I'm guessing here, but I think what he was saying is that a guy with the exact same experience gets the same flight pay if he's operating Talon II's in the weeds or if he's sitting at a desk in TACC. It's gate monthes, not necessarily what you're doing.

There's no right answer for flight pay for UAV operators. Selfish take, if they'll dive on that gernade (taking the assignment so I don't have to) I'm happy for them to have the same flight pay. Bigger picture, there is no way you could have pilots and UAV babies doing the exact same job with one set getting flight pay and the other not. Biggest picture, when I sit back and imagine what they must look at, day after day, with awesome optics, I got to feel they must pay a high mental price for their duty. Read plenty of stories about PTSD rates amongst them to believe it's real.

Just my opinion, I'm totally ok with remote drivers in NV, NM, or whereever getting the same flight pay I do.

There is nothing about flight pay that says it is because of the danger of the job - as a matter of fact, the official name is Aviation Career Incentive Pay, not flight pay - you don't have to fly to get it (reference previous mentions of gates, etc). I could not fly again and still get ACIP for the remainder of my career. DOD Instruction defines ACIP as "Additional pay intended to attract and retain officers in a military aviation career." Nothing about danger. ACIP is pay given for a specific skill set. Do medical personnel get their annual medical pay because their job is dangerous?

FWIW, UAV operators do not get any pay related to danger unless they physically go into theater.

There have been no more Beta classes because the operational squadrons can't absorb that much of a drain on their MQT instructors. But, more classes are to come (sts).

Exactly - I said the same thing in a couple of posts above.
As for the "flight pay" - I respect your opinion, but I have the opposite opinion.

USMCFLYR

LIM -

I laid out all the different types of pay in post #17. There is actually no pay called "flight pay" as you probably know. There IS a type of pay for hazardous duty - I'm sure that you know that too.

USMCFLYR

No, sorry...but that is just not correct.

There is not a RPV UPT program that is churning out more students than UPT.

There was a single test class (the 'Beta' class) back in 2009, which is what is described in LivingInMEM's post here: http://www.airlinepilotforums.com/mi...tml#post771512

The only thing related to this was a statement by the USAF that, in 2009, that was the first year that they were going to purchase more unmanned aircraft than manned aircraft.

I disagree that ACIP is any kind of danger pay. I also disagree with your assessment concerning flight suits and patches. I'll give you the wings - they are "merit badges" of a kind. Huge stretch on your part to imply that, b/c I don't care who gets to wears flight suits or leather jackets, I think everyone should get purple hearts and/or other medals. That's just a straw man to knock down.

In post #17 I posted the link that describes all the different types of incentive pay. What ACIP became after the Act of 1974 might be defined differently now, but I believe it came about for that very reason.
The medals might be an extreme - how about this concerning flight suits or patches. What would you think of someone going around wearing a doctor's smock or a Admin Officer wearing a patch given to a graduate of a tactical airlift course - or a pilot wearing a Fighter Weapons School/TopGun patch if they haven't been trhough the course? Those items are given because you accomplished something. Giving them to everyone is wrong IMO. It is the extreme end of the spectrum with the medals, but we are talking principles here aren't we?
Straw man I call it a difference of opinion. As I said before Deuce - it is OK if we disagree on this. I'm giving you MY opinion - not trying to change your mind. I'm sorry if you took it that way. Knock down my "straw man" all you want.

USMCFLYR

And here I thought that when I was wearing a flight suit it was a functional uniform item and a matter of safety in the cockpit.

If you really want to talk about the dismantling of a proud military career field, look at missilers. They had their blue suits replaced by a less functional (for them) green nomex one, and their missile badges were turned into some silly "space wings" (though they eventually reconsidered the badge for the guys who actually sit in the bunkers).

So true CaptFuzz. It is funny that you called it a uniform item. Wasn't it the air force that wanted to put pleats into it or something like that quite a few years ago in order to make it into a uniform item? I remember being told it was a specifically a piece of flight gear and NOT a uniform - therefore all of those rules about where we could and could not wear them - sometimes even having change into a flight suit AFTER we had arrived at the squadron and change back back prior to going home! Or stories (second person) of having to change into the flight suit before your flight and then changing back out and into your *uniform* after your flight. Jeez!

We've gotten a litle off track with the thread and I am much to blame for that. Sorry to the OP.

I am watching an episode of Modern Marvels on Discovery Channel. This one is one Extreme Flying Machines. They started with the fighters, moved on to the bombers and now are focusing on RPV. There was one featured called the BATCAM (weighing 0.8 lbs). They also had one called an Orthicopter (I think). They even had one developed that fluttered like a small bird that weighed 0.3 lbs - but only had 3 minutes of fuel on board. There is no doubt that the technology is rapidly growing (like computers - outdated and slow within months) and more and more applications are apparent.

Oh....not they are showing the DC-10 firefighting aircraft (must be a little old or they would be showing Evergreen's 747 tanker) Back to the show!

USMCFLYR