Air Navigators

[csharding]

In the ROTP program you should do what is called Summer Orientation Training (SOT)

Apparently I am not doing SOT this summer (which is my last prior to graduation).  I have applied for OJE at 3 different squadrons in Trenton in hopes that I can learn something about what goes on.  Has there been any changes in the training program now that we are ACSOs?

 

[prima6]

Has there been any changes in the training program now that we are ACSOs?

So far only very minor changes that aren't really related to the name change (they would have been coming anyway).  The Qualification Standard for ACSO is going to be rewritten in the next year, so you may see a different course by the time you make it to the school.  I wouldn't imagine it will be a huge change, but more of a shift in focus putting more emphasis on certain parts of the course (increasing the length of those parts) and lightening up on some other parts (and consequently shortening those parts).  There has also been a lot of talk of further decreasing the number of flights and increasing the number of trainers.  The course is being reduced from 27 flights to 25 flights for the first course of '09.

 

[aesop081]

  The course is being reduced from 27 flights to 25 flights for the first course of '09.

This is a trend that will continue as the courses (BANC and BAC) are restructured and improvments are made to the TMT.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

This is a trend that will continue as the courses (BANC and BAC) are restructured and improvments are made to the TMT.

That's more the effect than the cause.  The Air Force, in order to save money and streamline training (and in some cases improve training dramatically) is moving to more simulation.  Ultimately, the goal is something like 80% simulation, 20% "real".  Due to legacy issues, that may not always be realistic.

 

[prima6]

That's more the effect than the cause.  The Air Force, in order to save money and streamline training (and in some cases improve training dramatically) is moving to more simulation.  Ultimately, the goal is something like 80% simulation, 20% "real".  Due to legacy issues, that may not always be realistic.

Yep, another benefit we're looking for is decreasing the number of missed training days (which amounts to saving money as well).  We've been looking at getting a visual simulator or possibly using the one in Portage to reduce or eliminate the visual nav flights.  They wind up eating up a lot of time depend on when a particular course is doing Phase 1 flying.  The most recent course to finish phase 1 took 6.5 months, which is very bad considering that the course is supposed to be 12 months, which is already an increase over what the course was originally envisioned to take.  It took that course about 3.5 months to complete 7 flights per student (with 4 students/aircraft for 4 of the flights and 2/aircraft for 3 that's only 20 flights total), as there were many days without VMC.  Elimination of visual nav from the flights and perhaps only doing radar nav on the aircraft where IFR flying would be acceptable could reduce the total time to complete the phase 1 flights to 2-3 weeks regardless of the time of year.

 

[Zoomie]

... possibly using the one in Portage to reduce or eliminate the visual nav flights...

Hope the baby-Navs enjoy weekend "flying" if that is the case. 

Seriously though - the Level D sim out here doesn't have the appropriate level of detail for low level Nav - they would be better off going to MJ and using the H2 sims.

 

[aesop081]

Just eliminate visual nav altogether.

 

[prima6]

Just eliminate visual nav altogether.

That would be nice, but it will entirely depend on what comes out of the QS writing board for the new course.  Everything is purely speculative at this point.  IMO either eliminating visual nav or limiting it to what is done in Portage on the 6 LANTC flights would be best, but it really depends what the different communities want.

 

[aesop081]

the 6 LANTC flights

Eliminate those too.

 

[Zoomie]

Furthering this thread - the AVO (Airborne Vehicle Operator) specialty in the ACSO roll is going to entail training at 3CFFTS where we take Navs and train them up to getting their instrument tickets - so we're pretty much making them pilots - hmmmmm.....

 

[csharding]

and what exactly do AVOs do?

 

[aesop081]

and what exactly do AVOs do?

Operate airborne Vehicles.

 

[SupersonicMax]

Furthering this thread - the AVO (Airborne Vehicle Operator) specialty in the ACSO roll is going to entail training at 3CFFTS where we take Navs and train them up to getting their instrument tickets - so we're pretty much making them pilots - hmmmmm.....

IMHO, an IRT doesn't equate to pilot. 

On that token, why is there a requirement for Navs to get an instrument ticket to manage a UAV?

 

[aesop081]

IMHO, an IRT doesn't equate to pilot. 

On that token, why is there a requirement for Navs to get an instrument ticket to manage a UAV?

To operate UAVs in controlled airspace for one........Lesson from the UAV experiment done on the east coast.

 

[h3tacco]

IMHO, an IRT doesn't equate to pilot. 

