Drone Pilot Wings

[Unknownsoldier]

And the US pilots wear different wings entirely afaik (find pic quickly): http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/US-Remote-...item35c65200a5

Tom

[54Bty]

Here are the US and IDF badges.

Marc

[sailorbear]

Originally Posted by Unknownsoldier

The point is they face no danger... none whatsoever, they can be at points never leaving the UK if so desired. It would be like giving an Infantry badge (I think thats what the Aussies have), to someone pilotting a robot from 2000 miles away, no danger and tbh a fairly cushy billet most would not allow this. They could easily earn pilots wings for the solo, perhaps in the form of the VR style wings, but to get wings for drones, as has been said... it's a bit of a laugh...

And as for PS3 not ruining careers... some build up their careers over years, taking part over many hours and in no director real danger, other than thumb strain.... now which am I talking about there, a 14 year old playing COD or a drone pilot... I am sure in fact most 14 year olds can probably out class most drone pilots anyways in simulated combat....

A drone pilot deserves not wings, half wings perhaps...

Tom, I'll agree that a half wing may be more approriate, but your point that they face no danger and may never even leave the UK, I think fails to take into account that they save the lives of those who do face the dangers of a combat zone, by detecting, locating and remotely destroying threats before they are a danger to the "boots on the ground" and think they deserve some recognition and respect for this! There are many trades within our armed forces that are vital but don't require the individual to actualy be dodging bullets to be effective ! Like I said, maybe the wrong type of insignia but I do feel, like ALL members of our forces they are due some respect for the job they do!

Regards

Tony

[Charlie585]

--

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by sailorbear

Tom, I'll agree that a half wing may be more approriate, but your point that they face no danger and may never even leave the UK, I think fails to take into account that they save the lives of those who do face the dangers of a combat zone, by detecting, locating and remotely destroying threats before they are a danger to the "boots on the ground" and think they desrve some recognition and respect for this! There are may trades within our armed forces that are vital but dont require the individual to actualy be dodging bullets to be effective ! Like I said, maybe the wrong type of insignia but I do feel, like ALL members of our forces they are due some respect for the job they do!

Regards

Tony

I definitely agree, they get my resepct for signing up but do not agree they get the same (bar coloured thread) wings that proper pilots get... It is sadly the style of Americanisation we are suffering. They pilot a remote craft, they don't pilot a fighter plane with ack ack being fired at them, the piltos wing is sacred, and they are simply not pilots.... they might about be flight trained, but sorry, if your not in combat you don't deserve combat skills badges. A half wing at a stretch, but not full wings. If they never leave the uk, but pilot a drone in Afghanistan, do they get an Afghan medal? seeing as they were by proxy there? I don't degrade them for they are a needed section of the RAF, I do however think this is just getting silly by classing them as proper pilots, if you don't leave the deck you're not a pilot imho. I am sorry if by my joshing you think I don't respect them, I do, I just do not and will not consider them pilots.

My comment of 14 year olds is purely that both sit at a computer screen and have no real connection with events, they are abstract from the action. It was simply an analogy, in that they are in no danger whatsoever... they are safe compared to a real pilot. There are responsibilities in whatever position you take, whether you be a cook or a pilot, I just do not see these drone pilots as real pilots.

Tom

[rhodesianmilitaria]

Interesting. An article from The Australian showing that Aussie drone pilots are actual RAAF pilots.

RAAF Super Hornet Jet Pilots On Drones - Duty In Afghanistan

RAAF fighter pilots are being ordered out of the cockpits of their Super Hornet strike aircraft to remotely fly unmanned surveillance drones on intelligence gathering missions over Afghanistan.

Defence has confirmed elite fast-jet aircrew had been flying unmanned aerial vehicle missions in Afghanistan since 2009.

A spokesman declined to provide numbers, citing security concerns.

Australia's fleet of Heron drones is operated out of Kandahar, which is the busiest single runway airfield in the world.

