put all of those pilots through UPT.

The C-5 pilot force consists of evaluators, instructors, aircraft commanders, and copilots. Brand new copilots get qualified by the instructors and evaluators, then they go fly real-world missions. But, do you trust them to make real-world decisions? No, of course you don't. You watch them when they touch the flap handle and you keep your hands very close to the control column and throttles as they land. When a decision has to made, you ask them what they think and then tell them what we will do. Over time, they gain experience. They are exposed to various scenarios for the first time, they watch how the AC/IP/EP handles it and they log it away for future use. Every once in a while you may let them actually make a decision, but you are always ready to override if required. And you never quite trust them completely, it's not like you'll ever let them do receiver AR or let them do touch-and-goes or anything like that. Then, after 18 months or 2 years or whatever, you decide they are ready to go through training all over again. Then they fly with IP's and EP's once more and you finally decide that they have earned the AC stamp. Then they go fly the missions from the left seat - 2 years or more to become a decision-maker, but they finally made it. But, here comes that one mission. It looks tough - going to some strange fields in Africa or somewhere in a non-radar environment at night, and it's a HHQ directed mission so we can expect some oversight. Hey, I know, let's send that brand new AC with a relatively new CP and throw in an engineer and loadmaster crew consisting of nothing but people right out of basic training. You are going to do that, aren't you? Wait, you aren't willing to send a guy who has: been through a year of UPT, sat in the right seat for 2 years watching how to make decisions, had 2 years of practice manipulating the controls under direct supervision, and been through another entire training program? Besides, he'll have another UPT and RTU trained pilot sitting in the right seat. Still not going to do it? But you will put a non-rated guy in a UAS?

Let's look at the progression of a UAS pilot. He goes through training with IP's, get's a checkride from an EP, then commands combat missions as the sole pilot. Oh look, combat missions right out of training with no supervision. I know, let's put a brand new UPT grad or even a non-rated person in that seat. Did I mention that the sensor operator and intel specialists are right out of basic training? Yeah, that makes sense. But, it's OK, they are not actually in the aircraft, so everything's different. If they make a bad call it isn't like those "troops on the ground" will be in any danger from an unseen enemy that would have been otherwise detected or destroyed. If they make a bad call, it isn't like a bad guy will get away and live to detonate another IED under a vehicle occupied by US troops. If they make a bad call, it isn't like there could be a chance of fratricide. Actually, all of these things could happen. But I am sure they won't. Put him in there and let him learn on the job - did I mention the no supervision part? What are the chances that a UAS pilot would be exposed to a scenario that was not covered in training and would have to make a split-second decision based on his not so vast bank of knowledge and experience? Did I mention that there is no supervision sitting next to him?

This is a bit extreme, but all of the arguments for putting the new guy into the UAS can be used to support putting the new guy into any aircraft out there. Everyone feels that THEIR MWS can't be robbed of the experience, but some other one can. Unfortunately, no one has attempted to explain why. Now, on this board that is harmless - what we say doesn't mean a thing in the real world. The sad part is that our leadership hasn't done much better. You can think that a UAS is not an aircraft and does not require a rated pilot - but I doubt you could articulate an argument for putting non-rated personnel in the UAS where we couldn't replace the word UAS with your MWS and still have just as effective an argument.

Want proof on how little our current leadership is thinking on this. Read the article at the back of the current Combat Aircraft magazine about LtGen Deptula. In it he attempts to articulate the need for rated pilots in the UAS, but he only talks about flying it through airspace. Our number one Gen in charge of ISR, and he can't even bring up employment when discussing the need for rated officers (when employment is the only reason UAS needs rated pilots).