On that token, why is there a requirement for Navs to get an instrument ticket to manage a UAV?

The requirement basically comes from the FAA and TC saying if we (CF, USAF, USN etc)  want to operate a UAV in airspace other than special use/restricted airspace the AVO or Pilot of the Air Vechile needs to have a Instrument Rating. Obviously there is a lot to figure in terms of what training a ACSO needs to fulfill this requirement.

The CF was left with two options use the Pilot trade to man UAVs or find another trade that could be trained to meet the requirement. I am pretty sure the majority of flying pilots in the CF do not want anything to do with a UAV if it means being pulled out of a cockpit.

Google TAMI-21 and see what the USAF is doing.  They decided that a rated USAF Pilot is required to operate its UAVs.  And as a result of the massive demand for UAVs in theatre and the subsequent firing of the Secretary of the Air Force for not putting enough of its effort behind manning UAV squadrons the USAF instituted TAMI-21. The program took, for the most, part junior fighter pilots (less than 500 hours) and sent them to Predator squadrons and told them they are never going back to their manned platform. Many of the guys who in past had qualified on the Predator and had returned to their original community were brought back. They began sending pilots straight out of training to UAVs. As can be guessed this has caused a huge outcry in the USAF pilot community. The USAF is now planning to train non-pilots as ab-initio UAV operators.

The CF decided to train ACSOs to a level to satisfy TC and the FAA.

Take your pick on which you would rather see.

 

[csharding]

Operate airborne Vehicles.

no need to be sarcastic CND Aviator... i assumed as such but i didn't know UAV pilots had specific names...

so... from what i'm getting ACSOs fulfill a number of different positions.. you guys want to break those down? (if you use an acronym put the full name after so i know what it is...)

 

[Michael OLeary]

no need to be sarcastic CND Aviator... i assumed as such but i didn't know UAV pilots had specific names...

so... from what i'm getting ACSOs fulfill a number of different positions.. you guys want to break those down? (if you use an acronym put the full name after so i know what it is...)

I don't think that was sarcasm, it reads more like a quoted phrase from training documents.

 

[SupersonicMax]

The CF decided to train ACSOs to a level to satisfy TC and the FAA.

Take your pick on which you would rather see.

h3tacco, thanks for the answers.  I was not trying to debate whether or not you need a ticket, but rather, just trying to know why, as I thought most if not all the UAV operations were conducted in military restricted airspace (which was going to be my next question).  Personally I don't mind (and I don't see why any pilot would mind): as you said, it means pilots will stay in the cockpits. 

Again, thanks for taking time to answer.

 

[aesop081]

no need to be sarcastic CND Aviator... i assumed as such but i didn't know UAV pilots had specific names...

No sarcasm intended. You asked what Air Veh. Operators do and i said they Operate Air Veh. Thats all. Sounded self-explanatory to me.

so... from what i'm getting ACSOs fulfill a number of different positions.. you guys want to break those down? (if you use an acronym put the full name after so i know what it is...)

Tactical airlift Nav on the CC-130E/H but not for much longer

SAR navigator on the CC-115...again not for much longer

Tactical coordinator on the CH-124

Tactical Navigator and Navigator-comunicator on the CP-140

Accoustic sensor operator on the CP-140.....not for much longer though

electronic warfare officer on the civillian Alpha jets...who knows for how long

Moving into UAVs and a multitude of thankless staff jobs as well as the School in Winnipeg.

 

[h3tacco]

h3tacco, thanks for the answers.  I was not trying to debate whether or not you need a ticket, but rather, just trying to know why, as I thought most if not all the UAV operations were conducted in military restricted airspace (which was going to be my next question).  Personally I don't mind (and I don't see why any pilot would mind): as you said, it means pilots will stay in the cockpits. 

Again, thanks for taking time to answer.

No problem.

You are correct right now all UAVs operated in domestic airspace are only authorized to fly in special use airspace. The IFR ticket is one of a number of requirements (some of them technical) that FAA/TC will require before they allow the integration UAVs into controlled airspace. Only operating in special use airspace has hampered the way both the USAF and USN want to utilize their UAVs in the US. And for the CF, for example, if we were to use UAVs to complement the CP140 maritime mission it would be difficult to do so without the ability to integrate with other traffic in controlled airspace. It is somewhat impractical to set up a restricted area everywhere you want your UAV to fly. In theatre this is obviously less of a concern but you still want to be able to safely integrate manned and unmanned traffic.