"Heron pilots or air vehicle operators are military-rated pilots drawn from a range of aircraft types," a Defence spokesman said.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, several fast-jet pilots based in Afghanistan questioned the RAAF's requirement for their unique skills to fly drones.

But the air force is defending its policy, saying the use of aircrew including fast-jet pilots had not led to any shortages or manning problems with the F/A-18F Super Hornet and F/A-18A Classic fleet operating at 98 per cent of authorised pilot strength.

Other RAAF aircrew, including AP-3C Orion, C-130 Hercules and helicopter pilots, are also being deployed to operate the Herons over Afghanistan's increasingly congested air space.

"Operation of the Heron presents a new opportunity for all staff involved and is welcomed by those selected as crew members allowing them to contribute their service to current operations," the spokesman said.

"The experience gained in the operational deployment is highly beneficial for all aircrew, including the fast jet pilots, and is incorporated into squadron training upon their return to their primary aircraft," he said.

Missile-equipped US drones based in Afghanistan have killed dozens of al-Qa'ida terrorists although the RAAF drones are unarmed.

Nine personnel are required to 'crew' a Heron, a medium altitude, long endurance 1.1 tonne remotely piloted aircraft, purchased by the RAAF in 2009.

The Israeli-designed Heron is unarmed but carries a suite of high-tech sensors and infra-red cameras and can operate in all weather conditions.

It provides battlefield intelligence to Australian and other coalition partners serving with the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan.

[SAS1]

Whilst a trade bade would be nice, it is wrong to say they are not 'proper' pilots, and that they should have a half wing instead. The pilots wing is for trained pilots, pilots who have completed RAF pilot training which these four have. They therefore are fully qualified to wear an RAF pilots wing.

A half wing is for other aircrew trades - either you consider these men aircrew trained or not. If yes, they should wear a pilots wing which they have qualified for, or you don't in which case they should not wear a half wing either.

With one or two exceptions, such as Chaplains the RAF does not permit trade badges to be worn by officers. Thus the new blue wreathed pilots wing shows the wearer to be first, a qualified pilot, and second, employed as the pilot of an unmanned drogue.

It would not surprise me if they were to revert to a standard wing if they ceased to be employed as drogue pilots, in the same way qualified parachutists are supposed to wear the lightbulb instead of full wings when not actively employed in an airborne unit, although few do.

[Unknownsoldier]

Originally Posted by SAS1

Whilst a trade bade would be nice, it is wrong to say they are not 'proper' pilots, and that they should have a half wing instead. The pilots wing is for trained pilots, pilots who have completed RAF pilot training which these four have. They therefore are fully qualified to wear an RAF pilots wing.

A half wing is for other aircrew trades - either you consider these men aircrew trained or not. If yes, they should wear a pilots wing which they have qualified for, or you don't in which case they should not wear a half wing either.

With one or two exceptions, such as Chaplains the RAF does not permit trade badges to be worn by officers. Thus the new blue wreathed pilots wing shows the wearer to be first, a qualified pilot, and second, employed as the pilot of an unmanned drogue.

It would not surprise me if they were to revert to a standard wing if they ceased to be employed as drogue pilots, in the same way qualified parachutists are supposed to wear the lightbulb instead of full wings when not actively employed in an airborne unit, although few do.

Interesting but they are not unlike the Aussies, full pilots afaik I read they do some pilto raining but do not do the full course....??

[sailorbear]

Originally Posted by SAS1

Whilst a trade bade would be nice, it is wrong to say they are not 'proper' pilots, and that they should have a half wing instead. The pilots wing is for trained pilots, pilots who have completed RAF pilot training which these four have. They therefore are fully qualified to wear an RAF pilots wing.

A half wing is for other aircrew trades - either you consider these men aircrew trained or not. If yes, they should wear a pilots wing which they have qualified for, or you don't in which case they should not wear a half wing either.

With one or two exceptions, such as Chaplains the RAF does not permit trade badges to be worn by officers. Thus the new blue wreathed pilots wing shows the wearer to be first, a qualified pilot, and second, employed as the pilot of an unmanned drogue.

It would not surprise me if they were to revert to a standard wing if they ceased to be employed as drogue pilots, in the same way qualified parachutists are supposed to wear the lightbulb instead of full wings when not actively employed in an airborne unit, although few do.

This is a bit off topic but your last statement about the lightbulb interests me! I served 12 years in the regular army and TA working with Commando, special forces, airborne, infantry, signals, provost and RAOC units, I then spent 8 years with the Royal navy and RNR serving afloat and ashore in RN, RM and joint service establishments and with 3 Cdo brigade, I later served a further 7 years with the Royal Fleet Auxiliary where I worked with all 3 services and a lot of time in support of the Royal Marines and with Royal Maritime Auxiliary Service in support of the SBS, on top of that during the time I spent in the TA/RNR I was working for the MOD Guard Service at a number of service establishments and even now serve as an instructor in the Sea cadet Corps with exposure to RM/RN/RAF and army. The point of this service history is that in more than 30 years of being in and around all our armed forces I have never once seen a lightbulb being worn (apart from the large one worn by the RN subsunk parachute assistance group) Is this regulation that service personnel who are parachute trained should wear a lightbulb badge in place of Parachute wings when not employed on airborne duties still in force? I must admit that some of the RSMs and unit commanders I've known were sticklers for dress regs and would never have allowed someone to wear insignia that wasn't right and proper!

Regards Tony

[Mike_2817]

Regulations on 'Parachute Wings' for all 3 services is that if you completed a Parachute Course and were posted to an Operational Unit you wore the 'Parachute Wings' and were permitted to wear them In Perpetuity even after you left that unit. In the Corps you came across such soldiers all the time, and the RSM could do nothing about it.

'Light Bulbs' were issued to those who completed a parachute course but were not posted to an operational unit, and to all intents and purposes died out in the late 70's as no further 'non operational' courses were held. Officer Cadets at Sandhurst once had a special course, with parachute 'lightbulb' badge being awarded which was why you saw more officers than other-ranks wearing them!

There are a number of qualification badges in all 3 services that may be worn In Perpetuity even as an adult instructor in the cadet forces, as indeed are the aircrew brevets.

[Mike Jackson]

Originally Posted by Mike_2817

Regulations on 'Parachute Wings' for all 3 services is that if you completed a Parachute Course and were posted to an Operational Unit you wore the 'Parachute Wings' and were permitted to wear them In Perpetuity even after you left that unit. In the Corps you came across such soldiers all the time, and the RSM could do nothing about it.

'Light Bulbs' were issued to those who completed a parachute course but were not posted to an operational unit, and to all intents and purposes died out in the late 70's as no further 'non operational' courses were held. Officer Cadets at Sandhurst once had a special course, with parachute 'lightbulb' badge being awarded which was why you saw more officers than other-ranks wearing them!

There are a number of qualification badges in all 3 services that may be worn In Perpetuity even as an adult instructor in the cadet forces, as indeed are the aircrew brevets.

I'm particularly pleased that you have clarified this issue (wings in perpetuity). I qualified for the "Lightbulb" on completion of the RMAS Edward Bear course at No 1 PTS Abingdon in 1962 and wore the badge until completion of the (identical) basic para course again at No 1 PTS in 1965 as a Lt RA in 95 Cdo Lt Regt RA. At that time a proportion of ranks in the two Cdo Regts RA were required to be parachute trained. These included all ranks - RA and RN - in 20 Cdo AO Bty and 148 (Meiktila) Cdo AO Bty as well as the OP parties in the four Gun Batteries in the two regiments. So I was in 1965 awarded parachute wings. Jumped in UK, France ands Singapore. Having left the Gunners, I jumped in Oman (1970s) and Belize (1980s) as a member of the Int Corps. I was never an "Airborne Warrior", but was proud to wear the wings. Mike